Annual Education Reports

Annual Education Report (AER) Cover Letter

January 6, 2026      

Dear Parents and Community Members:

We are pleased to present you with the Annual Education Report (AER), which provides key information on the 2024-25 educational progress for Harper Creek Community Schools. The AER addresses the complex reporting information required by federal and state laws. If you have any questions about the AER, please contact Assistant Superintendent Jaym Abraham at 269-441-6564 or email Mr. Abraham for assistance.

The district AER is available for you to review electronically by visiting the following website: District’s Annual Education Report, or you may review a copy in the main office at your child’s school. Each school will also be communicating its own AER to parents directly.

These reports contain the following information:

School Accountability Data

• Includes information on schools’ performance on various measures such as student proficiency and growth on state assessments, graduation, and attendance rates. Performance is measured on a 0-100 index scale
• Reports schools identified under three federally required categories for further support: Comprehensive Support and Improvement, Targeted Support and Improvement, and Additional Targeted Support

Student Assessment Data 

• Includes the following three assessments: M-STEP (Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress), MI-Access (Alternate Assessment), and College Board SAT 
• Presents assessment information for English language arts and mathematics for grades 3 to 8 and 11, and MI-Access science for grades 5, 8, and 11, compared to state averages for all students as well as subgroups of students

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Data

• Provides state results of the national assessment in mathematics and reading every other year in grades 4 and 8

Educator Qualification Data

• Identifies the number and percentage of inexperienced teachers, principals, and other school leaders
• Reports teachers who are teaching with emergency or provisional credentials
• Includes teachers who are not teaching in the subject or field for which they are certified

Civil Rights Data

• Provides information on school quality, climate, and safety

Please review the table below listing our schools. For the 2025-26 school year, schools were identified based on previous years’ performance using definitions and labels as required in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). A Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) school is one that had at least one underperforming student group in 2024-25. An Additional Targeted Support (ATS) school is one that had at least one student group performing at the same level as the lowest 5% of all schools in the state in 2021-22. A Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) school is one whose performance was in the lowest 5% of all schools in the state, had a graduation rate at or below 67%, failed to exit CSI status in 2024-25, or failed to exit ATS status in 2021-22. Some schools are not identified with any of these labels. In these cases, no status label is given.

Thank you for your continued partnership and support of Harper Creek Community Schools. I am proud of the hard work our students, staff, and families demonstrate every day, and I encourage every learner to keep setting goals, staying engaged, and striving for growth. To improve student achievement across our district and in every school, we are strengthening standards-aligned instruction, using assessment and classroom data to monitor progress, expanding targeted interventions and enrichment through our MTSS processes, and investing in ongoing professional learning aligned to the Thoughtful Classroom Teacher Effectiveness Framework. Parents and guardians play a vital role in this work, and I invite you to get involved by attending parent-teacher conferences, participating in school events and parent organizations, volunteering when possible, monitoring grades and attendance through our communication tools, and sharing feedback through surveys and school improvement activities. Together, we will continue building the conditions for every student to succeed.

Respectfully,

Rob Ridgeway

Superintendent

Harper Creek Community Schools

Annual Education Report (AER) Cover Letter

January 6, 2026      

Dear Parents and Community Members:

We are pleased to present you with the Annual Education Report (AER), which provides key information on the 2024-25 educational progress for Harper Creek High School. The AER addresses the complex reporting information required by federal and state laws. The school’s report contains information about accountability, student assessment, and teacher quality. If you have any questions about the AER, please contact the building principal, Stefanie Howard, at 269-441-8412 or email Ms. Howard for assistance.

The AER is available for you to review electronically by visiting the following website: Annual Education Report, or you may review a copy in the main office at your child’s school.

For the 2025-26 school year, schools were identified based on previous years’ performance using definitions and labels as required in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). A Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) school is one that had at least one underperforming student group in 2024-25. An Additional Targeted Support (ATS) school is one that had at least one student group performing at the same level as the lowest 5% of all schools in the state in 2021-22. A Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) school is one whose performance was in the lowest 5% of all schools in the state, had a graduation rate at or below 67%, failed to exit CSI status in 2024-25, or failed to exit ATS status in 2021-22. Some schools are not identified with any of these labels. In these cases, no status label is given.

Our school was identified for: Has Not Been Given One of These Labels.

During the 2024-2025 school year, testing scores did improve in all areas.47% of students were state proficient in ELA, and 34.8% were state proficient in math.  To accelerate student achievement and close these gaps, the school and district prioritized targeted instructional supports and structural adjustments. Initiatives included a plan to change the high school bell schedule to align learning time with academic needs. This also included deepening data-driven instruction through professional learning communities and expanding intervention supports to provide differentiated academic assistance. Furthermore, Harper Creek High School reviewed core curriculum alignment to ensure consistent Tier I instruction across classrooms. Fall PSAT testing is also done to pre-identify struggling students. All combined efforts aim to more effectively support students who are behind grade level, reduce achievement gaps, and increase readiness for college and careers in the coming years.

State law requires that we also report additional information. 

As the only high school in the district, all 9th-12th-grade students within the district are automatically assigned to Harper Creek High School.  Students from other districts may be assigned through the school of choice.

Harper Creek High School staff and parents collaborate to develop a School Improvement Plan that is meaningful and aligns with the school's and district's goals. Teachers, support staff, and parents were involved in a systematic data review and goal development process throughout the school year, resulting in a strategic plan refresh. The Harper Creek High School Improvement Plan is available for you to review electronically by visiting www.harpercreek.net, or you may review a copy in the principal’s office at Harper Creek High School.

The core curriculum is implemented by all teachers using evidence-based instructional methods to ensure that all state and federal standards are being met.  Information regarding our core curriculum can be found on our district website or the Department of Education website.

Harper Creek High School held parent-teacher conferences two times during the 2024-2025 school year. We had 33% of parents/guardians attend the fall session, while 25% attended in the spring. Harper Creek High School uses PowerSchool, which students and parents access throughout the year to stay informed on their students’ progress. We encourage parents and students to log in to their PowerSchool accounts regularly to monitor progress.

During the 2024–2025 school year, the district continued to expand rigorous academic opportunities for students through Postsecondary Enrollment Options and Advanced Placement (AP) coursework.

A total of 132 students (16% of the student body) participated in postsecondary programs, demonstrating strong engagement in college-level learning while still in high school.

Based on student interest, six Advanced Placement courses were offered. These courses enrolled 69 students (8% of the student body). To support college readiness and academic challenge, students completed 93 AP exams, with 44 exams earning a score of 3 or higher, which is generally recognized as college-credit eligible. This represents a 47% AP exam success rate, indicating that nearly half of the exams taken met or exceeded the college-ready benchmark.

Our educators at Harper Creek High School are committed to achieving continuously improved results for the students we serve. Through a collaborative process of collective inquiry and continuous school improvement, the staff at Harper Creek High School strives to provide the best possible educational experience for our students and families. Please take time to review our school data and continuous school improvement planning, and please congratulate our students, teachers, staff, and school community for their ongoing commitment to excellence and growth.   

Sincerely,   

Stefanie Howard

Principal

Harper Creek High School

Annual Education Report (AER) Cover Letter

January 6, 2026      

Dear Parents and Community Members:

We are pleased to present you with the Annual Education Report (AER), which provides key information on the 2025-26 educational progress for Harper Creek Middle School. The AER addresses the complex reporting information required by federal and state laws. The school’s report contains information about accountability, student assessment, and teacher quality. If you have any questions about the AER, please contact the building principal, Kim Thayer, at 269-441-4733 or email Mrs. Thayer for assistance.

The AER is available for you to review electronically by visiting the following website: Annual Education Report, or you may review a copy in the main office at your child’s school.

For the 2025-26 school year, schools were identified based on previous years’ performance using definitions and labels as required in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). A Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) school is one that had at least one underperforming student group in 2024-25. An Additional Targeted Support (ATS) school is one that had at least one student group performing at the same level as the lowest 5% of all schools in the state in 2021-22. A Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) school is one whose performance was in the lowest 5% of all schools in the state, had a graduation rate at or below 67%, failed to exit CSI status in 2024-25, or failed to exit ATS status in 2021-22. Some schools are not identified with any of these labels. In these cases, no status label is given.

For the 2025-26 school year, schools were identified based on previous years’ performance using definitions and labels as required in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). A Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) school is one that had at least one underperforming student subgroup in 2023-24. An Additional Targeted Support (ATS) school is one that had a student subgroup performing at the same level as the lowest 5% of all schools in the state in 2021-22. A Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) school is one whose performance was in the lowest 5% of all schools in the state, had a graduation rate at or below 67%, or failed to exit ATS status in 2021-22. Some schools are not identified with any of these labels. In these cases, no label is given.

Our school was not identified and has not been given one of these labels.

A challenge for Harper Creek Middle School that is evident in the Annual Education Report (AER) is a below-average proficiency performance for students classified as having a disability and students who are Student is an English Language Learners, as reported on NAEP 8th grade reading and math. HCMS is addressing these challenges by increasing exposure to the general education curriculum through a co-teaching model and providing ELL learners with increased academic support.

Students are assigned to schools in one of two ways. The first is by the student's geographic attendance area. We also participate in a Section 105 School of Choice program and assign students to the school they choose, based on availability. 

Harper Creek Middle School’s School Improvement Plan is a continuous work in progress. The plan addresses goal areas related to reading and writing, as well as math, science, and social studies. Each goal area and its strategies align to the district’s goals and state guidelines. The plan is revisited and revised on a yearly basis. 

Harper Creek Middle School staff is continuing to revise and implement an aligned, guaranteed and viable curriculum based on learning targets within district-identified power standards that come directly from state standards. In addition, curriculum scope and sequence is used by teachers to determine content and lessons. For copies of the core curriculum, please contact Kim Thayer or refer to the Curriculum resources on the district webpage. 

Student achievement on nationally normed achievement tests shows student growth through each grade level and each school year. The average reading growth percentile for Fall 2024 was 55% and 53% for Fall 2025. In math, the average growth percentile for Fall 2024 was 54% and 56% for Fall 2025. The average growth percentile for science in Fall 2023 was 57% and 56% in Fall 2025. 

Harper Creek Middle School has had positive parent-teacher conference attendance during the fall with attendance at 85%. In the spring, the average attendance declined with 73% of families attending conferences. As a part of our school improvement process, Harper Creek Middle School Staff continues to develop strategies to address this issue, which have included phone conferences, email communications, and flexible conference times with parents. 

Teachers, administrators, and support staff are continuing to engage in data digs to find trends and to increase the use of classroom strategies that encourage student engagement and student collaboration. We are using local assessments to determine student growth. The staff at Harper Creek Middle School consistently works to improve our practices and to implement strategies that will help our students grow emotionally, socially, and academically. 

As we plan for the remainder of the 2025-2026 school year and the upcoming 2026-2027 school year, the staff at Harper Creek Middle School will work together to determine best practice schedules, targeted strategies, and resources to remediate students who are not showing proficiency at grade level. 

We are committed to continuous improvement and do our best to provide opportunities to work in collaboration with our community, parents, and students. 

Sincerely, 

Kim Thayer 

Principal 

Harper Creek Middle School

Annual Education Report (AER) Cover Letter

January 5, 2026      

Dear Parents and Community Members:

We are pleased to present you with the Annual Education Report (AER), which provides key information on the 2024-25 educational progress for Beadle Lake Elementary. The AER addresses the complex reporting information required by federal and state laws. The school’s report contains information about accountability, student assessment, and teacher quality. If you have any questions about the AER, please contact the building principal, Nneka Daniels, at 269-441-3250 or email Mrs. Daniels for assistance.

The AER is available for you to review electronically by visiting the following website:  Annual Education Report, or you may review a copy in the main office at your child’s school.

For the 2025-26 school year, schools were identified based on previous years’ performance using definitions and labels as required in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). A Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) school is one that had at least one underperforming student group in 2024-25. An Additional Targeted Support (ATS) school is one that had at least one student group performing at the same level as the lowest 5% of all schools in the state in 2021-22. A Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) school is one whose performance was in the lowest 5% of all schools in the state, had a graduation rate at or below 67%, failed to exit CSI status in 2024-25, or failed to exit ATS status in 2021-22. Some schools are not identified with any of these labels. In these cases, no status label is given.

Our school was identified for: Has Not Been Given One of These Labels.

Beadle Lake has turned many of our challenges into opportunities to learn and grow. Based on student need we are refining our instructional practices by learning more about the K-3 Literacy Essentials, implementing the Amplify Curriculum Resource, differentiation in reading instruction, and explicit phonological and phonics instruction.  We engage in the PLC process where teacher teams ask the following questions: What do we want our learners to know and be able to do? How do we know if they have learned it? How will we respond when some students don’t learn it? How do we respond and extend the learning for those that have demonstrated proficiency? As we answer those questions at each grade level, building level, and subgroup level we can develop explicit learning targets that align to the priority standards.  We become more intentional at meeting students’ needs at all tiers of instruction. The more that we learn about the PLC process the more we grow as adult learners. Our next steps involve digging deeply into Question #2 (How do we know if they have learned it?)  We are being more intentional about pulling this question apart which entails truly knowing and understanding the learning target that students need to work towards, where they are in relationship to that goal and developing a plan to close the gap between the two. We believe this is the most effective way to increase student achievement.  The goal of the PLC work is to build capacity in effective instructional practices across Beadle Lake and to ensure a consistent and solid Tier I instructional block while utilizing tier 2 and tier 3 strategies to close instructional gaps. We currently have an Empower Hour intervention block where we offer Tier 2 and Tier 3 support to students in Reading and Math.   Also, we are using AimsWeb Plus (a web-based assessment system) to progress monitor, and support Response to Intervention (RTI) or Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) in reading and math. It provides brief, curriculum-based measures (CBMs) to track student growth, identifies learning gaps, and informs data-driven instruction, giving teachers insights into academic performance. We are currently learning how to use the data management system to track The Big Five for Reading: Oral Reading Fluency (ORF), Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary, Letter Naming/Sound Fluency in the most effective manner.  Engaging in the cyclical PLC process weekly, learning about our learners, and monitoring teacher and student growth will continue to move us in the right direction.  Our goal is continual growth (upward momentum) for the adult learners and the student learners.  We recognize that the professional learning of the adults in the building will directly impact this upward momentum and will lead to accelerated growth and ultimately proficiency.  When thinking about where we are and where we want to be, a few key subgroups stand out in the data (students that are socially and economically disadvantaged-SED, and special education students). We are also paying very close attention to students that sit close to the proficiency line and designing instruction to move them across it.

Beadle Lake’s School Improvement Plan is open and ongoing. School Improvement goals are revisited multiple times per year.   We reflect and adjust based on our formative and summative benchmarks. At monthly data meetings and weekly PLC meetings we strategically analyze assessment data and intentionally design instruction/interventions to meet the needs of all learners. Beadle Lake is making a strong effort to support accelerated learning for all students to help them achieve and exceed proficiency targets. We looked at multiple data points in math and reading to determine which academic supports were appropriate for these students. This data also helps determine which students need an IRIP (Individual Reading Improvement Plan).

As a district, we also strategically tried to address our gaps through summer programming.   Students were selected for summer school based on our Reading Deficiency Report, and teachers gave feedback to support the selection. Specific priority standards based on student need were selected, and instructional strategies focused on those priority areas.  In addition to the academic component of summer school, students had the opportunity to be part of authentic learning experiences (zoo camp and the What A Do Theater company).  The goal of summer programming was to address the academic gap or “academic slide” that happens in the summer. Also, to provide experiences that students might not otherwise have the opportunity to engage in.   Through intentional intervention during the school year and summer, Harper Creek tried to build a strong academic foundation so that we increase the number of students who are proficient in their grade level standards.

 To access a copy of the Harper Creek Core Curriculum, refer to the district’s website. A copy may also be obtained at Beadle Lake Elementary. The district curriculum is aligned to Common Core State Standards K-12 and includes a calendar that explains focus standards for instruction and assessment during a given range of time.

In the Fall of the 2024-2025 school year, in the area of NWEA Reading, 20% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 29% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 24% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 27% of students were below or far below proficiency.  Kindergarten: 26% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 36% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 21% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 15% of students were below or far below proficiency.  1st Grade: 26% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 36% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 21% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 17% of students were below or far below proficiency.   2nd Grade:20% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 27% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 23% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 29% of students were below or far below proficiency.  3rd Grade: 15% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 27% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 24% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 34% of students were below or far below proficiency.  4th Grade: 13% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 26% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 25% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 36% of students were below or far below proficiency.   

In the Winter of the 2024-2025 school year, in the area of NWEA Reading, 19% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 26% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 25% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 30% of students were below or far below proficiency.  Kindergarten: 30% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 23% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 26% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 21% of students were below or far below proficiency.  1st Grade: 25% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 26% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 26% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 22% of students were below or far below proficiency.   2nd Grade:19% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 19% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 20% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 42% of students were below or far below proficiency.  3rd Grade: 10% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 30% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 28% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 32% of students were below or far below proficiency.  4th Grade: 15% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 30% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 25% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 30% of students were below or far below proficiency.   

In the Spring of the 2024-2025 school year, in the area of NWEA Reading, 26% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 28% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 25% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 21% of students were below or far below proficiency.  Kindergarten: 38% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 25% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 26% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 11% of students were below or far below proficiency.  1st Grade: 33% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 35% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 20% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and12% of students were below or far below proficiency.   2nd Grade:18% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 20% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 33% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 31% of students were below or far below proficiency.  3rd Grade: 18% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 26% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 22% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 34% of students were below or far below proficiency.  4th Grade: 24% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 31% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 27% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 18% of students were below or far below proficiency.   

In the Fall of 2024-2025, in the area of NWEA Math, 15% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 25% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 28% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 32% of students were below or far below proficiency.   Kindergarten: 21% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 20% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 32% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 27% of students were below or far below proficiency.  1st Grade: 17% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 27% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 33% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 23% of students were below or far below proficiency.  2nd Grade: 15% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 29% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 14% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 42% of students were below or far below proficiency.   3rd Grade: 14% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 25% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 28% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 33% of students were below or far below proficiency.  4th Grade: 9% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 21% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 30% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 40% of students were below or far below proficiency.

In the Winter of 2024-2025, in the area of NWEA Math, 13% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 27% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 26% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 34% of students were below or far below proficiency.   Kindergarten: 22% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 25% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 25% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 18% of students were below or far below proficiency.  1st Grade: 16% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 32% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 25% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 27% of students were below or far below proficiency.  2nd Grade: 12% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 30% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 17% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 41% of students were below or far below proficiency.   3rd Grade: 9% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 30% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 27% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 34% of students were below or far below proficiency.  4th Grade: 7% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 15% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 36% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 42% of students were below or far below proficiency.

In the Spring of 2024-2025, in the area of NWEA Math, 18% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 34% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 26% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 22% of students were below or far below proficiency.   Kindergarten: 17% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 40% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 29% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 14% of students were below or far below proficiency.  1st Grade: 23% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 38% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 26% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 13% of students were below or far below proficiency.  2nd Grade: 13% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 31% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 22% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 34% of students were below or far below proficiency.   3rd Grade: 18% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 28% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 27% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 27% of students were below or far below proficiency.  4th Grade: 20% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 29% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 25% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 26% of students were below or far below proficiency.

In the  Spring of 2023-2024, in the area of NWEA Reading, 23% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 22% of students were between the

61st-79th percentile, 24% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile,

and 27% of students were below or far below proficiency.  Kindergarten: 32% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 26% of

students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 18% of students were between

the 41st-60th percentile, and 24% of students were below or far below

proficiency.  1st Grade: 30% of students were above the 80th percentile

proficient, 20% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 32% of

students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 18% of students were below

or far below proficiency.  2nd Grade:27% of students were above

the 80th percentile proficient, 19% of students were between the 61st-79th

percentile, 19% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 35% of

students were below or far below proficiency.  3rd Grade:10% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 27% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 17% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 46% of students were below or far below proficiency.  4th Grade: 15% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 19% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 34% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 32% of students were below or far below proficiency.  

In the Spring of 2022-2023, in the area of NWEA Math, 25% of students were above the 80^th percentile proficient, 28% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 21% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 26% of students were below or far below proficiency.  Kindergarten: 32% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 36% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 17% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 15% of students were below or far below proficiency.   1st Grade: 28% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 32% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 22% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 18% of students were below or far below proficiency.  2nd Grade: 25% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 33% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 15% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 27% of students were below or far below proficiency.  3rd Grade: 15% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient, 11% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 40% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 47% of students were below or far below proficiency.   4th Grade: 22% of students were above the 80th percentile proficient,24% of students were between the 61st-79th percentile, 19% of students were between the 41st-60th percentile, and 35% of students were below or far below proficiency.

During the 2024-2025 school year, the attendance participation rate at conferences was 88% in the fall. In the spring, 82% of parents attended conferences.

 Beadle Lake Elementary School Community is the epitome of hard work. They strategically plan instruction, analyze data to identify trends, and determine explicit instructional strategies.  The quality of learning programs and initiatives are reflected in the growth of our students and the growth of our teachers as learners. The Beadle Lake Staff is a hard-working team that focuses on students’ needs. We put students first.  Through the collective efforts of our Beadle Lake family, which includes parents, students, staff, and the community, we will continue to make progress each year.

Sincerely,

 Mrs. Daniels

Principal

Beadle Lake Elementary

Annual Education Report (AER) Cover Letter

January 5, 2026      

Dear Parents and Community Members:

We are pleased to present you with the Annual Education Report (AER), which provides key information on the 2024-25 educational progress for Sonoma Elementary. The AER addresses the complex reporting information required by federal and state laws. The school’s report contains information about accountability, student assessment, and teacher quality. If you have any questions about the AER, please contact the building principal, Lindsey Cook, at 269-441-7803 or CookL2@harpercreek.net for assistance.

The AER is available for you to review electronically by visiting the following website: Annual Education Report, or you may review a copy in the main office at your child’s school.

For the 2025-26 school year, schools were identified based on previous years’ performance using definitions and labels as required in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). A Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) school is one that had at least one underperforming student group in 2024-25. An Additional Targeted Support (ATS) school is one that had at least one student group performing at the same level as the lowest 5% of all schools in the state in 2021-22. A Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) school is one whose performance was in the lowest 5% of all schools in the state, had a graduation rate at or below 67%, failed to exit CSI status in 2024-25, or failed to exit ATS status in 2021-22. Some schools are not identified with any of these labels. In these cases, no status label is given.

Our school was not identified and has not been given one of these labels.

Sonoma Elementary School is committed to transforming student challenges into opportunities for growth. Our student population reflects both geographic assignment within the Harper Creek Community Schools district and enrollment through the Section 105 Schools of Choice Program, which allows students residing outside of the school’s attendance boundary to enroll on a board-approved basis. This structure creates a diverse learning community with varied academic backgrounds, experiences, and social-emotional needs. This diversity enriches our school community, broadens perspectives, and strengthens our commitment to equity, access, and responsive instruction for every learner.

In response to evolving student needs, Sonoma prioritizes social-emotional learning as a foundational component of academic success. Based on student data and observed needs, we have embedded TRAILS lessons and classroom meetings into a dedicated, school-wide block. This intentional time ensures that every student receives direct instruction in emotional regulation, relationship skills, and problem-solving. Our LEAD expectations—Learn Responsibly, Encourage Kindness, Act Respectfully, and Demonstrate Safety—provide a consistent behavioral framework across all settings. By proactively teaching and reinforcing these skills, we cultivate a safe, predictable learning environment where students feel valued and experience a strong sense of belonging.

New this year, second through fourth-grade students are completing the SAEBRS (Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener) assessment tool. This universal screening process allows us to more efficiently identify students who may require additional social-emotional supports. Rather than relying solely on observable behaviors or office referrals, SAEBRS provides a structured, data-informed approach to proactively identify needs.

Students identified through the screening process as needing additional support receive Tier II intervention services. We currently have two dedicated staff members implementing the Second Step curriculum as a Tier II intervention. These small-group sessions provide targeted instruction in self-regulation, emotional management, peer relationships, and responsible decision-making. This layered system of support ensures that students receive timely intervention and allows us to respond strategically to emerging needs.

Academically, our primary focus is strengthening Tier I core instruction to ensure all students have access to high-quality, grade-level content. Teachers implement the CKLA Amplify Curriculum Resource in literacy and Bridges in Mathematics to build deep conceptual understanding. Structured instructional time and consistent practices across classrooms help maintain integrity and coherence in delivery. Our goal is to ensure that Tier I instruction is rigorous, aligned to standards, and strong so that the majority of students meet proficiency without requiring additional support.

For students who need further assistance, targeted Tier II interventions are provided in both reading and mathematics. These interventions are informed by assessment data and focus on closing identified skill gaps through systematic, small-group instruction. Students may receive intervention services during designated LEAD time, ensuring support is structured and protected within the school day.

Central to our improvement efforts is the Professional Learning Community (PLC) process. Teachers collaborate regularly to answer four essential questions:

• What do we want students to know? 
• How will we know they have learned it? 
• How will we respond if they have not? 
• How will we extend learning for those who have? 

Student performance data is reviewed at the grade, building, and district levels to ensure alignment with priority standards and measurable growth targets. Monthly data meetings review instructional practices and academic progress, allowing instructional adjustments to be made in real time. School Improvement goals are revisited multiple times throughout the year and refined based on local and state benchmark data.

Building instructional capacity remains a key priority. New teachers participate in structured coaching cycles with our building instructional coach to strengthen planning, delivery, and assessment practices. They also engage in mini instructional rounds, visiting classrooms to observe curriculum implementation and debriefing with colleagues and the instructional coach.

In addition, Amplify and Bridges curriculum coaches visit the building three times per year to work alongside teachers. During these visits, veteran teachers are also invited to observe classrooms, engage in collaborative dialogue, and share effective instructional strategies. These shared learning experiences deepen collective understanding of the curriculum and promote consistency across classrooms. Coaching sessions include classroom modeling, co-teaching, and reflective debrief conversations designed to strengthen instructional integrity and empower teachers to confidently implement curriculum resources. This layered approach ensures that curriculum is not simply adopted, but truly understood and implemented by staff.

The Harper Creek Core Curriculum, aligned to the Common Core State Standards K–12, provides clear pacing guidance and priority standards for instruction and assessment. It is available on the district website and may also be accessed at Sonoma Elementary. This transparency ensures coherence across grade levels and strengthens our collective accountability for student outcomes.

In Spring of the 2024-2025 school year, in the area of NWEA Reading, building wide Data showed:

• Students ranked in the 53rd percentile for achievement.

In Spring of the 2024-2025 school year, in the area of NWEA Reading, Kindergarten Data showed:

• 16% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 29% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 31% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 18% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 6% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2024-2025 school year, in the area of NWEA Reading, First Grade Data showed:

• 17% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 24% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 23% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 24% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 12% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2024-2025 school year, in the area of NWEA Reading, Second Grade Data showed:

• 12% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 14% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 29% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 35% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 10% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2024-2025 school year, in the area of NWEA Reading, Third Grade Data showed:

• 21% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 20% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 17% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 18% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 24% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2024-2025 school year, in the area of NWEA Reading, Fourth Grade Data showed:

• 18% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 30% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 21% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 13% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 18% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2024-2025 school year, in the area of NWEA Math, building wide Data showed:

• Sonoma students ranked in the 56th percentile for achievement

In Spring of the 2024-2025 school year, in the area of NWEA Math, Kindergarten Data showed:

• 25% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 19% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 35% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 8% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 13% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2024-2025 school year, in the area of NWEA Math, First Grade Data showed:

• 18% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 24% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 26% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 18% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 14% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2024-2025 school year, in the area of NWEA Math, Second Grade Data showed:

• 4% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 27% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 29% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 24% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 16% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2024-2025 school year, in the area of NWEA Math, Third Grade Data showed:

• 20% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 27% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 16% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 18% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 19% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2024-2025 school year, in the area of NWEA Math, Fourth Grade Data showed:

• 20% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 23% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 30% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 14% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 13% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2023-2024 school year, in the area of NWEA Reading, building wide Data showed:

• 17% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 18% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 22% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 18% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 25% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2023-2024 school year, in the area of NWEA Reading, Kindergarten Data showed:

• 22% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 21% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 19% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 20% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 18% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2023-2024 school year, in the area of NWEA Reading, First Grade Data showed:

• 24% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 27% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 12% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 31% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 6% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2023-2024 school year, in the area of NWEA Reading, Second Grade Data showed:

• 14% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 10% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 21% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 13% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 42% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2023-2024 school year, in the area of NWEA Reading, Third Grade Data showed:

• 14% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 19% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 24% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 8% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 35% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2023-2024 school year, in the area of NWEA Reading, Fourth Grade Data showed:

• 12% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 19% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 28% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 23% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 18% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2023-2024 school year, in the area of NWEA Math, building wide Data showed:

• 18% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 21% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 21% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 18% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 22% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2023-2024 school year, in the area of NWEA Math, Kindergarten Data showed:

• 22% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 30% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 16% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 18% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 14% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2023-2024 school year, in the area of NWEA Math, First Grade Data showed:

• 10% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 35% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 33% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 18% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 4% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2023-2024 school year, in the area of NWEA Math, Second Grade Data showed:

• 14% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 13% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 16% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 22% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 35% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2023-2024 school year, in the area of NWEA Math,Third Grade Data showed:

• 12% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 18% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 28% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 14% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 28% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

In Spring of the 2023-2024 school year, in the area of NWEA Math, Fourth Grade Data showed:

• 29% of students were above the 80th percentile.
• 13% of the students were between the 61st- 79th percentile.
• 20% of students were between the 41st and 60th percentile.
• 19% of the students were between the 21st and 40th percentile.
• 19% of the students were between the 1st and 20th percentile.

During the 2024-2025 school year, the attendance participation rate at conferences was 97% in the fall. In the spring, 98% of parents attended conferences.  

At Sonoma Elementary, continuous improvement is not viewed as a response to deficits, but as a commitment to growth grounded in data, reflection, and intentional action. Through structured social-emotional instruction, universal screening processes, targeted Tier II supports, strong Tier I foundations, collaborative data analysis, and sustained coaching cycles, we are strengthening the systems and instructional practices that drive student achievement. Our staff shares collective responsibility for ensuring consistent, high-quality learning experiences across classrooms. We value clear communication with families and recognize the important role they play in supporting student growth. Together, through strong building systems and ongoing partnership, we remain focused on ensuring every student has the structures and support necessary to succeed.

Sincerely,   

Lindsey Cook

Principal

Sonoma Elementary School

Annual Education Report (AER) Cover Letter

February 17, 2025  

Dear Parents and Community Members:

We are pleased to present you with the Annual Education Report (AER), which provides key information on the 2023-24 educational progress for Wattles Park Elementary. The AER addresses the complex reporting information required by federal and state laws. The school’s report contains information about student assessment, accountability, and teacher quality. If you have any questions about the AER, please contact building principal, Brent Swan at 269-441-5853 or SwanB@harpercreek.net for assistance.

The AER is available for you to review electronically by visiting the following website: Wattles Park Elementary Annual Education Report, or you may review a copy in the main office at your child’s school.

For the 2024-25 school year, schools were identified based on previous years’ performance using definitions and labels as required in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). A Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) school is one that had at least one underperforming student subgroup in 2023-24. An Additional Targeted Support (ATS) school is one that had a student subgroup performing at the same level as the lowest 5% of all schools in the state in 2021-22. A Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) school is one whose performance was in the lowest 5% of all schools in the state, had a graduation rate at or below 67%, or failed to exit ATS status in 2021-22. Some schools are not identified with any of these labels. In these cases, no label is given.

Wattles Park Elementary was not identified and has not been given one of these labels. 

Students are assigned to Wattles Park Elementary School in two ways. The first and primary assignment is determined by the student’s geographic residence in the Harper Creek School District. The second is a result of Harper Creek Community School’s participation in Section 105 School of Choice Program. The program allows us to assign students living outside of the school’s geographically determined area on a board approved basis.

Wattles Park has turned many of our challenges into opportunities to learn and grow. We are refining our instructional practices in literacy through embedded professional development in the area of the K-4 Literacy Essentials and the Science of Reading. We engaged in the PLC process where teacher teams are able to analyze student data and work as a collective to determine their instructional needs. Learning about and monitoring our use of intentional literacy practices will accelerate our student’s growth. Our ultimate goal is continued growth (upward momentum) for the adult learners and the student learners.   We recognize that the professional learning of the adults in the building will directly impact this upward momentum and will lead to accelerated growth and more students reaching the next expected level of proficiency and ultimately being at grade level proficiency standards. When thinking about where we are and where we want to be; a few key subgroups stand out in the data (students that are socially and economically disadvantaged-SED, and special education students). 

Throughout the school year we strategically analyzed assessment data, and intentionally designed instruction/interventions to meet the needs of all the identified groups. Wattles Park is making a strong effort to support accelerated learning for all students to help them achieve and exceed proficiency targets. We looked at multiple data points in math and reading to determine which academic supports were appropriate for these students. This data also determines whether students will need an IRIP (Individual Reading Improvement Plan). We also use this data analysis to determine who will need intervention support. Then, we execute an intentionally planned intervention structure (LEAD Time) to reach this goal; in which students struggling to meet standards receive support in a ratio of one adult to no more than four children for fifty minutes each day.  We also strategically address our gaps through summer programming. Students were selected for summer school based on math, reading, and socio-economic data. Specific priority standards based on student needs were selected and instructional strategies focused on those priority areas. In addition to the academic component of summer school students also had the opportunity to be part of authentic learning experiences (STEM lessons, field trips, and book shopping).  Summer programming aims to address the academic gap or “academic slide” that happens in the summer. Also, to provide experiences that students might not otherwise have the opportunity to engage in.   Through intentional intervention during the school year and during the summer, the goal is to build a strong academic foundation and to intervene early so that we decrease the number of students who are not proficient in their grade level standards. School improvement goals are revisited multiple times per year and adjusted according to local and state benchmark data. The plan addresses the following goal areas: reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. Staff professional development is provided to support progress with these goals.

 To access a copy of the Harper Creek Core Curriculum, refer to the district’s website. A copy may also be obtained at Wattles Park Elementary. The district curriculum is aligned to Common Core State Standards K-12 and includes a calendar that explains focus standards for instruction and assessment during a given range of time.

 In the 2023-2024 school year, our 3rd and 4th grade students took the M-STEP assessment in mathematics and English language arts.   42% of our 3rd grade students were either proficient or advanced in ELA, and 49% of our 3rd grade students were either proficient or advanced in mathematics.  53% of our 4th grade students were either proficient or advanced in ELA, and 49% of our 4th grade students were either proficient or advanced in mathematics.  

During the 2023-2024 school year, 95% of our families attended Fall conferences, and 86% attended the Winter conferences.

The Wattles Park community celebrates our school index score of 92.47 out of 100.  The staff, students, parents, and administration all have had an important role in achieving this level of success.  We also look to the future, because we know that more work needs to be done to find success for all students. 

Sincerely,

Brent Swan

Principal, Wattles Park Elementary