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

*U.S. Department of Education*

**Cover Sheet** Type of School: (Check all that apply) \[ \] Elementary
\[ \] Middle \[ \] High \[ \] K-12 \[ \] Charter

Name of Principal [Mrs. Carol Happ]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [Johnson Elementary]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address\_\_[3800 Oak Hill Drive]{.underline}

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

[Bryan Texas 77802-4625]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County [Brazos]{.underline} State School Code Number\*
[021-902-108]{.underline}

Telephone [( 979 ) 209-1460]{.underline} Fax [( 979 )
209-1462]{.underline}

Web site/URL [http://fc.bryanisd.org/johnson]{.underline} E-mail
<cah@bryanisd.org>

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

Date [February 02, 2007]{.underline}

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent\* [Mr. Mike Cargill]{.underline}

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

District Name [Bryan Independent School District]{.underline} Tel. [(
979 ) 209-1000]{.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 [February 02, 2007]{.underline}

(Superintendent's Signature)

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson [Mr. David Stasny]{.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 [February 02, 2007]{.underline}

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

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

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

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

2.  The school has made adequate yearly progress each year for the past
    two years and has not been identified by the state as "persistently
    dangerous" within the last two years. To meet final eligibility, the
    school must meet the state's adequate yearly progress requirement in
    the 2006-2007 school year.

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

4.  The school has been in existence for five full years, that is, from
    at least September 2001 and has not received the No Child Left
    Behind -- Blue Ribbon Schools award in the past five years.

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

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

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

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

**PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

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

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

1\. Number of schools in the district: [15]{.underline} Elementary
schools

[3]{.underline} Middle schools

[0]{.underline} Junior high schools

[1]{.underline} High schools

[3]{.underline} Other (special opportunity schools)

[23]{.underline} Total

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$5,682]{.underline}

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$5,428]{.underline}

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

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

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

4\. [12]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

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

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

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

  **PreK**    1                                             **7**                             

  **K**       36        30                     **66**       **8**                             

  **1**       25        31                     **56**       **9**                             

  **2**       33        37                     **70**       **10**                            

  **3**       34        40                     **74**       **11**                            

  **4**       41        23                     **64**       **12**                            

  **5**       30        37                     **67**       **Other**                         

  **6**                                                                                       

                                    **TOTAL                                                   398
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

> ***\[Throughout the document, round numbers 1 or higher to the nearest
> whole number.***
>
> ***Use decimals to one place only if the number is below 1.\]***

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [54]{.underline} %White

the school: [5]{.underline} % Black or African American

[39]{.underline} %Hispanic or Latino

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

[0]{.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:
[16]{.underline} %

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

  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**                   Number of students who      29
                            transferred ***to*** the    
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year   

  **(2)**                   Number of students who      36
                            transferred ***from*** the  
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year   

  **(3)**                   Total of all transferred    65
                            students \[sum of rows (1)  
                            and (2)\]                   

  **(4)**                   Total number of students in 406
                            the school as of October 1  

  **(5)**                   Total transferred students  .16009
                            in row (3) divided by total 
                            students in row (4)         

  **(6)**                   Amount in row (5)           16.009 or 16.1%
                            multiplied by 100           
  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school: [24%]{.underline}

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

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

Specify languages: Spanish, Vietnamese, Urdu

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [41]{.underline} %

Total number students who qualify: [162]{.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: [3]{.underline} %

[13]{.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. Do not add additional categories.

[0]{.underline} Autism [0]{.underline} Orthopedic Impairment

[0]{.underline} Deafness [0]{.underline} Other Health Impaired

[0]{.underline} Blindness [4]{.underline} Specific Learning Disability

[0]{.underline} Emotional Disturbance [8]{.underline} Speech or Language
Impairment

[1]{.underline} Hearing Impairment [0]{.underline} Traumatic Brain
Injury

> [0]{.underline} Mental Retardation [0]{.underline} Visual Impairment
> Including Blindness
>
> [0]{.underline} Multiple Disabilities

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

Administrator(s) [1]{.underline}

Classroom teachers [22]{.underline}

Special resource teachers/specialists [7]{.underline} [2]{.underline}

Paraprofessionals [3]{.underline}

> Support staff [3]{.underline}
>
> Total number [36]{.underline} [2]{.underline}

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

students in the school divided by the FTE of classroom teachers, e.g.,
22:1 [18]{.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. Also
explain a high teacher turnover rate. *\*Veteran Staff Retirements*

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

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

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

  Teacher turnover rate     15%         14%         \*25%       15%         10%

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

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

**PART III ‑ SUMMARY**

*"As educators, we often look for the latest, greatest programs and buzz
words, and trendy new resources. But I find myself increasingly
impressed with schools like Johnson Elementary, who are able to achieve
extraordinary results with ordinary resources."* ---[mike cargill,
superintendent, bryan isd]{.smallcaps}

Johnson Elementary School (JES) in the Bryan Independent School District
is noteworthy because of what this group of faculty, parents and
students has been able to accomplish consistently over many years. It is
easy to look at a school like JES, which consistently achieves exemplary
standardized test results, and say, "This is a great school." However,
the most remarkable feature of JES is that its news-making programs,
innovative techniques, and highly successful test scores have all been
achieved with resources that most Americans would consider ordinary. The
JES facility is relatively small; its student population comes from
working class families and diverse socioeconomic backgrounds; its budget
is average, and the majority of its resources are those available to
most schools in America. So JES becomes an exemplar for best practices
in education, not because it represents some radical, costly experiment
in education; rather, it is an example for other schools because its
faculty has been able to achieve extraordinary results with ordinary
resources.

The JES vision involves providing a safe, supportive environment for
active, innovative learning where all students can reach their fullest
potential. The motto, "Innovate to Educate" is clearly seen in JES's
unique programs, staff development opportunities, and ongoing emphasis
on the partnership between home, school, and community. JES captures the
spirit of the *No Child Left Behind Act* in its attitude to do whatever
it takes to make sure each student succeeds. It is this attitude, rather
than trendy programs, model facilities, and extra resources, which
innovates and ensures academic success for every student. JES has indeed
created a unique blend of spiraling curriculum, instructional methods,
and classroom management techniques that results in increased learning
as reflected in assessment results. It is no surprise that these results
attract attention. The school was recently featured on CNN for its Dual
Language Program, an improved approach to bilingual education designed
to help both English-speaking and Spanish-speaking students become
bilingual, bi-literate and bicultural. The school continues to receive
accolades from the Texas Education Agency, as well as private
organizations. *Texas Monthly* magazine ranked JES one of the top
schools in Texas. Since Texas implemented the Texas Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test in 2003, JES has been named to the
*Texas School Honor Roll* three times by the Texas Business and
Education Coalition and Just for Kids, which compares school test
results among schools with similar student populations.

These achievements are the result of hard work. Rather than asking for
extra resources, JES has asked itself for extra *effort*. For example,
students in grades 1, 2, and 3 take weekly fluency tests in reading. The
effort is time consuming, but helps faculty catch reading problems
early, assists in strategic grouping strategies and curriculum planning,
and ultimately results in increased proficiency in all subjects. Rather
than adopting blanket instructional strategies, the JES faculty
continually creates its own instructional mix. This unique blend is
comprised of the most useful elements of many different instructional
ideas. Increased use of academic language in the classroom, commitment
to differentiated small group structuring, individual tutoring and
PTO-partnered funding of additional hands-on classroom technology
indicates a determination to use *existing* resources to make sure no
child is left behind.

The JES mission is to develop responsible, literate, competent citizens
and self-directed learners using proactive needs assessment, active
family involvement, and teacher led, innovative instructional strategies
for meeting individual needs. JES is remarkable because its teachers,
administrators, parents, and students understand the truth that there is
no substitute for hard work, creativity, and commitment to learning. The
best practices and educational examples demonstrated on this small,
innovative campus are proof of what can be accomplished, not just with
the right resources, but with high expectations and commitment. JES will
continue to use ordinary resources to achieve extraordinary results!

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

*"Schools get on our Honor Roll the old fashioned way -- they earn it.
For us, the bottom-line is results. These schools help all schools do
well in all subjects."* ---[Jack Lowe, Co-Chair]{.smallcaps}, [Texas
Business and Education Coalition]{.smallcaps}

1.  **Assessment Results:** The Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills
    (TAKS) is a criterion-referenced test, which measures student
    performance in the statewide curriculum. This test is given annually
    to elementary students in Grades 3-5 in Reading and Math, Grade 4 in
    Writing, and Grade 5 in Science. TAKS can also be given in Spanish
    for students in bilingual classes. Scale scores are reported for
    every student in each subject tested. Students meet the standard
    with a scale score of 2100 and are considered to have a sufficient
    understanding of the knowledge and skills measured at their grade.
    Students with a scale score of 2400 receive Commended Performance.
    Commended Performance is considered high academic achievement at a
    level well above the state passing standard. Students in this
    category answer at least 90% of the test items correctly. JES
    students consistently have a high rate of Commended Performance.
    Through the Texas Accountability Rating System, schools are rated
    Exemplary, Recognized, Acceptable, or Low Performing based on the
    percentage of all students and subpopulations with 30 or more
    meeting the standard on all tests. Special Education students who
    take the State-Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA II) are also
    included in the school's rating. Additionally, the Texas Education
    Agency awards Gold Performance Acknowledgements (GPA) to schools
    with high rates of Commended Performance in each subject area. As
    part of the state-wide Student Success Initiative students in Grade
    3 must pass TAKS reading to be promoted and students in Grade 5 must
    pass TAKS reading and math. Students have three opportunities to
    pass. The accountability rating is based on students passing the
    first two administrations. Students who are limited English
    proficient and are new immigrants may have a one-year exemption for
    TAKS but take a Reading Proficiency Test in English (RPTE) and a
    Linguistically Accommodated Test (LAT) in Math.

In 2006, JES was rated Exemplary and received Gold Performance
Acknowledgements in reading, writing, math, science and attendance. To
receive an exemplary rating at least 90% of students tested must pass in
every subject area. Since TAKS was implemented in 2003, JES was named to
the *Texas School Honor Roll* three times by the Texas Business and
Education Coalition (TBEC) and Just for Kids. TBEC identified JES as an
Honor Roll school by analyzing three years of performance data. Honor
Roll schools also have the highest percentage of students performing at
the state's most rigorous standard -- commended. Overall TAKS scores for
2006 in reading and math were between 90-99% in our subgroups of
Hispanic, White, and Economically Disadvantaged. Our African American
subpopulation consisting of 10 students scored 90% in reading and 70% in
math. Test results over time show there is not a large disparity among
subgroups. For the past three years all of our special education
students met the set expectation on the State Developed Alternative
Assessments. Over the past ten years, JES was rated Exemplary seven
times and Recognized three times. Additional assessment information can
be seen at the Texas Education web site \[http://www.tea.state.tx.us\].

**2. Using Assessment Results:** At JES we understand the need to
balance our assessment system between assessment *of* learning and
classroom assessment *for* learning. Staff development is ongoing in
training teachers in the importance of data disaggregation and how it is
used to drive instruction. Assessment data is closely analyzed using a
data management software program and teachers ask, "What are my
students' needs, what grouping and differentiation strategies best
address the weaknesses of my students, and is the pacing of the
curriculum appropriate for optimal student achievement?" Our testing
data allows us to build an item analysis and develop intervention plans
for each student.

Students in Grades K-2 are given the Texas Primary Reading Inventory
(TPRI) and Tejas Lee (Spanish version) to assess reading skills. Our
computerized mClass software prescribes an intervention plan for each
student and groups students for both Tier I and Tier II interventions.
Grades 3-5 participate in analysis of checkpoints and prior released
state assessments. We meet in grade level teams to review assessment
data from checkpoints at every grade level in all content areas and
discuss what questions have been missed and why students may have missed
certain questions. This enables us to plan for reteaching strategies and
develop action plans. TAKS Target Charts with performance categories and
subpopulations are developed for each class in grades 3-5. This is a
great visual to see where students are and to plan for small group
instruction. For students who are scoring higher than the passing
standard, we look at how we can get them to Commended Performance.

Numerous faculty meetings are spent analyzing TAKS questions, discussing
what each question is asking and what skills are needed to answer the
question correctly. Each grade level asks, "What does this look like at
my grade level?" Our discussions give us new understanding of the depth
of the TEKS and the level of critical thinking required for TAKS. Our
commitment to using assessment data assures connection between the
written, taught, and tested curriculum and is a key component for
student success.

3.  **Communicating Assessment Results:** From the moment we find out
    that TAKS scores have arrived in the district until the moment we
    call an impromptu meeting to view JES scores, our faculty eagerly
    awaits the results. We share the news with the entire staff and the
    celebration begins! After TAKS results are received in the spring,
    they are sent home and teachers meet individually with students and
    parents. Local newspapers report overall district scores. When
    school begins, JES holds a parent orientation at each grade level
    where we once again review scores. We also share results with our
    PTO, with our Campus Performance Improvement Council, and with the
    School Board. The School Board presentation is televised so the
    community has an opportunity to hear about our school. We hold TAKS
    parent nights in the fall and scores are again shared. The school
    report card is mailed to parents in English and Spanish along with
    directions on how to read the report. We also give parents a number
    to contact the principal if they have any questions. Our yearly
    report card is posted on the JES website,
    <http://fc.bryanisd.org/johnson>, as well as the TEA website.
    Primary grades share results from the TPRI/Tejas Lee through
    individual student reports in both English and Spanish and in
    student-led conferences as parents rotate to the "teacher table" for
    a more in-depth explanation of the report.

We send home weekly folders that include work samples, graded papers and
a grade level newsletter. Newsletters can be sent home electronically or
within the folder. Fourth and fifth grades use daily student planners,
which communicate homework, behavior, and skills that are addressed
within each subject area during the course of the day. Teachers' web
pages include not only weekly assignments but also an overview of
material presented in the classroom and a preview of "coming
attractions," as well as links to enrichment activities.

JES sends progress reports every three weeks with grade cards going out
at the end of each six weeks. Parents have online access to student
grades and they can even request an automatic email grade report each
week. This year we are excited about being able to have a dedicated
computer at the front desk so that parents who do not have access to
computers at home can check their children's grades.

4.  **Sharing Success:** JES has an "open door" policy welcoming schools
    from around the district, county and state to observe and share our
    ideas of "best practices." For example, although our dual language
    program is only two years old, we host site visits for schools
    aspiring to begin their own program and present at the Texas
    Association of Bilingual Educators (TABE).

Within our school, district, and state, JES master teachers are often
called upon to present ideas and techniques that have proven successful.
For instance, staff members presented mini workshops and pioneered the
district implementation of our data disaggregating software for
TPRI/Tejas Lee. JES participates in our region educational service
center through distance learning and facilitating workshops and is
featured in region publications of best practices. We also take pride in
sharing our success at Texas Honor Roll School Conferences.

Over the years, JES leadership has been responsible for mentoring
district novice administrators, professional development specialists,
librarians, counselors, and teachers. Our faculty is always proud to
share our contributions to education. In fact, four of our teachers
moved to administrative positions within the past few years. While we
are proud to receive requests to share, we continue to strive for
excellence and push for even greater achievement to truly ensure that no
child is left behind.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

1.  **Curriculum:**

*"Our curriculum is our framework for learning. It is more than just
subject matter; it is a fundamental approach to the way we teach."*
---[robin adams, jes professional development specialist]{.smallcaps}

The JES curriculum serves as a framework for achieving the broad goals
for student learning in all subject areas set forth in the Texas
Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). Our spiraling curriculum is
designed to emphasize activities that promote high expectations,
increased academic achievement, active involvement, critical thinking
and problem solving. The spiraling format teaches broad concepts in the
lower grades, filling out those concepts with richer detail and depth
for higher level thinking in the upper grades. Like all Bryan ISD
schools, we use *TaskStream* lesson plan software. Within *TaskStream*,
individual units directly focus on each subject area, and include sample
lessons, clarifying questions, academic language, Gifted/Talented and
Service Learning activities, and writing connections.

*Language Arts*---The JES reading curriculum is built on several key
components: a phonics-based approach to language, oral language
development in the early grades, a spiraling language arts curriculum,
integration of that curriculum across grade levels and subject areas,
and weekly fluency tests in 1^st^, 2^nd^, and 3^rd^ grades. The overall
program focuses on the essential reading components outlined in the
Texas Reading Academies. We integrate writing across the curriculum
through science/math journals, letters to troops, and even published,
hardbound books. From language experience stories to polished
compositions, writing is a focus at JES. As students incorporate the Six
Traits of Writing, stories and essays come alive with feeling and voice.
*Math*---The JES math curriculum builds on the TEKS, using the National
Math Standards set forth by the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics. Active involvement strategies allow students to achieve
proficiency in the six strands of mathematics including numbers,
operations and quantitative reasoning, patterns, relationships and
algebraic reasoning, geometry and spatial reasoning, concepts and uses
of measurement, probability and statistics, and mathematical processes
and tools. We employ involvement-heavy activities using manipulatives,
group learning, the district problem solving model, and math journals to
help students learn to defend mathematical thinking. *Science*---Our
focus on science for the three past years has enabled us to refine our
curriculum across grade levels. We focus on the implementation of
hands-on lessons, staff development, and multilingual classroom
resources. Texas A&M University scientists conduct science demonstration
lessons and math/science connections. Beginning in kindergarten, JES
students receive real world science instruction, which continues through
all grade levels and culminates with a 5th grade field trip to Camp
Allen, where the students have an opportunity to practice classroom
lessons in a remote, outdoor environment with professional outdoor
education specialists. *Social Studies*---The JES social studies
curriculum utilizes the same spiraling format and integration techniques
discussed earlier, blending community and cultural awareness with the
TEKS emphasis on history. Hands-on activities include historical
reenactments in multiple grade levels. For example, kindergarteners
reenact the first Thanksgiving, while 5^th^ graders undertake a Colonial
Wax Museum. JES also utilizes community resources to supplement the
social studies curriculum, including Junior Achievement volunteers at
all grade levels and the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum,
which offers a rich variety of historical and political essay contests,
art contests, exhibits and student-focused presentations. *Special
Subjects---*Our integrated, spiraling curriculum extends to special
subject areas, including *Physical Education, Art, Music,* and
*Character Education.* The P.E. program focuses on a coordinated
approach to child health and service learning, partnering with the
American Heart Association and other community groups. Music classes go
well beyond teaching the fundamentals. JES students learn about other
cultures through their music and celebration. Music classes support the
academic curriculum by singing songs about historic figures, rapping
math facts or even presenting a music program about science. The
*v*isual arts curriculum emphasizes an appreciation of art, artists, and
master works of art. Hands-on activities develop and foster a love of
art using multiple media and themes, incorporating additional subject
areas. Character education is conducted through the *Character Counts*
curriculum to assist students in making good choices while emphasizing
planning and goal-setting skills.

2.  **Reading:**

*"I didn't know reading was so much fun. My friend, Ike, and I were the
first ones in our class to pop our tops, and now we even know how to
spell science words!"* [---lina rice, 1^st^ grade student]{.smallcaps}

Students understand that JES celebrates reading. From the moment
students are declared independent readers, the entire school celebrates
with them as they pop their tops on our televised morning announcements.
This is just one example of our school-wide emphasis on reading. The JES
reading curriculum uses a phonics-based approach that embraces the
development of specific components of reading, including phonological
awareness, the alphabetic principle, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and
comprehension. JES reading instruction is focused on helping students
become *strategic* readers. We begin with the assumption that all
children *can* learn to read, and we supplement with research-based
strategies like whole groups and small groups, guided reading,
tic-tac-toe menus, learning stations, think-pair-share, compacting and
reading contracts. The Three-Tiered reading model has enhanced our
differentiation and scaffolding strategies. Extended instruction, before
and after school, with highly experienced teachers, increases on the
second and third tiers of the model, enabling us to customize reading
instruction. Grades K-2 emphasize word recognition skills through the
conventions of letter-sound correspondences that foster letter
manipulation, segmentation, word blending and word sorting.
Placemat-style "alphabet arcs" and word walls are key activities in
developing emergent readers. *Fluency checks* are, perhaps, one of our
most effective strategies. Weekly fluency checks, while time-consuming,
are the best method of assessing individual student understanding and
truly ensuring that no child is left behind in reading. Strategies such
as repeated reading, paired reading, choral reading, and readers'
theater form a foundation for comprehension and competency. In the upper
grades, our balanced literacy approach allows students to refine skills
through authentic literature in both English and Spanish. Teachers guide
discussions through think-alouds and higher level questioning. Kagan
Structures (innovative ways of structuring small group interactions)
promote active participation and stimulate interest and increased
comprehension by asking students to think critically and problem solve
together. Our campus-wide vocabulary initiative is based on Robert
Marzano's *Building Academic Vocabulary*, a six-step process for
systematically teaching vocabulary. The process introduces identified
academic language in every content area and allows students to engage in
activities and reinforcement strategies for vocabulary introduced in
each subject area. Our *Accelerated Reading* program teaches intensive
reading habits and allows us to individualize instruction with time set
aside for reading practice. The *Star* program allows students to set
individual reading goals each six-weeks based on individual reading
levels.

**3. Science**

*"I've always hoped my daughter would develop a love of science, and I
give the faculty at Johnson Elementary most of the credit for my
daughter's newfound ambition of being a scientist. They've made science
fun for her...they've made it come alive."* [---Stella bosquez, 5^th^
grade parent]{.smallcaps}

The JES emphasis on science curriculum is noteworthy because it
permeates the school. In keeping with the JES integrated approach to
instruction, science is imbedded into all areas, from the morning
announcements to in-class experiments. The focus on integrated learning
is a key reinforcement strategy in the JES science curriculum. Morning
announcements on live, closed-circuit television in all classrooms
feature a science Word of the Week, and students are asked to act out
the meanings of key science vocabulary. JES employs an inquiry-based
science curriculum, with a heavy emphasis on hands-on activities. While
"hands-on" has become an education buzz phrase, it is important to note
the extra resources of time, technology, faculty training, and classroom
management strategies that are necessary to pull off a curriculum that
is truly hands-on. The JES curriculum is based on directives the State
of Texas and the National Science Standards have deemed necessary for
developing science competencies. A rich collection of manipulatives from
GEMS (Great Explorations in Math and Science), AIMS (Activities
Integrating Math and Science), and FOSS (Full Option Science System)
supports classroom science lessons. JES emphasizes the connection
between science concepts and the world around us. In studying life
cycles, students predict, observe, measure, analyze, and draw valid
conclusions using corn ear worms, butterfly gardens, silkworms, and
ladybugs as they mature through natural stages of development. Students
are motivated through the use of various forms of technology from
computers to Smart Boards (interactive white boards). For example,
students demonstrate mastery of science concepts by diagramming results
of their data on Smart Boards and engaging in competitive,
Jeopardy-style review games. To further integrate the science
curriculum, students write in journals, read for information, generalize
concepts, and formulate and test multiple hypotheses. Research is
frequently conducted using WebQuest, and results are presented using
PowerPoint, student-created games, and other innovative approaches. For
instance, culminating a study on the corn ear worm, students proudly
present projects to esteemed scientists at Texas A&M University. These
coordinated efforts result in the use of science to reinforce reading,
writing, vocabulary and math skills. Students are assessed in science
through open-ended essay response questions, six-week checkpoints,
performance based projects and science journal writing.

**4. Instructional Methods**:

*"All instructional methods are not equal, and I love Johnson's mixed
method approach, which is tailored to its own student environment. It's
not the one-size-fits-all 'approach of the day' that so many schools and
districts try. The unique blend is tweaked and refined for an
ever-changing student population."* [---mark taylor, m.s., professional
educator and johnson parent]{.smallcaps}

JES employs a blended, mixed method approach to instruction based on
previously proven methods and new, research-based approaches to address
previously unmet needs. The JES Mixed Instructional Method includes
elements of the following methods: *integrated reinforcement,
differentiation, use of academic language, cooperative grouping, a
three-tiered reading model, student-technology interaction, service
learning, and inquiry-based hands-on instruction*. While many schools
latch onto a single method in its entirety, JES has painstakingly picked
out useful parts of multiple methods to create a hybrid blend.
*Differentiation strategies*, for example, are used to customize
instruction for each student. The use of Tic-Tac-Toe Menus, Design A
Day, compacting, web quests, learning games, student learning contracts,
jigsaws, literature groups, and flexible grouping allows the JES faculty
to manage multiple levels of instruction simultaneously. Similarly, the
JES *scaffolding method* blends the Texas Reading Academies' Essential
Components of Reading and the 3-Tiered Reading Model to identify student
learning issues early and provide support through all stages of reading
development. In vocabulary instruction, JES uses Marzanno's Six Step
Process for teaching *academic language* to simultaneously develop
vocabulary, fluency, and reading comprehension, not just in reading, but
in all subjects. The *cooperative grouping* method at JES blends
*Tribes* curriculum activities with *Kagan Structures* to enhance
cooperative learning and student engagement through Pair & Share, Round
Robin, Heads Down/Bottoms Up, and Talking Chips activities. In lower
grades, students are divided into small "tribes" and come up with their
own tribe name. *Service learning* projects with the Salvation Army,
Habitat for Humanity, and the American Heart Association further enhance
blended instruction, especially in the social sciences. *Critical
thinking strategies* include teacher Think-Alouds, problem solving
techniques, and students' applications of their own ideas and theories.
A key component of our instructional strategy is the use of classroom
technology for hands-on learning. For example, students use COWS
(Computers On Wheels) for research, and Smart Boards (interactive white
boards) to maintain focus. The JES Classroom Performance System (CPS)
allows each student to have a keypad, which they use to select the
correct answers in a game show approach to instruction. The CPS makes
learning fun, while creating reports to further customize cooperative
grouping, scaffolding, and differentiation strategies.

5.  **Professional Development:**

*"Who says you can't teach an old dog a new trick? I'd be a hypocrite to
advocate a lifelong love of learning and not embrace new technologies
myself! How can I meet the needs of my students if I'm not willing to
change my teaching styles and strategies?"*[---gay kaye, 4th grade
teacher]{.smallcaps}

The JES strategy for staff development is centered on a needs-based
approach to faculty learning. We currently focus on the following areas:
technology training, materials training, curriculum training,
instructional strategies, SMART Goal training, and service learning.
Staff development occurs in informal grade level planning times (which
allows for peer coaching as needed), designated staff development days,
faculty meetings, on-line training, continuing education, and conference
training (district/state/national). Science curriculum training for
4^th^ and 5^th^ grade faculty consists of a full day of staff
development at the beginning of each six-weeks, with plans to add 3^rd^
grade training next year. Tribes training for kindergarten through third
grade faculty facilitates grouping strategies. Technology training is
essential to our integrated use of technology in the classroom and our
ongoing commitment to the efficient monitoring of assessment results.
Data analysis training teaches faculty how to disaggregate data, which
drives classroom instruction. Hardware training is provided for laptops
(each teacher is provided with a laptop), Smart Boards, COWS (Computers
On Wheels), CPS (Classroom Performance Systems), and audio/visual
equipment. We conduct bimonthly grade level team technology training
based on our campus plan for each grade level. Classroom instruction and
curriculum training are focused on differentiation strategies and group
structuring using Kagan Structures. The JES faculty also receives Cheryl
Cox Manipulatives training, which provides each classroom teacher with
advanced classroom manipulatives. Mentoring is another area of
identified staff development. New teachers are paired with a trained
master mentor who supports them through initial campus orientation and
monthly staff training. SMART Goal training (goal-setting that is
Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results Based, and Time Bound) was
furnished for a core group of faculty over the summer. These teachers
provided training for the entire faculty on the development of
well-aligned campus, grade level, and student goals based on our
greatest areas of need. Service Learning training facilitates student
instruction on community giving and citizenship. Our faculty completes
an annual book study, which has included Building Academic Vocabulary,
Marzano's Handbook for Classroom Instruction that Works, Differentiation
in the Regular Classroom, and Dual Language Instruction: A Handbook for
Enriched Education.

**PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

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

Edition/Publication Year [2003-2006]{.underline} Publisher [Texas
Education Agency]{.underline}

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

  Testing month                        Feb/April   Feb/April   Feb/April   March

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                        

  \% At or Above Met Standard          100%        97%         98%         97%

  \% At Commended Performance          45%         54%         42%         31%

  Number of students tested            60          71          64          68

  Percent of total students tested     98%         96%         96%         94%
  (TAKS)                                                                   

  Number of students alternatively     1           3           3           4
  assessed                                                                 

  Percent of students alternatively    2%          4%          4%          6%
  assessed                                                                 

                                                                           

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                      

  1\. Hispanic                                                             

  \% At or Above Met Standard          100%        100%        100%        97%

  \% At Commended Performance          38%         57%         29%         34%

  Number of students tested            29          23          24          29

  2\. White                                                                

  \% At or Above Met Standard          100%        98%         100%        100%

  \% At Commended Performance          58%         58%         56%         30%

  Number of students tested            24          40          34          33

  3\. Economically Disadvantaged                                           

  \% At or Above Met Standard          100%        95%         96%         100%

  \% At Commended Performance          30%         47%         33%         33%

  Number of students tested            33          30          24          30
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**\*African American subpopulation less than 10**

**\*Numbers include students who tested in Spanish**

**PART VII -- ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

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

Edition/Publication Year [2003-2006]{.underline} Publisher [Texas
Education Agency]{.underline}

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

  Testing month                        April       April       April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                        

  \% At or Above Met Standard          93%         92%         97%         94%

  \% At Commended Performance          45%         23%         32%         28%

  Number of students tested            58          71          66          67

  Percent of total students tested     98%         96%         96%         93%
  (TAKS)                                                                   

  Number of students alternatively     1           3           3           5
  assessed                                                                 

  Percent of students alternatively    2%          4%          4%          7%
  assessed                                                                 

                                                                           

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                      

  1\. Hispanic                                                             

  \% At or Above Met Standard          97%         96%         100%        96%

  \% At Commended Performance          48%         30%         36%         29%

  Number of students tested            29          23          25          28

  2\. White                                                                

  \% At or Above Met Standard          100%        93%         97%         100%

  \% At Commended Performance          46%         20%         32%         30%

  Number of students tested            24          40          34          33

  3\. Economically Disadvantaged                                           

  \% At or Above Met Standard          88%         87%         100%        93%

  \% At Commended Performance          44%         20%         35%         30%

  Number of students tested            32          30          26          30
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**\* African American subpopulation less than 10**

**\* Numbers include students who tested in Spanish**

**PART VII -- ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

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

Edition/Publication Year [2003-2006]{.underline} Publisher [Texas
Education Agency]{.underline}

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

  Testing month                        April       April       April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                        

  \% At or Above Met Standard          95%         88%         94%         98%

  \% At Commended Performance          35%         35%         39%         19%

  Number of students tested            63          65          70          63

  Percent of total students tested     95%         96%         92%         94%
  (TAKS)                                                                   

  Number of students alternatively     3           3           6           4
  assessed                                                                 

  Percent of students alternatively    5%          4%          8%          6%
  assessed                                                                 

                                                                           

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                      

  1\. Hispanic                                                             

  \% At or Above Met Standard          92%         88%         87%         96%

  \% At Commended Performance          27%         20%         20%         7%

  Number of students tested            26          25          30          28

  2\. White                                                                

  \% At or Above Met Standard          100%        92%         100%        100%

  \% At Commended Performance          45%         44%         50%         28%

  Number of students tested            33          36          36          32

  3\. Economically Disadvantaged                                           

  \% At or Above Met Standard          89%         81%         88%         97%

  \% At Commended Performance          29%         26%         24%         7%

  Number of students tested            28          27          33          29
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**\* African American subpopulation less than 10**

**\* Numbers include students who tested in Spanish**

**PART VII -- ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

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

Edition/Publication Year [2003-2006]{.underline} Publisher [Texas
Education Agency]{.underline}

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

  Testing month                        April       April       April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                        

  \% At or Above Met Standard          94%         92%         97%         100%

  \% At Commended Performance          49%         51%         28%         20%

  Number of students tested            63          65          69          64

  Percent of total students tested     95%         96%         91%         94%
  (TAKS)                                                                   

  Number of students alternatively     3           3           7           4
  assessed                                                                 

  Percent of students alternatively    5%          4%          9%          6%
  assessed                                                                 

                                                                           

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                      

  1\. Hispanic                                                             

  \% At or Above Met Standard          85%         88%         97%         100%

  \% At Commended Performance          38%         44%         13%         7%

  Number of students tested            26          25          30          29

  2\. White                                                                

  \% At or Above Met Standard          100%        94%         100%        100%

  \% At Commended Performance          61%         56%         37%         31%

  Number of students tested            33          36          35          32

  3\. Economically Disadvantaged                                           

  \% At or Above Met Standard          86%         89%         97%         100%

  \% At Commended Performance          36%         41%         15%         7%

  Number of students tested            28          27          33          30
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**\* African American subpopulation less than 10**

**\* Numbers include students who tested in Spanish**

**PART VII -- ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

Subject [: Reading]{.underline} Grade: [5]{.underline} Test: [Texas
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [2003-2006]{.underline} Publisher [Texas
Education Agency]{.underline}

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

  Testing month                        Feb/April   Feb/April   Feb/April   April

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                        

  \% At or Above Met Standard          100%        94%         88%         97%

  \% At Commended Performance          47%         43%         30%         37%

  Number of students tested            62          49          66          63

  Percent of total students tested     95%         91%         96%         93%
  (TAKS)                                                                   

  Number of students alternatively     3           5           3           5
  assessed                                                                 

  Percent of students alternatively    5%          9%          4%          7%
  assessed                                                                 

                                                                           

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                      

  1\. Hispanic                                                             

  \% At or Above Met Standard          100%        86%         84%         90%

  \% At Commended Performance          31%         23%         9%          29%

  Number of students tested            26          22          32          21

  2\. White                                                                

  \% At or Above Met Standard          100%        100%        100%        100%

  \% At Commended Performance          64%         54%         50%         42%

  Number of students tested            33          24          28          38

  3\. Economically Disadvantaged                                           

  \% At or Above Met Standard          100%        88%         79%         92%

  \% At Commended Performance          30%         25%         11%         31%

  Number of students tested            27          24          38          26
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**\* African American subpopulation less than 10**

**\* Numbers include students tested in Spanish**

**PART VII -- ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

Subject [: Math]{.underline} Grade: [5]{.underline} Test: [Texas
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [2003-2006]{.underline} Publisher [Texas
Education Agency]{.underline}

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

  Testing month                        April/May   April/May   April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                        

  \% At or Above Met Standard          98%         98%         95%         98%

  \% At Commended Performance          57%         55%         30%         35%

  Number of students tested            63          49          66          65

  Percent of total students tested     95%         91%         96%         93%
  (TAKS)                                                                   

  Number of students alternatively     3           5           3           5
  assessed                                                                 

  Percent of students alternatively    5%          9%          4%          7%
  assessed                                                                 

                                                                           

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                      

  1\. Hispanic                                                             

  \% At or Above Met Standard          96%         95%         94%         96%

  \% At Commended Performance          41%         27%         19%         22%

  Number of students tested            27          22          32          23

  2\. White                                                                

  \% At or Above Met Standard          100%        100%        100%        100%

  \% At Commended Performance          73%         83%         43%         45%

  Number of students tested            33          24          28          38

  3\. Economically Disadvantaged                                           

  \% At or Above Met Standard          96%         96%         92%         97%

  \% At Commended Performance          39%         29%         21%         24%

  Number of students tested            28          24          38          29
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**\* African American subpopulation less than 10**

**\* Numbers include students who tested in Spanish**