##### U.S. Department of Education November 2002

**2002-2003 *No Child Left Behind---Blue Ribbon Schools Program***

**Cover Sheet**

Name of Principal [\_\_\_\_\_Mr. Ivan D. Neal
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [Phillip C. Showell Elementary School]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [Rt. 2, Box 5]{.underline}

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

[Selbyville DE 19975-9684]{.underline} City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits
total)

Tel. [( 302 ) 436-1040]{.underline} Fax [( 302 ) 436-1053]{.underline}

Website/URL [www.k12.de.us/showe]{.underline} Email
[ineal@irsd.k12.de.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\_\_\_\_\_[3/28/03\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

(Principal's Signature)

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

Name of Superintendent [Mrs. Lois
Hobbs\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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

District Name [Indian River School District\_\_\_]{.underline} Tel. [(
302 ) 436-1000]{.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\_\_\_\_[3/28/03\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}
(Superintendent's Signature)

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson [Mr. Charles
Birele]{.underline}y\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(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\_\_\_\_\_[3/28/03]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

**[PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA]{.underline}**

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

1\. Number of schools in the district: \_\_8\_\_Elementary schools

\_\_2\_\_ Middle schools

\_\_0\_\_ Junior high schools

\_\_2\_\_ High schools

\_12\_\_\_TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_\$8,012\_\_\_\_\_ (as of 2001)

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_\$8,809\_\_\_\_\_ (as of 2001)

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

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

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

4\. [\_\_\_2\_\_]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in
her/his position at this school.

\_\_(5) 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      **Grade**   **\# of   **\# of     **Grade
              Males**   Females**              Total**                  Males**   Females**   Total**

  **K**       22        24                     **46**       **7**                             

  **1**       18        23                     **41**       **8**                             

  **2**       29        28                     **57**       **9**                             

  **3**       26        28                     **54**       **10**                            

  **4**       33        23                     **56**       **11**                            

  **5**       25        29                     **54**       **12**                            

  **6**                                                     Other                             

                                    **TOTAL                                                   308
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [62.39\_]{.underline}% White

the students in the school: [21.94\_]{.underline}% Black or African
American

[13.79\_]{.underline}% Hispanic or Latino

[1.25\_]{.underline} % Asian/Pacific Islander

[0.63\_]{.underline} % American Indian/Alaskan Native

**100% Total**

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
\_\_13\_\_\_\_%

> (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 15
              ***to*** the school after October  
              1 until the end of the year.       

  **(2)**     Number of students who transferred 28
              ***from*** the school after        
              October 1 until the end of the     
              year.                              

  **(3)**     Subtotal of all transferred        43
              students \[sum of rows (1) and     
              (2)\]                              

  **(4)**     Total number of students in the    329
              school as of October 1             

  **(5)**     Subtotal in row (3) divided by     .13
              total in row (4)                   

  **(6)**     Amount in row (5) multiplied by    13
              100                                
  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school: \_.04\_\_\_%

\_\_13\_\_\_Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: \_\_\_2\_\_\_\_

Specify languages: Chinese

Spanish

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: \_\_46.65\_%

\_\_\_149\_\_Total Number Students Who Qualify

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

10\. Students receiving special education services: \_\_\_19\_\_\_%

\_\_\_62\_\_\_Total Number of Students Served

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

\_\_\_\_Autism \_\_\_\_Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_\_\_Deafness \_\_5_Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness \_45_Specific Learning Disability

\_\_\_\_Hearing Impairment \_12_Speech or Language Impairment

\_\_1_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\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Classroom teachers \_\_17\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_9\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists \_\_\_4\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Paraprofessionals \_\_\_2\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_2\_\_\_

> Support staff \_\_\_14\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Total number \_\_\_38\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

12\. Student-"classroom teacher" ratio: \_\_18 to 1\_\_\_

13\. Show the attendance patterns of teachers and students. 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 and drop-off rates.

  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

  Daily student attendance 94.2%       94.7%       95.8%       95.3%       95.3%

  Daily teacher attendance 83%         88%         79%         83%         86%

  Teacher turnover rate    29%         19%         5%          11%         \-\--

  Student dropout rate     N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A

  Student drop-off rate    N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A
  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

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

**Provide a brief, coherent narrative snapshot of the school in one page
(approximately 475 words). Include at least a summary of the school's
mission or vision in the statement and begin the first sentence with the
school's name, city, and state.**

Phillip C. Showell Elementary School is located in the small rural town
of Selbyville, Delaware. It is one of eight elementary schools in the
Indian River School District.

The school has a total student population of 319 students in grades PK
-- 5. The racial composition of our diverse student body includes 62.39%
Caucasian, 21.94% African American, 13.79% Hispanic, 1.25% Asian, and
0.6% American Indian.

Showell, "the little school that's BIG on learning," is a community
school where parents, teachers, support staff and community members
collaborate for the benefit of all students. The staff consists of one
administrator, two secretaries, three custodians, six cafeteria workers,
four paraprofessionals, one nurse, one counselor, one intervention
specialist, and 22 teachers. Our active Parent Teacher Organization
provides a vehicle for parents to support the school's programs in a
number of ways. Parents and community members can further partner with
the school via the Helping Hands Mentoring Program, student tutoring,
and classroom volunteer opportunities. Students are challenged
academically, and are encouraged to demonstrate model behavior. Good
citizenship is reinforced via our Character Educational Program. Our
active Student Council provides a vehicle for the development of
leadership skills.

The Showell staff is committed to providing students with the behavioral
and academic skills required to reason, communicate, and live with
dignity in a literate society. Our staff seeks to provide instruction
that allows all students to reach their fullest potential. We will
assist students in gaining the academic competence and the
responsibility to find success through their school years and into the
world of work.

Our school goals include increasing the percentage of students who meet
or exceed the state standards in all academic areas, providing
professional development for instructional staff, improving student
writing skills by providing best practice instructional strategies and
implementing quarterly writing assessments, increasing the availability
of technology to enhance learning and instruction, and finally,
increasing parental and community involvement opportunities.

Phillip C. Showell Elementary School is unique in many ways. Our small
size has resulted in the creation of a nurturing learning environment
for students. This has also led to the develoment of a professional
learning community where teachers work closely together both within and
across grade levels to promote student learning. Instructional staff
members participate in numerous professional development activities,
which enable them to provide our students with instuctional strategies
that are sound and research-based. Our active School Improvement
Committee, which consists of staff and community members, identifies and
allocates resources necessary to enhance achievement for all students.
Almost half our student population is low income, which qualifies us as
a Title I school. The staff's efforts and students' achievements have
been recognized significantly. Phillip Showell was named a National
Distinguished Title I School in 2000 and again in 2002. Within the past
two weeks, prior to the nomination for the Blue Ribbon Schools Program
Award we were notified by the Delaware Department of Education that we
were named once again a National Distinguished Title I School for 2003.

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

1\. The staff of Phillip C Showell (PCS) use multiple indicators to
track student growth and the gains of various student populations, as
well as to gauge overall academic success of the school. Student
progress toward the Delaware content standards is monitored using a
variety of measures, including performance assessment, portfolio and
norm-referenced testing. These measures allow PCS's students to
demonstrate learning in varied forms. The degree of student learning in
relation to our academic standards is the foundation for instruction.

Although we use multiple measures, the Delaware Student Program (DSTP)
serves as our primary indicator of student progress toward the
standards. This test is administered annually and has been expanded to
include grades 2 through 10. The data presented for our school will
focus on grades 3 and 5, as the more recently adopted assessments at the
other grade levels are not yet supported by 3 years of data.

The DSTP assesses reading using literary, informative, and technical
texts. Students are required to demonstrate understanding of the text by
completing short answer, multiple choice, and extended response
questions. The percentage of 3^rd^ grade students at PCS who have met or
exceeded the reading standard (reflected at performance levels 3, 4, and
5) has increased from 46.7% to 94.3% between 1998 to 2002. Likewise,
significant improvement is evident in the range of 5^th^ graders meeting
and exceeding the standard from 66% in 1998 to 91% in 2002.
Nationally-normed data also reflect reading gains for the five year
period. On the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-9) Reading Comprehension
subtest from 1998 to 2002 the mean NCE score has risen from 46 to 59 in
grade 3 and from 47 to 65 in grade 5.

The DSTP is a yardstick of students' abilities to use written English
for the purposes of self-expression, informing, and persuading while
considering a variety of audiences. Written expression is assessed
through student responses to a writing prompt. PCS student gains are
evidenced by an increase at the 3^rd^ grade level from 29% meeting or
exceeding the standard in 1998 to a high of 57% in 2002. As the data
tables shows, grade 3 students throughout the state have been challenged
by the rigorous standards as only 46% of the students in the state met
or exceeded the standard. In grade 5, 51% were meeting or exceeding the
standard in 1998, as compared to 83% in 2002.

In the mathematics portion of the DSTP, the students are required to
demonstrate key concepts by solving "real-life" problems. Our emphasis
on problem solving is evidenced in increased proficiency for both 3^rd^
and 5^th^ graders. In 1998, only 27% of the school's 3^rd^ graders met
or exceeded the standard in mathematics. In 2002, that percentage had
increased to 94%. In 1998, only 54% of the 5^th^ graders were meeting or
exceeding the standard, as compared to 95% in 2002. On the Stanford
Achievement Test Math Problem-solving subtest the mean NCE score has
risen from 40. 0 to 79.8 in grade 3 and from 49.3 to 71.2 in grade 5.

The challenge of closing achievement gaps is facilitated by our school's
small size. Our shared responsibility for student growth tailored to
individual needs is reflected in our students' achievement evidence.
However, the data in a small school is impeded by the concern for
statistical significance. Our student population in a grade level ranges
from 41-57. Our school-wide Title I status negates the potential for a
Title I disaggregated analysis. Looking at our data, one realizes that
there are fluctuations in population numbers that make it more difficult
to track every group over the 5-yr span. However, looking at the
disaggregated data that is significant, a pattern is easy to discern.
Our "at-promise" populations are blooming! In reading, our 3^rd^ grade
low-income students steadily came from 78% being below the standard to
our current level of only 8.7% below. Their corresponding scaled score
increased 58 points, while their counterpart, non-low income, only
increased 25 scaled score points.

All disaggregated populations of math students made stellar gains. In
third grade our low-income students grew from a low of 5.3% meeting the
math standard in 1998 to 92.3% meeting it in 2002. The Hispanic
population reached the point where there were no students below the
standard in 2002. Our third grade African Americans steadily rose from
only 9.1% meeting or exceeding the standard in 1998 to 83% meeting or
exceeding in 2002. Our African American 5^th^ grade students have moved
progress moving from 26% meeting the standard to higher percentages of
70% and 75%. Our goal is to move this population from the meets to the
exceeds category.

A look at our data makes one realize PCS's school culture embraces all
children. Our results demonstrate high expectations and a
standards-based philosophy. Our staff takes great pride in our students'
achievement. This focus on success was recognized by the State of
Delaware when PCS Elementary receive a Superior School Award based on
Delaware School Accountability Ratings in 2001.

2.  **Show how the school uses assessment data to understand and improve
    student and school performance.**

Assessment data is the catalyst for deliberation, discussion,
problem-solving, and decision-making at PCS. "Digging Into Data" is a
school-wide in-service event which compels PCS staff to formally
"dig-into" the evidence of student progress. The following is a snapshot
of some ramifications of this process. In June, the staff spent an
entire day analyzing the 2002 DSTP data that was released the end of
May. The day-long professional reflection focused on the following:
Where are our students? What are their strengths?, What are their
weaknesses?, What are individual and group instructional needs? How does
disaggregating the data influence the school picture? Are we meeting the
instructional needs of all students and student populations? The outcome
of this June "Digging into Data" day was a school-wide goal of writing
for this school year. The staff continued the focus of working together
to improve student writing during an in-service day in August. A
collective sense of responsibility characterized the staff interactions
as they worked together to develop plans for better instruction and
intervention, and to consider professional development needs related to
writing. Grade levels articulated expectations about writing in relation
to the state standards. Evaluating writing and the need for consistency
and training became agreed upon necessities. The need to get a better
handle on the instructional picture in writing developed into plans for
curriculum mapping by each staff member with the goal of analyzing
methodology and content. This was just one of the outgrowths of this
data discovery! Professional development needs surfaced for assistance
in text-based writing instruction and the development of appropriate
prompts. An in-service was designed for the third week of September
where plans were developed to expand grade level and school-wide writing
opportunities. Additionally, plans for portfolio pieces and collegial
scoring were developed. Additional instructional time was allocated to
writing with better integration plans into content areas. Digging into
data is continued more informally at weekly grade level meetings as
teachers continue to examine students' daily progress in writing. Even
students use the assessment data to assess their own learning and set
goals for themselves. In relation to the writing goal, students are
using theme test results and rubrics to assess and plan for improvements
and to set related goals.

Other more formal measures of student progress are used to look for
trends and to determine the degree to which students are achieving the
standards. They include: The Star Reading Test, Grade A+ by AGS for K
and 1, The Language Acquisition Survey for ESL students, and the Work
Sampling Portfolio for PK, K and 1. Data is disaggregated and analyzed
with consideration of needs for student support, curriculum,
instructional strategies, colleague support, and instructional time.

2.  **Describe how the school communicates student performance,
    including assessment data, to parents, students, and the
    community.**

PCS Elementary communicates student performance, including assessment
data, to parents, students, and the community in a variety of ways. One
of the school's goals reads, "All students will meet or exceed the state
standards." Subsequently, progress toward that goal is measured and
shared with the public through the school's monthly newsletter, school
website, and the local newspaper. The latter not only publishes results
and features news articles about growth between the current year and the
previous year, but also compares PCS to schools throughout the state.
Moreover, student performance data is presented during public session to
the local Board of Education in late summer or early fall. Delaware
Student Testing Program results are shared with both parents and
students. Parents are urged to contact their child's teacher with
questions. Additionally, the school annually presents achievement data
to parents at "open house" in late August, at a fall PTA meeting, and
during parent conferences. School staff shares results at community
meetings. The PCS school profile is annually distributed to parents and
is available to the community. The school's monthly newsletter provides
student performance details; and bulletin boards exhibit student
achievement data. PCS's School Improvement Committee, which is comprised
of parents, community members, and staff, scrutinizes data as it designs
its plan and allocates funds for the succeeding year to reflect student
performance results. Classroom teachers have a variety of methods of
keeping parents informed of progress. They include the following: tests
signed, nightly homework and communication folders, Friday packets
reflecting weekly progress, student assignment books with teacher
comments, and conferences. Formal communications involve progress
reports and report cards. Teachers communicate with students in many
ways using individual student conferences and explaining progress using
rubrics that detail strengths and weaknesses.

3.  **Describe how the school will share its successes with other
    schools.**

First, PCS will share its successes with other Indian River schools
through the networking system that currently exists within the district.
Principals, assistant principals, and reading specialists meet with
their peers on a regular basis. Frequent agenda topics include "best
practice" instruction, student performance results, and achievement gap
data. In essence, student performance and strategies for its enhancement
are featured since the primary IRSD goal is "All students will meet or
exceed the state standards." Secondly, since the local and state
newspapers publish student performance results and compare schools
throughout the state, PCS has received calls and subsequently has
welcomed teachers and administrators who request to visit classrooms in
order to discern what PCS's teachers are doing to effect such dramatic
academic growth. Additionally, staff members are willing to conduct
professional development sessions in nearby schools, throughout the
state, and at national conferences. A Title I National Distinguished
School in 2000, 2002, and 2003, PCS with its 46.65% free/reduced lunch
rate and its 37.6% minority population has gained renown for its
students' accomplishments.

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

**1. Describe in one page the school's curriculum, including foreign
languages (foreign language instruction is an eligibility requirement
for middle, junior high, and high schools), and show how all students
are engaged with significant content, based on high standards.**

Phillip Showell Elementary's curriculum has been designed to reflect
Delaware's rigorous core content area standards. At its core is a
balanced literacy program published by Houghton Mifflin. Students
vicariously experience worldwide adventures via the authentic literary
selections while strengthening their comprehension skills, practicing
decoding and textural analysis strategies, expanding vocabulary, and
increasing fluency. As a supplement for those who warrant additional
phonics instruction, PCS has selected to use Open Court to more
effectively meet students' needs. Since reading and writing are
naturally integrated, students hone their text-based writing skills in
relation to the narratives, informational texts, or technical readings
included in their anthologies. Additionally, the pupils respond to
"stand alone" prompts relating to numerous topics and concepts. In order
to enrich their students' learning experiences, PCS's staff members have
improved their instructional skills through participation in the
Delaware Writing Project and the Delaware Reading Project.

Furthermore, the NSF-researched Math Trailblazers program (Kendall Hunt)
has been implemented in all kindergarten through fifth grade classrooms.
Emphasizing the conceptual-learning rather than the memorization of
algorithms or the mastery of computational skills, the Math Trailblazers
curriculum has dramatically changed math instruction at PCS. To better
meet students' math needs,as well as, to transition to more interactive,
experiential methods of teaching, the staff has participated in Math
Club professional development sessions, where grade level peers prepare
for upcoming units, discuss strategies for student success, and explore
effective assessment of what students know and are able to do
mathematically.

Indian River partners with other districts in the state's Science
Coalition. All of the district teachers have been trained to use
Smithsonian Project science kits, which enable students to experience
hands-on science so that they can meet the state's science standards.
Included in their science curriculum is the opportunity to explore
nature in the district's Outdoor Education Center at Ingram Pond. Again,
since Delaware's science standards stress conceptual knowledge rather
than isolated fact memorization, Phillip PCS's students learn science by
doing, discussing, drawing conclusions, and writing about their
observations, experiences, and analyses.

Social studies is the fourth standards-based core content area to which
a portion of the educational time is devoted. Officially, district staff
use Houghton Mifflin's *We the People* curriculum, which they supplement
with various materials and activities. Moreover, since Delaware's high
stakes accountability focuses on students' reading achievement, teachers
seize the opportunity to address interconnected geography, civics,
history, and economics standards through their reading materials. The
district has heavily invested in social studies-linked "tradebooks" for
students' instructional and recreational reading. A PCS team is
currently working with district peers and University of Delaware
personnel to design thematic units and standards-based performance
assessments as a part of the Delaware Social Studies Project. A common
feature of all curricular activities and materials is the emphasis on
conceptual understanding, problem-solving, justification of answers,
evaluative thinking, multiple perspectives, and generalization to new
situations.

In addition to the regular classroom instruction in the standards-linked
core content areas, PCS's students weekly engage in physical education,
art, vocal and instrumental music, computer-assisted instruction,
library, and health education classes. Students who need additional
learning opportunities are served by Title I reading assistants, a
reading specialist, a writing teacher, and a special education
department.

**2. (Elementary Schools) Describe the school's reading curriculum,
including a description of why the school chose this particular approach
to reading.**

The Delaware ELA content standards are our curriculum. A challenge was
locating rich curricular-linked resources that not only aligned with the
content skills but reflected features of a well-designed reading
program. A district committee with representative lead teachers from
each elementary school delved into the current reading research and
narrowed the potential materials through a year-long pilot. Houghton
Mifflin's "Invitations to Literacy" was endorsed and chosen. Our
language arts committee recognized it's strength in cultivating
home-school literacy connections. We value Invitations to Literacy's
systematic and spiraling skills/ strategies and the full integration of
LA standards components of reading, writing, viewing, speaking, and
listening. However, what PCS has come to recognize as the most powerful
element of Invitations is the fact these curricular materials allow the
flexibility for our staff to tailor to the needs of our diverse student
population. It allows us to provide the enriching, challenging thematic
extensions that our gifted / talented students need. Of greater value,
the core literature encourages a classroom community of diverse learners
and doesn't relegate weaker readers to isolated groups.

Although the Houghton Mifflin's materials are a foundation, they are not
exclusively our reading program. Through analysis of reading assessments
that include fluency checks, sight word recognition surveys,
comprehension measures [and]{.underline} the process of striving for
improved achievement, we have expanded and enhanced our reading program
to incorporate stronger phonemic awareness and phonetic components. The
school chose to pursue a more systematic program with a plan of
instruction that offers a more organized logical sequence. The staff
determined that many students needed more opportunities for phonetic
reinforcement. Along with phonics in-servicing, Open Court Phonics was
adapted into our reading program in grades PS to grade 3. Additionally,
our HM theme tests needed major revision to align them more directly
with Delaware Standards. Committees of teachers have worked at
increasing the degree of interpretive and extended meaning questions and
to enhance the writing assessment to a more challenging degree. Rubrics
have been rewritten to reflect Delaware's expectations.

Since our goal states that all students will read varied literary,
informative, and technical genre with understanding by the end of third
grade, the PCS staff has been forced to become more resourceful with
time and instructional strategies. The need to integrate reading across
content areas is facilitated by utilizing HM's Social Studies materials
which correlate to the ELA standards and by expanding reading skills
through informative trade books called Paperback Pluses

3.  **Describe one other curriculum area of the school's choice and show
    how it relates to essential skills and knowledge based on the
    school's mission**.

Our mission is to provide students with the behavioral and academic
skills required to reason, communicate, and live with dignity in a
literate society. Our staff seeks to provide instruction that allows all
students to reach their fullest potential; ultimately realizing success
through their school years and into the world of work. This is an added
challenge in our area characterized by poultry industries and blue
collar trade-an area where 46.65% of the population is identified as low
income. Consequently, we have made a commitment to the multicultural
community we serve by creating a partnership where students are "**our**
**priority**". One curricular facet devised to fulfill this expectation
is entitled, "Success Strategies". Daily, each grade level has a
designated block of 35-40 minutes which focuses on the needs of
individual learners. In this block of time each staff member has a
critical role to play in ensuring that each student's instructional and
personal/social growth needs are addressed. This pool of teachers and
support staff reduces group sizes to address and maximize each child's
growth. We use instructional needs reports, assessment indicators,
progress reports, and a school staff support process to initiate the
steps to successfully move students forward. The format and content vary
by child. Some students grow academically and socially through
interactions with 49 community mentors. Others receive reading
intervention using the SOAR or Early Success Programs or instruction
with teachers certified to teach students with special needs. Technology
is fused into the "Success Strategies" strand with academic software
that includes Earobics and an integrated individually paced learning
system in math or reading from the Computer Curriculum Corporation.
During "Success Strategies" we utilize a writing teacher, a Title I
para, a reading specialist, a basic skill intervention para, and have
created a small-group language support for ESL primary students. The
emphasis is on instruction that builds on prior experiences and places
the learning within meaningful contexts. This needs-focused learning
equips our students with the skills and strategies to move forward. Our
improved scores attest to the accomplishments of "Success Strategies".

Additionally, our goals for "Success Strategies" have expanded beyond
the confines of this time period. We have extended our instructional day
to encompass a spectrum of support opportunities. There is a before
school enrichment program that is designed to provide the impetus to
move students who have met the Delaware State Standards (in grades 3-5)
toward the Exceeds and Distinguished levels of performance.
Additionally, we host an after school intervention program during the
winter and spring. "Bridges", our extended year program, is designed to
provide "at-promise" students an additional 20 days of instruction in
the summer. This is the boost many students need! Our "at-promise"
kindergarten students are invited to attend full-day K with the
additional half-day strengthening their foundations for literacy and the
English language. This has accelerated a "closing of the gap" for our
"at-promise" students.

4.  **Describe the different instructional methods the school uses to
    improve student learning.**

PCS teachers infuse the principles of Dimensions of Learning and
Marzano's Classroom Instruction that Works in their daily interactions
with students. These are the basis of a model and philosophy for
effective schools which our staff has been emulating. Knowing how
children learn best guides them in their daily instructional plans.
Their instruction in the classroom utilizes and encourages the key
thinking strategies. Comparing, contrasting, summarizing, and
classifying are processes at the heart of instruction in all content
areas. Teachers promote strategies for learning through a progressive
approach from modeling and direct instruction toward independence. This
year, one of the teacher determined instructional focuses is for
students to use more effective strategies for extracting and organizing
informative text. School-wide exposure to and adoptions of "gist", one-
sentence summary, and story summary formats helps reinforce strategies
for learning while developing the students' understanding of text
structures. Likewise, a school-wide emphasis concentrates on the level
of thinking elicited by teacher's questions.

Students learn best in instructional environments that address
individual learning styles and differences. The cultural diversity in
our school requires teachers to orchestrate opportunities to extend and
enrich background knowledge while providing an atmosphere where students
can feel comfortable taking risks to try new language and skills. Our
heterogeneous organization facilitates the use of reciprocal teaching
with students actively involved in the peer modeling and teaching.
Discovery through hands-on learning using cooperative groups is the
embodiment of the instructional format associated with our math and
science curriculums. Reinforcing student efforts and providing
recognition and positive feedback are instructional strategies that are
also reflected in a myriad of ways including class applause, notes to
students, star student and the sharing of writing or projects with other
groups.

**5. Describe the school's professional development program and its
impact on improving student achievement.**

Professional development activities were determined by school and
district goals. Our staff developed a three-tiered approach that
addressed school, grade level and personal goals. The School Improvement
Committee considered the school's needs and ensured that they addressed
the mission and made sure that the necessary resources were allocated to
achieve them. Then, professional development activities were planned
that helped teachers engage in a variety of professional development
activities during 2002-2003. Our main goal this year was to close the
achievement gaps between populations in the school. We accomplished this
by providing a variety of stands of professional development. These
strands were designed to improve instructional practices, strengthen
curriculum and content knowledge, and meet individual student needs in
diverse classroom settings.

One of our major curricular goals was improving student writing. To
achieve this, a workshop was provided by the Delaware Writing Project in
the area of text-based writing. An in-building inservice was held on
October 11, 2002, that focused on analyzing student writing. Each
student had completed a writing prompt, which staff members scored.
After the analyses were completed, grade level teachers looked for areas
where they could provide needed instruction. Best practice research
linked to writing was also shared during faculty and grade-level
meetings by building staff. Additionally, our staff members requested
further writing support by utilizing a lead teacher to provide classroom
instruction. Staff members have continued pursuit of these goals by
attending off-site professional development workshops on an individual
or grade-level basis.

The Dimensions of Learning model is an on-going goal from previous
years. This year we have concentrated professional development on
improving teachers' use of questioning to enhance learning. Teacher
observations this year have encompassed increasing student comprehension
through improved questioning techniques.

Additional on-going professional development activities were provided by
the district administration. Curriculum mapping training sessions have
been held. Lead teachers learned the components and provided additional
training for our staff. Our teachers were highly involved in monthly
Math Club sessions where teachers collaborated as they addressed
improving instructional practices and assessments. Smithsonian Science
training, that promoted discovery based learning, was also available. A
district-wide inservice was held on November 11, 2202, that addressed
closing the achievement gap. This dovetailed nicely with our building's
efforts in this area.

**[Delaware State Testing Program]{.underline}**

**[A Criterion-Referenced Assessment]{.underline}**

This overview applies to: Table 1a Reading Grade 3 page 16

Table 1b Reading Grade 5 page 17

Table 1c Math Grade 3 page 18

Table 1d Math Grade 5 page 19

Table 1e Writing Grade 3 page 20

Table 1f Writing Grade 5 page 21

Grade 3, 5 (end of standards cluster years) Test Delaware State Testing
Program

Edition/publication year1996 Publisher Harcourt Educational Measurement
Systems

What groups were excluded from testing? 0 Why, and how were they
assessed? All student populations are assessed at PCS. Every effort is
made to ensure all students take the assessment. Absent students must
make up the assessment the following week. Schools automatically receive
scores of 0 for students who do not participate in the assessment.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

The DSTP Student Performance levels and cut scores were established by
Delaware educators and community members from around the state. These
cut-scores were approved by the State Board of Education in September
1999.

There are five performance levels in reading, writing, and mathematics.
The following describe each level:

+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| # D        |                           |                             |
| STP Studen |                           |                             |
| t Performa |                           |                             |
| nce Levels |                           |                             |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Level**  | **Category**              | **Description**             |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 5          | Distinguished             | Excellent Performance       |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 4          | Exceeds the Standard      | Very Good Performance       |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 3          | Meets the Standard        | Good Performance            |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 2          | Below the Standard        | Needs Improvement           |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 1          | Well Below the Standard   | Needs Significant           |
|            |                           | Improvement                 |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+

The cut score for DSTP appear in the tables at the bottom of each
content area and grade level chart. The indicated number represents the
lowest possible score a student can earn and still be within the
indicated performance levels.

The DSTP involves five separate days of assessment. Two days are for
reading, two days for math, and one day for writing. The test takes in
excess of 2 hours daily.

**Phillip Showell Elementary Table 1a**

**Delaware State Testing Program- Reading -Grade 3**

**Criterion-Referenced** Testing developed by state with Harcourt
Education Measurement Systems

  ---------------------------- ----------- ---------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
                               2001-2002   2000-2001        1999-2000       1998-1999       1997-1998

  Testing Month                March       March            April           April           May

  READING SCORES SHOWELL GR 3                                                               

  Total                                                                                     

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 26.4%       26.5%            34.9%           17.1%           13.3%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  67.9%       53.1%            53.5%           60.9%           33.3%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       5.7%        20.4%            11.6%           22%             53.3%

  Number of Students Tested    62          54               49              48              45

  Percent of total students    100%        98%              100             100             100
  tested                                                                                    

  Number of students excluded  0           1 (hospitalized) 0               0               0

  Percentage of students       0           2%               0               0               0
  excluded                                                                                  

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                           

  1.Low income \# in           26          24               18              23              19
  population                                                                                

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 26.1%       12.5%            33.33%          8.7%            0%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  65.2%       50%              50%             56.52%          21.1%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       8.7%        37.5%            16.67%          34.78%          78.9%

  Low income mean scaled score 444.22      429.08           439.28          421 .35         385.79
  \# in popul.                                                                              

  2\. Not Low income mean      37          25               25              18              26
  scaled score                                                                              

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 26.7%       30%              36%             27.8%           23.1%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  70%         56%              56%             66.67%          42.3%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       3.33%       4%               8.%             5.56%           34.6%

  Not Low Income mean          451.67      454.6            456.76          450.28          426.12

  3.African American \# in     12          10               13              19              11
  population                                                                                

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 8.3%        30%              30.6%           0%              0%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  67%         40%              46.1%           53.6%           18.2%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       16.7%       30%              23.3%           47.4%           81.8%

  African American Mean Scaled 426         440.9            444             418             381.5
  Score                                                                                     

  4 .Hispanic \# in population 8           8                2               5               3

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 25%         25%              Not             Not             Not

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  75%         50%              Statistically   Statistically   Statistically

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       0%          25%              Significant     Significant     Significant

  Hispanic Mean Scaled Score   448         418.4                                            

  5 White \# in population     42          35               31              24              30

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 30.9%       31%              35.6%           29.1%           20%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  61.9%       57%              48.4%           50%             43.3%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       7.2%        12%              16%             20.9%           36.7%

  White Mean Scaled Score      495.11      449.3            455.48          446.27          422

  STATE SCORES                                                                              

  Total                                                                                     

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 28.8%       23.4%            24.2%           20.9%           15.9%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  50.5%       50.8%            52.6%           47.7%           45.6%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       20.7%       25.9%            23.2%           31.4%           38.5%

  State Mean Scaled Score      440.75      435.17           437.19          428.13          420.88

  School Mean Scaled Score     448.43      442.10           449.44          434.05          409.09
  ---------------------------- ----------- ---------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Cut     |             |             |             |             |
| Scores-   |             |             |             |             |
| DSTP**    |             |             |             |             |
| **Reading |             |             |             |             |
| Grade 3** |             |             |             |             |
| (lowest   |             |             |             |             |
| scaled    |             |             |             |             |
| score a   |             |             |             |             |
| student   |             |             |             |             |
| can earn  |             |             |             |             |
| and still |             |             |             |             |
| be within |             |             |             |             |
| the       |             |             |             |             |
| indicated |             |             |             |             |
| pe        |             |             |             |             |
| rformance |             |             |             |             |
| level)    |             |             |             |             |
+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| ## Grade  | **Below**   | **Meets**   | **Exceeds** | **Dist      |
|           |             |             |             | inguished** |
+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 3         | 387         | 411         | 465         | 482         |
+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

**Phillip Showell Elementary** **Table 1b**

Delaware State Testing Program- **Reading** -**Grade 5**

Criterion-Referenced Testing developed by state with Harcourt Education
Measurement Systems

  ---------------------------- --------------- ----------- --------------- --------------- -----------
                               2001-2002       2000-2001   1999-2000       1998-1999       1997-1998

  Testing Month                March           March       April           April           May

  READING SCORES -SHOWELL                                                                  

  Total                                                                                    

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 29.4%           21.4%       29.4%           26.7%           22.1%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  61.8%           50.%        58.8%           55.6%           44.1%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       8.8%            28.6%       11.8%           17.8%           33.8%

  Number of Students Tested    41              54          43              51              68

  Percent of total students    100%            100%        100%            100%            98.5%
  tested                                                                                   

  Number of students excluded  0               0           0               0               1 vacation

  Percentage of students       0               0           0               0               98.5%
  excluded                                                                                 

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                          

  1.Low income                                 19                          20              37

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) Not             5.3%        Not             15%             13.5%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  Statistically   68.4%       Statistically   60%             29.7%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       Significant     26.32%      Significant     25%             56.8%

  Low income mean scaled score                 468.89                      472.55          448.46

  2.Not low income             24              23          22              25              31

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 33.3%           34.8%       45.5%           36%             32.3%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  62.5%           34.8%       40.9%           52%             61.3%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       4.2%            30.4        13.6%           12%             6.4%

  Not Low income mean scaled   499.38          484.7       494.95          496.16          485.9
  score                                                                                    

  3.African American           7               14          12              11              19

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) Not             0%          8.3%            0%              21.0%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  Statistically   50%         58.3%           45.5%           21.0

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       Significant     50%         43.9%           55.5%           58%

  African American mean scaled                 455.9       463             446.5           452.2
  score                                                                                    

  3.Hispanic                   1               9           3               7               9

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) Not             11%         Not             Not             0%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  Statistically   56%         Statistically   Statistically   33.3%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       Significant     33%         Significant     Significant     66.6%

  Hispanic mean scaled score                   463.3                                       428.22

  3White                       31              31          27              33              40

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 29.8%           26%         39.2%           33%             27.5%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  61.2            47.8%       47.8%           54.5%           57.5%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       9.%             16.2%       13%             12.5%           15%

  White mean scaled score      485.1           490.25      492.7           493.8           480

  STATE SCORES                                                                             

  Total                                                                                    

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 21.97%          16.23%      18.3%           14.29%          15.81%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  56%             48.72%      50.97%          48.51%          43.22%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       22.02%          33.04%      30.72%          37.19%          40.96%

  State Mean                   478.13          468.88      470.16          462.54          459.98

  School Mean                  492.41          477.57      486.97          485.67          465.53
  ---------------------------- --------------- ----------- --------------- --------------- -----------

+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Cut     |             |             |             |             |
| Scores-   |             |             |             |             |
| DSTP**    |             |             |             |             |
| **Reading |             |             |             |             |
| Grade 5** |             |             |             |             |
| (lowest   |             |             |             |             |
| scaled    |             |             |             |             |
| score a   |             |             |             |             |
| student   |             |             |             |             |
| can earn  |             |             |             |             |
| and still |             |             |             |             |
| be within |             |             |             |             |
| the       |             |             |             |             |
| indicated |             |             |             |             |
| pe        |             |             |             |             |
| rformance |             |             |             |             |
| level)    |             |             |             |             |
+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| ## Grade  | **Below**   | **Meets**   | **Exceeds** | **Dist      |
|           |             |             |             | inguished** |
+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 5         | 427         | 451         | 508         | 529         |
+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

**Phillip Showell Elementary Table 1c**

Delaware State Testing Program- **Math Grade 3**

Criterion-Referenced Testing developed by state with Harcourt Education
Measurement Systems

  ---------------------------- ----------- ---------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
                               2001-2002   2000-2001        1999-2000       1998-1999       1997-1998

  Testing Month                March       March            April           April           May

  MATH SCORES --gr 3 SHOWELL                                                                

  Total                                                                                     

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 47.6%       38.5%            37.2%           14.6%           0%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  46%         46.2%            53.5%           63.4%           26.7%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       6.4%        15.4%            9.3%            22%             73.3%

  Number of Students Tested    62          54               49              48              45

  Percent of total students    100         98%              100             100             100
  tested                                                                                    

  Number of students excluded  0           1 (hospitalized) 0               0               0

  Percentage of students       0           2%               0               0               0
  excluded                                                                                  

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                           

  1\. Low income                                                                            

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 56.2%       24%              22.2%           4.4%            00%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  46.15       52%              61.1%           60.9%           5.3%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       7.7%        24%              16.7%           34.8%           94.7%

  Low income mean scaled score 459.88      432.72           442.33          417.8           378.32

  2\. Not Low Income                                                                        

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 48.6%       51.9%            48%             27.8%           00%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  46%         40.7%            48%             66.7%           42.3%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       5.4%        7.4%             4%              5.5%            57.7%

  Not Low Income mean Scaled   465.19      458.85           458.2           445.2           404.31
  Score                                                                                     

  3.African American           12          10               13              19              11

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 8%          30%              15.3%           0%              0%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  75%         40%              61.5%           47.4%           9.1%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       17%         30%              23.2%           52.6%           90.9%

  African American Mean Scaled 435.6       438.3            436.4           411.7           378.8
  Score                                                                                     

  4.Hispanic                   8           8                2               5               3

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 12.5%       12.5%            Not             Not             Not

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  87.5%       75%              Statistically   Statistically   Statistically

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       0%          12.5%            Significant     Significant     Significant

  Hispanic Mean Scaled Score   476         484                                              

  5.White                      42          35               31              24              30

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 52.8%       46%              45.1%           25%             0%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  42.3%       43%              51.6%           58.3%           36.6%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       4.7%        11%              3.2%            16.7%           63.4%

  White Mean Scaled Score      467.79      453.76           459.8           443.6           400.5

  STATE SCORES                                                                              

  Total                                                                                     

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 26.2%       21.9%            20.8%           14.5%           8.9%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  45.8%       49.4%            51.9%           49.0%           45.8%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       27.9%       28.7%            27.3%           36.5%           45.2%

  State Mean                   434.08      430.03           431.08          421.23          411.04

  School Mean                  463         446.29           451.58          429.83          393.33
  ---------------------------- ----------- ---------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Cut     |             |             |             |             |
| Scores-   |             |             |             |             |
| DSTP Math |             |             |             |             |
| Grade 3   |             |             |             |             |
| (lowest   |             |             |             |             |
| scaled    |             |             |             |             |
| score a   |             |             |             |             |
| student   |             |             |             |             |
| can earn  |             |             |             |             |
| and still |             |             |             |             |
| be within |             |             |             |             |
| the       |             |             |             |             |
| indicated |             |             |             |             |
| pe        |             |             |             |             |
| rformance |             |             |             |             |
| level)**  |             |             |             |             |
+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| ## Grade  | **Below**   | **Meets**   | **Exceeds** | **Dist      |
|           |             |             |             | inguished** |
+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 3         | 382         | 407         | 464         | 499         |
+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

**Phillip Showell Elementary Table 1d**

**Delaware State Testing Program- -Math-Grade 5**

**Criterion-Referenced Testing developed by state with Harcourt
Education Measurement Systems**

  ---------------------------- --------------- ----------- --------------- --------------- -----------
                               2001-2002       2000-2001   1999-2000       1998-1999       1997-1998

  Testing Month                March           March       April           April           May

  MATH SCORES- SHOWELL                                                                     
  Elementary                                                                               

  Total                                                                                    

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 50%             16.7%       20.6%           20%             15.9%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  45%             61.1%       70.6%           57.8%           37.7%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       5%              22.2%       8.8%            22.2%           46.4%

  Number of Students Tested    41              54          43              51              69

  Percent of total students    100%            100%        100%            100%            100%
  tested                                                                                   

  Number of students excluded  0               0           0               0               0

  Percentage of students       0               0           0               0               0
  excluded                                                                                 

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                          

  1\. Low income                                                                           

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) Not             00%         Not             10%             10.8%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  Statistically   72.4%       Statistically   55%             29.7%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       Significant     27.6%       Significant     35%             59.5%

  Low income mean scaled score                 459.45                      461             440.97

  2\. Not Low Income                                                                       

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 33.3%           36%         31.8            28%             21.9%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  62.5%           48%         63.6%           60%             46.9%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       4.2%            16%         4.6%            12%             31.25%

  Not Low Income mean scaled   499.4           488.88      490.7           483.3           472.6
  score                                                                                    

  3.African American           7               14          12              11              19

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) Not             0%          0%              0%              0%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  Statistically   70%         75%             45.5%           26.3%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       Significant     30%         25%             54.5%           63.1%

  African American mean scaled                 455.9       460.5           435.5           437
  score                                                                                    

  4 .Hispanic                  1               9           3               7               9

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) Not             0%          Not             Not             0%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  Statistically   78%         Statistically   Statistically   44.4%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       Significant     22%         Significant     Significant     66.6%

  Hispanic mean scaled score                   464.3                                       436.4

  5 White                      31              31          27              33              41

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 45.1%           29%         30.4            27.3%           24.3%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  48.3%           61.3%       65.2            57.6%           39.0%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       6.6%            9.7%        4.4             15.1%           36.7%

  White mean scaled score      503             485.84      488             479.7           468.4

  STATE SCORES                                                                             

  Total                                                                                    

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 17.5%           14.5%       13.4%           11.28%          10.1%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  49.6%           47.7%       48.6%           44.1%           42.21%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       32.8%           37.8%       37.9%           44.6%           47.72%

  State Mean                   465.99          459.98      460.25          453.71          449.84

  School Mean                  503.2           473.07      480.06          473.4           455.65
  ---------------------------- --------------- ----------- --------------- --------------- -----------

+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Cut     |             |             |             |             |
| Scores-   |             |             |             |             |
| DSTP Math |             |             |             |             |
| Grade 5** |             |             |             |             |
| (lowest   |             |             |             |             |
| scaled    |             |             |             |             |
| score a   |             |             |             |             |
| student   |             |             |             |             |
| can earn  |             |             |             |             |
| and still |             |             |             |             |
| be within |             |             |             |             |
| the       |             |             |             |             |
| indicated |             |             |             |             |
| pe        |             |             |             |             |
| rformance |             |             |             |             |
| level)    |             |             |             |             |
+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| ## Grade  | **Below**   | **Meets**   | **Exceeds** | **Dist      |
|           |             |             |             | inguished** |
+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 5         | 424         | 449         | 503         | 525         |
+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

**Phillip Showell Elementary Table 1e**

**Delaware State Testing Program- Writing-Grade 3**

**Criterion-Referenced Testing developed by state with Harcourt
Education Measurement Systems**

  ---------------------------- ----------- ---------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                               2001-2002   2000-2001        1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

  Testing Month                March       March            April       April       May

  WRITING SCORES -SHOWELL                                                           
  Elementary                                                                        

  Total                                                                             

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 4.8%        0%               0%          0%          2.3%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  52.4%       41.5%            27.9%       64.1%       27.3%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       42.3%       58.5%            72.1%       35.9%       70.45%

  Number of Students Tested    62          54               49          48          45

  Percent of total students    100%        98%              100         100         100
  tested                                                                            

  Number of students excluded  0           1 (hospitalized) 0           0           0

  Percentage of students       0           2%               0           0           0
  excluded                                                                          

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                   

  1\. Low income                                                                    

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 3.85%       00%              00%         00%         5.26%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  42.3%       40%              16.7%       63.6%       21.1%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       53.8%       60%              83.3%       36.4%       73.7%

  Low income mean              6.31        6.44             5.89        6.95        5.84

  2\. Not Low Income                                                                

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 5.4%        00%              00%         00%         00%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  59.5%       42.9%            36%         64.7%       32%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       35.1%       57.1%            64%         35.3%       68%

  Not Low Income mean scaled   7.14        6.54             6.16        6.84        6.04
  score                                                                             

  STATE SCORES                                                                      

  Total                                                                             

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 1.8%        .4%              .64%        1.86%       2.94%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  44.8%       32.4%            36.2%       46.9%       52.6%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       54.4%       67.2%            63.1%       51.3%       44.4%

  State Mean                   6.36        5.89             6.06        6.44        6.85

  School Mean                  6.79        6.49             6.05        6.90        5.95
  ---------------------------- ----------- ---------------- ----------- ----------- -----------

+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| # D        |                           |                             |
| STP Studen |                           |                             |
| t Performa |                           |                             |
| nce Levels |                           |                             |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Level**  | **Category**              | **Description**             |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 5          | Distinguished             | Excellent Performance       |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 4          | Exceeds the Standard      | Very Good Performance       |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 3          | Meets the Standard        | Good Performance            |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 2          | Below the Standard        | Needs Improvement           |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 1          | Well Below the Standard   | Needs Significant           |
|            |                           | Improvement                 |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+

+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Cut     |             |             |             |             |
| Scores-   |             |             |             |             |
| DSTP**    |             |             |             |             |
| **Writing |             |             |             |             |
| Grade 3** |             |             |             |             |
| (lowest   |             |             |             |             |
| scaled    |             |             |             |             |
| score a   |             |             |             |             |
| student   |             |             |             |             |
| can earn  |             |             |             |             |
| and still |             |             |             |             |
| be within |             |             |             |             |
| the       |             |             |             |             |
| indicated |             |             |             |             |
| pe        |             |             |             |             |
| rformance |             |             |             |             |
| level)    |             |             |             |             |
+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| ## Grade  | **Below**   | **Meets**   | **Exceeds** | **Dist      |
|           |             |             |             | inguished** |
+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 3         | 5           | 7           | 11          | 13          |
+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

**Phillip Showell Elementary Table 1f**

**Delaware State Testing Program-Writing -Grade 5**

**Criterion-Referenced Testing developed by state with Harcourt
Education Measurement Systems**

  ---------------------------- --------------- ----------- --------------- ----------- -----------
                               2001-2002       2000-2001   1999-2000       1998-1999   1997-1998

  Testing Month                March           March       April           April       May

  WRITING SCORES- SHOWELL                                                              

  Total                                                                                

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 5%              5.6%        0%              6.7%        1.5%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  77.5%           59.3%       55.9%           71.1%       50%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       17.5%           35.2%       44.1%           22.2%       48.5%

  Number of Students Tested    41              54          43              51          68

  Percent of total students    100%            100%        100%            100%        98.5%
  tested                                                                               

  Number of students excluded  0               0           0               0           1 vacation

  Percentage of students       0               0           0               0           98.5%
  excluded                                                                             

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1\. Low income                                                                       

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) Not             6.9%        Not             00%         2.8%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  Statistically   44.8%       Statistically   70%         33.3%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       Significant     48.3%       Significant     30%         63.9%

  Low income mean                              7.54                        8\.         6.86

  2\. Not Low Income                                                                   

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 7.7%            4%          00%             12%         00%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  73.1%           76%         68.2%           72%         68.8%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       19.2%           20%         31.8%           16%         31.2%

  Not Low Income mean scaled   8.23            8.48        7.77            8.64        7.94
  score                                                                                

  STATE SCORES                                                                         

  Total                                                                                

  Exceeds (Perf. Levels 4 & 5) 7.87%           4.12%       1.68%           5.29%       6.08%

  Meets (Performance Level 3)  41.4%           46.6%       33.5%           45.7%       39.94%

  Below Standard (1 & 2)       50.7%           49.25%      64.8%           48.98%      53.98%

  State Mean                   7.34            7.34        6.78            7.52        7.42

  School Mean                  8.18            7.96        7.38            8.36        7.37
  ---------------------------- --------------- ----------- --------------- ----------- -----------

+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| # D        |                           |                             |
| STP Studen |                           |                             |
| t Performa |                           |                             |
| nce Levels |                           |                             |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Level**  | **Category**              | **Description**             |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 5          | Distinguished             | Excellent Performance       |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 4          | Exceeds the Standard      | Very Good Performance       |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 3          | Meets the Standard        | Good Performance            |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 2          | Below the Standard        | Needs Improvement           |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 1          | Well Below the Standard   | Needs Significant           |
|            |                           | Improvement                 |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+

+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Cut     |             |             |             |             |
| Scores-   |             |             |             |             |
| DSTP**    |             |             |             |             |
| **Writing |             |             |             |             |
| Grade 5** |             |             |             |             |
| (lowest   |             |             |             |             |
| scaled    |             |             |             |             |
| score a   |             |             |             |             |
| student   |             |             |             |             |
| can earn  |             |             |             |             |
| and still |             |             |             |             |
| be within |             |             |             |             |
| the       |             |             |             |             |
| indicated |             |             |             |             |
| pe        |             |             |             |             |
| rformance |             |             |             |             |
| level)    |             |             |             |             |
+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| ## Grade  | **Below**   | **Meets**   | **Exceeds** | **Dist      |
|           |             |             |             | inguished** |
+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 5         | 6           | 8           | 11          | 13          |
+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

Grade 2 - 5 Test\_\_\_Stanford Achievement Test -

Edition/publication year_1996 Publisher \_\_\_Harcourt Education
Measurement\_\_

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
\_\_All student populations are tested at Showell

Scores are reported here as (check one): NCEs\_√\_\_\_ Scaled scores
\_\_\_\_ Percentiles\_\_\_\_

If the reports use scaled scores, provide the national score (mean
score) and standard deviation for the total test and each subtest.

The reports on the SAT-9 do not.

The SAT-9 in grades 2, and 4 were district assessments prior to 2002.
The state of Delaware expanded the Delaware State Testing Program to
these "off-grades" in the 2001-2002 testing year. The reading
comprehension subtest and the math problem solving subtest are a portion
of our current DSTP testing program. For its first year (2001-02), there
was no summary or disaggregated data prepared by the state.

This overview applies to: Table 2a Reading Grade 3 page 23

Table 2b Reading Grade 4 page 24

Table 2c Reading Grade 5 page 25

Table 2d Reading Grade 2 page 25

Table 2e Math Grade 3 page 26

Table 2f Math Grade 4 page 26

Table 2g Math Grade 5 page 27

Table 2h Math Grade 2 page 27

**Phillip Showell Elementary 2a**

**Nationally Normed Measure**

**Reading Comprehension**

Grade\_\_3\_\_ Stanford Achievement Test- SAT-9

Edition/publication year \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Publisher
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What groups were excluded from testing? None

Scores are reported as: NCEs [√]{.underline} Scaled Scores Percentiles

+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           | 2001  | 2000  | 1999  | 1998  | 1997  |
|                           | -2002 | -2001 | -2000 | -1999 | -1998 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Testing Month             | March | March | April | April | May   |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Reading Comprehension** |       |       |       |       |       |
|                           |       |       |       |       |       |
| PHILLIP SHOWELL           |       |       |       |       |       |
| Elementary                |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Mean NCE Score            | 59.23 | 58.65 | 62.19 | 55.36 | 45.51 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of Students Tested | 62    | 54    | 49    | 48    | 45    |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percent of total students | 100%  | 98%   | 100   | 100   | 100   |
| tested                    |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students        | 0     | 1     | 0     | 0     | 0     |
| excluded                  |       | (hos  |       |       |       |
|                           |       | pital |       |       |       |
|                           |       | ized) |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percentage of students    | 0     | 2%    | 0     | 0     | 0     |
| excluded                  |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES           |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 1\. low income            | 57.47 | 51.55 | 58.56 | 49.8  | 35.6  |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2\. non low income        | 60.52 | 65.53 | 64.8  | 62.46 | 52.76 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 3\.                       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| STATE SCORES              |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| State Mean NCE Score      | 58.64 | 57.49 | 56.57 | 53.99 | 51.17 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

**Phillip Showell Elementary 2b**

**Nationally-normed Measure**

Grade\_\_4\_\_ Stanford Achievement Test- SAT-9

> Edition/publication year \_1966 \_\_\_\_ Publisher_Harcourt
> Educational Measurement\_\_

What groups were excluded from testing? None

Scores are reported as: NCEs [√]{.underline} Scaled Scores Percentiles

+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                               | 200    | 200    | 199    | 199    |
|                               | 1-2002 | 0-2001 | 9-2000 | 8-1999 |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Testing Month                 | March  | March  | April  | April  |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Reading Comprehension**     |        |        |        |        |
|                               |        |        |        |        |
| PHILLIP SHOWELL Elementary    |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Mean NCE Score                | 52     | 61     | 53     | 53     |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of Students Tested     | 52     | 43     | 49     | 42     |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of total students     | 100%   | 100%   | 100%   | 100%   |
| tested                        |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students excluded   | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percentage of students        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |
| excluded                      |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES               | NA     | NA     | NA     | NA     |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 1\.                           |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 2\.                           |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 3\.                           |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| STATE SCORES                  |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| State Mean NCE Score          | NA\*   | NA\*   | NA\*   | NA\*   |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

\*State does not publish DSTP2 data

**Phillip Showell Elementary 2c**

**Nationally-Normed Measure**

**Reading Comprehension**

Grade_5\_\_ Stanford Achievement Test- SAT-9

Edition/publication year \_\_1996\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Publisher
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What groups were excluded from testing? None

Scores are reported as: NCEs [√]{.underline} Scaled Scores Percentiles

+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           | 2001  | 2000  | 1999  | 1998  | 1997  |
|                           | -2002 | -2001 | -2000 | -1999 | -1998 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           | March | March | April | April | May   |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Reading Comprehension** |       |       |       |       |       |
|                           |       |       |       |       |       |
| PHILLIP SHOWELL           |       |       |       |       |       |
| Elementary                |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Mean NCE Score            | 65.06 | 58.25 | 57.56 | 56.26 | 47.25 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of Students Tested | 41    | 54    | 43    | 51    | 68    |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percent of total students | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  | 98.5% |
| tested                    |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students        | 0     | 0     | 0     | 0     | 1     |
| excluded                  |       |       |       |       | vac   |
|                           |       |       |       |       | ation |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percentage of students    | 0     | 0     | 0     | 0     | 98.5% |
| excluded                  |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES           |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 1\. low income            | N/A   | 55.11 | N/A   | 48.91 | 36.75 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2\. non low income        | 68.15 | 60.84 | 61.84 | 62.19 | 59.77 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| STATE SCORES              |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| State Mean NCE Score      | 54.99 | 53.85 | 53.2  | 51.4  | 50.26 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

**Phillip Showell Elementary 2d**

**Nationally=Normed Measure**

Grade\_\_2\_\_ Stanford Achievement Test- SAT-9

Edition/publication year \_\_1996\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Publisher \_\_

What groups were excluded from testing? None

Scores are reported as: NCEs [√]{.underline} Scaled Scores Percentiles

+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                               | 200    | 200    | 199    | 199    |
|                               | 1-2002 | 0-2001 | 9-2000 | 8-1999 |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| March                         | March  | March  | April  | April  |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Reading Comprehension**     |        |        |        |        |
|                               |        |        |        |        |
| PHILLIP SHOWELL Elementary    |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Mean NCE Score                | 62     | 57     | 77     | 52     |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of Students Tested     | 57     | 62     | 54     | 52     |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of total students     | 100%   | 100%   | 100%   | 100%   |
| tested                        |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students excluded   | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percentage of students        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |
| excluded                      |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES               |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 1\. low income                |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 2\. non low income            |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 3\.                           |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| STATE SCORES                  |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| State Mean NCE Score          | NA\*   | NA\*   | NA\*   | NA\*   |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

\*State does not publish DSTP2 summary data

**Phillip Showell Elementary 2e**

**Nationally-Normed Measure**

> Math Problem Solving

Grade_3\_ Stanford Achievement Test- SAT-9

Edition/publication year \_\_\_1996\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Publisher
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What groups were excluded from testing? None

Scores are reported as: NCEs [√]{.underline} Scaled Scores Percentiles

+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           | 2001  | 2000  | 1999  | 1998  | 1997  |
|                           | -2002 | -2001 | -2000 | -1999 | -1998 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           | March | March | April | April | May   |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Math Problem Solving**  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                           |       |       |       |       |       |
| PHILLIP SHOWELL           |       |       |       |       |       |
| Elementary                |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Mean NCE Score            | 79.76 | 67.74 | 67.12 | 58.88 | 40.03 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of Students Tested | 62    | 54    | 49    | 48    | 45    |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percent of total students | 100%  | 98%   | 100   | 100   | 100   |
| tested                    |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students        | 0     | 1     | 0     | 0     | 0     |
| excluded                  |       | (hos  |       |       |       |
|                           |       | pital |       |       |       |
|                           |       | ized) |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percentage of students    | 0     | 2%    | 0     | 0     | 0     |
| excluded                  |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES           |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 1\. low income            | 78.77 | 61.33 | 63.58 | 52.79 | 33.06 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2\. non low income        | 80.49 | 74.16 | 69.66 | 66.67 | 45.13 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 3\.                       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| STATE SCORES              |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| State Mean NCE Score      | 63.02 | 61.12 | 59.7  | 55.04 | 51.4  |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

**Phillip Showell Elementary 2f**

**Nationally-Normed Measure**

Grade\_\_4\_\_ Stanford Achievement Test- SAT-9

Edition/publication year \_\_\_1996\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Publisher
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What groups were excluded from testing? None

Scores are reported as: NCEs [√]{.underline} Scaled Scores Percentiles

+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                               | 200    | 200    | 199    | 199    |
|                               | 1-2002 | 0-2001 | 9-2000 | 8-1999 |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| March                         | March  | March  | April  | April  |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Math Problem Solving          |        |        |        |        |
|                               |        |        |        |        |
| PHILLIP SHOWELL Elementary    |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Mean NCE Score                | 59     | 65     | 53     | 45     |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of Students Tested     | 52     | 43     | 49     | 42     |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of total students     | 100%   | 100%   | 100%   | 100%   |
| tested                        |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students excluded   | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percentage of students        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |
| excluded                      |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES               |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 1\. low income                |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 2\. non low income            |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 3\.                           |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| STATE SCORES                  |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| State Mean NCE Score          | NA\*   | NA\*   | NA\*   | NA\*   |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

\*State does not publish DSTP2 summary dat

**Phillip Showell Elementary 2g**

**Nationally- Normed Measure**

**Math Problem Solving**

Grade\_\_5\_ Stanford Achievement Test- SAT-9

Edition/publication year \_\_\_1996\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Publisher
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What groups were excluded from testing? None

Scores are reported as: NCEs [√]{.underline} Scaled Scores Percentiles

+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           | 2001  | 2000  | 1999  | 1998  | 1997  |
|                           | -2002 | -2001 | -2000 | -1999 | -1998 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| March                     |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Math Problem Solving      |       |       |       |       |       |
|                           |       |       |       |       |       |
| PHILLIP SHOWELL           |       |       |       |       |       |
| Elementary                |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Mean NCE Score            | 71.23 | 65.34 | 63.89 | 56.48 | 49.3  |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of Students Tested | 41    | 54    | 43    | 51    | 68    |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percent of total students | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  | 98.5% |
| tested                    |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students        | 0     | 0     | 0     | 0     | 1     |
| excluded                  |       |       |       |       | vac   |
|                           |       |       |       |       | ation |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percentage of students    | 0     | 0     | 0     | 0     | 98.5% |
| excluded                  |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES           |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 1\. low income            | N/A   | 60.42 | N/A   | 48.28 | 40.22 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2\. non low income        | 72.98 | 69.41 | 70.33 | 63.04 | 59.79 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 3\.                       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| STATE SCORES              |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| State Mean NCE Score      | 60.03 | 57.72 | 56.28 | 53.05 | 51.52 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

**Phillip Showell Elementary 2h**

**Nationally-Normed Measure**

Grade\_\_2\_\_ Stanford Achievement Test- SAT-9

Edition/publication year \_\_1996\_\_\_ Publisher \_\_\_

What groups were excluded from testing? None

Scores are reported as: NCEs [√]{.underline} Scaled Scores Percentiles

+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                               | 200    | 200    | 199    | 199    |
|                               | 1-2002 | 0-2001 | 9-2000 | 8-1999 |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| March                         | March  | March  | April  | April  |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Math Problem Solving**      |        |        |        |        |
|                               |        |        |        |        |
| PHILLIP SHOWELL Elementary    |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Mean NCE Score                | 59     | 61     | 74     | 71     |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of Students Tested     | 57     | 62     | 54     | 52     |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of total students     | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |
| tested                        |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students excluded   | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percentage of students        |        |        |        |        |
| excluded                      |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES               |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 1\. low income                |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 2\. non low income            |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 3\.                           |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| STATE SCORES                  |        |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| State Mean NCE Score          | NA\*   | NA\*   | NA\*   | NA\*   |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

\*State does not publish DSTP2 summary data

**Grade K-1 Assessments**: (state-wide as part of DSTP)

K-1 Work Sampling Assessment

Pearson Early Learning Company in conjunction with the Delaware
Department of Education

Edition- 3/01

Replaced Metropolitan Achievement Test This is year 2.

Also,

Grade A+- Group Diagnostic Reading Assessment (school level0

K pre and post forn

By AGS

This is the second year. This test replaces K Metropolitan.