##### *2006-2007 No Child Left Behind - Blue Ribbon Schools Program*

*U.S. Department of Education*

**Cover Sheet**

Type of School: \[ X \] Elementary \[ \] Middle \[ \] High \[ \] K-12 \[
\] Charter

Name of Principal: Mr. Jeffrey W. Coppes

Official School Name: Brady-Henderson Mill Creek Elementary School

School Mailing Address: HC 61 Box 437, Vo-Tech Drive

Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, 17060-0902

County: Huntingdon State School Code Number:111312503-000007620

Telephone: (814) 643-3038 Fax: (814) 643-6920

Web site/URL:
[www.hasd.tiu.k12.pa.us/brady.asp](http://www.hasd.tiu.k12.pa.us/brady.asp)
E-mail: jcoppes@huntsd.org

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

Date: January 16, 2007

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent: Ms. Jill D. Adams

District Name: Huntingdon Area School District Telephone: (814) 643-4140

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: January 16, 2007

(Superintendent's Signature)

Name of School Board President: Mrs. Janice R. Metzgar

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: January 16, 2007

(School Board President'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 for Civil Rights
(OCR) requirements is true and correct.

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

2.  The school has made adequate yearly progress each year for the past
    two years and has not 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 2006-2007 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 2001 and has not received the No Child Left
    Behind -- Blue Ribbon Schools award in the past five years.

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

6.  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
    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**

1\. Number of schools in the district: 4 Elementary schools

1 Middle school

0 Junior high schools

1 High school

0 Other

6 TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: \$8,643.00

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: \$10,283.00

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

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

4\. (6) Number of years the principal has been in her/his position at
this school.

NA: 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**    8         9                      **17**       **7**       0         0           0

  **K**       12        14                     **26**       **8**       0         0           0

  **1**       11        15                     **26**       **9**       0         0           0

  **2**       10        9                      **19**       **10**      0         0           0

  **3**       12        7                      **19**       **11**      0         0           0

  **4**       11        6                      **17**       **12**      0         0           0

  **5**       11        14                     **25**       **Other**   0         0           0

  **6**       0         0                      0                                              

                                    **TOTAL                                                   149
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of 98% White

the school: 1% Black or African American

2% Hispanic or Latino

0% Asian/Pacific Islander

0 % American Indian/Alaskan Native

**100% Total (based on rounding up to the whole number)**

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year: 9%

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

  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**                   Number of students who      7
                            transferred ***to*** the    
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year   

  **(2)**                   Number of students who      4
                            transferred ***from*** the  
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year   

  **(3)**                   Total of all transferred    11
                            students \[sum of rows (1)  
                            and (2)\]                   

  **(4)**                   Total number of students in 129
                            the school as of October 1  

  **(5)**                   Total transferred students  .09
                            in row (3) divided by total 
                            students in row (4)         

  **(6)**                   Amount in row (5)           9
                            multiplied by 100           
  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school: 0%

0% Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: 1

Specify languages: English

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: 57%

Total number students who qualify: 85

10\. Students receiving special education services: 19%

24 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 Autism 0 Orthopedic Impairment

0 Deafness 2 Other Health Impaired

0 Deaf-Blindness 11 Specific Learning Disability

3 Emotional Disturbance 6 Speech or Language Impairment

0 Hearing Impairment 0 Traumatic Brain Injury

> 0 Mental Retardation 0 Visual Impairment Including Blindness
>
> 1 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) 0 1

Classroom teachers (Including PreK) 9 5

Special resource teachers/specialists 2 3

Paraprofessionals (Including Pre K) 3 0

Support staff 6 0

Total number 20 9

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

students in the school divided by the FTE of classroom teachers is 17:1.

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. Also
explain a high teacher turnover rate.

  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                            2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Daily student attendance  96%         96%         96%         96%         96%

  Daily teacher attendance  95%         92%         94%         86%         90%

  Teacher turnover rate     0%          0%          0%          0%          0%

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

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

**Part III-Summary School Snapshot**

Brady-Henderson Mill Creek Elementary School is one of four elementary
schools within the Huntingdon Area School District. Students that attend
this rural school reside in the townships of Brady and Henderson and the
borough of Mill Creek. The school has one Pre Kindergarten classroom,
two kindergarten classrooms, two first grade classrooms, and one
classroom each for grade three, grade four and grade five. Area
specialists for art, music, library, physical education/health and
instrumental music instruction are shared between two schools. Title I
and Learning Support services are provided to children in an inclusion
model. The average enrollment for the school is 130 children.

As one of 6 schools in the district, the Brady-Henderson Mill Creek
Elementary School supports the Mission and Vision that were created
during our recent strategic planning process. The mission of the
Huntingdon Area School District was established to serve as a filter
when making decisions relating to the education of students. Our
mission, "*Working together to inspire students to become lifelong
learners and productive global citizen," is* personified by the
Brady-Henderson Mill Creek Elementary School community. Working
together, we have established a long-standing tradition of creating a
learning environment that is designed to make children feel valued and
respected, while at the same time, meeting the unique educational and
social needs of children that reside in an area identified as high
poverty. Parents and staff members work diligently to inspire these
young learners to reach their potential. The school is the center of the
community. During typical Family Night activities, the attendance at
this school is equal to that of the larger schools that have three to
four times the number of students enrolled. Working together, the
parents and the staff raised over \$25,000 to build a new playground in
2001, and the Parent-Teacher Group continues to provide enrichment
experiences and family-based activities each year. There is also a
culture of commitment by the teaching staff of this school. Integrated,
project-based learning was the norm for this school early in the 70's,
and the teaching staff has lead the way to other district-wide
successful initiatives such as Inquiry Learning, Balanced Literacy and
most recently, total inclusion through a teacher-driven, co-teaching
model of instructional delivery. The school is frequently visited by
other school districts to observe our consistent and successful
kindergarten through fifth grade approaches to teaching reading and
writing. The staff is extremely committed to the needs of the students
and their families as evidenced by providing extended learning
opportunities such as the two after-school tutoring programs and the
summer reading and math program.

Our vision statement challenges those of our teaching and support staff
to guarantee families that, "*Everyday, all students are challenged to
develop their full potential and experience success, leaving school
inspired and eager to return the next day*." As educators, we know the
first priority is to have quality prevention programs in place rather
than focusing on interventions after students fail. In this effort, a
pilot all day kindergarten classroom was instituted at the
Brady-Henderson Mill Creek Elementary School during the 2003-2004 school
year. It was placed at this school due to the fact that there were not
adequate pre-kindergarten opportunities in the area. Because of the
success of this all day kindergarten pilot classroom, all kindergarten
children in the district are now afforded this wonderful opportunity.
During the 2006-2007 school year, we again increased early childhood
interventions by starting a Head Start Supplemental Classroom at
Brady-Henderson Mill Creek Elementary School. This program is presently
offering 17 children a quality pre-k experience that would have not been
a reality without the funding that was made available through three
distinct funding sources: the Head Start Supplemental Grant, the
Pennsylvania Accountability Block Grant and the Pre K Counts grant.

The inclusion model has created an environment where flexible grouping
is the norm and where students have a greater sense of community by not
being made to feel different based on their educational needs.

Children are inspired and eager to return to school each day because the
teachers have created a culture of quality teaching. If I could
summarize the school, its teaching staff, the support staff and the
families into two words, those words would be **Total Commitment**.

**Part IV, 1. Assessment Results**

School districts in the state of Pennsylvania are required to have all
students participate in the Pennsylvania State System of Assessments
(PSSA). This annual assessment is used to monitor the progress of
individual students on the Academic Standards for reading and
mathematics. The Academic Standards clearly indicate what children
should know and be able to do. Originally, the PSSA was only given to
fifth grade students, and that data was used to determine each student's
progress toward meeting these standards, as well as the school's overall
achievement in meeting Adequately Year Progress (AYP) as determined by
No Child Left Behind. Three years ago, a third grade version of this
assessment was implemented in Pennsylvania. This year, all students in
grades three, four and five will take the PSSA, and the combined scores
will be used to determine the AYP for the school.

The are four performance levels for the PSSA are: Advanced, Proficient,
Basic and Below Basic. It is our goal to help all learners be
Proficient, and preferably Advanced, on the assessment of these
important Academic Standards. A score of Basic indicates that the child
is progressing toward the Standard, but s/he is does not have a strong
understanding of the Standard. A score of Below Basic, indicates that
the child is significantly below grade level expectations and serious
interventions are needed to bring that child up to the
proficient/advanced level.

Assessment data can be examined two ways. First, we can look at the
fifth grade scores each year. It is important to note that this data
represents different groups of children each year. The data for math
clearly indicates the fifth grade students at Brady-Henderson Mill Creek
are excelling, and that the school is improving over time. During the
2001-2002 school year, 48% of the fifth graders scored at the proficient
or advanced levels. The following school year, 56% of the students were
proficient or advanced. During the 2003-2004 school year, 72% of the
students were proficient or advanced in mathematics. We again saw growth
during the 2004-2005 school year when 74% of the children scored at the
proficient or advanced levels. During the 2005-2006 school year, 78% of
the fifth grade students scored at the proficient or advanced levels.
The data is clear; student achievement in math continues to grow every
year. In fact, there was a 30% growth in the percentage of students
proficient or advanced in mathematics over the five-year testing window.

In reading, there was a 17% growth in the percentage of students
proficient or advanced over the past 5 years. During the 2001-2002
school year, 53% of the students were proficient or advanced with
respect to the Academic Standards. In 2002-2003, this percent increased
to 56%. During the 2003-2004, 71% of fifth grade students scored at the
proficient or advanced levels. During the 2004-2005 school year, the
proficient level dropped to 52%. This drop directly reflects the
challenges of this particular class of fifth graders. Last year,
2005-2006, we again saw 70% of the students at the proficient or
advanced levels.

To determine the effectiveness of our educational programs, it is also
important to follow a class of children as they progress through our
school. When the fifth grade class of 2005-2006 was in third grade, 61%
of the students were proficient or advanced in mathematics on the PSSA.
In fourth grade, 74% of that same class scored at the proficient or
advanced levels in mathematics on the TeraNova assessment. Last year, as
fifth graders, 78% of the students scored in the top two quartiles on
the PSSA. In reading, 35% of those students, while in third grade,
scored proficient or advanced in the PSSA. As fourth graders, 70% of the
students in that class scored proficient or advanced on the TeraNova.
Then in fifth grade, 70% of the children scored either proficient or
advanced. In both mathematics and reading, there is a positive upward
trend in the achievement of that particular group of children. When
examining the progress of our last fifth grade class, anyone can clearly
conclude that we are offering a quality program at Brady-Henderson.

The "Economically Disadvantaged" is our most significant subgroup.
During the 2005-2006 school year, 72% of those students were proficient
or advanced in math. This was similar to the school-wide score of 78%
proficient or advanced. In reading, 54% of those students in the
subgroup of "Economically Disadvantaged" were proficient or advanced. We
believe the discrepancy indicates a need on our part to continue to help
parents understand the importance of modeling reading and having
resources that support literacy in their homes. PSSA data can be found
at: [www.pde.state.pa.us](http://www.pde.state.pa.us/).

**Part IV, 2. Using Assessment Results**

Four years ago, our district curriculum leaders implemented the
philosophy of data analysis based on the book *Results,* by Mike
Schmoker. In the front cover of *Results*, Schomoker stated, "This book
is dedicated to the day when we regard teachers and their organized
expertise as the center of school improvement." With this in mind, we
have created a variety of structures that would enable and encourage
teacher collaboration as a means to improve student achievement through
data analysis.

Each year, a day is set aside for our teachers to review data
(Pennsylvania State System of Assessment, Terra Nova, DIBELS, Rigby
Benchmark Assessments, district writing assessments, etc.) and set
achievement goals for each grade level. Through this process, teachers
examine the proficiency levels of their current students and set
achievement goals relating to specific Academic Standards for reading,
writing and mathematics. Throughout the school year, the curriculum
leader (a teacher) for our building conducts monthly goal setting
meetings. During these meetings, teachers bring class-set examples of
work that relates to a specific goal area. Teachers examine student work
through a variety of protocols and develop lesson plans to assist their
students in achieving the grade level achievement goals. These grade
level achievement goals are posted throughout the building, and parents
have copies of the goals and the proficiency level for each grade level.

Through numerous assessment tools, we have identified students that need
additional support in reading and math. The progress of these students
is monitored each month, and teams of educators meet monthly during our
Response to Intervention meetings to examine their progress and to
discuss program modifications that will support them as learners.
Students that are not achieving at the benchmark levels (Tier I) receive
additional support through Tier II and Tier III interventions. We are
currently using the

4-Sight Assessment and DIBELS assessment to look at both student and
curricular needs. Additionally, we created a quarterly reading
assessment for grades 2-5 that mirrors the state assessment. The
quarterly assessments focus on the literacy genres and the standards
that are taught during a particular time period. An assessment report is
organized in such a manner to help teachers see areas that need
addressed during their daily literacy instruction.

During the 2005-2006 school year, the staff changed the delivery model
for Title I and Special Education from a pull-out model to a full
inclusion model with co-teaching. Each month, we provide our regular
education teachers, our Title I teachers and our Special Education
teacher with a co-teaching planning day. During these monthly planning
days, these teachers review student data and create lessons to address
both the challenges and strengths of the learners.

By examining the assessment data, our teachers have identified students
in kindergarten through fifth grade that would benefit from extended
learning opportunities. Eligible students in kindergarten through second
grade participate in an after-school tutoring program that focuses on
rereading their guided reading leveled text, practicing their high
frequency sight words, and comprehension strategies through the
Interactive Read Aloud model. Tutors from nearby Juniata College provide
one-on-one tutoring to children not at the proficient level in reading.
The students from Juniata College are part of the Americor project, and
they visit our school two days a week. We are also currently operating a
morning tutoring session for children in kindergarten and first grade.
Fifth grade students are using tutoring techniques directly related to
the needs of the identified students in grades k-2 based on the DIBELS
results. An after school tutoring program (3 days/week) connects data
from the 4-Sight Assessment to the online learning program Study Island.
Students are engaged in learning activities that are reflected in their

4-Sight results. The computer lab is supervised by one of our teachers,
and she shares student progress information with the regular education
teachers. Additionally, last year's PSSA results indicated that our
present fourth grade students need additional support in reading. We
have ten of those students currently working at home in the evenings
with the Catapult Project. The Catapult Project is an experimental grant
project that pairs students with one-on-one online tutors. Students that
successfully complete the online project are allowed to keep the
computer at the end of the 40 hour tutoring program.

All decisions (staffing, budgeting, scheduling, etc.) are made after
examining student assessment information.

**Part IV, 3. Communicating Assessment Results**

Data relating to the overall progress of the school is shared publicly
in a variety of ways. At the district level, each October, a
presentation is made to the Huntingdon Area School Board in the form of
the *Huntingdon Area School District Annual Community Report* as
required by No Child Left Behind. This report provides information
regarding the school's performance on the Pennsylvania State System of
School Assessment (PSSA). It includes information regarding the progress
of the entire school, as well as subgroup categories. In addition to the
yearly scores, we provide community members with the "Most Recent
Five-Year Trends." Information regarding this report is printed each
year in our local newspaper, *The Daily News*. All parents within the
district receive a copy of this report, and it is also posted on the
district website at:
[www.hasd.tiu.k12.pa.us](http://www.hasd.tiu.k12.pa.us/).

At the building level, we post Academic Achievement Charts throughout
our school. These charts clearly indicate the percentage of students
that are proficient or advanced in reading, writing and math standards.
Achievement goals relating to specific standards are created by our
teachers and are included in this chart. Copies of our school's Academic
Achievement Chart are sent home to parents as part of our monthly
newsletter, *The Messenger*. Additionally, three Keystone Achievement
Awards (signifying meeting Adequately Yearly Progress for two
consecutive years are on display as your enter our school.

At the family level, we send all parents copies of the Pennsylvania
Parent Report that provides information regarding the progress of the
district, the school and their child. Parents are encouraged to meet
with school personnel to discuss any aspect of their child's progress or
the report. This year, we have instituted the Response to Intervention
model in our school. Our educators meet on a monthly basis to review
individual student progress. Teachers and support personnel examine the
data and brainstorm ideas to help our at-risk learners. The ongoing
assessment information and program modifications are always shared with
parents throughout the school year.

Throughout the school year, we schedule Writers' Celebrations for our
young writers. Writers' Celebrations are designed to provide a forum for
the students to share their work with families and friends. During the
celebrations, students have the opportunity to share published work that
relates to the current genre study. While this is a "soft form of
assessment information," parents can easily see the progress of our
writers throughout the school year. During the last week of school, we
have a school-wide Writers' Celebration. It is always the best day of
the school year!

**Part IV, 4. Sharing Success**

For years, many of the teachers at Brady-Henderson Mill Creek Elementary
School have attended the week-long Governor's Institute for Early
Childhood Literacy. By attending the Institute, our staff members became
the lead learners of the teaching strategies that are presently the norm
in our district. Additionally, the Pennsylvania Department of Education,
had the expectation beginning in 2004 that the schools that attended the
Institute would help "build capacity" across the state. With that in
mind, we have had teams of educators from Brookville, Juniata Valley and
Juniata County school districts visit to see our model for reading and
writing instruction. During these site visits, we created teaching
schedules that allowed the visitors to see a specific area of
instruction. Some teams of visitors wanted to observe our K-5 Writer's
Workshop model so we modified our teachers' schedules to allow visitors
to see what this model of delivery looks like at each grade level. We
have also done a similar modification in our schedules so that other
school districts could see our reading program. During visitations, our
teachers met prior to the day to discuss (and hand out) their lesson
plans and to share their teaching resources. Two of our teachers
provided training during four visits to Brookville, to our county
teachers during the annual Huntingdon County In-service Day, and for the
past four summers during our weekly Huntingdon Area School District's
Academy of Excellence designed for new, substitute, and experienced
teachers. Two of our teachers have also provided demonstration lessons
for the Governor's Institute for Early Childhood Literacy at Juniata
College and Keystone College.

With Juniata College just eight miles away from our school, we
constantly have practicum as well as student teachers working in our
school. These future teachers have the opportunity to see highly
qualified professionals modeling research-proven approaches to literacy
instruction. Throughout their time here, the college students have the
opportunity to try those strategies under the guidance of exemplary
teachers. This enables the student teachers to start their profession
with a high level of expertise.

On January 23, 2006, two of the Brady-Henderson Mill Creek Elementary
School teachers were hired by the District to assume new roles as
Literacy Coaches. In their new positions, those former teachers will
help to support teachers K-12 in their effort to implement the vision
for literacy instruction in the Huntingdon Area School District.

The teaching staff of Brady-Henderson will continue supporting others
within and outside the district. If something works really well for the
children at Brady-Henderson Mill Creek, it is professionally and morally
right to share this with other educators.

**Part V, 1. Curriculum**

In an effort to create a school system rather than a system of schools,
we have created consistent curricula across all elementary schools in
the district. The key to the success of our current curriculum review
cycle has been the emphasis on aligning our curriculum to the
Pennsylvania Academic Standards. The following curricular areas have
gone through a three-phase curriculum review process: (1) Math
('01-'02), (2) Science ('02-'03), (3) Social Studies ('03-'04), (4)
Language Arts ('04-'05), and (5) Special Education ('05-'06). We are
currently in the process of reviewing our curricula for physical
education and health.

In addition to purchasing a math program that best matched the
standards-based math curriculum, we increased our daily instructional
block of math from 45 to 75 minutes. A special part of the math block is
devoted to problem solving. Teachers use a consistent approach (K-5) in
helping children not only solve the problem, but also to have them write
the steps in the process. Since the completion of this review cycle, we
have seen steady gains in math achievement from a low of 48% of the
students proficient or advanced to a high of 78%, last year.

Our standards-based science curriculum in grades kindergarten through
second grade is an integrated component of our language arts program. It
is hands-on based and an integral part of center-based learning. Our
reading program has a heavy emphasis on non-fiction texts, and students
learn how to access the information in science-based books through
Interactive Read Aloud (intentional comprehension), Guided Reading, and
the Shared Reading of texts. As part of the science curriculum review,
teachers ordered multiple copies of leveled texts that provide
information relating to the science standards. Students in grades 3-5
have a core science program. Additionally, all teachers have materials
that make science an active part of their day. Through ongoing
professional development, our teachers have learned how to use the
Shared Reading strategy to help all learners, regardless of ability,
access the science content found in text books by using techniques that
help them understand non-fiction text features.

Our social studies curriculum in kindergarten through third grade is an
integrated component of our language arts program. Students in grade
four and five use a program that supports their understanding of our
state and nation, respectively. The resources for K-5 were selected to
support the teaching of the Pennsylvania Academic Standards for Social
Studies and Citizenship.

We have spent the majority of our time and energy creating a language
arts curriculum that is based on the unique learning needs of our
students. Much of our focus for the past five years has been spent
aligning our professional development, learning resources, hiring
practices, and finances to our vision for literacy instruction. Our
language arts curriculum supports the findings in the National Panel for
Reading in the areas of phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary,
fluency, and comprehension. Another major focus area for our teachers
relates to the intentional teaching of comprehension strategies. In
addition to aligning our curriculum to the Pennsylvania Academic
Standards and the work presented in the National Reading Panel, we have
spent considerable time creating a learning climate where there are
established instructional strategies/approaches from kindergarten
through fifth grade. After completing, the language arts curriculum
review, our teachers created Literacy Frameworks that help them
understand the integration of the reading standards, learning resources,
assessment practices and the connection to Writer's Workshop. All of our
children receive a minimum of 90 minutes of reading per day. All
children in grades K-5 participate 45 minutes each day in the Writer's
Workshop model that was created at Columbia University.

Students at Brady-Henderson Mill Creek Elementary School receive 45
minutes of art instruction every six days by a certified art teacher.
Art education is integrated into all aspects of our k-5 school. Art
history and information about artists are incorporated into all lessons
whether they focus on a math concept like 3-D art or in the illustrating
of the "published books" as part of our Writers' Celebrations.

At Brady-Henderson Mill Creek Elementary School, all children
participate in a full inclusion, co-teaching model of learning. Title I
and Special Education teachers meet with our regular education teachers
on a regular basis to plan for successful learning opportunities for all
children.

**Part V, 2a. Reading**

We know that children need to be exposed to a variety of strategies to
help them become readers and writers. Our goal in revamping our literacy
curriculum was to establish a consistent approach that would meet the
individual needs of every student. We also wanted to create a reading
and writing program that would help children meet the Academic
Standards, and even more importantly, to become readers and writers
because they "have to." After considerable research, we moved in the
direction of using a variety of research-proven approaches that fall
under the philosophy of Balanced Literacy. We also know that children
learn best when learning is presented through the "Gradual Release of
Responsibility" model of delivery. Children learn best through effective
modeling, guided practice and then independent practice. Students
receive effective modeling of comprehension strategies through the
Interactive Read Aloud approach with their entire class. They have
strategic, guided practice with leveled texts in flexible groups with
other children with similar reading strengths/challenges for the
important comprehension strategies and the Academic Standards for
Reading (comprehension and vocabulary) through Guided Reading. They
learn how to access difficult science and social studies content through
instruction in the Shared Reading strategy with their text books. And,
there is an expectation to read independently during the school day and
as a requirement each night in order to read a minimum of 28 books per
school year. We have spent considerable time and resources to provide
professional development over the past four years in these four main
approaches to reading instruction. Our teachers at Brady-Henderson Mill
Creek Elementary School use a consistent lesson design format that
minimizes adjustment periods for students as they progress from year to
year.

We believe there should be a strong connection between reading and
writing instruction. At each grade level, students are exposed to
specific genre studies. Our teachers have made a conscientious effort to
make a link between reading instruction and their daily Writer's
Workshop. High quality children's literature is a key component of the
modeling process during our daily writing activities.

Additionally, there is a strong emphasis on phonemic awareness in
kindergarten and first grade, and we use a systematic approach to
phonics instruction in kindergarten through second grade.

Our teachers have access to 1,616 titles (bags of 6 copies each) in our
"Book Room" to support literacy instruction and integrating reading
instruction in science, social studies, and mathematics.

**Part V, 3. Additional Curriculum Area: Physical Education/Health**

Beginning in kindergarten, the students at Brady-Henderson Mill Creek
learn about choices that will affect their health for a lifetime.

Our voluntary, out-of-school walking program has taught students the
importance of exercising thirty minutes each day, and that walking is an
exercise that they can do at any age. We recognized thirty-two students
that participated during the 2005-2006 school year, totaling over 65,000
minutes of walking.

Our Christmas CAN-AEROBICS program combines aerobic exercise during
physical education classes with contributing to our community food bank.
Since 1991, the students at Brady-Henderson, along with the students in
the other three elementary schools, have contributed over 26,000 cans to
our local food bank. Each year, our children participate in our local
JUMP ROPE for HEART (American Heart Association), and we are a RELAY for
LIFE (American Cancer Society) school. Each child learns that s/he can
make a difference!

Beginning in kindergarten, our students learn information on both legal
and illegal drugs and how decisions made now can affect their future.
Our physical/health education teacher works with our Parent-Teacher
Group to provide Red Ribbon Week activities for our students. Each day
is filled with fun activities that help our students understand the
dangers of drugs and alcohol. The first, third and fifth grade students
have a sequential unit on protection from disease and healthy habits
that include hand washing, the immune system, and AIDS. Students learn
hygiene and safe behaviors to hopefully protect them for a lifetime.

Most of our elementary physical education units are designed to help
students lead active lives as teenagers and adults. Although some units
are team sports, our units are fun and useful toward life-long physical
fitness. We provide intramural sports for our students in class, as well
as on the playground. The main focus is always on good sportsmanship.

Our fourth and fifth grade students participate each year in the "Day of
Celebration." During the "Day of Celebration," these students and others
from the other three elementary schools come together for fun and games.

Our physical/health education program is a critical component of our
overall educational program as it inspires lifelong habits for health
while teaching the importance of helping others in our community.

**Part V, 4. Instructional Methods**

By examining our student achievement data over the years, we discovered
many of our students' learning challenges were directly related to the
fact that children were being pulled from regular education classes to
receive support from separate Title I or Learning Support teachers. At
times, the instruction was not coordinated, and students did not feel a
part of the bigger whole. We instituted the Response to Intervention
(RtI) model at Brady-Henderson in an effort to provide as much support
as possible for our at-risk learners. Monthly RtI meetings are held for
each grade level. During these meetings, individual student assessment
information (both internal and external assessment information) is
shared with those individuals working with the child in a co-teaching
environment.

The RtI team recommends interventions that extend beyond the reading and
math curricula for those children not performing at the benchmark
levels. The co-teaching team consisting of the classroom teacher, the
Title I teacher, Learning Support Teacher and, when possible, a
paraprofessional meet together on a regular basis (and one whole day per
month) to coordinate services and plan for the research-based
intervention. The co-teaching team provides these coordinated
interventions throughout the month, and students are reassessed prior to
the next monthly RtI update meeting. RtI interventions are discontinued
for those students that reach the benchmark levels. Students that are
not at the benchmark levels continue with those interventions (Tier
II-an additional 30 minutes per day) or receive additional interventions
(Tier III-an additional 30 more minutes per day) recommended by the
team. In most cases, parents are also trained in the interventions so
that they can provide the same support at home.

All students receive these interventions within the regular education
classroom. This approach has provided children with the interventions
they need without going through the process of a formal evaluation and
being given a label. In addition to improving achievement, this
co-teaching model has reduced discipline problems and increased
self-esteem for our students.

**Part V, 5. Professional Development**

As with many districts, teachers in the Huntingdon Area School District
used a variety of approaches to the teaching of literacy. Many
approaches were successful, and many were not. The assessment data
clearly indicated this. As educators, we wanted to create a learning
environment where children engaged in reading and writing the way people
really read and write. With this in mind, we set out to create
classrooms where most promising practices occurred each and every day.
We knew that a consistent philosophy would be good for the learners as
well as the school. Since June 2001, we made professional development a
top priority in our school. To date, our district has had 161
professional development workshops that focused on our core beliefs of
how reading and writing should be taught. The four main focus areas of
literacy have been: Interactive Read Aloud (Intentional Comprehension),
Shared Reading, Guided Reading, and Writer's Workshop. Initially,
professional development was provided by trainers outside the school
district, but as our teachers gained new knowledge, there has been more
of a balance between outside and internal trainers. Two of the teachers
from Brady-Henderson have provided a 5-day workshop for the past five
summers in these specific areas for new, experienced and substitute
teachers.

At the onset of our work in Balanced Literacy, our professional
development was provided in a workshop manner. During the past two
years, the training format has moved more into the Gradual Release of
Responsibility manner with modeling, co-planning, and reflecting as the
approach to improve teacher quality. On January 23, 2007, two of the
teachers at this school began new roles as district-wide literacy
coaches. Their charge will be to help teachers across the district
become more proficient in those approaches, as well as all areas
identified under the National Reading Panel Report.

The presenters that helped us in our journey with Balanced Literacy gave
us the big picture, but we needed a way to keep the important talk about
teaching at the center of all we do. In addition to the ongoing
commitment of the District to provide professional development
workshops, our school has participated in monthly study groups for the
past five years. Each year, we read and discussed a book that related to
the ideas that were being presented to our teaching staff. During
monthly meetings, we would use a text-based protocol created by the
National School Reform Faculty as a means to keep the important talk
about teaching at the center of all we do. Last year, the monthly study
groups took on an even greater meaning when teachers began to bring
student work for all staff members to see. This simple act, has made a
huge impact on the school and its achievement. The books that the
teachers have read and discussed are: *Writer's Workshop: The Essential
Guide, The Revision Toolbox, What a Writer Needs, Mosaic of Thought*,
and now*, Strategies that Work.*

Additionally, all the teachers have the opportunity to attend the
District's three Professional Development Days and conferences that are
approved by the Travel Conference Committee made up of their peers.

**Part VII-Assessment Results**

Subject: Math Grade: 5 Test: Pennsylvania System of School Assessment
(PSSA)

Edition/Publication Year: Annually Publisher: Data Recognition
Corporation

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

+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                   | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    |
|                                   | 005- | 004- | 003- | 002- | 001- |
|                                   | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Testing month: (March 2006) /   |      |      |      |      |      |
| >                                 |      |      |      |      |      |
| > (April for 2002-2005)           |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Proficient and Advanced in     | 78   | 74   | 72   | 56   | 48   |
| Academic Standards                |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Advanced State in Academic     | 61   | 17   | 43   | 23   | 24   |
| Standards                         |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested         | 23   | 23   | 14   | 18   | 21   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of total students       | 98   | 100  | 100  | 100  | 100  |
| > tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students              | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
| > alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of students             | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
| > alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**               |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **Economically Disadvantaged**    |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Proficient and Advanced in     | 72   | 63   | NA   | NA   | 20   |
| Academic Standards                |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Advanced in Academic Standards | 45   | 27   | NA   | NA   | 0    |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested         | 11   | 11   | 6    | 6    | 10   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

> *The Pennsylvania Department of Education will provide a score when
> there are at least 10 students. An "NA" indicates that there were less
> than ten students in this category.*

**Assessment Results**

Subject: Reading Grade: 5 Test: Pennsylvania System of School Assessment
(PSSA)

Edition/Publication Year: Annually Publisher: Data Recognition
Corporation

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

+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                   | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    |
|                                   | 005- | 004- | 003- | 002- | 001- |
|                                   | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Testing month: (March 2006)     |      |      |      |      |      |
| > /(2002-2005 April)              |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Proficient and Advanced in     | 70   | 52   | 71   | 56   | 53   |
| Academic Standards                |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Advanced in Academic Standards | 22   | 13   | 43   | 17   | 10   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested       | 23   | 23   | 14   | 18   | 21   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of total students       | 98   | 100  | 100  | 100  | 100  |
| > tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students              | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
| > alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of students             | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
| > alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**               |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **Economically Disadvantaged**    |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Proficient and Advanced in     | 54   | 64   | NA   | NA   | 30   |
| Academic Standards                |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Advanced in Academic Standards | 9    | 9    | NA   | NA   | 0    |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested       | 11   | 11   | 6    | 6    | 10   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

> *The Pennsylvania Department of Education will provide a score when
> there are at least 10 students. An "NA" indicates that there were less
> than ten students in this category.*

**Assessment Results**

Subject: Math Grade: 4 Test: Pennsylvania System of School Assessment
(PSSA)

Edition/Publication Year: Annually beginning 2006 Publisher: Data
Recognition Corporation

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

+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                   | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    |
|                                   | 005- | 004- | 003- | 002- | 001- |
|                                   | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Testing month: (March 2006)     |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Proficient and Advanced in     | 80   | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Academic Standards                |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Advanced State in Academic     | 40   | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standards                         |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested         | 25   | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of total students       | 100  | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| > tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students              | 0    | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| > alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of students             | 0    | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| > alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**               |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **Economically Disadvantaged**    |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Proficient and Advanced in     | 64   | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Academic Standards                |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Advanced in Academic Standards | 18   | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested         | 11   | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

> *The Pennsylvania Department of Education will provide a score when
> there are at least 10 students. An "NA" indicates that there were less
> than ten students in this category.*

**Assessment Results**

Subject: Reading Grade: 4 Test: Pennsylvania System of School Assessment
(PSSA)

Edition/Publication Year: Annually beginning 2006 Publisher: Data
Recognition Corporation

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

+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                   | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    |
|                                   | 005- | 004- | 003- | 002- | 001- |
|                                   | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Testing month: (March 2006)     |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Proficient and Advanced in     | 60   | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Academic Standards                |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Advanced in Academic Standards | 24   | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested       | 25   | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of total students       | 100  | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| > tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students              | 0    | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| > alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of students             | 0    | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| > alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**               |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **Economically Disadvantaged**    |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Proficient and Advanced in     | 55   | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Academic Standards                |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Advanced in Academic Standards | 27   | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested       | 11   | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

> *The Pennsylvania Department of Education will provide a score when
> there are at least 10 students. An "NA" indicates that there were less
> than ten students in this category.*

**Assessment Results**

Subject: Math Grade: 3 Test: Pennsylvania System of School Assessment
(PSSA)

Edition/Publication Year: Annually Publisher: Data Recognition
Corporation

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

+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                   | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    |
|                                   | 005- | 004- | 003- | 002- | 001- |
|                                   | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Testing month: (March 2006)     |      |      |      |      |      |
| > /(2002-2005 April)              |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > **SCHOOL SCORES**               |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Proficient and Advanced in     | 100  | 80   | 63   | NA   | NA   |
| Academic Standards                |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Advanced in Academic Standards | 69   | 52   | 27   | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested       | 13   | 29   | 22   | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of total students       | 100  | 100  | 100  | NA   | NA   |
| > tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students              | 0    | 0    | 0    | NA   | NA   |
| > alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of students             | 0    | 0    | 0    | NA   | NA   |
| > alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**               |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Economically Disadvantaged        |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Proficient and Advanced in     | NA   | 69   | 50   | NA   | NA   |
| Academic Standards                |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Advanced in Academic Standards | NA   | 44   | 20   | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested       | 9    | 16   | 10   | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **IEP**                           |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Proficient and Advanced in     | NA   | 44   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Academic Standards                |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Advanced in Academic Standards | NA   | 9    | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested       | 0    | 11   | 2    | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

**Assessment Results**

Subject: Reading Grade: 3 Test: Pennsylvania System of School Assessment
(PSSA)

Edition/Publication Year: Annually Publisher: Data Recognition
Corporation

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

+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                   | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    |
|                                   | 005- | 004- | 003- | 002- | 001- |
|                                   | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Testing month: (March 2006)     |      |      |      |      |      |
| > /(2002-2005 April)              |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Proficient and Advanced in     | 31   | 52   | 37   | NA   | NA   |
| Academic Standards                |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Advanced in Academic Standards | 8    | 14   | 14   | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested       | 13   | 29   | 22   | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of total students       | 100  | 100  | 100  | NA   | NA   |
| > tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students              | 0    | 0    | 0    | NA   | NA   |
| > alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of students             | 0    | 0    | 0    | NA   | NA   |
| > alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**               |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **Economically Disadvantaged**    |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Proficient and Advanced in     | NA   | 44   | 20   | NA   | NA   |
| Academic Standards                |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Advanced in Academic Standards | NA   | 19   | 10   | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested       | 9    | 16   | 10   | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **IEP**                           |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Proficient and Advanced in     | NA   | 9    | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Academic Standards                |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Advanced in Academic Standards | NA   | 9    | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested       | 0    | 11   | 2    | NA   | NA   |
+-----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+