##### *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. Nikki Hamilton

Official School Name Canyon Creek Elementary

School Mailing Address 2100 Copper Ridge Dr.

Richardson, TX 75080-2312

County Dallas School Code Number 057916-102

Telephone [( 469 ) 593-6500]{.underline} Fax [( 469 )
593-6511]{.underline}

Website/URL [www.risd.org/schools/cce/index.htm]{.underline} E-mail
nikki.hamilton@risd.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\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent Mr. Jim Nelson

District Name [Richardson Independent School District]{.underline} Tel.
[( 469) 593-0000]{.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 Mrs. Anne Foster

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)

**[PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION]{.underline}**

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]{.underline}**

**DISTRICT**

1\. Number of schools in the district: 41 Elementary schools

9 Junior high schools

> 4 High schools

2 Other

56 TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: \$8,160

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: \$8,029

**SCHOOL**

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

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

4\. [7]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position 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**    4         1                      **5**        **7**                             

  **K**       10        7                      **17**       **8**                             

  **1**       14        16                     **30**       **9**                             

  **2**       21        13                     **34**       **10**                            

  **3**       18        15                     **33**       **11**                            

  **4**       13        13                     **26**       **12**                            

  **5**       21        19                     **40**       **Other**                         

  **6**       17        17                     **34**                                         

                                    **TOTAL                                                   **219**
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL →**                                                
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

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

the students in the school: [2]{.underline} % Black or African American

[8]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

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

**100% Total**

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year: 5%

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

  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**                   Number of students who      6
                            transferred ***to*** the    
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year.  

  **(2)**                   Number of students who      5
                            transferred ***from*** the  
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year.  

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

  **(4)**                   Total number of students in 235
                            the school as of October 1  

  **(5)**                   Subtotal in row (3) divided .0468085
                            by total in row (4)         

  **(6)**                   Amount in row (5)           4.68
                            multiplied by 100           
  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school: 2%

4 Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: 3 Specify languages: Spanish, Arabic,
Hindi

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: 7 %

Total number students who qualify: 16

10\. Students receiving special education services: 7%

32 Total Number of Students Served

> Indicate below the number of students with disabilities according to
> conditions designated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
> Act.
>
> 4 Emotional Disturbance

\_\_\_\_Autism 1 Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_\_\_Deafness 3 Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness 11 Specific Learning Disability

\_\_\_\_Hearing Impairment 13 Speech or Language Impairment

\_\_\_\_Mental Retardation 0 Traumatic Brain Injury

\_\_\_\_Multiple Disabilities 0 Visual Impairment Including Blindness

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 \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Classroom teachers 16 \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists 1 4

Paraprofessionals 1 2

> Support staff 6
>
> Total number 25 6

12\. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio: 14

13\. Attendance Patterns of Teachers and Students

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

  Daily student attendance  98%         97%         98%         97%         97%

  Daily teacher attendance  95%         96%         94%         95%         NA%

  Teacher turnover rate     16%         19%         14%         5%          5%
  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**[PART III -- SUMMARY]{.underline}**

Located in Richardson, Texas, one of Dallas County's oldest suburbs,
Canyon Creek Elementary is the epitome of the neighborhood school you
always want to go back to visit. Many of our current students are second
generation attendees, as their parents grew up in this established,
highly sought after neighborhood and later returned so their children
might have an equally idyllic upbringing. Lying within one of the
smallest attendance areas in the Richardson Independent School District
(RISD), Canyon Creek serves a population of 225 in grades K - 6.
Although our school may appear as small, our role in the RISD is much
larger than it initially seems. In addition to being one of only three
Exemplary schools in RISD, we are home to the Canyon Creek Child
Development Center (CCCDC) which provides childcare and aftercare to the
teachers, administrators and staff of RISD. As a part of the Center, we
also welcome the district's only inclusion program for preschool
children with disabilities (PPCD). For the benefit of everyone who has
put their trust in us, from our littlest learners to their grandparents
who first chose to settle in this neighborhood, we feel a great
responsibility to fulfill the words of our mission statement,
specifically "to develop responsible citizens and successful learners".

This mission is the keystone of Canyon Creek's philosophy and is
extremely important to us. Parent expectations for the success of our
teachers and students are as high as our own, and for good reason - they
know what they're talking about. In our school population, we have over
100 parents working in the field of education, ranging from the
preschool level to local universities, including our next door neighbor,
the University of Texas at Dallas. Nine of our staff members are parents
in our school. This close affiliation with many different educators from
a wide variety of educational settings helps keep us focused on our
goals and on the success of our students which are literally, in a
number of cases, our own children. Many of these educators choose to
have their children attend Canyon Creek because of its rich tradition of
excellence, the personal one on one contact with teachers and staff
throughout the building and the extensive involvement of our school
community. Our Parent Teacher Association logged over 8,000 hours of
volunteer service for the 2003-2004 school year. The bonds between home
and school are especially close, allowing our public school setting to
feel more like a cohesive private school environment because we know all
our children and their families by name.

At Canyon Creek, we have a motto which is prominently displayed in the
office: "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence is not a single act,
but a habit." One "habit" we are particularly proud to have is an
eleven-year history of Exemplary ratings for our scores on the state
assessments. Our teachers also make a habit of utilizing hands-on,
minds-on activities and teaching strategies which help students become
critical thinkers and problem solvers. Our staff is highly trained and
employs best practices creatively and imaginatively to provide strong
foundational lessons utilizing challenging materials. They go the extra
mile to help struggling students by offering before and after school
tutoring several days a week and regularly updating parents regarding
their child's progress. We ensure our staff is equipped to provide the
best in educational practices to our students by presenting various
training opportunities throughout the year. They say old habits are hard
to break, but our constant search for excellence is one habit we fully
intend on committing repeatedly for some time.

**[PART IV -- INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS]{.underline}**

1.  Describe in one page the meaning of the school's assessment results
    in reading (language arts or English) and mathematics.

The Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), a criterion-referenced
test designed by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to be a measure of
student success in the core areas of reading, math and writing, was in
place for three of the five years reference in this application.
Beginning in 2003, a new test, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills (TAKS), was administered to more effectively measure the
curriculum required by the State of Texas. Subsequently, the statewide
curriculum (The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, or TEKS) and the
TAKS were aligned so objectives taught by the classroom teacher matched
the assessment items on the state test. Additionally, the TEKS are
aligned with the new federal requirements of the No Child Left Behind
legislation. In revamping the assessment program, developers made the
TAKS more difficult than the preceding TAAS test, including the addition
of a science exam. Currently, at the elementary level, testing occurs in
reading and math for grades 3 - 6, writing in the 4^th^ grade, and
science at the 5^th^ grade level. For our Special Education students who
have an identified disability as determined by the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, there is the option of taking a
State-Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA) based on their ability
level.

For Canyon Creek, the testing results for the past five years include
data from the TAAS for the years 2000 - 2002, and the TAKS for years
2003 and 2004.

-   For all five years, dating 2000 - 2004, 93% - 100% of students at
    Canyon Creek Elementary scored as "meeting expectations", which is
    defined as having "performed at a level that was at or somewhat
    above the state passing standard", with the child having shown "a
    sufficient understanding of the knowledge and skills tested".
    (Further explanation of the state's performance standards and a
    table of the raw scores required to be designated as "meeting
    expectations" can be found at
    [www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/scoring/pstandards/index.html](http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/scoring/pstandards/index.html).)

-   From 2000 - 2002, Canyon Creek's scores ranged from 98% - 100% on
    the three assessments of the TAAS (reading, math, writing).

-   In 2002, all tested grade levels at Canyon Creek scored 100% in each
    of the three exam areas of the TAAS.

-   Despite the heightened difficulty of the newly-created TAKS test, in
    2003, 94% to 100% of our students met the standard in the four
    testing areas (reading, math, writing, science), with 62% recognized
    as "commended" in reading, and 50% earning "commended" status in the
    area of math. ("commended" performance is defined by TEA as having
    "performed at a level that was considerably above the state passing
    standard").

-   In 2004, the percentage of students commended for their reading
    scores was 61%, and 60% were commended in the area of math.

-   Since 1998, TEA has recognized Canyon Creek annually for
    improvements in the areas of reading, math and/or attendance.

-   With the inception of the TAKS exam, TEA began awarding the Gold
    Performance Acknowledgement Standard to schools with 20% or more of
    the eligible student population earning "commended" distinction in
    individual subject areas. For the 2004 testing year, Canyon Creek
    received Gold Performance Awards for each of the four assessment
    areas (reading, math, writing and science).

2.  How the school uses assessment data to understand and improve
    student and school performance:

At Canyon Creek, assessment data analysis is integral to our continued
understanding of our learners' changing needs. Using information, such
as informal classroom observations, TAKS measurements and other district
benchmarks findings, the staff brainstorms to create a Campus
Improvement Plan (CIP) in late summer. The CIP identifies areas of
concern, for which activities are designed to ensure measurable progress
is made throughout the year.

Canyon Creek relies heavily on our K -- 2 instructors to lay a solid
foundation of learning for all our students. As the state also believes
this foundation is imperative, these early grades are assessed using the
Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI) three times per year, as well as
regularly-administered math benchmarks. The TPRI allows teachers to
follow a child's progress in phonemic awareness, word recognition,
comprehension and fluency. As preparation for TAKS, the district
administers benchmarks in reading, math and science to grades three
through six, followed by thorough results analysis by central
administration, the school's principal and staff. Individual student
data in conjunction with program data is monitored to determine if
modifications to the teacher's instructional program or additional
individual student accommodations are necessary.

Teachers use the scored benchmark exams to reinforce instruction by
guiding students through each question, challenging them to explain how
they arrived at the solution, while analyzing why the remaining choices
were not correct. Our special area teachers tie in activities unique to
their specialty to further strengthen the instruction provided in the
regular classroom. This shared approach to information analysis and
improvement plan implementation builds strong ties between the various
instructional areas of our school while maximizing the opportunity to
elevate student performance, ensuring no child is ever left behind.

3.  How the school communicates student performance, including
    assessment data, to parents, students, and the community:

Canyon Creek understands the necessity of clear and frequent
communication between the school and its constituents, including
parents, students and the neighboring community. Teachers conference
regularly with students regarding their individual class work and
progress. This allows the teacher the opportunity to share areas of
concern with the student, as well as celebrate the child's successes.
Another important element is early communication between the staff and
our parents. Our annual Meet the Teacher Night is a time for parents to
learn about the teacher on a more personal level, visit the classroom
and be introduced to classroom policies and expectations. During the
year, progress is communicated to parents through conferences, emails,
phone calls, notes home, and daily planners. Parents receive progress
notices every three weeks, keeping them updated regarding their child's
grades. Each six weeks, parents receive report cards detailing grades as
well as work habits and behavior information.

Canyon Creek relays information to our community regarding upcoming
district and school events, important policies, and other news as it
arises via weekly Friday envelopes, the school's website and the PTA
newsletter. Community members and business leaders have an opportunity
to regularly collaborate by way of participation on a formal committee,
the Local School Council (LSC). The LSC meets periodically to address
issues related to the school's operations, planning and supervision, and
to evaluate our educational program.

Even the most formal methods of communication do not always address
every concern, and for that reason, the doors of our classrooms and
offices are open before and after school to answer any parent questions
or address any worries they might have. Without the key tenet of
communication between all our stakeholders, Canyon Creek would not be as
successful as it is today.

4.  How the school has shared and will continue to share its successes
    with other schools:

As taken from a definition by the National Staff Development Council, a
learning community is described as staff development which involves an
organized group of adults who brainstorms to improve the learning of all
students and whose goals are consistent with those of the school and the
district. Canyon Creek implements the learning community concept in the
form of teams which operate at different levels and for different
purposes, including grade level, vertical, and site-based teams. Canyon
Creek has also met with other schools to analyze data, discuss best
practices, and share information, ideas, and successful teaching
strategies in math, reading and science.

We encourage our staff members to branch out as well, and many have
chosen to take on learning and sharing opportunities beyond those in our
building. Here are a few examples:

-   Many of our teachers serve the district as contact teachers for core
    subjects, including the areas of reading, math, social studies,
    technology, and science.

-   Canyon Creek uses vertical teaming across all elementary grade
    levels, but select staff members have gone a step farther, having
    become vertical team members with secondary teachers for curriculum
    discussion and planning.

-   Experienced Canyon Creek staff members serve as mentors to new
    teachers in the district. Others help write curriculum, and many
    serve on textbook adoption committees.

-   Canyon Creek's principal regularly attends book studies and meetings
    with other area principals in which successes and challenges are
    discussed.

-   As a participant in a Principal Leadership Academy sponsored by
    Region X Education Service Center, the principal was able to network
    with other principals from the Metroplex regarding best practices.

The staff and administration of Canyon Creek are always willing to share
best practices with others, and equally eager to search for learning
opportunities to better our teaching abilities.

**[PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION]{.underline}**

1.  **Curriculum:**

Canyon Creek's curriculum is developed with a focus on our mission of
producing responsible citizens and successful learners. Instruction is
based on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) as created by
the state of Texas, which establish the objectives to be presented for
each subject in each grade level. Our district provides support through
the development of calendar timelines, scope and sequence, and related
lessons. Our staff works vertically and horizontally to apply curriculum
in a systematic, comprehensive manner in all areas, including physical
education, art, music and library, for all children as they move across
grade levels.

Reading occurs throughout the day using read-aloud stories, shared
reading, guided reading and independent reading. As mandated by the
Texas Legislature, Accelerated Reading Instruction (ARI) is provided
daily to identified students by our Campus Reading Specialist and
Special Education teacher. Canyon Creek offers Imagination Station, an
Internet-based computer program individualized to meet the needs of
emerging readers. In total, our school day contains at least ninety
minutes of Language Arts, including instruction in reading, writing and
language development.

Math resources and training from professional educators such as Marilyn
Burns, Kim Sutton, and Marci Cook supplement the district-adopted
textbook and lessons, resources and assessments accessed from the
technology-based RISD Curriculum Planner. Ninety minutes per day is
allocated for review of facts, presentation of new material, and guided,
as well as individual, practice. To keep our educators updated with the
latest techniques and resources available in math instruction, Canyon
Creek makes math a priority when planning our staff development each
year.

Blurring the lines between subjects to reinforce instruction, Social
Studies is integrated with Language Arts through thematic units, the
Social Studies textbook and History Alive, an activity-based enrichment
program. Students read historical novels, conduct and present research
projects, and study map skills, life skills and geography, allowing
students to discover "community" means more than their own neighborhood.

The magic of science is relayed to students for 30 to 45 minutes a day
with the help of our state-adopted science text and the Full Option
Science Systems (FOSS) program. FOSS, an inquiry-based science program
developed by the University of California, is a hands-on, interactive
science curriculum designed for grades K -- 6. Targeted study areas
include experiments in life, earth, and physical science plus ideas and
inventions. From cocoons to fossils, science comes alive in the
classrooms of Canyon Creek.

Through creative instruction, our art teacher integrates objectives from
the TAKS in new and engaging ways. Using art as a conduit, she is able
to address multiple objectives simultaneously, providing concept
reinforcement in a multidimensional environment.

Spanish television programming is offered to our students grades 1 -- 6
three days a week. Additionally, instructors visit grades 4 - 6 once a
week to provide extra depth in the form of a "live" lesson. Canyon Creek
was an original pilot for elementary Spanish and it has been a
beneficial experience for our students.

In addition to preparing academically successful learners, Canyon Creek
feels it is equally important to develop students into responsible
citizens. To accomplish this, we focus each day on cultivating the life
skills of compassion, responsibility, integrity, trustworthiness,
perseverance, honesty, fairness, and self-discipline in our students.
Teaching by example, we reach out by helping provide food, clothes and
toys to local children and offering encouragement to our troops through
letters, cards and banners. A focal point of our individual
responsibility doctrine is a strong school-wide No Bullying policy. By
creating a safe learning atmosphere free of intimidation and fear while
engaging our children with thought-provoking curriculum, Canyon Creek
aspires to make their educational journey an unforgettable one.

2a. Canyon Creek's reading curriculum, including a description of why
the school chose this particular approach to reading:

Reading instruction at Canyon Creek utilizes the state curriculum with
supplemental leveled reading materials to reach the needs of all
students. Phonemic awareness, word recognition, fluency, vocabulary and
comprehension activities dominate the program.

Upon entering a classroom, the child is surrounded by print and
language. From the word wall activities to classroom tubs of reading
materials, one hears the sound of students engaged in real conversations
about what they are learning and applying it into practice. An observer
would see multiple settings for learning. Teachers are engaged in shared
reading and shared writing examples to authenticate what real readers do
and think. Guided reading groups are formed to work on special skill
needs in a direct systematic teaching model. Children are seen using
inviting classroom libraries as they sit on floor pillows or nearby
couches to read to a friend or simply practice their fluency. Classes
are frequent visitors to the library and computer lab, expanding their
fiction and nonfiction reading to multiple settings such as the
internet. Everywhere you look there are opportunities for children to
learn how to read and to read to learn.

To promote reading at school and home, Canyon Creek participates in
incentive programs for students, such as "Stick with It", a Dallas Stars
Hockey Team sponsored program, and the Six Flags 600-Minute Reading
Club. Home reading is strongly encouraged each evening for vocabulary
and fluency building, allowing parents to take an active part in their
child's reading development. Bear parties, pajama parties and the Texas
Bluebonnet Program help inspire students to find a love of reading.
School, reading and family go hand in hand at Canyon Creek, where the
strength of our reading program and its activities become the focus and
everyone wants to participate.

3.  **Curriculum Area of the School's Choice**

A strong second component of our instructional program at Canyon Creek
is math, with the district advocating 75 -- 90 instructional minutes per
day. Focus activities, such as Target Math or Calendar Math, reinforce
math concepts when used as an introduction to the lesson. Practice
activities allow support and extension of math facts, place value or
math vocabulary instruction. Problem solving revolves around teacher
guidance using various strategies followed by students modeling the
steps to find the solution. Once the process is mastered, the students
work independently to solve similar problems. Finally, during direct
instruction, the meat and potatoes of the math lesson, the teacher
introduces and extends instruction of mathematical processes and
concepts. For this, our school promotes the UPS Check model
([U]{.underline}nderstand, [P]{.underline}lan, [S]{.underline}olve, and
[Check]{.underline}) to help students think critically about how to
solve word problems.

Making math "real" is the key to making students successful. Any given
day, a visitor might see students in the main hall measuring distances
with an unfurled adding machine tape, a teacher dressed in a chef's hat
and coat for her "Decimal Café", or an art class arranging an assortment
of metal geometric shapes into mobiles to hang in the hall. Our teachers
are creative scavengers of any objects which could pass as hands-on
manipulatives to clarify information and aid understanding. They sing
songs and recite raps to teach formulas and processes. Teachers
incorporate questioning strategies, such as Bloom's Taxonomy or Margaret
Kilgo's Levels of Questions, to lead our students to think critically
about math and relate that thinking to the world around them. At Canyon
Creek, our staff lifts math off the textbook page and brings it into a
context any elementary student can relate to and learn to love.

4.  **Instructional Methods**

Canyon Creek thoroughly analyzes student data to target areas of concern
and design early intervention, often by altering their instructional
methods to fit the needs of the children, including the use of large
group, small group and one-on-one instruction. Our Campus Reading
Specialist assists identified small groups of struggling readers with
phonemic awareness, fluency and comprehension. Our students also benefit
from high school and adult volunteers who regularly assist children with
writing and reading skills.

Technology is a common educational aid at Canyon Creek. Our computer lab
is open daily for students to work on any number of projects as they
arise, including writing reports, composing music, translating data into
charts and graphs, doing research, creating report presentations,
practicing keyboarding tutorials, or using phonics and math enrichment
software. The computer lab also doubles as a learning lab, which
utilizes student headphones to help children block out extraneous
information and simultaneously focus on vocabulary or math reinforcement
activities.

As part of a hands-on, minds-on philosophy, students regularly enjoy
lessons planned around the use of manipulatives and experimentation to
help form concrete connections to abstract concepts. Explorations in
math and science stimulate critical thinking and problem solving
techniques. A prominent example is 5^th^ grade's annual trek to Camp
Grady Spruce, an outdoor education center. Naturalists guide the
students through various science and math activities, including
identifying animal tracks, geographic and historical scavenger hunts,
fossil hunts, and orienteering. Children look forward to attending camp
for many years, and the unique lessons provided there are ones
referenced throughout the year.

Whether by designing school activities or arranging informative
adventures outside our school walls, the staff of Canyon Creek
understands the necessity of engaging our children by employing a
variety of creative instructional methods to encourage their continued
development into successful learners.

5.  **Professional Development Program**

Staff development is a critical component in ensuring our students
receive the most up-to-date, quality curriculum and instruction
available. Each spring, we look closely at areas in need of growth and
plan our staff development for the following school year based on those
needs. RISD requires teachers take a pre-specified number of staff
development courses per year, but most of our staff go well beyond this
amount in order to improve their skill set and learn current techniques
and best practices. Teachers are also encouraged to attend workshops in
order to gain new insights into their subject areas. For data analysis,
we have utilized methods and ideas from Dr. Shirley Crook and Dr.
Margaret Kilgo. For individual academic areas, we have benefited from
in-services by leading educators such as Barry Lane, Kim Sutton and
Marilyn Burns. To address the special needs of our gifted students,
which make up 24% of our population, staff have attended book studies,
including Mel Levine's [The Myth of Laziness,]{.underline} and
presentations by our district gifted program and our counselor, Dr.
Sherry Latson, so we are able to expand our thinking regarding gifted
strategies and how to apply them in the regular classroom.

Our site-based staff development is concentrated on areas beneficial to
our entire staff. We enlist district curriculum directors to assist us
with ideas for hands-on science methods, math problem-solving and
expanded writing skills. Technology has a continued strong emphasis in
our district with a wide variety of courses offered during the summer
and on site during the school year. We are particularly interested in
those offerings which translate into skills students can utilize for
themselves. The love of learning combined with the love of sharing
ensures our staff is equipped to give only the best to our students.

**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  | 70   | 73   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100  | 100  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100  | 97   | 100  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 27   | 40   | 25   | 31   | 28   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 100  | 100  | 86   | 91   |      |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 0    | 0    | 4    | 3    |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 0    | 0    | 14   | 9    |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 67   | 75   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100  | 100  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100  | 97   | 100  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 24   | 36   | 23   | 29   | 27   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **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%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

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, the test
changed from the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills to the much more
rigorous Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Second, some students
with disabilities who were previously exempted from the accountability
calculations were included in all proficiency calculations. Third,
students were 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 the 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.

**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  | 46   | 47   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100  | 100  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100  | 100  | 95   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 35   | 30   | 34   | 30   | 39   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 100  | 91   | 92   | 94   |      |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 0    | 3    | 3    | 2    |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 0    | 9    | 8    | 6    |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 50   | 46   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100  | 100  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100  | 86   | 94   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 32   | 28   | 31   | 28   | 36   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **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%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

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, the test
changed from the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills to the much more
rigorous Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Second, some students
with disabilities who were previously exempted from the accountability
calculations were included in all proficiency calculations. Third,
students were 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 the 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.

**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  | 61   | 58   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100  | 91   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100  | 95   | 96   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 33   | 33   | 30   | 38   | 27   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 97   | 94   | 91   | 97   |      |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 1    | 2    | 3    | 1    |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 3    | 6    | 9    | 3    |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 61   | 60   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100  | 93   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100  | 97   | 96   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 31   | 30   | 28   | 35   | 24   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **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%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

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, the test
changed from the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills to the much more
rigorous Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Second, some students
with disabilities who were previously exempted from the accountability
calculations were included in all proficiency calculations. Third,
students were 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 the 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.

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

> Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [6]{.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  | 76   | 66   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100  | 100  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100  | 100  | 100  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 33   | 32   | 31   | 29   | 39   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 92   | 86   | 97   | 97   |      |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 3    | 5    | 1    | 0    |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 8    | 14   | 3    | 0    |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 78   | 67   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100  | 100  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100  | 100  | 100  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 32   | 30   | 30   | 25   | 36   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 28%  | 25%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met        | 86%  | 86%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 88%  | 85%  | 86%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

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, the test
changed from the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills to the much more
rigorous Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Second, some students
with disabilities who were previously exempted from the accountability
calculations were included in all proficiency calculations. Third,
students were 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 the 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.

**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  | 63   | 53   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100  | 100  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100  | 97   | 100  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 27   | 38   | 27   | 31   | 28   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 100  | 95   | 93   | 91   |      |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 0    | 1    | 2    | 3    |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 0    | 3    | 7    | 9    |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 67   | 51   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100  | 100  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100  | 100  | 100  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 24   | 35   | 25   | 29   | 27   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **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%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

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, the test
changed from the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills to the much more
rigorous Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Second, some students
with disabilities who were previously exempted from the accountability
calculations were included in all proficiency calculations. Third,
students were 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 the 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.

**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  | 43   | 41   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100  | 100  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100  | 100  | 97   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 35   | 32   | 35   | 30   | 39   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 100  | 97   | 97   | 94   |      |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 0    | 1    | 1    | 2    |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 0    | 3    | 3    | 6    |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 47   | 40   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100  | 100  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100  | 100  | 97   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 32   | 30   | 32   | 28   | 36   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **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%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

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, the test
changed from the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills to the much more
rigorous Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Second, some students
with disabilities who were previously exempted from the accountability
calculations were included in all proficiency calculations. Third,
students were 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 the 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.

**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  | 61   | 42   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 97   | 97   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100  | 97   | 100  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 33   | 36   | 29   | 37   | 27   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 97   | 100  | 91   | 97   |      |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 1    | 0    | 3    | 1    |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 3    | 0    | 9    | 3    |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 61   | 39   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100  | 97   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100  | 97   | 100  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 31   | 33   | 27   | 34   | 24   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **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%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

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, the test
changed from the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills to the much more
rigorous Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Second, some students
with disabilities who were previously exempted from the accountability
calculations were included in all proficiency calculations. Third,
students were 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 the 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.

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

> Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [6]{.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  | 72   | 67   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100  | 100  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100  | 100  | 100  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 36   | 33   | 31   | 30   | 38   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 100  | 89   | 94   | 100  |      |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 0    | 4    | 2    | 0    |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 0    | 11   | 6    | 0    |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 74   | 70   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100  | 100  |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  |      |      | 100  | 100  | 100  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 34   | 30   | 30   | 26   | 35   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 22%  | 16%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met        | 77%  | 79%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 93%  | 91%  | 88%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

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, the test
changed from the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills to the much more
rigorous Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Second, some students
with disabilities who were previously exempted from the accountability
calculations were included in all proficiency calculations. Third,
students were 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 the 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.