##### REVISED March 21, 2005

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

*U.S. Department of Education*

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

Name of Principal [Mr. John Polm]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [Jenkins High School]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [P. O. Box 138 E. 702 Lincoln Ave.]{.underline}

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

Chewelah Washington 99109-0047

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County [Stevens]{.underline} School Code Number\* [2404]{.underline}

Telephone [(509) 935-8571]{.underline} Fax [(509) 935-9206]{.underline}

Website/URL [Chewelah.k12.wa.us]{.underline} E-mail
<jpolm@chewelah.k12.wa.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. Marcus Morgan]{.underline}

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

District Name [Chewelah School District]{.underline} Tel. [(509)
935-8671]{.underline}

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

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

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson [Mr. Tim Whitley]{.underline}

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

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

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

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

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

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

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

2.  The school has not been in school improvement status or been
    identified by the state as \"persistently dangerous\" within the
    last two years. To meet final eligibility, the school must meet the
    state's adequate yearly progress requirement in the 2004-2005 school
    year.

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

4.  The school has been in existence for five full years, that is, from
    at least September 1999 and has not received the 2003 or 2004 *No
    Child Left Behind -- Blue Ribbon Schools Award.*

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

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

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

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

**PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

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

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

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

[1]{.underline} Middle schools

Junior high schools

[1]{.underline} High schools

[2]{.underline} Other

\_\_\_\_\_ TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: [7,109]{.underline}

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [5,712]{.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\. [8]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

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

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

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

  **PreK**                                                  **7**                             

  **K**                                                     **8**                             

  **1**                                                     **9**       46        50          96

  **2**                                                     **10**      52        51          103

  **3**                                                     **11**      44        42          86

  **4**                                                     **12**      50        45          95

  **5**                                                     **Other**                         

  **6**                                                                                       

                                    **TOTAL                                                   380
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

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

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [90]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [2]{.underline} % Black or African American

[2]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

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

**100% Total**

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

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

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

  --------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**   Number of students who transferred ***to***  23
            the school after October 1 until the end of  
            the year.                                    

  **(2)**   Number of students who transferred           30
            ***from*** the school after October 1 until  
            the end of the year.                         

  **(3)**   Subtotal of all transferred students \[sum   53
            of rows (1) and (2)\]                        

  **(4)**   Total number of students in the school as of 380
            October 1                                    

  **(5)**   Subtotal in row (3) divided by total in row  .14
            (4)                                          

  **(6)**   Amount in row (5) multiplied by 100          14
  --------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------

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

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

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

Specify languages: Spanish

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [46%]{.underline}

Total number students who qualify: [209]{.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: 11%

40 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 7 Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness 21 Specific Learning Disability

1 Emotional Disturbance \_\_\_\_\_ Speech or Language Impairment

\_\_\_\_\_Hearing Impairment \_\_\_\_\_ Traumatic Brain Injury

> 4 Mental Retardation \_\_\_\_\_ Visual Impairment Including Blindness

7 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                             2

  Classroom teachers                         16                            11

  Special resource teachers/specialists      2                             0

  Paraprofessionals                          4                             2

  Support staff                              6                             1

  Total number                               29                            16
  ------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- -----------------------------

12\. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio: 23:1

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

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

  Daily student attendance  94%         94%         94%         94%         93%

  Daily teacher attendance  97%         94%         97%         98%         99%

  Teacher turnover rate     1%          1%          1%          1%          1%

  Student dropout rate      2%          2%          4%          3%          4%
  (middle/high)                                                             

  Student drop-off rate     3%          8%          7%          6%          11%
  (high school)                                                             
  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

> Discrepancies between the dropout rate and the drop-off rate are a
> direct result of changing and refining the district policy regarding
> enrollment in alternative high school programs offered over the past
> five years.
>
> 14\. **(*High Schools Only*)** Show what the students who graduated in
> Spring 2004 are doing as of September 2004.

+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Graduating class size                                   | > 86       |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Enrolled in a 4-year college or university              | > 37 %     |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Enrolled in a community college                         | > 24 %     |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Enrolled in vocational training                         | > 9 %      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Found employment                                        | > 24 %     |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Military service                                        | > 1 %      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Other (travel, staying home, etc.)                      | > 5 %      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Unknown                                                 | > 0 %      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| **Total**                                               | > 100 %    |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+

**PART III - SUMMARY**

Jenkins High School is a comprehensive public high school serving grades
9-12 in Chewelah, Washington. A comprehensive self-study was recently
completed which resulted in the following mission statement: "Our
mission is to successfully educate all students by providing a safe and
productive learning environment where we foster mutual respect. Through
quality instruction and programs, we strive to help all students realize
their potential and become skilled and responsible citizens." Northwest
Association of Accredited Schools currently accredits us. Our motto is
"Aim for Excellence" and our building goals for 2003-2004 were:

1.  Reduce D and F rate for all students from 14.03%.

2.  Improve reading scores 2% on state assessments.

3.  Improve math scores on state assessments by 2%.

4.  Improve writing scores on state assessments by 2%.

5.  Maintain high graduation rate for seniors (97% of students who start
    the year as seniors graduate the same school year).

The October 2003 enrollment of Jenkins High School was 380. Enrollment
since 1997 has declined from approximately 500 students to 383 students
as of October 2004. The mobility rate of students over the past three
years has averaged 12.8%. There is concern that the enrollment will
continue to decline as a result of the closure of Northwest Alloys in
September 2001. This magnesium plant in nearby Addy, Washington formerly
employed about 350 people.

The students of Jenkins High School are residents of a rural community
with a population of approximately 2,000. Chewelah's primary industries
have been farming, logging and mining with a mix of small businesses
including a sod and tree farm, a hospital, and a casino just outside of
town. A ski area and a golf course provide seasonal recreation and
employment. Since the closure of Northwest Alloys, a reduction in
enrollment has taken place. We believe this to be the result of a ripple
effect on local businesses that provided goods and services to the
Northwest Alloys plant and employees. After its closure, the school
district became the largest single employer in the area. Fifty-four
percent of the students ride a bus to/from school. According to the 2000
census, the average income of residents in Stevens County (in which
Chewelah is located) is \$32,387 and the median home value is \$55,900.
In 2003-2004, 46.2% of the students who attended Jenkins High School
qualified for free or reduced meals. This number has risen to 53.2% in
2004-2005. Of residents 25 years old and up, 38% have graduated from
high school, and 6% have graduated from college. The racial composition
of the community is predominately Caucasian (90%) with small percentages
of Asian or Pacific Islander, Native American, Hispanic and African
American.

At this time, Jenkins High School educational staff includes 18
full-time teachers, 10 part-time teachers, one full-time counselor, a
part-time athletic and vocational director, a part-time assistant
principal, and a full-time principal. 18 out of the 28 certified
teachers have completed their Masters Degree. Jenkins High School also
receives services from district psychologist, speech therapist, OT/PT,
and a registered nurse. Para-educators assist in special education and
vocational classrooms. Three secretaries, two custodians, and a district
cook also serve Jenkins High School.

At present, the campus includes 13 regular classrooms plus the art and
music rooms in the main building. In addition, we have a library/media
center as well as a cafeteria area that serves as the lunchroom for
students and as an instructional area for drama and dance classes. Auto
and wood shops and two additional classrooms are located in the
vocational building. The high school square footage totals just over
60,000.

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

**1. Meaning of Assessment Results**

Student Performance Data in reading and mathematics have shown
significant improvement over the past five years. Information below
includes a summary of students' performance on national, state,
district, and school level assessments, as well as building-generated
reports.

**[National Measures:]{.underline}** The student performance data was
collected from the Iowa Test of Educational Development (ITED). The ITED
is a standardized achievement test administered to ninth grade students
that measures Total Reading (vocabulary and comprehension); and Total
Math (concepts/estimation, problem solving/data, and computation). This
is a norm-referenced assessment. All tenth grade students take the
(PLAN) Pre ACT in the fall. This is a norm-referenced assessment.

**[State Measure:]{.underline}** **WASHINGTON ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT
LEARNING (WASL)**

The WASL measures student achievement of academic standards that define
what students should know and be able to do. The standard is rigorous
and fixed. It measures the application of skills to problem-solving
tasks and real-world situations. The WASL is a criterion-referenced
assessment. The maximum score in reading is 460 with 400 or higher
required to meet the standard. In math, the maximum score is 568, with
400 needed to meet the standard. In both reading and math, Levels 1, 2,
3, and 4 reflect: well below standard, below standard, meets standard
and well above standard, respectively. Sub areas such as interpretation,
analysis and comprehension provide individual and group information to
assess and guide change.

During a five-year period, 1999-2004, Jenkins High School students have
shown a 27.9% improvement in mathematics and a 22.9% improvement in
reading. The most recent percent meeting standard (2004) are: reading
78.0, writing 79.1, mathematics 59.3 and science 42.9. This information
may be found at the state website
[www.reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us](http://www.reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/).
From this site, simply find the drop down menu with Chewelah School
District and then click on Jenkins High School. The state measure (WASL)
is administered in April of each school year to students in the 10^th^
grade. The percentage listed reflects the percent at proficient and
advanced combined.

**[District Measures:]{.underline}** School-wide assessments of student
achievement in reading and mathematics have been in place for the past
several years. Pre- and post-test procedures, utilizing (STAR)
Standardized Test of Achievement in Reading, to measure progress were
initiated in 1995. Student scores have averaged at or above grade level
over that time. Local data include semester letter grades in courses,
average GPA, honor roll, percent of Ds and Fs tracked by semester. Other
building level data have been recently implemented and no longitudinal
data is available at this time. These include annual reading,
mathematics, science and writing assessments administered to grade nine
and ten students.

**[Subgroups:]{.underline}** Subgroup data is considered in several
areas including: gender, low income, and length of enrollment in the
district. The state system collects and displays this information on the
website mentioned above. We are monitoring all areas and have identified
disparities in male/female performance in reading, with females scoring
approximately nine points higher. Low income students perform
approximately 20 points lower than non-low income in both reading and
math. There are no other significant disparities identified at this
time. Our ethnic minority population is too small subgroups (less than
5%) to provide meaningful subgroup performance data.

2.  **Use of Assessment Data to Understand and Improve Student and
    School Performance**

Student and school performance data is critical to the instructional and
curricular decisions teachers make at our school. School-wide data helps
to identify goals directly related to WASL scores. Data is disaggregated
by classroom teacher, grade level, and learning strands to help teachers
adjust instruction to the actual student performance in their classes.
We work in small subject area or integrated groups called *Professional
Learning Communities* (PLC's). These groups meet every two weeks to work
together to set goals and work toward those goals in an environment of
mutual cooperation. These groups plan lessons, develop assessments,
analyze data, and consider best practice and research to improve
instruction and student learning. The mantra for the groups and the
school is:

> What do you want all kids to know?
>
> A common curriculum taught by all.
>
> How do you know if they know it?
>
> A common assessment given by all.
>
> What do you do when they don't?
>
> A common response by all.

The past few years have seen an increase in most scores. We agree that
scores are a critical part of our accountability process, and we monitor
and analyze these data on a continual basis. Most data is gathered
annually, with other data gathered every three to five years. The entire
staff has received copies of our school profile information, including
surveys from staff, students, and community. The building and district
goals identified for 2004-2005 and beyond are a response to the data.

Our strategy is to continue with the PLC's to provide collaboration time
for teachers at our school. Some interesting data we have compiled has
to do with a cohort study including two classes (1999/2002 and
2000/2003) in the seventh and tenth grades (Figure 3). The data shows
that our students who were in Chewelah in those years showed impressive
improvement in reading and math in the three-year span. At this time,
the data shows our curriculum and instruction in grades 8-10 are
appropriate as most students demonstrate moderate to high gains.

3.  **Communication of Student Performance Data**

Many processes are in place to continually monitor, review, and
communicate the school improvement plan and student performance data.

##### Parents

A Parent Advisory Committee meets at least three times per year. This
group reviews our Annual Performance Report, School Improvement Plan,
Student Handbook (and discipline plan), and serves to provide input on
issues relating to our school and the community. Parents receive at
least eight mailings per year with performance data on their individual
student(s) and with other information about the school. Parents also
participate in conferences in the fall and spring. Student-led
conferences will be implemented this school year (2004-2005). Students
will present their portfolio to parents in an evening setting with an
advisor facilitating the meeting.

**Students**

School-wide goals are published and posted in classrooms of the school.
The principal annually presents student performance data to students in
the spring of each school year in classes. Parents receive student
progress and report cards eight times per year. A building newsletter is
mailed at least three times per year with information on student
performance along with the individual student report.

**Community**

A School Performance Report is completed and published for distribution
at school events, in the Jenkins High School office, at the Chewelah
School District office, and is posted on the district website. The
Principal prepares a PowerPoint presentation annually on the school's
performance. This is presented in the community at a School Board
meeting, Kiwanis Club, Valley School (a non-high district near
Chewelah), Loon Lake School (another non-high district near Chewelah),
and for the Jenkins High School Parent Advisory Committee.

4.  **Sharing Successes with other Schools**

**Profile**

Recent trends in state assessment scores have afforded Jenkins High
School recognition for its progress to date. The Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) included Jenkins High School
in its published profile of successful schools during the Summer
Conference in 2004. The rising free and reduced meal rate and rising
WASL scores generated interest from other schools with similar
demographics. This interest resulted in contacts for information on
curriculum and instruction at our school.

**Visitations**

In spring of 2004, we sent a team of teachers to Elma High School to
meet with and share ideas with their mathematics teachers. Blaine High
School and Sprague High School both visited our school in fall of 2004.
Teams of teachers met with and observed our mathematics teachers. These
visits created a collegial relationship between teachers at the
different schools. These teachers regularly share ideas through e-mail
communication.

**Presentations**

The Principal recently presented as part of a panel at Breaking Ranks
II, a pre-conference to Washington's Annual OSPI Winter Conference. The
panel included nine practicing principals from the state. We presented
reform efforts in our schools that have led to improved student
performance, and are part of the recommendations in *BREAKING RANKS II:
Strategies for Leading High School Reform*. This publication, by the
National Association of Secondary School Principals, is one tool used to
implement reform at Jenkins High School. Over 350 school leaders
attended this conference on January 18, 2005.

The Principal and the Assistant Principal of Jenkins High School were
selected to present at the regular OSPI Winter Conference in a breakout
session. Approximately 60 educators from around the state attended this
session on "Academic Success -- How to Get It!" These 90-minute
presentations focused on our school improvement efforts in three general
areas: Personalization, Collaborative Leadership, and
Curriculum/Assessment/Instruction.

**Professional Memberships**

Finally, the Principal maintains membership on Washington Association of
Secondary School Principal's Representative Council with quarterly
meetings, and the Great Northern League with meetings every other month.
These are ongoing memberships that include school leaders both locally
and around our state. The Principal also participated in Northwest
Association of Accredited Schools Annual Report Review Committee. The
Assistant Principal maintains membership on the State Student Leadership
Committee. This group meets quarterly. Both administrators use these
opportunities to share successes and gain ideas with and from other
schools.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

1.  **Describe the School's Curriculum**

Jenkins High School offers a comprehensive program for its students.
This includes a College Prep Program, a Vocational Program, and Special
Education Services. Courses are aligned or are being aligned with state
standards, and students are engaged in work to meet those standards.
Curriculum adoption processes are regular. Small departmental and
integrated teams work together to create common lessons, units and
assessments in science, English, social studies and math. We include
Title I targeted assistance in mathematics and reading. Jenkins High
School maintains Carnegie Unit graduation requirements of 26 credits
combined with standards-based models in the completion of a Portfolio
and earning a Certificate of Academic Achievement (beginning with the
class of 2008).

**English**: The core in English curriculum includes: Freshman English,
Freshman Honors English, Sophomore English, Sophomore Honors English,
Junior English (American Literature), Junior Honors English (American
Literature), Senior English and Advanced Placement English. Advanced
Placement students follow the national curriculum with testing in May on
the Advanced Placement Exam. Students must earn at least four credits in
English.

**Mathematics**: The core Mathematics curriculum includes: Applied
Mathematics I, Applied Mathematics II, Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra
II/Trigonometry, Pre-Calculus, and Calculus. Support services are
offered in mathematics through Title I. Students must earn at least two
credits in mathematics and meet standard on the WASL to complete the
core requirements.

**Science**: The core Science curriculum includes: Integrated Physical
Science in grade nine, Biology or Agricultural Science in grade 10,
Chemistry, Anatomy, Geology, Bio-Technology and Physics for grades 11
and 12. Two credits are required with upper-level courses offered as
electives.

**Social Studies**: Three years of social studies are required for all
students at our school. Core courses include: World Cultures, You and
the Law, US History, Advance Placement US History, and Current World
Affairs. These courses are aligned with state standards. Students also
have completed pilots for the new Classroom-Based Assessments to be
required by 2008.

**Fine Arts**: One year of fine arts is required for all students at our
school. Courses may include: Wind Ensemble, Jazz Band, Choir, Select
Ensemble, Beginning Guitar, Drama, Advanced Drama, Dance, Pottery,
Drawing, Painting, Arts and Crafts, or Studio Art.

**Foreign Language**: Spanish I and Spanish II are offered as part of
the core curriculum at our school. All students planning to attend a
university must pass these courses. Approximately 75% of our eligible
students per year are involved in this program.

**Heath and Fitness**: Two years of health and fitness are required for
all students at our school. One of these core classes must be Freshman
Health and Fitness. Students may fill their other core with Weight
Training, Personal Fitness, or Lifetime Sports.

**Career and Technical [(]{.underline}Vocational[)]{.underline}:** Two
and one-half years are required with all students taking Careers, Micro
Computer Applications, and Economics. Students take one year in an
elective area of their choice. Our school offers over 20 classes,
including work-based learning opportunities.

2.  **Describe the School's English Language Curriculum**

Jenkins High School believes all freshmen and sophomores should develop
skills in reading, writing, and communication through the study of
vocabulary, grammar, essay writing, and literature. Students study a
common curriculum with honor students studying an expanded curriculum
including summer assignments. The guiding principal in this curricular
area is that teachers teach a larger curriculum, which may include
deviations from the regular curriculum. A smaller curriculum is the
written and approved curriculum. And the smallest or critical curriculum
is that which is tested. If the learning objective is assessed, then it
is related to a specific learning target. The tested curriculum is the
part that is discussed the most among teachers. Teachers work together
to align curriculum both horizontally and vertically.

Teachers agree upon the assessment, and instruction is based on this
part of the curriculum. Researchers Betty E. Steffy and Fenwick W.
English call this the doctrine of "no surprises" for children in *Deep
Curriculum Alignment,* published by Scarecrow Press, Inc., pg 88. We use
the *McDougal-Little Language and Literature* series.

All students are tested using the (STAR) Standardized Test of Assessment
of Reading at least twice each year. This is combined with other data
(WASL, ITBS, and ITED) to assess a student's reading level. Part of the
curriculum includes independent reading at the student's reading level.
Students identified at more than one grade level below are guided toward
enrollment in our Title I Reading course. Students take Reading in
conjunction with English. Students are given the opportunity to "double
dose" themselves in an effort to raise their reading level to their
current grade. Strategies include alignment of materials to (GLE's)
Grade Level Expectations, structured instruction in vocabulary, word
root origins, diction, comprehension, and fluency.

Students with identified learning disabilities are enrolled in Special
Education English or they are placed in regular English classes with
Special Education support. These placement decisions are made on an
individual basis through an Individual Education Plan process.

3.  **Describe the School's Other Area Curriculum**

Mathematics recently completed a curriculum adoption through alignment
to the state Essential Academic Learning Requirements. New texts were
purchased for all levels. An emphasis on "hands-on" activities was an
outcome of this process.

Our school determined that students who have completed Algebra I and are
enrolled in Geometry have over a 95% probability of meeting the standard
on the WASL. Consequently, we modified our curriculum to accelerate
students who are behind when they enter high school. We dropped
PreAlgebra and modified the curriculum for students at that level. These
students now take Applied Mathematics I. The curriculum is hands-on
oriented with regular use of labs. We use a vocational approach
combining materials approved for use in vocational courses in our state.
We also employ some math lab philosophies that emphasize mastery of
content before moving on to the next concept. Students who are below
grade level are placed in this course and in a support course called
Title I Mathematics. These students are effectively "double dosed" in
mathematics in an effort to bring their performance up to grade level.
Our goal is to get them ready for Algebra I in the sophomore year. Our
data shows that approximately 60% of sophomores in Algebra I will meet
standard on the WASL. If a student is below that level, he or she has a
significantly lower probability of passing. Some data showed this to be
below 15%.

For a student to become a skilled and responsible citizen, we believe he
or she must have skills up to the level measured by the state
assessment. The changes in our mathematics program have helped increase
the percentage of students meeting this standard. We believe the more
recent changes described above will help us come closer to this goal.
Our 27.9% improvement is very good, but we still have over 40% of our
students below standard. This needs to improve so that students perform
in mathematics at similar levels to reading and writing.

4.  **Different Instructional Methods**

Instruction methods have been impacted by several different processes in
the past five years. These include the adoption of a block schedule,
training on instructional strategies, curriculum alignment, classroom
practices, and common assessments.

**Block Schedule**

Seven years ago our staff began to study the benefits of block
scheduling. Many of our teachers saw an opportunity to improve
instructional methods if there could be more uninterrupted time with
students. After a year of study, visits, and discussion, we made a
decision to adopt a model called the "7 x 2 Modified Block" schedule.
This model kept our previous seven period structure, but integrated 75
minute blocks into the schedule twice per week.

**Training**

Our staff participated in training on instructional strategies to use in
block schedules. Training included how to create an interactive
environment, positive interdependence, higher order thinking skills,
multiple intelligences, Socratic Seminar method and cooperative learning
social skills.

**Curriculum Alignment**

Course outlines were the first order of business. Several years ago the
instructor determined course content. Now the courses are aligned to
state standards and are aligned to one another. Teachers develop course
outlines and revise these annually. These documents become the written
map the teacher follows to deliver the course objectives. Alignment to
the essential learning requirements is part of the process as the course
outlines are developed.

**Instructional Practices**

Our entire staff participated in training on *The Effective Teacher,* by
Harry Wong*.* This video series shared characteristic of effective
teachers at every level. Our staff has been able to agree on some
school-wide common practices. One of these is to make an "entry task" or
"bell work" part of every class each day. This is work students complete
as soon as they enter the classroom without the involvement of the
teacher. It is individual work that is assigned in the same place every
day. This enables teachers to take attendance silently and take care of
other important tasks that do not involve students. This is only 3-5
minutes of the lesson and should be connected to past or future
learning.

**Assessment**

The development of common assessments helped improve student learning as
much as any other process at our school. This was controversial yet
invigorating. Our teachers began having conversations about measuring
student learning and then how best to respond when students did not
learn. This has been a powerful change agent at our school. We continue
to work on assessments every year in every content area.

5.  **Professional Development Program and Impact on Student
    Achievement**

Our district leadership helps determine a direction for professional
development usually related to student performance data and district
curriculum adoption cycle. Our School Improvement Plan identifies
several goals that align with the district goals with specific
objectives developed to support those goals. Our PLC's are the vehicle
for achieving the results. This structure has put into place a
collaborative model for school improvement. One activity includes
reading *Professional Learning Communities at Work,* by Richard DuFour
and Robert Eaker*.* Teachers may earn clock hours for participation in
this group. Conference attendance is part of the building plan as long
as it is supporting the building or individual teacher goals. Finally,
each teacher sets two goals each year. These also must support our
building goals and mission. Recent staff questionnaire results show that
74% believe they "have an opportunity to develop their skills" and 56%
believe "the school and district provide for ongoing, effective
professional development."

The impact on student achievement has been dramatic. During a five year
period, 1999-2004, Jenkins High School students have shown a 27.9%
improvement in mathematics and a 22.9% improvement in reading. The most
recent percent meeting standard (2004) are: reading 78.0, writing 79.1,
mathematics 59.3 and science 42.9. Our on-time graduation rate was 91.8%
in 2003-2004, and our dropout rate was 2.1% in 2002-03. These numbers
are well above state and national averages.

**PART VI -- PRIVATE SCHOOL ADDENDUM**

**N/A**

**PART VII -- ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

**[STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS FOR READING]{.underline}**

Data on this display table reflects READING scores earned by Jenkins
High School tenth graders on the Washington Assessment of Student
Learning (WASL), which is administered annually in April.

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

+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
|                              | 0    | 0    | 0    | 00-01  | 9    |
|                              | 3-04 | 2-03 | 1-02 |        | 9-00 |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| Testing Month                | A    | A    | A    | April  | A    |
|                              | pril | pril | pril |        | pril |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**            |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| **Total of levels 3 and 4    | **   | **   | **   | **63** | **   |
| (at or above standard)**     | 78** | 73** | 67** |        | 69** |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| \% at Level 4 Most Advanced  | 61   | 53   | 58   | 47     | 42   |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| \% at Level 3 At or Above    | 16   | 20   | 9    | 16     | 27   |
| Proficient                   |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| **Total of levels 1 and 2    | 22   | 26   | 23   | 22     | 28   |
| (below standard)**           |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| \% at Level 2 Below Standard | 14   | 17   | 17   | 17     | 21   |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| \% at Level 1 Well Below     | 7    | 9    | 6    | 5      | 7    |
| Standard                     |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| > Total Number of students   | 90   | 98   | 91   | 100    | 123  |
| > tested                     |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| > Percent of Total students  | 98   | 100  | 98   | 85     | 97   |
| > tested                     |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| > Number of students         | 3    | 0    | 3    | 0      | 0    |
| > alternately assessed\*     |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| > Percent of students        | 3    | 0    | 3    | 0      | 0    |
| > alternately assessed       |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| > Number of students who     | 1    | 1    | 4    | 15     | 3    |
| > refused or not tested      |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**          |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| **Gender** % Met Standard    | 73   | 65   | 57   | 65     |      |
| Males (Level 3 and 4)        |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| \% Males at Level 4 Most     | 55   | 43   | 43   | 44     |      |
| Advanced                     |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| \% Males at Level 3 At or    | 18   | 23   | 14   | 21     |      |
| Above Proficient             |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| **Gender** % Met Standard    | 83   | 79   | 78   | 85     |      |
| Females (Level 3 and 4)      |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| \% Females at Level 4 Most   | 68   | 62   | 74   | 69     |      |
| Advanced                     |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| \% Females at Level 3 At or  | 15   | 17   | 4    | 15     |      |
| Above Proficient             |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| **Poverty** % Met Standard   | 66   |      |      |        |      |
| (Level 3 and 4)              |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| \% at Level 4 Most Advanced  | 49   |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| \% at Level 3 At or Above    | 17   |      |      |        |      |
| Proficient                   |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| **Poverty** % Did NOT Meet   | 34   |      |      |        |      |
| Standard (Level 1&2)         |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| \% at Level 2 Below Standard | 20   |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| \% at Level 1 Well Below     | 14   |      |      |        |      |
| Standard                     |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**             |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| **Total of levels 3 and 4    | **   | **   | **   | **62** | **   |
| (at or above standard)**     | 65** | 60** | 59** |        | 60** |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| > \% at Level 4 Most         | 51   | 43   | 44   | 48     | 38   |
| > Advanced                   |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| > \% at Level 3 At or Above  | 14   | 17   | 15   | 14     | 22   |
| > Proficient                 |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| **Total of levels 1 and 2    | 35   | 40   | 41   | 38     | 40   |
| (below standard)**           |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| > \% at Level 2 Below        | 17   | 19   | 20   | 19     | 20   |
| > Standard                   |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| > \% at Level 1 Well Below   | 12   | 13   | 14   | 11     | 12   |
| > Standard                   |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| > Not Tested                 | 6    | 8    | 7    | 8      | 9    |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| **Gender** % Met Standard    | 60   | 54   | 53   | 57     | 55   |
| Males (Level 3 and 4)        |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| \% Males at Level 4 Most     | 46   | 37   | 22   | 41     | 33   |
| Advanced                     |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| \% Males at Level 3 At of    | 14   | 17   | 17   | 15     | 23   |
| Above Proficient             |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| **Gender** % Met Standard    | 71   | 66   | 67   | 70     | 68   |
| Females (Level 3/4)          |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| \% Female at Level 4 Most    | 57   | 49   | 52   | 56     |      |
| Advanced                     |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| \% Female at Level 3 At or   | 14   | 17   | 15   | 14     |      |
| Above Proficient             |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| **Poverty** % Who Met        | 46   | 43   |      |        |      |
| Standard                     |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+
| **Poverty** % Who did NOT    | 54   | 57   |      |        |      |
| Meet Standard                |      |      |      |        |      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+--------+------+

\*WAAS = Washington Alternative Assessment System. Blank cells indicate
data unavailable.

**[STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS FOR MATHEMATICS]{.underline}**

Data on this display table reflects MATHEMATICS scores earned by Jenkins
High School tenth graders on the Washington Assessment of Student
Learning (WASL), which is administered annually in April.

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

+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
|                                | 03-04 | 02-03 | 01-02 | 00-01 | 99  |
|                                |       |       |       |       | -00 |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| Testing Month                  | April | April | April | April | Ap  |
|                                |       |       |       |       | ril |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**              |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| **Total of levels 3 and 4 (at  | *     | *     | *     | *     | **4 |
| or above standard)**           | *58** | *58** | *57** | *44** | 3** |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| \% at Level 4 Most Advanced    | 29    | 34    | 26    | 19    | 16  |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| \% at Level 3 At or Above      | 29    | 24    | 31    | 25    | 27  |
| Proficient                     |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| ### Total of l                 | 39    | 42    | 35    | 42    | 54  |
| evels 1 and 2 (below standard) |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| \% at Level 2 Below Standard   | 20    | 19    | 17    | 26    | 32  |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| \% at Level 1 Well Below       | 19    | 23    | 18    | 16    | 22  |
| Standard                       |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| > Total Number of students     | 89    | 86    | 87    | 102   | 124 |
| > tested                       |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| > Percent of Total students    | 97    | 100   | 92    | 86    | 98  |
| > tested                       |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| > Number of students           | 3     | 0     | 3     | 0     | 0   |
| > alternately assessed\*       |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| > Percent of students          | 3     | 0     | 3     | 0     | 0   |
| > alternately assessed         |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| > Number of students who       | 0     | 0     | 8     | 16    | 3   |
| > refused or not tested        |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| # SUBGROUP SCORES              |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| **Gender** % Met Standard      | 59    | 65    | 54    | 51    |     |
| Males (Level 3 and 4)          |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| \% Male at Level 4 Most        | 27    | 40    | 22    | 19    |     |
| Advanced                       |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| \% Male at Level 3 At or Above | 32    | 25    | 32    | 32    |     |
| Proficient                     |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| **Gender** % Met Standard      | 60    | 51    | 60    | 51    |     |
| Females (Level 3 and 4)        |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| \% Female at Level 4 Most      | 32    | 28    | 31    | 28    |     |
| Advanced                       |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| \% Female at Level 3 At or     | 28    | 23    | 29    | 23    |     |
| Above Proficient               |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| **Poverty** % Met Standard     | 46    |       |       |       |     |
| (Level 3 and 4)                |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| \% at Level 4 Most Advanced    | 17    |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| \% at Level 3 At or Above      | 29    |       |       |       |     |
| Proficient                     |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| **Poverty** % Did NOT Meet     | 52    |       |       |       |     |
| Standard (Level 1&2)           |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| \% at Level 2 Below Standard   | 23    |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| \% at Level 1 Well Below       | 29    |       |       |       |     |
| Standard                       |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| **STATE SCORES**               |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| **Total of level 3 and 4 (at   | *     | *     | *     | *     | **3 |
| or above standard)**           | *44** | *39** | *37** | *39** | 5** |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| > \% at Level 4 Most Advanced  | 22    | 19    | 15    | 20    | 15  |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| > \% at Level 3 At or Above    | 22    | 21    | 22    | 20    | 20  |
| > Proficient                   |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| **Total of levels 1 and 2      | 56    | 61    | 63    | 61    | 65  |
| (below standard)**             |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| > \% at Level 2 Below Standard | 19    | 21    | 23    | 20    | 23  |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| > \% at Level 1 Well Below     | 31    | 32    | 33    | 32    | 35  |
| > Standard                     |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| > Not Tested                   | 6     | 7     | 7     | 8     | 7   |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| **Gender** % Met Standard      | 44    | 38    | 37    | 40    | 37  |
| Males (Level 3 and 4)          |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| \% Males at Level 4 Most       | 23    | 19    | 16    | 21    | 17  |
| Advanced                       |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| \% Males at Level 3 At of      | 22    | 20    | 21    | 19    | 20  |
| Above Proficient               |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| **Gender** % Met Standard      | 44    | 41    | 38    | 39    | 35  |
| Females (Level 3 and 4)        |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| \% Female at Level 4 Most      | 22    | 19    | 15    | 18    |     |
| Advanced                       |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| \% Female at Level 3 At or     | 23    | 22    | 23    | 21    |     |
| Above Proficient               |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| **Poverty** % Met Standard     | 25    | 24    |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| **Poverty** % Did Not Meet     | 75    | 76    |       |       |     |
| Standard                       |       |       |       |       |     |
+--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+

\*WAAS= Washington Alternative Assessment System. Blank cells indicate
data unavailable.

**[ASSESSMENTS REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS FOR
READING]{.underline}**

Data on this display table reflects READING scores earned by Jenkins
High School ninth grade students on the PLAN Test, which is administered
annually in November.

Scores are reported here as PERCENT AT OR ABOVE NATIONAL MEDIAN SCORE

+-------------------------------------+-----------+----------+---------+
|                                     | 2003-2004 | 2        | 20      |
|                                     |           | 002-2003 | 01-2002 |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+----------+---------+
| > Testing month                     | November  | November | N       |
|                                     |           |          | ovember |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+----------+---------+
| > **SCHOOL SCORES**                 |           |          |         |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+----------+---------+
| > Total Score - READING             | 70        | 72       | 69      |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+----------+---------+
| > Number of students tested         | 102       | 95       | 92      |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+----------+---------+
| > SUBGROUP SCORES \*                |           |          |         |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+----------+---------+
| > Gender % Above National Median    | 43        | 42       | 45      |
| > Males                             |           |          |         |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+----------+---------+
| > Gender % Above National Median    | 58        | 59       | 55      |
| > Females                           |           |          |         |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+----------+---------+

> \* Ethnic Subgroups less than nine (9) students not reportable

**[ASSESSMENTS REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS FOR
MATHEMATICS]{.underline}**

Data on this display table reflects MATHEMATICS scores earned by Jenkins
High School 10TH grade students on the PLAN Test, which is administered
annually in November.

Scores are reported here as PERCENT AT OR ABOVE NATIONAL MEDIAN SCORE

+-------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+
|                                     | 20      | 2        | 2        |
|                                     | 03-2004 | 002-2003 | 001-2002 |
+-------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+
| > Testing month                     | N       | November | November |
|                                     | ovember |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+
| > **SCHOOL SCORES**                 |         |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+
| > Total Score - MATHEMATICS         | 61      | 76       | 66       |
+-------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+
| > Number of students tested         | 102     | 95       | 92       |
+-------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+
| > SUBGROUP SCORES \*                |         |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+
| > Gender % Above National Median    | 34      | 51       | 51       |
| > Males                             |         |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+
| > Gender % Above National Median    | 66      | 50       | 49       |
| > Females                           |         |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+

> \* Ethnic Subgroups less than nine (9) students not reportable

**[ASSESSMENTS REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS FOR
READING]{.underline}**

Data on this display table reflects READING scores earned by Jenkins
High School ninth grade students on the Iowa Test of Educational
Development (ITED), which is administered annually in April.

Scores are reported here as PERCENT [ABOVE]{.underline} NATIONAL MEDIAN
SCORE based on data available at time of reporting:

+-------------------------------------+----------+---------+----------+
|                                     | 2        | 20      | 2        |
|                                     | 003-2004 | 02-2003 | 001-2002 |
+-------------------------------------+----------+---------+----------+
| > Testing month                     | April    | April   | April    |
+-------------------------------------+----------+---------+----------+
| > **SCHOOL SCORES**                 |          |         |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+---------+----------+
| > Total Score - READING             | 53       | 53      | 60       |
+-------------------------------------+----------+---------+----------+
| > Number of students tested         | 94       | 100     | 109      |
+-------------------------------------+----------+---------+----------+
| > SUBGROUP SCORES                   |          |         |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+---------+----------+
| > Gender % Above National Median    |          |         |          |
| > Males                             |          |         |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+---------+----------+
| > Gender % Above National Median    |          |         |          |
| > Females                           |          |         |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+---------+----------+

> If the reports use scaled scores, provide the national mean score and
> standard deviation for the test.

  ----------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                            2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  **NATIONAL MEAN SCORE**                   53          53          54

  **NATIONAL STANDARD DEVIATION**           2           2           2
  ----------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**[ASSESSMENTS REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS FOR
MATHEMATICS]{.underline}**

Data on this display table reflects MATHEMATICS scores earned by Jenkins
High School ninth grade students on the Iowa Test of Educational
Development (ITED), which is administered annually in April.

Scores are reported here as PERCENT [ABOVE]{.underline} NATIONAL MEDIAN
SCORE based on data available at time of reporting:

+------------------------------------+----------+---------+-----------+
|                                    | 2        | 20      | 2001-2002 |
|                                    | 003-2004 | 02-2003 |           |
+------------------------------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| > Testing month                    | April    | April   | April     |
+------------------------------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| > **SCHOOL SCORES**                |          |         |           |
+------------------------------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| > Total Score - MATHEMATICS        | 62       | 59      | 59        |
+------------------------------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| > Number of students tested        | 94       | 99      | 109       |
+------------------------------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| > SUBGROUP SCORES                  |          |         |           |
+------------------------------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| > Gender % Above National Median   |          |         |           |
| > Males                            |          |         |           |
+------------------------------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| > Gender % Above National Median   |          |         |           |
| > Females                          |          |         |           |
+------------------------------------+----------+---------+-----------+

> If the reports use scaled scores, provide the national mean score and
> standard deviation for the test.

  ----------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                            2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  **NATIONAL MEAN SCORE**                   59          59          59

  **NATIONAL STANDARD DEVIATION**           2           2           2
  ----------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------