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

*U.S. Department of Education*

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

Name of Principal [Mrs. Anita K. Silva]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [Green Valley Elementary]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [7900 Smithfield Rd.]{.underline}

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

[North Richland Hills TX 76180-1804]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (digits total)

County [Tarrant]{.underline} School Code Number\*
[220902120]{.underline}

Telephone [( 817 ) 547-3400]{.underline} Fax [(817)
581-5477]{.underline}

Website/URL <http://www.birdville.k12.tx.us/schools/120> Email:
Anita_Silva@birdville.k12.tx.us

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

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

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent\* [Dr. Stephen F. Waddell, Ed. D]{.underline}

(Specify: Ms., Miss, Mrs., [Dr]{.underline}., Mr., Other)

District Name [Birdville Independent School District]{.underline}
Tel.[(817) 547-5700]{.underline}

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

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

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson Mr. Kelly Hancock

(Specify: Ms., Miss, Mrs., Dr., [Mr]{.underline}., Other)

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

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

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

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

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

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

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

1\. Number of schools in the district: [20]{.underline} Elementary
schools

[7]{.underline} Middle schools

[NA]{.underline} Junior high schools

[3]{.underline} High schools

[1]{.underline} Other (Alternative School)

[31]{.underline} TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$6,777]{.underline}

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$8,029]{.underline}

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

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

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

4\. [3]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

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

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

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

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [87]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [1]{.underline} % Black or African American

[7]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

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

**100% Total**

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

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

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

  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**                   Number of students who      17
                            transferred ***to*** the    
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year.  

  **(2)**                   Number of students who      7
                            transferred ***from*** the  
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year.  

  **(3)**                   Subtotal of all transferred 24
                            students \[sum of rows (1)  
                            and (2)\]                   

  **(4)**                   Total number of students in 457
                            the school as of October 1  
                            (same as in #5 above)       

  **(5)**                   Subtotal in row (3) divided .05
                            by total in row (4)         

  **(6)**                   Amount in row (5)           5.25
                            multiplied by 100           
  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school: [.7]{.underline}
%

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

Number of languages represented: [3]{.underline}

Specify languages: Vietnamese, Serb-Croatian, and Malayalam

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [6]{.underline} %

Total number students who qualify: [28]{.underline}

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

10\. Students receiving special education services: [12]{.underline} %

[58]{.underline} Total Number of Students Served

> Indicate below the number of students with disabilities according to
> conditions designated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
> Act.

[5]{.underline} Autism \_\_\_\_Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_\_\_Deafness [6]{.underline} Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness [6]{.underline} Specific Learning Disability

\_\_\_\_Hearing Impairment [29]{.underline} Speech or Language
Impairment

[2]{.underline} Mental Retardation [1]{.underline} Traumatic Brain
Injury

\_\_\_\_Multiple Disabilities \_\_\_\_Visual Impairment Including
Blindness

[1]{.underline} Emotionally Disturbed [8]{.underline} Non Categorical
Early Childhood (State Code)

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

**Number of Staff**

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

Administrator(s) [1]{.underline} [0]{.underline}

Classroom teachers [22]{.underline} [0]{.underline}

Special resource teachers/specialists [5]{.underline} [3]{.underline}

Paraprofessionals [6]{.underline} [0]{.underline}

> Support staff [11]{.underline} [6]{.underline}
>
> Total number [45]{.underline} [9]{.underline}

12\. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio: [20]{.underline}

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

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

  Daily student attendance  97%         96%         97%         97%         97%

  Daily teacher attendance  96%         96%         96%         95%         96%

  Teacher turnover rate     .068%       0%          0%          .065%       .035%

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

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

**Part III -- Summary**

Green Valley Elementary began in 1992 as a vision between its principal,
faculty, parents and community to provide a safe, nurturing environment
where students could, as our motto states, "affect their tomorrow by
what they learn today." Our mission statement describes our basic
philosophy: Green Valley, a partnership of community, parents, students,
and staff, is committed to an educational environment, which will
empower all students to think and act responsibly in the real world.
This motto and mission statement envisioned twelve years ago is as real
today as it was then. To this end, every instructional decision is
designed around the belief that success builds success for every child.

North Richland Hills, Texas, Green Valley's community, is comprised of
hardworking, middle-class families who believe that education is the key
to success. The parents' high expectations blend with Green Valley's
belief that students must be challenged to strive for their personal
best. Green Valley serves 444 students in grades Pre-Kindergarten
through fifth grade with a variety of programs. Beginning with students
at age three, our school offers a Pre-school Program for Children with
Disabilities (PPCD) and Speech Therapy. In addition to regular
instruction for our students in Kindergarten through grade five, we
provide accelerated and enrichment programs that include reading and
math instruction, physical education, technology instruction,
media-library skills, music instruction, gifted-talented
differentiation, and special education. All of these programs are
designed to challenge every child at their appropriate developmental
level.

From the moment students, staff, parents and visitors walk through our
doors, they are enveloped with a feeling of warmth and nurturing. The
faculty, support staff and parents model respect and kindness. The
respectful, self-assured attitude of our students is reflected in the
loving way they interact with others. For example, new students are
openly welcomed to Green Valley by classroom student ambassadors. The
ambassadors introduce them to key personnel and procedures, familiarize
them with their new surroundings, and assist them in the art of being a
new "Gator" (our school mascot).

Even the vibrant hallways promote the successes of Green Valley students
proudly displaying evidence of individual and group accomplishments.
Kindergarten's 100^th^ Day of School Projects, second grade's Famous
American Puppet Gallery, and fourth grade's displays of published
writing are a few examples of successful learning, which invite
participation by all. These displays foster an attitude of success that
creates a true community of learners eager to embark on ever-harder
challenges.

Planning is the foundation of our teaching. At every grade level,
teachers work together as a team to build a cohesive framework of
instruction for the students. Teachers also meet in vertical teams to
ensure that everyone understands the instruction that has come before,
the instruction at their grade level, and the instruction to follow.
After disaggregating our 2004 TAKS data, our faculty identified writing
as an instructional focus. Believing that higher expectations yield
higher results, we began by evaluating our curriculum. A campus-wide
assessment was given to benchmark writing development from grade to
grade. After analyzing the samples, we determined that we needed to
articulate more specific expectations at each grade level. This goal
became the focus of dialogue between grade level teams, the catalyst for
on-going professional development, and the backbone of planning for
writing instruction on every grade level. Writing samples from the end
of the year will be used to evaluate how students' composition skills
have improved and to determine our next steps.

This supportive, cooperative atmosphere has resulted in our school's
rating of Exemplary by the state of Texas for the past nine years. In
2004, 99.8% of students met or exceeded minimum expectations on the
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). In addition, special
education students met Admission Review and Dismissal (ARD) expectation
standards on the State Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA).

The entire faculty, support staff, parents and community work together
to model, nurture, and scaffold the instruction for students in our
charge. At Green Valley, we have already seen so many of our students go
on to "affect tomorrow." The preparation our students gain serves them
well as they progress in their education and is a true measure of our
success as educators.

**Part IV -- Indicators of Academic Success**

**1. Meaning of Assessment Results in Reading and Math**

The state of Texas rates each elementary school's overall performance
levels based on TAKS/SDAA scores. The performance level ratings in Texas
are Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, and Academically
Unacceptable. Green Valley has achieved the state's top rating of
exemplary since the 1994-1995 school year, which includes a prior
assessment system called the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS).
To achieve Exemplary, the state requires that 90% of all students meet
minimum expectations on all tests taken. Minimum expectations have
continually risen since the implementation of TAKS in 2002-2003, thus
creating higher standards for the students. More information on the
Texas assessment system can be found at
[www.TEA.state.tx.us](http://www.TEA.state.tx.us/).

Due to low student population percentages, Green Valley Elementary does
not have many state-recognized demographic subgroups. Even so, we are
dedicated to ensuring individual student success in order to eliminate
any disparities. Each school year begins with the entire faculty
carefully analyzing student performance data from the previous year.
This analysis allows all staff members to become familiar with areas of
weakness. Global analysis provides a valid foundation from which our
instructional goals are formed. This improvement plan aids us in
aligning our curriculum to provide optimum instruction.

At Green Valley, the faculty does not wait for state assessment results
to indicate an educational need. Teachers remediate before gaping
weaknesses occur. Through individualized instruction, small-groups,
tutoring, flexible grouping, and study groups based on targeted
objectives, continued improvement has been demonstrated. This is evident
in the fact that on the 2004 fourth grade TAKS reading test, 100% of the
five Hispanic students that were tested met minimum standards, and 80%
received a Commended Performance rating.

Clearly, Green Valley Elementary continues to distinguish itself by
building success one student at a time. Over the past three years, 97%
of our third through fifth grade students have met or exceeded minimum
expectations on the reading and math sections of TAAS/TAKS. Green Valley
demonstrates stellar achievement in reading and math, as evidenced by
the number of students scoring 95% or higher. Instead of holding our
students to a minimum level of accountability, we measure our success by
the number of students receiving a Commended Performance rating. Our
percentage of Commended Performance ratings increases annually. Higher
expectations are yielding higher results.

**2. Use of Assessment Data to Improve Performance**

The driving force behind Green Valley's curricular and staff development
decisions continues to be student assessment data. Disaggregation of
TAKS/SDAA, TAAS, and TPRI data allows teachers to analyze each student's
individual instructional needs. Using item analysis, campus strengths
and weaknesses are identified and targeted through vertical teaming, and
instruction is strengthened by aligning assessment, TEKS, lesson
objectives, and teaching materials. For example, the science TAKS test
has been analyzed to determine at what grade level each objective was
taught. Due to the cumulative nature of the test, each grade level
shares the responsibility for preparing the students to succeed. One
strategy implemented in order to reinforce science concepts is the use
of a daily "Science Stumper" on the morning announcements.

TAKS study guides provide parent-friendly material that allows parents
to be an important contributor to their children's success. In addition,
teachers involve students in the feedback process by conducting "TAKS
Talks" with individual students to review their previous years' TAKS
tests, thus empowering each student by giving them an active role in
their learning.

Green Valley teachers also use informal assessments to collect data.
Prior to the first day of school, Kindergarteners are screened in
reading and math to determine where instruction should begin. In our
primary reading program, the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) and
TPRI are used to assess specific reading competencies and design
intervention strategies. Children identified as struggling readers,
receive intense intervention through Green Valley's Accelerated Reading
Intervention program (ARI). Other forms of assessment Green Valley uses
include benchmark tests, formal and informal observations, academic
checklists, campus-wide writing assessments, running record assessments,
summative assessments, and gifted and talented testing.

Additional classroom interventions might include tutoring, small group
instruction, parent/teacher conferences, and accommodations. When
further interventions are indicated, the teacher refers the student to
the Care Team for assessment. Our campus Care Team is a pre-referral
intervention team comprised of concerned staff and parents. No child is
left behind at Green Valley because at every level of their education
they are monitored so that interventions can be put into place to ensure
each student's success.

**3.** **School Communication of Student Performance**

We want our parents and community to feel as comfortable at Green Valley
Elementary as their children do because quality education is a
partnership. Our communication builds trust and provides a vital link
between school and home. The foundation for our school year is laid at
"Meet the Teacher Night" where students, parents, and teachers have the
opportunity to become acquainted before the first day of school. Every
teacher distributes a brochure containing information regarding
behavioral expectations, contact information, homework policies,
classroom procedures, and autobiographical information. More in-depth
information regarding the year's curriculum is provided during the first
six weeks of school when each grade level hosts a "Curriculum Night".
Other school-wide communication aids include weekly classroom
newsletters, progress reports, PTA communications, informational
bulletin boards, report cards, assemblies, publication releases, our
school's marquee, and our website at
[www.birdville.k12.tx.us/schools/120/default.htm](http://www.birdville.k12.tx.us/schools/120/default.htm).

Relationships are strengthened with daily communication between home and
school. Each teaching team has designed its own form of interaction with
parents to convey information about the school day. In Kindergarten
through second grade, all students have a daily communication folder
that contains assessment data and information regarding behavior, work
habits, and assignments. Grades three through five use a planner in
which students record daily academic content. Graded papers are returned
to students weekly. Parents, in turn, have the opportunity to
communicate with teachers through these folders and planners,
voice-mail, e-mail, parent/teacher conferences, and grade level
conferences.

Individual formal testing results from the TPRI are shared with parents
three times per year, and individual results for the TAKS and SDAA are
sent home with each child at the end of the school year. Accomplishments
and successes are proudly shared through TAKS graphs displayed
throughout the school, on the school website, and during school-wide
assemblies and celebrations.

**4. Sharing Successes with Other Schools**

Green Valley has always believed that success builds success. We believe
that schools should have a symbiotic relationship where best practices
are shared in order to benefit all students. To make this possible, our
teachers make every effort to share our best practices with others. Many
of our teachers are presenters at both in-district and out-of-district
staff development training. Our teachers frequently participate in
curriculum writing, including the development of benchmark tests. Each
grade level selects a person to represent our campus as a facilitator at
periodic meetings with district consultants. These facilitator meetings
serve as a forum for sharing our successes and receiving innovative
ideas for continual growth.

One of our crowning achievements at Green Valley has been the creation
and implementation of our Birdville's Early Acquisition of Reading
Skills Lab (BEARS Lab). This literacy-based computer lab has been
designed to enhance reading skills in the primary grades. This
center-based program includes activities that develop phonemic
awareness, sight-word recognition, comprehension, listening skills,
fluency, and writing skills. The BEARS Lab has become the district's
model and has been implemented on most of our district's twenty
elementary campuses.

Green Valley continues to welcome parents, community members, and other
educators into our school. Community members and district administrators
regularly attend special events held at the school including the first
grade's "Thanksgiving Celebration," third grade's "Living Museum," and
fifth grade's "Colonial Fair." In partnership with local universities,
Green Valley teachers serve as mentors for student teachers.

Vertical team meetings, staff meetings, and grade level team planning
provide an excellent opportunity for sharing our best practices on our
campus. Teachers openly display positive support for one another as we
share our successes and celebrations regularly. Green Valley feels a
willingness to share our effective practices and openly welcomes the
opportunity to do so with others.

**Part V -- Curriculum and Instruction**

**1. School Curriculum**

Green Valley maintains a strong, core curriculum built upon state
requirements, high expectations, and a continuous drive for improvement.
Our core curriculum, the TEKS, is a guide for all of the subject areas
including reading, language arts, math, science, health, social studies,
art, music and physical education.

Knowing that reading is the key to a student's academic success, Green
Valley places a strong emphasis on reading instruction. Through
authentic literature, our students demonstrate a basic knowledge of
reading, integrate literary elements, develop reading strategies, and
apply critical thinking skills. The language arts program includes
writing, penmanship, spelling, grammar, and listening and speaking,
which are all taught through the writing process. Students utilize these
skills as they pre-write, compose rough drafts, edit, revise, and share
published work. For instance, our third grade students create an
eight-page autobiography, telling about the day they were born, their
family, school days, and hopes for the future. These works are edited,
revised, illustrated, and are sent to be published. These hardbound
treasures are shared with their peers and then presented to their
parents at an author's breakfast during Texas Public School Week.

Math and science concepts, skills, and processes are taught using an
inquiry approach that engages students through hands-on methods. Number
operations, patterns and relationships, geometry, measurement, and
probability and statistics are key concepts taught in math. In addition,
a strong emphasis is placed on problem solving and using higher level
thinking skills. In partnership with Texas Christian University, Green
Valley has established a Hands-on Math/Science Lab where problem-solving
skills are used to conduct experimental investigations that explore math
and science concepts. This hands-on approach is evident during a first
grade culminating activity for states of matter where students observe
the process of liquid becoming a solid as they change milk and sugar
into ice cream. Parents play a vital role in the success of our lab by
assisting teachers in planning activities, setting up materials, and
leading small group activities.

Our social studies curriculum is comprised of history, geography,
government, citizenship, economics, and culture. History comes alive as
our fifth grade students re-create early America during their annual
"Colonial Fair". The students research colonial life, including trades
and occupations, design and create authentic colonial crafts, and even
experiment with colonial recipes. Students dressed in period costumes
guide visitors on a stroll through their interpretation of a Colonial
American village.

Believing that quality education is a partnership among staff, family,
students, and community members, Green Valley has developed an
outstanding fine arts program. Lack of funding and staffing has been
overcome by tapping into local resources, including our Parent Teacher
Association (PTA), parent and community volunteers, donations, and
fundraisers. This community support allows us to provide programs that
would otherwise be impossible. An annual Art Day Celebration exposes the
children to different art mediums as they participate in activities such
as band performances, interpretive dance, pointillism, silk screening,
woodturning, drama, and Celtic art. Collaboration with our middle and
high schools, local artists, talented parents, and members of the
community provides our students with an opportunity to celebrate their
artistic talents.

In every subject area, we have gone beyond state and district guidelines
in order to create a unique curriculum that provides every child with an
optimum environment for success. A methodology that raises our student's
level of thinking is Bloom's Taxonomy, a cognitive hierarchy of
thinking. We strive to gear our instruction toward the higher levels of
thinking including analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

Green Valley also uses Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences, a
multi-sensory approach to learning, which addresses individual learning
styles. In Kindergarten, children are introduced to nocturnal animals
musically by singing songs about bats, auditorily by practicing
echolocation, visually by creating bats to hang in a three-dimensional
cave, and linguistically by sharing facts about bats. These techniques
coupled with curriculum requirements and high expectations provide the
formula for our students' success.

**2a. Reading Curriculum**

*"...I would like to thank you for all the great memories at Green
Valley. . . You were a teacher who really made a difference for me,
helping me on my way from not knowing a word of English to being
accepted at Harvard. . ." -- Gabriel Rocha, former Gator*. This touching
excerpt from a student's letter to a former teacher illustrates the
impact of our reading curriculum on our students.

Our research-based, intensive reading program begins in the primary
grades with a balanced literacy approach. Guided reading, phonemic
development, shared reading, and self-selected reading are blended into
our students' daily reading instruction in order to develop effective
strategies in our beginning readers. Early in their education, students
learn to manipulate letters, sounds, and word patterns through
activities such as alphabet arcs, making words, and word walls. Guided
reading in large and small groups is used to develop and strengthen
reading ability. Once reading is established in our students, fluency,
or the ability to read with a natural flow, becomes increasingly
important. To promote reading fluency in second grade, students have a
fluency folder containing phrase lists, poetry, and reader's theater
plays. Weekly assignments are practiced at school and home with reader's
theater presentations given at the end of each week. In the intermediate
grades, the focus shifts from learning to read to reading to learn. The
students' expository reading skills are strengthened as they read in
social studies and science for specific content. Rather than teach
reading skills in isolation, intermediate grade level teachers use a
novel-based curriculum that exposes the students to classic and
contemporary literature.

Our reading instruction has a proven record of success. As previously
stated, the driving force behind Green Valley's curricular decisions
continues to be student assessment data derived from TAKS and SDAA,
TPRI, and daily teacher observations. At every step of our students'
educational journey, we plan, assess, and re-adjust to accommodate the
needs of our students, resulting in their high test scores and their
love of reading.

**3. Math Curriculum**

Green Valley's math program focuses on the TEKS with an emphasis on real
world applications. Our goal is to empower students to make sense of
mathematics in meaningful ways. This foundation provides children with
the confidence and skills they need to be successful in all life's
venues.

Kindergarten through second grade teachers instruct and remediate the
basic concepts for math at the concrete level using games, activities,
and manipulatives before moving to the abstract algorithms. In
illustration, our first grade teachers read Eric Carle's [Rooster Off to
See the World]{.underline} to look for addition and subtraction patterns
in the story. During this multi-level activity, students draw pictures,
use counters to show the pattern, or write a number sentence to
demonstrate their thinking.

Third through fifth grade math curriculum helps students develop
numerical, quantitative, and spatial reasoning that can be applied to
real-world problem solving. Manipulatives and pictorial models play an
important part in helping students to make sense of mathematics, while
connecting their understanding of key concepts and skills. Reasoning and
critical thinking deepen that understanding. For example, in fourth
grade the students use their problem solving skills to determine the
amount of water in an apple. Students measure the apple's mass, dry the
apple, re-measure its mass, and find the difference between the two. As
a result, the students have determined the amount of water in an apple.
This activity leaves the students with the feeling that they can look at
a problem, think it through, and come up with a solution, thus easing
the stress some students feel when faced with a life problem.
Empowerment is gained through success in daily problem solving
activities.

**4. Improving Student Learning**

At Green Valley, we believe that all students have the ability to learn
and have special talents and needs that can be met through a diverse
learning environment. All students are organized into heterogeneous
classrooms. Within these classrooms, children are taught using a variety
of instructional methods including whole group, small group, flexible
grouping, peer groups, learning centers, and one-on-one instruction. An
example of flexible grouping is demonstrated in the way our students in
third and fourth grade are grouped for targeted instruction based on
specific TAKS objectives. After a benchmark test, a group of students
may need more work on measurement. Those students are grouped together
to receive further instruction on that specific objective. Additionally,
in fourth and fifth grade, teachers departmentalize their instruction.
Each teacher is responsible for instructing children in their content
area(s) of specialization, which allows for a greater depth of
instruction.

At Green Valley, our goal is to meet the individual academic needs of
all our students. Through careful assessment, communication,
professional cooperation, and planning, we are able to maximize each
student's learning potential. Green Valley goes beyond conventional
methods of tutoring during the school day. For instance, "Homework Help"
is offered in fifth grade two days every week after school for any
student who would like to come for extra help or remedial tutoring. An
unusual example of differentiated instruction is our implementation of
telescoping, which allows for acceleration of a student in a particular
content area when he/she has demonstrated mastery of standards at the
current grade level. During shared reading instruction, one of our
Kindergarten students "telescopes" to second grade to participate in
instruction appropriate for his level. Green Valley also has two third
grade students who "telescope" to fourth grade for all of their math
instruction. Meeting the needs of every student is the goal at Green
Valley. We believe it is the only way to ensure success.

**5. School Professional Development**

At Green Valley, all professional development is tailored to meet the
needs of our students. If we want all students to be the best they can
be, then we believe all teachers must be the best they can be.
Professional development allows us to gain the skills necessary to
connect our assessment and instruction to student growth. One staff
development opportunity that is making an impact on our campus is
Baldrige training. This training is based upon the Malcolm Baldrige
education criteria for performance excellence and serves as a blueprint
for building a well-aligned classroom in which the student is empowered
to set their own goals and chart their own progress. Fifth grade
students set a goal for their social studies six-week's average. All
grades are then graphed to see if our students are reaching their goal.
Students can then see how their actual grades compare to their goals. In
teacher/student conferences, progress is discussed and strategies are
developed that foster success. Through this process, the students take
ownership of their learning and feel a responsibility for their level of
achievement. Additionally, teachers set a professional development goal
and a student achievement goal each year. The achievement of these goals
is discussed at the end of each school year in a summative conference
with the principal.

On the 2004 writing TAKS test, six out of seventy-four fourth grade
students scored the highest composition rating. Unsatisfied with the
results, our teachers developed a campus-wide goal to increase the
quality of our students' writing. The Baldrige model is also applied in
writing as students set goals and work to improve their writing skills.

In conjunction with our district's Computer Competency Initiative, our
teachers are working toward or have completed twenty-four hours of
technology training. In turn, teachers enhance their classroom
instruction through technology and facilitate their students' use of
technology in classroom projects.

We welcome change at Green Valley as we continually seek best practices
and shift our instruction to meet the ever-changing needs of our
students. Green Valley is dedicated to the process of positive change
because we know those changes have the power to "affect tomorrow by what
we learn today".

**PART VII-Assessment Results**

## 

## Data Table Explanations

> **Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS)**
>
> **Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS)**

Over twenty years ago, the state of Texas instituted a statewide testing
program that, through periodic changes in legislation and policy, has
grown in size, scope, and rigor. From 1980-1989, Texas assessed basic
and minimum skills in reading, mathematics, and writing. In 1990 the
implementation of another criterion-referenced testing program, the
Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) shifted the focus of
assessment in Texas from minimum skills to academic skills. In
elementary schools, the TAAS test was administered in the areas of
reading and mathematics to students in grades 3, 4 and 5, and in writing
to students in grade 4.

The Reading Proficiency Tests in English (RPTE), designed to evaluate
the progress of limited English proficient (LEP) students, were first
administered in the spring of 2000. The following spring marked the
introduction of the State-Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA). The
SDAA was administered to special education students as a result of ARD
committee decisions based on the belief that the SDAA was an appropriate
form of assessment for those students.

During the 2002-2003 school year, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills (TAKS) replaced the TAAS as the primary state assessment program.
A criterion-referenced assessment, the TAKS is designed by legislative
mandate to be more comprehensive than any of its predecessors and
encompasses more of the state-mandated curriculum, the Texas Essential
Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), at more grade levels than the TAAS.

In accordance with the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind
Act, Texas calculation of passing percentages in 2002-2003 changed in
significant ways from calculations in prior years. First, as was stated
in the paragraph above, the test changed from the TAAS to the much more
rigorous TAKS. Second, some students with disabilities who were
previously exempted from the accountability calculations were included
in all proficiency calculations. Third, students were also required to
be enrolled in a school for 120 consecutive days in order to be included
in the calculations for that school. These changes may cause data from
the 2002-2003 school year and beyond to appear different from the data
from previous years for some schools. In addition to the TAKS in
English, state scores include tests in Spanish, Limited English
Proficient, and Special Education. Grade 3 scores are cumulative, given
over the course of the year to facilitate promotion. By law, if students
don't pass the 3^rd^ grade reading test, they are not promoted to the
next grade.

**TAKS** Commended Performance: This category represents high academic
achievement. Students in this category performed at a level that was
considerably above state passing standard.

**TAKS** Met Standard: This category represents satisfactory academic
achievement. Students in this category scored at a level that was at or
somewhat above the state passing standard.

**TAAS** Met Minimum Standards: This category represents minimum
standards that were set by the state.

Number of Students Alternatively Assessed: Students in this category
were assessed using an alternate assessment instrument that was part of
the Texas Student Assessment Program. One of the alternative assessments
used was the State Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA). The SDAA was
designed to measure the academic progress of students who received
special education services and instruction in the TEKS curriculum, but
for whom TAKS was determined to be inappropriate. Another alternative
assessment administered in Texas was the Reading Proficiency Test in
English (RPTE). The RPTE was administered to Limited English Proficient
(LEP) students and measured progress of each individual LEP student
annually on a continuum of English language development.

**Texas Third-Grade Criterion-Referenced Reading Test**

> Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline} Test [Texas
> Assessment of Knowledge and Skills]{.underline}
>
> Edition/publication year [2004]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
> Agency]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                 | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                 |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                   | Mar  | Mar  | A    | A    | A    |
|                                 | /Apr | /Apr | pril | pril | pril |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 48%  | 49%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 100% |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 96%  | 97%  | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 71   | 82   | 64   | 70   | 88   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 97%  | 96%  | 93%  | 90%  | 99%  |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 2    | 3    | 5    | 8    | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 3%   | 4%   | 7%   | 10%  | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. Asian***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | \*\* | \*\* | 100% |
|                                 |      |      | \*\* | \*\* |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 4    | 3    | 2    | 2    | 5    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***2. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 49%  | 52%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 98%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 98%  | 96%  | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 63   | 75   | 56   | 64   | 77   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **3. *Special Education***      |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*\* | 27%  |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*\* | 100% |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100% | \*\* | 100% |
|                                 |      |      |      | \*\* |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 4    | 11   | 7    | 4    | 12   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 35%  | 26%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met        | 91%  | 89%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 87%  | 86%  | 87%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

**\*\*\*\* No data reported for fewer than 5 students**

Subgroups consisting of less than 5 students are not included.

**Texas Third-Grade Criterion-Referenced Math Test**

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline} Test [Texas Assessment
of Knowledge and Skills]{.underline}

Edition/publication year [2004]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
Agency]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                 | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                 |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                   | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                 | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ##### SCHOOL SCORES             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 48%  | 46%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 100% |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 98%  | 100% | 98%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 71   | 78   | 64   | 70   | 89   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 97%  | 96%  | 93%  | 90%  | 100% |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 2    | 3    | 5    | 8    | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 3%   | 4%   | 7%   | 10%  | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ##### SUBGROUP SCORES           |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. Asian***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | \*\* | \*\* | 100% |
|                                 |      |      | \*\* | \*\* |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 4    | 3    | 2    | 2    | 5    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***2. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 46%  | 48%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 100% |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100% | 100% | 98%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 63   | 71   | 56   | 64   | 78   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***3.* *Special Education***    |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*\* | 27%  |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*\* | 100% |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100% | \*\* | 100% |
|                                 |      |      |      | \*\* |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 4    | 11   | 7    | 4    | 12   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ##### STATE SCORES              |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 25%  | 18%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met        | 90%  | 90%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 87%  | 82%  | 80%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

# **\*\*\*\* No data reported for fewer than 5 students** 

##### Subgroups consisting of less than 5 students are not included. 

##### Texas Fourth-Grade Criterion-Referenced Reading Test

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [4]{.underline} Test [Texas
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills]{.underline}

Edition/publication year [2004]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
Agency]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                 | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                 |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                   | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                 | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 57%  | 60%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 96%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100% | 98%  | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 76   | 67   | 71   | 90   | 82   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 97%  | 99%  | 87%  | 95%  | 94%  |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 2    | 1    | 9    | 5    | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 3%   | 1%   | 13%  | 5%   | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. Asian***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | \*\* | 100% | \*\* |
|                                 |      |      | \*\* |      | \*\* |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 0    | 2    | 3    | 5    | 3    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***2. Hispanic***               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 80%  | 33%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 66%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | \*\* | \*\* | 100% |
|                                 |      |      | \*\* | \*\* |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 5    | 6    | 2    | 4    | 5    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***3. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 58%  | 65%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 100% |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100% | 98%  | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 67   | 57   | 65   | 80   | 70   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***4. Special Education***      |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 17%  | 67%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 100% |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | \*\* | \*\* | 100% |
|                                 |      |      | \*\* | \*\* |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 6    | 6    | 3    | 3    | 7    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 25%  | 17%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met        | 85%  | 85%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 92%  | 90%  | 89%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

# **\*\*\*\* No data reported for fewer than 5 students** 

Subgroups consisting of less than 5 students are not included.

**Texas Fourth-Grade Criterion-Referenced Math Test**

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [4]{.underline} Test [Texas Assessment
of Knowledge and Skills]{.underline}

Edition/publication year [2004]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
Agency\_\_]{.underline}

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                 | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                 |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                   | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                 | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 55%  | 37%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 96%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 76   | 65   | 71   | 90   | 81   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 97%  | 96%  | 87%  | 95%  | 93%  |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 2    | 3    | 9    | 5    | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 3%   | 4%   | 13%  | 5%   | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. Asian***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | \*\* | 100% | \*\* |
|                                 |      |      | \*\* |      | \*\* |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 3    | 2    | 3    | 5    | 3    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***2. Hispanic***               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 60%  | 33%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 83%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | \*\* | \*\* | 100% |
|                                 |      |      | \*\* | \*\* |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 5    | 6    | 2    | 4    | 5    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***3. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 58%  | 38%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 100% |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 67   | 55   | 65   | 80   | 69   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***4. Special Education***      |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 33%  | 67%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 100% |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | \*\* | \*\* | 100% |
|                                 |      |      | \*\* | \*\* |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 6    | 6    | 3    | 3    | 7    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 21%  | 15%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met        | 86%  | 87%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 94%  | 91%  | 87%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

**\*\*\*\* No data reported for fewer than 5 students**

Subgroups consisting of less than 5 students are not included.

**Texas Fifth-Grade Criterion-Referenced Reading Test**

> Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [5]{.underline} Test [Texas
> Assessment of Knowledge and Skills]{.underline}
>
> Edition/publication year [2004]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
> Agency]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                 | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                 |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                   | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                 | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 73%  | 43%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 96%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100% | 98%  | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 63   | 65   | 87   | 83   | 55   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 93%  | 88%  | 97%  | 93%  | 92%  |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 5    | 9    | 3    | 6    | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 7%   | 12%  | 3%   | 7%   | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. Asian***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100% | \*\* | \*\* |
|                                 |      |      |      | \*\* | \*\* |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 2    | 3    | 6    | 4    | 2    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***2. Hispanic***               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100% | \*\* | \*\* |
|                                 |      |      |      | \*\* | \*\* |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 4    | 3    | 6    | 3    | 3    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***3. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 75%  | 42%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 98%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100% | 98%  | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 56   | 57   | 70   | 75   | 48   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***4. Special Education***      |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100% | \*\* | \*\* |
|                                 |      |      |      | \*\* | \*\* |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 1    | 3    | 5    | 4    | 2    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 25%  | 17%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met        | 79%  | 79%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 92%  | 90%  | 87%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

**\*\*\*\* No data reported for fewer than 5 students**

Subgroups consisting of less than 5 students are not included.

**Texas Fifth-Grade Criterion-Referenced Math Test**

> Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [5]{.underline} Test [Texas
> Assessment of Knowledge and Skills]{.underline}
>
> Edition/publication year [2004]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
> Agency]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                 | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                 |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                   | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                 | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 70%  | 43%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 98%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 63   | 63   | 87   | 83   | 55   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 93%  | 85%  | 97%  | 93%  | 92%  |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 5    | 11   | 3    | 6    | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 7%   | 15%  | 3%   | 7%   | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. Asian***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100% | \*\* | \*\* |
|                                 |      |      |      | \*\* | \*\* |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 2    | 3    | 6    | 4    | 2    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***2. Hispanic***               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100% | \*\* | \*\* |
|                                 |      |      |      | \*\* | \*\* |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 4    | 3    | 6    | 3    | 3    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***3. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 71%  | 41%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 98%  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 56   | 56   | 70   | 75   | 48   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***4. Special Education***      |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
|                                 | \*\* | \*\* |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100% | \*\* | \*\* |
|                                 |      |      |      | \*\* | \*\* |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 1    | 1    | 5    | 4    | 2    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 26%  | 17%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met        | 82%  | 86%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 96%  | 94%  | 92%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

**\*\*\*\* No data reported for fewer than 5 students**

Subgroups consisting of less than 5 students are not included.