ࡱ> a Jbjbjڥڥ .R\R\B\ \ T<88888'''P"V'''''88' 88'8pgww1 0";~"&"''''''''''''''"'''''''''\ > : Student: Steve Smith Date of Birth: 10-18-05 Examiner: Kay Leach Age: 10-10 Grade: 4 Report Date: 10/26/16 Reason for Referral: Steve was referred by the Safety Net Acceleration Program (SNAP) due to concerns about his achievement in math. Despite supplemental interventions listed below, after school tutoring and support doing homework at home, he has not progressed at a rate commensurate with his peers. The purpose of this evaluation is to obtain information about his pattern of cognitive and academic profile so appropriate educational recommendation can be made to the Admission, Review and Dismissal (ARD) committee members. Educational back ground/Exclusionary Factors: Steve is a 4th grade, monolingual student who is in his seventh year (Preschool 4th grade) of school. . Vision and Hearing screening reported no issues and no medical concerns were reported. Sociological/Behavioral information: Steve lives with his mother, 2 month old and 19 year old brothers. He attended pre-kindergarten at Ross Elementary and has attended school at Rains Elementary since kindergarten. Attendance has been good throughout his education. Steve was retained in second grade. As reported by his mother, home life includes a regular bedtime of 8 PM, and breakfast daily. Parent does not currently work so is home when student arrives from school and helps with his homework. His daily lifestyle seems conducive to the development of positive learning and behavioral patterns. Known cultural and lifestyle factors are not thought to have a negative impact on the students educational progress. Steves mother describes him as a polite, even-tempered, young man who gets along well with others and has many friends. According to the Academic and Social Profile completed by Steves teacher, his behavior is age appropriate in responding appropriately to praise and correction and caring for property. He demonstrates a predictable pattern of behavior, follows routines, accepts directives and listens while others are talking. Steve behavior does not impede his learning or the learning of others. Steves teachers have reported that he struggles in math for the past two years (2nd and 3rd grade). Teachers report that while he can recite math facts and computation skills are intact, he has difficulty with word problems. Another issue that has emerged is understanding written passages. Additional help to improve these skills include the following: Tutoring for math 2x week no significant improvement on weekly tests Homework help from parent no significant improvement on weekly tests Kumon tutoring service 1x week/1 hr. sessions during summer for math (June/July- 7 wks) between 3rd and 4th grade. No data available State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Results: Passing Rdg: 1434; Math - 1467 YearSubjectLanguageLevel Met2015-16MathEnglish1226-unsatisfactory2015-16ReadingEnglish1281-unsatisfactory Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) The Northwest Evaluation Associations Measure of Academic Progress is a series of computerized adaptive tests in the areas of Math, Reading, Language Usage, and Science. The MAP tests are based on a continuum of skills from low to high skill levels. TermMath SuccessfulReading Norm Avg.2015-16 beginning year186 201.9185 198.22015-16 mid- year197 208.7187 203.62014-15 year end170 213.5181 205.92014-15 mid- year177 199189 1972014-15 beginning of the year181 192179 200 Observation: During my observation of Steve during reading class, he was very polite and cooperative with both teacher and peers. The class assignment was to read a passage and participate in a teacher lead discussion. When asked specific questions about the story, Steve spoke in a soft voice and looked at the picture that went with the passage while answering. Ex: When asked where the family was going, he said to the store but did not remember the reason they were going to the store. Math class observation yielded the same type of behavior when reading a math problem. He had been given a key for directional language and referred to it before writing his answer. (- means subtract) Test Administration: Steve was very polite and cooperative during the evaluation. Rapport was easily established and maintained. He offered information about his interest in and out of school, and took part in a pleasant back and forth conversation. He spoke clearly but softly, frequently requesting that the questions/instructions be repeated and/or clarified. Steve persisted on difficult tasks and enjoyed praise for his efforts. He used trial and error learning on nonverbal tasks and used verbal rehearsal to remember verbal tasks. His responses were not impulsive and he did not demonstrate distractible behavior. It is the examiners opinion that this evaluation is a valid representation of Steves abilities. A cross-battery approach that incorporates the Dual Discrepancy Consistency Model was used in this evaluation to ensure that all areas of intellectual and academic functioning were measured in a cohesive manner, both at the broad and narrow ability level. The following tools were utilize for this evaluation. Cross Battery Software System (XBASS v1.2) Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP 2) Selected Subtests: Blending Words Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC V) Form A Woodcock Johnson Test of Achievement (WJ Ach. IV) Form A Woodcock Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities IV (WJ Cog. IV) Form A Selected subtests: Nonword Repetition Picture Recognition Phonological Processing Blending Words Woodcock Johnson Test of Oral Language (WJ O.Lang. IV) Form A Summary of Findings: Steves overall IQ of 82 as measured on the WISC V, falls in the low range of development. Based on his cognitive evaluation, Steve exhibited strengths in the abilities of long term storage (Glr - 98); and auditory processing as it relates to phonetic coding (Ga-96). This indicates that the student is proficient in storing, consolidating, and retrieving information over a period of time and hear phonemes distinctly. Steve exhibits low average abilities in the area of Crystallized Intelligence (Gc - 89) and Processing Speed (Gs- 89). While the overall (G) composite scores do not represent a normative deficit, these processes present in the low average range of development. These scores indicate that Steve should be successful but may not learn at the same rate as his peers when it comes to language and overall rate of completing repetitive cognitive tasks may also be somewhat slower than others. Initial evaluation of Gc did not yield a cohesive composite (Similarities 75; Knowledge 95), so further testing was completed in the area of lexical knowledge (VL) to confirm or negate the normative deficit initially found. WISC-V Vocabulary (95) indicated a discrepancy in scores within lexical knowledge but yielded a low average Gc. A task analysis of the two subtests indicated that Steve has the academic vocabulary to be successful in in his learning environment, but may find logical thinking, verbal concept formation and verbal abstract reasoning difficult. A normative deficit/weakness was found in the abilities of Visual Processing (Gv) as it pertains to visualization (Gv - 70) and Fluid Reasoning (Gf-83). Further evaluation was completed in Gv within the narrow, visual memory to determine if narrows other that visualization were deficit. Visual memory (95) indicated that there are both strengths and weakness within Gv. While Steve may struggle to perceive complex patterns and imagine how they may look when rotated or partially hidden, he should not have difficulty remembering complex images over a short period of time (30 seconds). Additional evaluation was not required of Gf but was completed to determine if RG (85) should be interpreted as a normative weakness. Further evaluation in this narrow (84) and review of classroom concerns for math, indicated that RG (85/84) is a normative weakness. Overall Gf score indicates that it is likely that Steve will have difficulty when required to complete activities that involve inductive and deductive reasoning. Steve did not achieve a cohesive score for short term memory (Gsm) because he exhibited both strengths and weaknesses in this ability. His score for memory span (MS 108) falls in the range of high average but he score in the low average range (normative deficit) of development for the narrow ability of working memory (MW-82). While Steve will find encoding and immediately reproducing the same information as presented easier than he will find tasks that involve manipulating information while separating irrelevant distractions within short term memory difficult. No additional follow up was needed other than those mentioned above. Achievement: Steve was administered the Woodcock Johnson IV Test of Achievement and Oral language to assess his skills in reading, math, writing and language. Test/SubtestArea of AchievementOverall ScoreScoreStrength/ WeaknessCategoryWJ IV Oral LanguageOral Exp. 87  S Low AveragePicture Voc.88SAverageSentence Repetition  89 S AverageWJ IV Oral LanguageListening Comp.83WLow AverageOral Comprehension89SAverageUnderstanding Directions 80 W Low AverageWJ IV AchievementBasic Reading113SAverageLetter-Word Id.116SAverageWord Attack  106 S AverageWJ IV AchievementReading Comp.81WLow AveragePassage Comprehension 82 W Low AverageReading Recall86SAverageWJ IV AchievementReading Fluency 102  S AverageOral Reading104SAverageSentence Reading Fluency 101 S AverageWJ IV AchievementMath Calculation 96  S AverageCalculation94SAverageMath Fact Fluency99SAverageWJ IV AchievementMath Problem Solving 82 W Low AverageApplied Problems81WLow AverageNumber Matrices88SAverageWJ IV AchievementWritten Expression 100 S AverageWriting Samples99SAverageSent. Writing Fluency 102 S Average Steve exhibited significant variance in his achievement skills. Strengths include written expression, math calculation, basic reading, and reading fluency. Oral language, while in the low average range of development, can also be considered a strength for the student since it does not present as a normative weakness. Listening comprehension, reading comprehension and math problem solving are also in the low average range of development but do present as normative weaknesses. Listening comprehension cluster score (83) is represented by oral comprehension (89) and understanding directions (80). These subtests measure the ability to comprehend a short passage and supply missing words, along with following directions. Steves performance oral comprehension is very near average while understanding directions is on the lower end of low average. Additionally, his Relative Proficiency Index (RPI) for understanding directions is 63/90. This means, when an average student of the same age is performing this skill at a 90% level of proficiency, Steve is performing the same skill at 63% proficiency. Scores of this nature reflect significant below average ability to understand directions. The reading comprehension cluster score (81) is represented by passage comprehension (82) and reading recall (86). These subtests measure the ability to use syntactic and semantic cues to identify missing words and retell short stories after reading them silently. The RPI for this cluster indicates that Steves expected level of performance is 62% when his peers are at 90%. This indicates that he is working significantly below his peers in the area of reading comprehension. Math problem solving is also an area of concern for Steve. Applied problems (81) and number matrices (88) make up this cluster score. While his number matrices standard score is closer to average than his applied problems score, his RPI indicates his expected proficiency level is 64%. Steves RPI of applied problems is 46/90, while math problem solving cluster reported an RPI of 55/90. Scores is this range of proficiency indicate that Steve has significant difficulties with problem solving, analysis and reasoning. Based on the results of the W-J IV, Steves primary difficulties lie in listening and reading comprehension and math problem solving. This is consistent with achievement reported from the classroom and reason for referral. Clinical/Diagnostic Impressions: Incorporating an operational definition of a specific learning disability requires an overall cognitive pattern of strengths and weakness. The student profile will produce cognitive strengths that are statistically significant (reliable or real) when compared to identified cognitive and achievement deficits; specific cognitive weakness/s that are considered domain specific (unusually large and infrequent); unexpected underachievement (unusually large and infrequent) in one or more areas of achievement; and a below average consistency between the cognitive and achievement weakness/s. General Intelligence: Steves cognitive scores indicate that while he has cognitive deficits, he does have an overall aggregation of cognitive abilities (97) that indicates an otherwise average cognitive profile. Domains Specific and Unexpected Underachievement: Identified cognitive deficits include fluid reasoning, visual processing and working memory which are statistically significant and domain specific when compared to Steves aggregation of cognitive strengths. Identified academic deficits are math problem solving, reading comprehension and listening comprehension are also statistically significant and unexpected when compared to his aggregation of cognitive strengths. Below Average Aptitude- Achievement Consistency: Steves profile does identify a below average aptitude-achievement consistency between Gf, Working Memory and Math Problem Solving. Research indicates that Gf and working memory have a high relationship to math problem solving. Visual Processing (Gv) is also related but to a less degree. This relationship between his cognitive and achievement deficits help to explain Steves difficulties in the classroom. Steve also exhibits a functional impairment. While he is maintaining passing grades, he is doing so with excessive help from his teacher, parent and older sibling. Without this additional help, the student would not be successful in his current educational placement. Exclusionary factors outlined in the body of this report indicate that the identified deficits are not primarily caused by a vision, hearing or motor deficit; intellectual disabilities, emotional disturbance, cultural or economic disadvantaged factors, or limited English proficiency. Based on the data outlined in this report, Steves profile and supporting data is consistent with the presence of a learning disability in the area of math problem solving. Recommendations: To address identified weaknesses, use tools to help Steve categorize objects and concepts to assist in drawing conclusion. Teach Steve to highlight instructional words and phrases. Read the entire problem and identify what the problem is asking before working the problem. What do you think the problem is asking you to do if it says How many more.? or How many less does the boy have? Allow Steve to continue using procedural chart currently on his desk. Allow review of context when reading or listening to a passage. Provide a distraction free environment Monitor comprehension of instructions, both written and verbal, by checking for understanding frequently. Have Steve repeat directions back to assist in ensuring understanding. Encourage self-advocacy when he is unsure of what is being asked of him. Use note taking strategies such as recording lectures so that Steve can review required content. Provide an outline of important information so that he can re-listen and write the pertinent information from the lecture. Provide written instruction for him to follow along with instructions are verbal. Pair visual information with verbal mnemonics Full and individual evaluation report will be shared with the ARD committee to assist in assigning educational placement and instructional strategies for the student. _________________________ Kay Leach, M. Ed. Diagnostician .  +4T]x{ $ 1 3 m    ^ s t u x y     & ) ] XYyV$[Igvظ촰ܬhZhSPh!khj8h h}`5h/hthtH*hth}`h}`H*h}`hOxhOxhOx5h(b*hz(h hJ5hXhJB2Uyz{ YZUVI @ ^@ `gd/v  34TU~^+,/LMPqs"9TXwüüüüüõüõõõõõhSh>5 h*Dh~~ h*DhK` h*DhHohHo h*Dhe h*Dh#8hK`hkh#8hZh/h/H*h>hXh/D49AJTU@kd$$Ifl\$! ! " " t0644 lap(yt*D$IfU]bj~Bkd$$Ifl\$! ! " " t0644 lap(yt*D$IfB@@@@kd\$$Ifl\$! ! " " t0644 lap(yt*D$If,MrZkd $$IflF $, - - t06    44 lapyt*D$Ifrs^XXX$Ifkd$$IflF $, - - t06    44 lapyt*D#`ZZZ$IfkdV$$IflF $, - - t06    44 lapyt*D#$6Ux`ZZZ$Ifkd$$IflF $, - - t06    44 lapyt*Dxy`ZZZ$Ifkd$$IflF $, - - t06    44 lapyt*Dpq`^^YYYYYYYgdkkdB$$IflF $, - - t06    44 lapyt*D ?xVl<=2cl_ ϭti^VJFhhSht5CJaJh|j\CJaJh>h>CJaJhKd!hkCJaJhthkCJaJ,hkB*CJ^JaJfHph"""q ,h>B*CJ^JaJfHph"""q 2hKd!hkB*CJ^JaJfHph"""q h>CJaJhkCJaJhShk5CJaJh>hkhI"hh!6QhSh/52m5Xrm!,,,,,,,,,,,,- $Ifgd|j\gdk_ p l!m!!!!!!!!!!U#V######$$$$$/%9%>%%%%%%%%%%&& & &&)&+&2&d&e&''' ( (((1(7(U(u(𸴰䰬h0i`hiAh$hh!h,hxWh*hthB]h=hh @u(y((((() ) ))))I)O)^)x)))))**^*v*~**********5+A+B+T+Y+Z+a+++++,,,,,q,s,,,,--7-8-T-U-ȡ h*Dheh*Dh CJaJh$hkh" RhSh" R5hShk5h|j\h Gh 0hh}hDh=h=`hFh h%=hiAh>h0i`h$<--kd$$IflֈYa?i!*| t0"44 lap<yt*D--!-"-%-&-'-(-*-+-7- $Ifgd|j\ 7-8-kd$$IflֈYa?i!*| t0"44 lap<yt*D8-E-F-G-J-L-T- $Ifgd|j\T-U-kd$$IflֈYa?i!*| t0"44 lap<yt*DU-i-j-k-l-m-p-q-s-t-|- $Ifgd|j\ U-|-}-----..6.7.W.X.x.y.......-/./K/L/x/y///////)0*0N0O0n0o00000000y111122212d222222V3W3i3:4ƾƾֶƦƦhCJaJhKd!CJaJhtCJaJhU;FCJaJh$CJaJh" RCJaJhT`mCJaJh&iCJaJh|j\CJaJ h*Dheh*Dh CJaJ?|-}-kd$$IflCֈYa?i!*| t0"44 lap<yt*D}------- $Ifgd|j\--kd $$IflֈYa?i!*| t0"44 lap<yt*D------- $Ifgd|j\--kd $$IflֈYa?i!*| t0"44 lap<yt*D---------. $Ifgd|j\ ..kd $$IflֈYa?i!*| t0"44 lap<yt*D..'.+.,...6. $Ifgd|j\6.7.kd $$IflֈYa?i!*| t0"44 lap<yt*D7.G.H.I.M.O.W. $Ifgd|j\W.X.kd $$IflֈYa?i!*| t0"44 lap<yt*DX.d.e.f.g.h.l.m.o.p.x. $Ifgd|j\ x.y.kd$$IflֈYa?i!*| t0"44 lap<yt*Dy....... $Ifgd|j\..kd$$IflֈYa?i!*| t0"44 lap<yt*D.......... $Ifgd|j\ ..kd$$IflֈYa?i!*| t0"44 lap<yt*D....... $Ifgd|j\..kd~$$IflֈYa?i!*| t0"44 lap<yt*D. //// /!/"/$/%/-/ $Ifgd|j\ $Ifgd&i -/./kdu$$IflֈYa?i!*| t0"44 lap<yt*D./;/??{A|ABBCgdp::4^4a4}444555,6-6I667777777777089q999999~:::::::.;1;4;<;;;;zzrzhEo6CJaJhNCJaJh1CJaJhOhC VCJaJhShc5CJaJhSCJaJhZhKd!hcCJaJh UCJaJhcCJaJhCJaJhg!CJaJhbCJaJhKd!CJaJh$CJaJh9CJaJhmCJaJ,;;;;; <<=<?<J<Z<\<|<<<<<< ==?=S=c={===========>>>>>>>>>>?!?`?o??ͷ··{{{hOhOCJaJh0^CJaJhOhNCJaJh ECJaJhOhcCJaJhOh8CJaJhOhp:CJaJhOh ECJaJh UCJaJh2?CJaJhEo6CJaJhOhC VCJaJhNCJaJh1CJaJ0?????@@5@E@@@@@@@@AXA{AAABBBBCCC[D\D]DmDnDyDDDŽťzk\hShSB*CJaJphhSh B*CJaJphhSh0CJaJhSh"5CJaJhSh"5CJaJh"h Eh"CJaJhR?JCJaJh,41CJaJhb}CJaJh1CJaJh2?CJaJhp:CJaJhp:B*CJOJQJaJphfffhOhOCJaJh0^CJaJ#CC\D]DnDDD'E(EEEEFFFFFFFeGfGGGHHHHIIIIgdp:DDDDEEEEFFUFFFeGGGGGIIIIJJJJ÷èèҨҨҨhj8h!khOxhSh"B*CJOJQJaJphhSh"B*CJaJphhSB*CJaJphhSh8CB*CJaJphhSh B*CJaJphhShSB*CJaJphhSh0B*CJaJphIIIIIIIIIIIIJJJJ,1h/ =!"#$% $$If!vh#v! #v" :V l t065! 5" p(yt*D$$If!vh#v! #v" :V l t065! 5" p(yt*D$$If!vh#v! #v" :V l t065! 5" p(yt*D$$If!vh#v, #v- :V l t065, 5- pyt*D$$If!vh#v, #v- :V l t065, 5- pyt*D$$If!vh#v, #v- :V l t065, 5- pyt*D$$If!vh#v, #v- :V l t065, 5- pyt*D$$If!vh#v, #v- :V l t065, 5- pyt*D$$If!vh#v, #v- :V l t065, 5- pyt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V lC t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D$$If!vh#v#v#v#v*#v|#v:V l t0"5555*5|5p<yt*D s666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666p62&6FVfv2(&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH bb Kd! Heading 1dd@&[$\$"5CJ0KH$OJPJQJ\^JaJ0DA D Default Paragraph FontRi@R 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List V/V Kd!Heading 1 Char"5CJ0KH$OJPJQJ\^JaJ0j`j tp Table Grid7:V0BB p:apple-converted-space.X !. p:@Emphasis6]H2H $0 Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJN/AN $0Balloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJPK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭VvnB`2ǃ,!"E3p#9GQd; H xuv 0F[,F᚜K sO'3w #vfSVbsؠyX p5veuw 1z@ l,i!b I jZ2|9L$Z15xl.(zm${d:\@'23œln$^-@^i?D&|#td!6lġB"&63yy@t!HjpU*yeXry3~{s:FXI O5Y[Y!}S˪.7bd|n]671. tn/w/+[t6}PsںsL. J;̊iN $AI)t2 Lmx:(}\-i*xQCJuWl'QyI@ھ m2DBAR4 w¢naQ`ԲɁ W=0#xBdT/.3-F>bYL%׭˓KK 6HhfPQ=h)GBms]_Ԡ'CZѨys v@c])h7Jهic?FS.NP$ e&\Ӏ+I "'%QÕ@c![paAV.9Hd<ӮHVX*%A{Yr Aբ pxSL9":3U5U NC(p%u@;[d`4)]t#9M4W=P5*f̰lk<_X-C wT%Ժ}B% Y,] A̠&oʰŨ; \lc`|,bUvPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!R%theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] Bv_ u(U-:4;?DJ&(245<ijkmUr#x--7-8-T-U-|-}-----..6.7.W.X.x.y.......-/./K/L/x/y///////)0*0N0O0n0o0000000CIJ')*+,-./0136789:;=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghlnL# @0(  B S  ? B B T U ~  $%%7%8%T%U%|%}%%%%%&&6&7&W&X&x&y&&&&&&&-'.'K'L'x'y''''''')(*(N(O(n(o((((((==AB BU ;WZd%=8ejE$.Kd!g!11&O?)(b*,41Eo6j8>8C*D EbEU;F G1DHR?JR"PSP!6Q" RC V:WxW|j\B]0^K`0i`}`Ac,?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnoqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FwwData p 1Table"WordDocument .SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8MsoDataStore wwpgwwBHII0C0==2 wwpgwwItem  PropertiesUCompObj r   F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q