##### [Revised 3/8/06]{.underline}

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

*U.S. Department of Education*

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

Name of Principal [Mrs. Justine A. Federico]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [James H. Metzgar Elementary School]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [140 CC Hall Drive]{.underline}

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

[New Alexandria PA 15670-9686]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County [Westmoreland]{.underline} State School Code Number\*
[5166]{.underline}

Telephone [( 724 ) 668-2236]{.underline} Fax [(724)
668-8297]{.underline}

Website/URL [www.greensburgsalem.org]{.underline} E-mail
<federico@wiu.k12.pa.us>

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

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

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent\* [Mr. Thomas Yarabinetz]{.underline}

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

District Name [Greensburg Salem]{.underline} Tel. [( 724 )
832-2900]{.underline}

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

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

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson Mrs. Trudy Ivory

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

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

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

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

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

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

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

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

1\. Number of schools in the district: [3]{.underline} Elementary
schools

[1]{.underline} Middle schools

Junior high schools

[1]{.underline} High schools

\_\_\_\_ Other

[5]{.underline} TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_[\$7,254.00]{.underline}\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_[\$8,331.00]{.underline}\_

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

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

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

4\. [5]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

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

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

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

  **PreK**                                                  **7**                             

  **K**       36        24                     **60**       **8**                             

  **1**       37        32                     **69**       **9**                             

  **2**       31        29                     **60**       **10**                            

  **3**       30        38                     **68**       **11**                            

  **4**       36        40                     **76**       **12**                            

  **5**       34        32                     **66**       **Other**                         

  **6**                                                                                       

                                    **TOTAL                                                   399
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

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

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

the students in the school: [3]{.underline} % Black or African American

[1]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

\% American Indian/Alaskan Native

**100% Total**

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

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
\_\_\_[4]{.underline} \_\_%

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

  --------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------
  **(1)**         Number of students who transferred   8
                  ***to*** the school after October 1  
                  until the end of the year.           

  **(2)**         Number of students who transferred   6
                  ***from*** the school after October  
                  1 until the end of the year.         

  **(3)**         Total of all transferred students    14
                  \[sum of rows (1) and (2)\]          

  **(4)**         Total number of students in the      399
                  school as of October 1               

  **(5)**         Total transferred students in row    .04
                  (3) divided by total students in row 
                  (4)                                  

  **(6)**         Amount in row (5) multiplied by 100  4
  --------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school:
\_\_\_[1]{.underline} \_%

\_\_\_[2]{.underline}\_\_\_Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: \_\_\_[2]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Specify languages: English and Spanish

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals:
\_\_[24]{.underline} \_\_\_%

Total number students who qualify: \_\_\_[95]{.underline}\_\_\_

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

10\. Students receiving special education services:
\_\_\_[4]{.underline} \_\_%

\_\_\_[17]{.underline}\_\_Total Number of Students Served

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

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

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

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness \_[12]{.underline} Specific Learning Disability

\_\_\_\_Emotional Disturbance \_\_\_\_Speech or Language Impairment

\_\_\_\_Hearing Impairment \_\_\_\_Traumatic Brain Injury

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

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

####### Number of Staff

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

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

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

Special resource teachers/specialists \_\_\_[11]{.underline}\_\_
\_\_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_

Paraprofessionals \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Support staff \_\_\_\_[7]{.underline}\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Total number \_ \_[38]{.underline} \_\_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_

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

students in the school divided by the FTE of classroom teachers:
\_\_[21:1]{.underline}\_

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

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

  Daily student attendance  95%         95%         95%         94%         94%

  Daily teacher attendance  93%         94%         94%         93%         93%

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

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

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

**PART III ‑ SUMMARY**

No individual school snapshot is complete without a picture of the
District. Located 35 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the
Greensburg Salem School District has an enrollment of 3,379 students. In
addition to the three elementary schools, the district has one grades
6-8 middle school and one grades 9--12 high school. Our community
encompasses an area that includes urban, suburban and rural populations.
Greensburg is the business, industrial, cultural and political center
for central Westmoreland County.

Located in a rural area of the Greensburg Salem School District, Metzgar
Elementary School is one of the three K - 5 elementary schools in the
District. It represents the mission, vision and goals of all our
schools. Its mission statement emphasizes that Metzgar Elementary will
work collaboratively with the community in educating all students to
become productive and responsible citizens. The school's mission is
accomplished by recognizing the value of each individual student and
promoting academic achievement. At Metzgar, families, students, teachers
and staff experience a culture of believing that we can touch all
children at all levels successfully by specifically designing our
curriculum and teaching strategies to meet individual needs of each
student. This is done by supporting teacher learning through ongoing
professional development in relation to instructional skills and through
teacher collaboration in developing our curriculum.

In the process of generating a vision for Metzgar, teachers established
belief statements to guide their work. Metzgar's vision is
representative of providing many supports for students. In order to
level the playing field for all children, additional support is provided
through Extended Day Kindergarten (EDK), after school tutoring, Title I
reading and math programs, summer school and parental training programs.
At Metzgar, all 399 students flourish emotionally and academically
within a compassionate school that knows them, their families, and their
needs. Second only to family, school is the most stabilizing force in
the lives of young people. Metzgar is indicative of the school's
commitment to enhance connections between students, staff and parents by
sustaining a supportive school environment. Students know that their
well being and success are important. Everyone at Metzgar values and
nurtures a compassionate and caring school environment with high
expectations.

Another important belief supporting the vision is the elimination of
barriers to student learning by changing structures that limit student
success. This is accomplished through establishing a culture and
structure that focuses on the achievement of our students. To this end,
Metzgar implemented a reading and math after school tutoring program for
students needing additional help. Classroom teachers work with these
students after school two hours per week for six months.

A foundational belief, "Effort Creates Ability," means that Metzgar's
teachers are organized for effort. Some essential features of Effort
Creates Ability are evidenced as teachers have high expectations for
achievement, as time is provided to meet the learning expectations and
as we celebrate student success.

As Metzgar's staff works to develop opportunities for all students to
attain proficiency at state benchmarks, improving student achievement is
always our bottom line. We use student data to drive instructional
decisions in order to promote the achievement of all students and their
subgroups.

Teaching is the most significant factor in advancing student
achievement. Metzgar teachers have a strong commitment to professional
development through work within the professional learning community.
Teachers are engaged in collaborative teams so that they grow, improve
and renew through the processes of collective inquiry and reflective
practice.

By developing this culture and structures, Metzgar has created an
environment where failure is not an option for students. The challenge
is to have all kids reach proficiency so as to improve their quality of
life. Good schools create good communities and Metzgar has achieved
both.

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

# 

# 1. ASSESSMENT RESULTS: 

In the spring of each school year, students in grades 3 and 5
participate in Pennsylvania's Mathematics and Reading assessments. As
specified in Pennsylvania's Chapter 4 regulations, the purposes of the
Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) are: 1) an understanding
of the school's achievement of the state standards to students, parents,
educators and community members and 2) results for all students as well
as results for student subgroups. Some student subgroups are: gender,
economically-disadvantaged, ethnicity, special education, Title I
reading and math and English as a Second Language.

The Math and Reading PSSA tests include open-ended tasks and
multiple-choice items. Although the multiple-choice items measure a
broad range of skills, the open-ended tasks are especially useful in
measuring students' problem-solving abilities in mathematics, reading
comprehension and critical thinking in reading. The PSSA reading
assessment is based on teaching reading as a balanced literacy process.
Its purpose is to assess students' achievement in comprehending fiction
and nonfiction text.

The PSSA describes student performance at four levels: Advanced,
Proficient, Basic and Below Basic. In reading, a student scoring at the
Advanced level consistently utilizes sophisticated strategies to
comprehend and interpret complex fiction and nonfiction. At the
Proficient level, the student routinely uses a variety of reading
strategies to comprehend and interpret grade-level appropriate fiction
and nonfiction. When a student scores at the Basic level, he/she
utilizes some reading strategies to comprehend grade-level appropriate
texts. Students at the Below Basic level are competent with below
grade-level text only and require extensive support to understand and
interpret fiction and nonfiction. The PDE website,
[www.pde.state.pa.us]{.underline} contains detailed descriptions of
skills and strategies students demonstrate at each performance level.

An examination of the PSSA math scores for Metzgar Elementary shows a
steady increase in the percentage of students scoring in the at or above
Proficient category. For example, since 2002, the percentage of students
at the Advanced and Proficient levels increased from 79% to 100%. In
reading, a similar pattern is demonstrated. In 2002, 82% of our students
scored at the at or above Proficient levels; this increased to 95% in
2005.

At Metzgar, our diversity exists in terms of our
Economically-Disadvantaged and Special Education students. The
Economically-Disadvantaged group comprises 24% of the student population
at Metzgar Elementary. In math, the percentage of students in the
Economically-Disadvantaged subgroup at the at or above Proficient level
increased from 27% to 88% over four years. The Special Education IEP
subgroup scores increased at the at or above Proficient level from 91 to
100%.

In reading, 74% of the Economically-Disadvantaged students performed at
the at or above Proficient level in 2002; this increased to 97% in 2005.
The percentage of Special Education IEP students who scored at the at or
above Proficient level increased from 27% to 90%.

# 2. USING ASSESSMENT RESULTS: 

Teachers work to improve student achievement by using data
systematically in a collaborative way. This approach has resulted in a
continuous feedback loop among data, planning, instructional delivery
and on-going assessment. Analysis begins with the district PSSA results.
During administrative retreat and workshops, administrators analyze data
to determine district, building, grade level and subgroup strengths and
weaknesses. We collaborated with Dr. Shula Nedley, Director of
Assessment for PDE. Dr. Nedley spent two days with follow-up support to
developing leadership capacity in data analysis, interpretation and
display.

Focusing on student performance, building level principals engaged
teachers in analyzing data. As a result, Metzgar teachers identified
instructional priorities, created action plans related to students'
target areas and designed instruction for individual students. This
approach to data use has been effective. For example, one hundred
percent of our third and fifth grade students (157 students) reached
proficiency in mathematics on the 2005 PSSA. In this way, we live the
spirit of NCLB. "I know the needs of every student in my classroom,"
teachers commonly remark.

Based on the data analysis, we recognized the need to restructure our
elementary school schedule. Now, the elementary schedule provides common
planning time, when teachers come together over student work, identify
groups and plan the instruction our children need. The schedule also
provides for core enrichment, when students are flexibly grouped for
instruction based on their needs.

In addition to PSSA data, teachers use student work to develop model
papers and rubrics. Our students analyze and compare their work to the
model papers and decide what they need to do to improve. A powerful
outcome of this use of data is that our teachers take responsibility and
believe that they are always accountable for student learning. "Whatever
it takes," is their response.

## [3. COMMUNICATING ASSESSMENT RESULTS:]{.underline} 

We believe the communication of student and school performance is
critical to the strong connection we have with students, staff and
parents of Metzgar Elementary. Metzgar students and their families are
involved in learning, understanding how students learn and in
celebrating their success. Also, our partnership with the community
provides communication channels outside our Metzgar families and
promotes our opportunities to share our assessment result successes.

Our avenues for discussing and informing individual and school-wide
assessment results to the Metzgar community include report cards,
progress notices, parent conferences and PSSA results mailed to
students' homes. In addition, Metzgar routinely publishes "The Metzgar
Mailbag," a student, teacher and administration written newsletter that
goes home with each Metzgar student. Every year, Metzgar teachers mail
thousands of "Lion Links," personal notes to the parents of our
children, to communicate notable achievement or performance. Parents and
students are excited about receiving a Lion Links note, "We got your
note. My Mommy is so proud."

Broader communication is provided at PTA meetings and parent nights.
Families come to school for programs involving their children because
they are comfortable in Metzgar's supportive, positive environment. This
promotes sharing and celebrating the successes of the students.

Our district newsletter, which is mailed to every home in the district,
our web portal and our local media support further communication.
Articles in the *Pittsburgh Business Times* and in *Standard and Poor's*
enhance our partnership with the community by communicating our
students' performance in reading and mathematics and our best practices
in the Everyday Mathematics curriculum. In this way, our school board
and families know about and support the work we do.

# 4. SHARING SUCCESS: 

Metzgar's culture and structure provides the means for sharing success
with other schools. Teachers share best practices through the
collaborative process of a professional learning community. At Metzgar
and across our District, we learn from each other through common
planning meetings, cross-grade level meetings and school-wide meetings.

These meetings allow for sharing of student work and progress within an
atmosphere that encourages and nurtures teacher learning. Teachers share
instructional practices and techniques that promote progress. For
example, a teacher who was intrigued with the concept of flexible
grouping learned more about it and shared with others at Metzgar. This
evolved into an effective model for flexible grouping that is now used
at our other two elementary schools.

Curriculum is a work in progress, relevant to students and effective in
producing student learning. Metzgar teachers serve on District
curriculum committees and report back at their grade level. These
curriculum committee meetings are additional opportunities to share
successes. Although we share within our school and District, we also
reach out to the community and share our successes. We partner with
local colleges and universities. Currently at Metzgar, two graduate
level reading interns from the University of Pittsburgh collaborate with
teachers and work in small group instruction with students every day.
These interns, certified teachers who are studying for reading
specialist certification, also share our classroom practices with their
university colleagues.

We recognize the importance of working together and learning from each
other. Because of Metzger's success in the state assessment, many school
districts have visited to examine our curriculum and teaching practices.
In these collegial visits, teachers interact and share. We share
teacher-developed practices as well as PSSA-aligned assessments.
Overall, we try to create opportunities for sharing success and best
practices across the academic community -- our school, the District,
local universities, and our peer schools.

#### PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

# 1. CURRICULUM: 

The District's standards-aligned curriculum is connected to student
achievement because its rigor and relevance continually challenges
students. Metzgar teachers work on district-wide curriculum committees
to constantly update curriculum. Teachers generate "To Do" lists related
to curriculum alignment and curriculum-based benchmark assessments.
Teacher involvement produces teacher ownership, so our curriculum is not
about a program, but rather a teacher-driven process.

LANGUAGE ARTS

Our current curriculum incorporates phonemic awareness, phonics,
vocabulary, fluency and text comprehension. Guiding our work is the
belief that student achievement is increased through the teaching and
assessments embedded in our local, standards-based curriculum, and not a
separate practice. Based on that belief, teachers created PSSA-format
literacy assessments that include reading performance tasks and writing
prompts with PSSA-level rubrics. Language Arts committee members are
currently working on constructing PSSA-like multiple-choice items for
each unit. Literacy strategies taught in the reading curriculum are
applied by students in other content areas resulting in greater student
comprehension.

###### 

###### MATHEMATICS

Continuous professional development has resulted in a strong mathematics
curriculum and has impacted student achievement. One hundred percent of
Metzgar's third and fifth grade students (157 students) achieved
proficiency in mathematics on the 2005 PSSA. Greensburg was in on the
ground floor in its implementation of the University of Chicago's
Everyday Mathematics Program. Within this NCTM-endorsed approach,
students experience a problem-solving oriented pedagogy surrounded by
hands-on work. Students communicate mathematically with their peers. If
we opened the door to a math class, we would see and hear students
talking to one another about various ways to solve problems. This
spiraling curriculum builds on increasingly difficult math strands,
affording all students multiple opportunities and means by which to
interact with math concepts at a high level.

###### 

###### SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Our Science curriculum was created to ensure a K-12 continuum of Science
domains. Students learn best when Science is inquiry-based,
student-centered and relevant. So we use instructional modules in grades
K -- 6, which address the strands of Physical, Earth, and Life Science.
Connecting their learning to real life experiences, first grade students
raise and release butterflies within the Insects module.

A full-time Technology Integration Coordinator, instructs teachers in
using technology, allowing them to differentiate instruction. In our
technology curriculum, students apply skills and knowledge as tools for
learning.

###### 

###### THE ARTS

Metzgar's arts program takes students beyond the traditional art and
music instruction. Students experience a deep, engaging
performance-based curriculum. Students benefit from visiting artists who
demonstrate and teach in their media. They participate in concerts and
art shows, including the Southern Alleghenies Museum of Art displays and
county art competitions. Children are involved in learning art and music
history and develop curiosity about other cultures. Metzgar's arts
program is distinguished by using the arts to reach out to the
community. Art and music enhance community outreach events such as the
annual Veterans' Day celebrations, student performances, and fundraising
for humanitarian purposes.

###### SOCIAL STUDIES AND HEALTH

The standards-based Social Studies curriculum is coordinated,
introducing elementary students to ideas and events that they will study
in greater depth at the secondary level. Teachers use hands-on materials
and computer programs to encourage students to look at themselves as
part of the world and their communities. Needing to understand how
society functions and how to stay well, our students experience lessons
in Social Studies and Health. Content concepts are authentically linked
to other curricular areas. Health connections such as wellness and
choices enhance development of life-long learning skills and attitudes.

### 2a. READING CURRICULUM: 

Children need a Language Arts curriculum that is balanced between
comprehension, phonics and skills processes. A systematic and explicit
sequence of skills helps students understand the sound system and gain
meaning from a variety of texts. The Language Arts committee researched
balanced literacy and established selection criteria. Teachers used
horizontal and vertical skills tracing with commercial reading programs.

The McGraw Hill Reading Program (2001) is our core program. It is a PA
standards aligned literacy program. Our students understand narrative,
informational and persuasive texts by using before, during and after
reading comprehension strategies. They write daily and use rubrics to
assess their own writing. Students discuss strategies for developing
their content and for organizing ideas. Students take control of their
reading and writing, working towards becoming independent readers and
writers.

Teachers established quarterly benchmarks to assure district-wide
consistency in skills being taught. District writing prompts and reading
performance tasks have been devised for each grade level. Teachers bring
student work from these assessments to committee meetings and common
planning time. Here, conversations focus on meeting student and program
needs. For example, when kindergarten teachers expressed a need for more
consistent writing, the District initiated the Kidwriting program
developed by author Dr. Eileen Feldgus. A literacy coach works with
teachers in their classrooms.

Reading and writing are tools for learning in all content areas. Metzgar
teachers provide continuous support in content area reading through
direct instruction of five effective reading strategies. These are:
double-entry journals, K-W-L charts, vocabulary concept maps, reading
logs and the directed reading thinking activity. Reading and writing
support is provided through a partnership with the University of
Pittsburgh. This partnership pairs Metzgar Title I reading specialists,
classroom teachers and two reading interns. The role of the reading
intern is to work collaboratively in planning and delivering
differentiated small group instruction.

**[3. MATHEMATICS:]{.underline}**

At Metzgar, the path to success in Mathematics began with our selection
to pilot and revise Everyday Mathematics.

As teachers piloted the curriculum and the moved into textbook adoption,
they transformed the way mathematics was taught in their classrooms**.**
As a result of this transformation, teachers understood that Math
instruction was not about arithmetic, but more about mathematical
strands addressing problem solving, operations and computation,
patterns, functions and algebra, data and chance. Most importantly,
teachers recognized that a mathematics curriculum must promote student
thinking and talking about math.

Enabling students to think mathematically required teachers to rethink
their instructional practices. Metzgar teachers participated in
professional development related to: 1) using math manipulatives, 2)
instructing students to use a variety of strategies to solve problems,
and 3) involving students in explaining their thinking both orally and
in writing.

In addition to reflecting on their teaching practices, Grades K-5
teachers examined the Everyday Math skills strands and concepts and
mapped out the curriculum to match their 9-week grading quarters. They
aligned the curriculum with the Pennsylvania Mathematics Standards, then
to PSSA grade level Assessment Anchors and Eligible Content.

Metzgar teachers are central to ongoing mathematics curriculum work**.**
They meet with their colleagues in preceding and following grades to
understand what children should know. Teachers created PSSA-like end-of
unit tests using a multiple-choice and open-ended format. Grade level
teams meet every quarter, review the practice tests and analyze the test
items. Teacher involvement keeps teaching and learning as a major focus.

This change process grows from Metzgar's mission that all students
develop the skills necessary to become productive and responsible
citizens. The pathway to achieve this mission is the actualization that
the role of the teacher is to promote student achievement.

[**4.** **INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS:**]{.underline}

Instructional methods are aligned with our standards-based curriculum
and District-created PSSA-like local assessments. Instruction is closely
linked with the learning goals and the assessments of students' progress
toward these goals. Our instructional strategies are differentiated for
learners based on student needs evidenced by a variety of data which
teachers analyze and use to plan instruction. In addition to PSSA data,
student needs are identified through student work, DIBELS and District
benchmark assessments.

Differentiated teaching according to students' needs is a priority.
Students receive whole group, small group and individual instruction by
teachers who know students' learning styles and needs. During the core
enrichment block, students are flexibly grouped for instruction based on
their demonstrated needs. Because children's needs change, an observer
to small groups will see different children grouped together for math
skill and strategy instruction, extra practice for fluency or work on
increasing their ability to identify words in reading.

All students can learn rigorous content if they receive support
immediately. Time is a variable related to instructional methods. Some
students need extended time to learn, so our programs and structures
ensure they get the help they need. Our Extended Day Kindergarten (EDK)
program operates for students who are identified as needing instruction
all day in reading and math. Our Title I teachers provide another line
of supportive instruction. Certified reading and math specialists use
data communicated by classroom teachers to target individual student
needs. Our teachers provide enrichment for high-achieving and gifted
students.

Beyond the school day, extended learning is provided through after
school tutoring and summer school. Parent training extends student
learning to evenings and weekends. We have seen a steady increase of
students moving into the at or above Proficient category, from 79% in
2002 to 100% in 2005 in math and from 82% in 2002 to 95% in 2005 in
reading.

**[5. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT:]{.underline}**

At Greensburg Salem everything we do is based on our belief that effort
creates ability. Our professional development plan is predicated upon
this core belief. "Effort Creates Ability," has inspired and supported
significant work we have done over the years. Because we have this
value, our bottom line is always student achievement. This means that
the harder we all work the smarter we all become.

We have developed a two-year induction program for new teachers focused
on instructional skills and differentiated instruction. Of the 100 hours
in this two year program, 50 hours are devoted to monthly evening
seminars. Teachers develop their own professional development action
plan for the remaining 50 hours.

Much professional development occurs during common planning time as well
as in the district committee work that has teachers working
collaboratively at a high level. Teachers use our state standards,
assessment anchors and eligible content to align curriculum, to refine
instruction and to design congruent assessments. Metzgar faculty
meetings function as professional development because they extend beyond
agenda items to focus on student progress, instructional strategies and
intervention plans. Metzgar has job-embedded literacy meetings as well
as on-going District committee work.

Our district in-service programs are driven by our focus areas such as
using data to drive instruction and instructional strategies to adapt
materials and processes for all learners. Another focus area is
developing a culture and structure for learning. For example, elementary
teachers engaged in workshops to prepare them for their new schedule.
All teachers participate in data analysis meetings so they understand
data analysis, interpretation and use in planning instruction.

Teachers are the number one resource that influences student
achievement. As our teachers make serious efforts in job-embedded
professional development, they are creating more ability in their
teaching and for their students' learning.

**PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

**James H. Metzgar Elementary School Grade 5 PSSA Math Scores**

+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| **MATH -- Grade | **     | **2003- | **2002- | **2001- | *          |
| 5**             | 2004-- | -2004** | -2003** | -2002** | *Legend/** |
|                 | 2005** |         |         |         |            |
|                 |        |         |         |         | **         |
|                 |        |         |         |         | Comments** |
+=================+========+=========+=========+=========+============+
| \% at Advanced  | 83%    | 71%     | 60%     | 45%     |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or above  | 100%   | 96%     | 94%     | 79%     |            |
| Proficient      |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or above  | 100%   | 100%    | 96%     | 94%     |            |
| Basic           |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at Below     | 0%     | 0%      | 4%      | 6%      |            |
| Basic           |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \# of Students  | 82     | 72      | 80      | 99      |            |
| Tested          |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% of Students  | 100%   | 100%    | 100%    | 100%    |            |
| Tested          |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \# of Students  | 0      | 0       | 0       | 0       |            |
| Excluded        |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% of Students  | 0%     | 0%      | 0%      | 0%      |            |
| Excluded        |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| **SUBGROUP      |        |         |         |         |            |
| SCORES**        |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| **Title I**     |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at Advanced  | 71%    | 28%     | 25%     | 6%      |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or above  | 100%   | 83%     | 84%     | 47%     |            |
| Proficient      |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or below  | 100%   | 100%    | 92%     | 94%     |            |
| Basic           |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at Below     | 0%     | 0%      | 8%      | 6%      |            |
| Basic           |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \# of Students  | 24     | 18      | 24      | 17      |            |
| Tested          |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% of Students  | 100%   | 100%    | 100%    | 100%    |            |
| Tested          |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| **Economically  |        |         |         |         |            |
| Disadvantaged** |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at Advanced  | 88%    | 54%     | 57%     | 27%     |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or above  | 100%   | 92%     | 90%     | 67%     |            |
| Proficient      |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or above  | 100%   | 100%    | 95%     | 87%     |            |
| Basic           |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at Below     | 0%     | 0%      | 5%      | 13%     |            |
| Basic           |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \# of Students  | 33     | 13      | 21      | 15      |            |
| Tested          |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% of Students  | 100%   | 100%    | 100%    | 100%    |            |
| Tested          |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| **Students with |        |         |         |         |            |
| IEP**           |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at Advanced  | 50%    | ● ●     | 36%     | \-\-\-- | ●          |
|                 |        |         |         |         | ●Di        |
|                 |        |         |         |         | saggregate |
|                 |        |         |         |         | group too  |
|                 |        |         |         |         | small      |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or above  | 100%   | ● ●     | 91%     | \-\-\-- | for        |
| Proficient      |        |         |         |         | analysis.  |
|                 |        |         |         |         | No data    |
|                 |        |         |         |         | provided   |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or above  | 100%   | ● ●     | 91%     | \-\-\-- | by PDE.    |
| Basic           |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at Below     | 0%     | ● ●     | 9%      | \-\-\-- |            |
| Basic           |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \# of Students  | 10     | ● ●     | 11      | 4       |            |
| Tested          |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% of Students  | 100%   | ● ●     | 100%    | \-\-\-- |            |
| Tested          |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| **White Ethnic  |        |         |         |         |            |
| Group**         |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at Advanced  | 83%    | 71%     | 66%     | 44%     |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or above  | 100%   | 96%     | 94%     | 78%     |            |
| Proficient      |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or above  | 100%   | 100%    | 97%     | 94%     |            |
| Basic           |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at Below     | 0%     | 0%      | 3%      | 6%      |            |
| Basic           |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \# of Students  | 80     | 72      | 70      | 97      |            |
| Tested          |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% of Students  | 100%   | 100%    | 100%    | 100%    |            |
| Tested          |        |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+------------+

## James H. Metzgar Elementary School Grade 5 PSSA Reading Scores

+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| **READING --    | **2004- | **2003- | **2002- | **2001- | *          |
| Grade 5**       | -2005** | -2004** | -2003** | -2002** | *Legend/** |
|                 |         |         |         |         |            |
|                 |         |         |         |         | **         |
|                 |         |         |         |         | Comments** |
+=================+=========+=========+=========+=========+============+
| \% at Advanced  | 30%     | 58%     | 35%     | 27%     |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or above  | 95%     | 89%     | 75%     | 82%     |            |
| Proficient      |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or above  | 99%     | 97%     | 95%     | 97%     |            |
| Basic           |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at Below     | 1%      | 3%      | 5%      | 3%      |            |
| Basic           |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \# of Students  | 81      | 72      | 80      | 99      |            |
| Tested          |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% of Students  | 99%     | 100%    | 100%    | 100%    |            |
| Tested          |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \# of Students  |         |         | 0       | 0       |            |
| Excluded        |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% of Students  |         |         | 0%      | 0%      |            |
| Excluded        |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| #####           |         |         |         |         |            |
| SUBGROUP SCORES |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| ##### Title I   |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at Advanced  | 13%     | 17%     | 8%      | 6%      |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or above  | 91%     | 72%     | 50%     | 47%     |            |
| Proficient      |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or above  | 95%     | 89%     | 88%     | 100%    |            |
| Basic           |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at Below     | 4%      | 11%     | 12%     | 0%      |            |
| Basic           |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \# of Students  | 33      | 18      | 24      | 17      |            |
| Tested          |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% of Students  | 99%     | 100%    | 100%    | 100%    |            |
| Tested          |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| ##              |         |         |         |         |            |
| ### Economicall |         |         |         |         |            |
| y Disadvantaged |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at Advanced  | 18%     | 38%     | 9%      | 27%     |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at ot above  | 97%     | 76%     | 76%     | 74%     |            |
| Proficient      |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or above  | 97%     | 99%     | 95%     | 100%    |            |
| Basic           |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at Below     | 3%      | \*\*    | 5%      | 0%      | \*\*fewer  |
| Basic           |         |         |         |         | than 10    |
|                 |         |         |         |         | students   |
|                 |         |         |         |         | in group   |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \# of Students  | 33      | 13      | 80      | 15      |            |
| Tested          |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% of Students  | 100%    | 100%    | 100%    | 100%    |            |
| Tested          |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| ##### St        |         |         |         |         |            |
| udents with IEP |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at Advanced  | 30%     | ● ●     | 9%      | \-\-\-- | ●          |
|                 |         |         |         |         | ●Di        |
|                 |         |         |         |         | saggregate |
|                 |         |         |         |         | group too  |
|                 |         |         |         |         | small      |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or above  | 90%     | ● ●     | 27%     | \-\-\-- | for        |
| Proficient      |         |         |         |         | analysis.  |
|                 |         |         |         |         | No data    |
|                 |         |         |         |         | provided   |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or above  | 90%     | ● ●     | 91%     | \-\-\-- | by PDE.    |
| Basic           |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at Below     | 10%     | ● ●     | 9%      | \-\-\-- |            |
| Basic           |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \# of Students  | 10      | 7       | 11      | 4       |            |
| Tested          |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% of Students  | 100%    | 100%    | 100%    | \-\-\-- |            |
| Tested          |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| ##### Whi       |         |         |         |         |            |
| te Ethnic Group |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at Advanced  | 29%     | 58%     | 40%     | 27%     |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or above  | 95%     | 89%     | 77%     | 82%     |            |
| Proficient      |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at or above  | 99%     | 97%     | 96%     | 97%     |            |
| Basic           |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% at Below     | 1%      | 3%      | 4%      | 3%      |            |
| Basic           |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \# of Students  | 79      | 72      | 70      | 97      |            |
| Tested          |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| \% of Students  | 99%     | 100%    | 100%    | 100%    |            |
| Tested          |         |         |         |         |            |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+