##### *2005-2006 No Child Left Behind - Blue Ribbon Schools Program*

*U.S. Department of Education*

**Cover Sheet** Type of School: (Check all that apply)
**[X]{.underline}** Elementary \_\_ Middle \_\_ High \_\_ K-12
\_\_Charter

Name of Principal : Dr. Lynda M. Carter

Official School Name : University Park Elementary School

School Mailing Address: 3505 Amherst Avenue

[Dallas Texas 75225-5401\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County: Dallas State School Code Number 057911104

Telephone [( 214 ) 780-3400]{.underline} Fax [( 214 )
780-3402]{.underline}

Website/URL: <http://up.hpisd.org/> E-mail: carterl@hpisd.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: [Dr. Cathy Bryce]{.underline}

District Name: Highland Park Independent School District Tel. [( 214 )
780-3000]{.underline}

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

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

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson: [Mr. Jeffrey A. Barnes]{.underline}

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**

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

The signatures on the first page of this application certify that each
of the statements below concerning the school\'s eligibility and
compliance with U.S. Department of Education, Office for 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 2005-2006 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 2000 and has not received the 2003, 2004, or 2005
    *No Child Left Behind -- Blue Ribbon Schools Award.*

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

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

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

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

**PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

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

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

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

\_\_ [1]{.underline}\_\_\_Middle schools

**\_\_\_\_\_** Junior high schools

**\_\_\_**[1]{.underline}\_\_High schools

\_\_\_\_\_ Other

**\_**\_\_[7]{.underline}**\_\_** TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure:
[\_\_\_\_\_\_\$8,274.00]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure:
[\_\_\_\_\_\_\$8,916.00]{.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
>
> \[ \] Suburban school with characteristics typical of an urban area
>
> \[**X** \] Suburban
>
> \[ \] Small city or town in a rural area
>
> \[ \] Rural

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

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

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

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

  **Pre-K**                                                 **7**                             

  **K**       58        72                     **130**      **8**                             

  **1**       55        77                     **132**      **9**                             

  **2**       65        67                     **132**      **10**                            

  **3**       64        67                     **131**      **11**                            

  **4**       68        70                     **138**      **12**                            

  **5**                                                     **Other**                         

  **6**                                                                                       

                                    **TOTAL                                                   **663**
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL →**                                                
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

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

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [94\_\_\_\_]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: % Black or African American

[3]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

\% 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]{.underline}: [\_\_\_**4** \_\_%]{.underline}

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

  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**                   Number of students who      **13**
                            transferred ***to*** the    
                            school after October 28     
                            until the end of the year.  

  **(2)**                   Number of students who      **15**
                            transferred ***from*** the  
                            school after October 28     
                            until the end of the year.  

  **(3)**                   Total of all transferred    **28**
                            students \[sum of rows (1)  
                            and (2)\]                   

  **(4)**                   Total number of students in **655**
                            the school as of October 28 

  **(5)**                   Total transferred students  **.0427**
                            in row (3) divided by total 
                            students in row (4)         

  **(6)**                   Amount in row (5)           **4.27**
                            multiplied by 100           
  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school:
\_\_\_[3]{.underline}\_\_\_\_%

\_\_[17]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: \_\_\_[8]{.underline}**\_\_\_\_\_**

Specify languages: Chinese, Korean, German, Farsi, Vietnamese, Danish,
Russian, Spanish

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals:
\_\_[\_0]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_%

Total number students who qualify: \_\_[\_0]{.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:
\_\_\_\_[8]{.underline}\_\_\_\_%

\_\_\_\_[67]{.underline}\_\_\_Total Number of Students Served

> [\_\_\_ 13\_\_\_]{.underline} EE\* Students Served (Not In Membership)
>
> \*Early Education
>
> Indicate below the number of students with disabilities according to
> conditions designated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
> Act. Do not add additional categories.

[\_\_8\_\_]{.underline} Autism \_\_[0\_\_]{.underline} Orthopedic
Impairment

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_[\_]{.underline} Deafness \_\_[11]{.underline}\_
Other Health Impaired

\_[\_0]{.underline}\_\_ Deaf-Blindness [\_\_7\_\_]{.underline} Specific
Learning Disability

[\_ 5\_\_]{.underline} Emotional Disturbance [\_\_35\_\_]{.underline}
Speech or Language Impairment

\_[\_0]{.underline}\_\_Hearing Impairment [\_\_0\_\_]{.underline}
Traumatic Brain Injury

> \_\_[0]{.underline}\_\_Mental Retardation \_\_[1]{.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 [\_ 38]{.underline}\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists *\_\_[2]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_*
[\_\_\_1\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Paraprofessionals \_\_[10]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Support staff \_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_
> \_\_[\_2\*]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

\*2 R.N.'s job-share 1 position

> Total number \_[52]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_\_[4]{.underline}\_\_\_

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

students in the school divided by the FTE of classroom teachers:
\_\_\_[17:1]{.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.

  -------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                             2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001

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

  Daily teacher attendance   93%         95%         97%         95%         94%

  Teacher turnover rate      22%         23%         21%         10%         11%

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

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

**[PART III ‑ SUMMARY]{.underline}**

University Park Elementary School (UP), named for the city in which it
resides, is in the tradition-rich Highland Park Independent School
District (HPISD). Founded in 1928, UP is situated in Dallas County a
mere five miles from the towering skyscrapers marking the heart of the
Metropolitan City of Dallas, Texas. A kindergarten-fourth grade school,
UP celebrated its 77th year of operation in May of 2005. Since the
campus opened in 1928 with only 165 students and 6 teachers, enrollment
statistics today more closely mirror the progression of time and trends
of the district. Enrollment growth has necessitated changes in staffing
patterns, student support initiatives, and facility needs. The fabric of
our school community is an eclectic mix of native Texans, the children
of longtime residents many of whom are third generation UP alumni, and
students coming from all parts of the U.S. and the world, as their
parents are drawn to the array of business opportunities in the Dallas
area.

Many families have chosen to live here so their children can attend UP,
which is located directly across the street from bustling Curtis Park,
which adds to its community-centered atmosphere. A typical weekday
morning will find a pilgrimage of entire families, including a fleet of
parents pushing babies and toddlers in strollers, walking their children
into the school. Frequently, our future students see the school for the
first time from the vantage point of stroller occupant, which quickly
progresses to visits tagging along with mom or dad who frequently come
to volunteer in one of the many opportunities available through the PTA,
Dad's Club, or University Park Pre-School Association (UPPA). Parents
often begin attending school events and volunteering before their first
child enrolls. When it's time for kindergarten, eager, young children
make their way to a school family that has already embraced them.

In the hearts, minds, and actions of all associated with UP, the school
is a unique, child-centered, and enjoyable place in which to learn and
grow. Upon entering the front doors, one glimpses colorful displays of
student art, information about school and community events, and
treasured artifacts representing a legacy of excellence in student
performance. Perhaps the most important contributing factor to the
inviting climate that visitors often describe as a "special feeling" is
the relationship of adults to the children and one another in the
school. As one parent declared, "Every child and their family is known
and spoken to by name." Before the morning bell, routine sights include
stories exchanged by students who are gathered around teachers, friendly
chatter among neighbors, and greetings between friends who are embraced
in warm hugs, reflecting an obvious, open camaraderie among students,
teachers, and parents.

Boasting a proud tradition of excellence in educating the children of
the neighborhood, UP has distinguished itself as a Texas Exemplary
School as a result of students achieving the highest performance
standards established by the Texas Education Agency (TEA). This is a top
distinction UP has earned and sustained continuously since 1992. In
2001, University Park was awarded special recognition from, Commissioner
of Education Jim Nelson for being one of eight schools in Texas to
receive an \"Exemplary\" rating for each of the nine years of the
accountability rating system\'s existence. In 2001 and again in 2005, UP
was named a Texas Business Education Coalition (TBEC)/Just 4 the Kids
Honor Roll School. In order to earn this distinction, teachers at UP
must utilize research-based "best practices" in their classrooms and
exhibit continuous growth in student performance. UP has been the
recipient of Gold Performance Acknowledgements in Reading, Math,
Writing, and Attendance on indicators other than those used to determine
accountability ratings. The *Texas Monthly* magazine ranks UP among the
"best of the best" schools in the Metroplex.

Our achievement-oriented community holds University Park to high
standards. This is a philosophy shared by our staff. UP's long-range
plan is designed to equip our students to be lifelong learners and
productive, service-oriented citizens. In order to make this goal a
reality, our staff is guided by a commitment to continuous improvement,
which requires the thoughtful, deliberate use of performance data to
improve programs, practices, and personal mastery. Our school district's
mission calls for, "...an unyielding commitment to excellence," which
guides and inspires our collective work.

At the heart of every decision made at UP, lies the question, "What is
best for this child?" A team approach to shared decision-making and
leadership is evident in the vision and work of both the Campus
Leadership Team (CLT) and the Campus Leadership Council (CLC). The
council consists of teachers, staff members, parents, a district leader,
business, and community members. The committee meets throughout the year
and helps guide decisions concerning goals and objectives, curriculum,
expenditures, extra-curricular activities, parental/community
involvement, and school improvement initiatives. A similar team approach
is obvious in the many ways our parents support of the school in our
classrooms, at home, and in the community. Whether serving in the
cafeteria line, publishing student writing, reading to a class, or
leading a committee or event, our volunteers display expertise,
commitment, and enthusiasm. UP is truly a force that creates its own
strength through the energy of those who are part of its daily life, a
unique educational organization that truly works.

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

**1. Assessment Results:** University Park students are assessed on the
required curricula, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS),
which is aligned with the Highland Park ISD curriculum, through the
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), a criterion referenced
test. All students in third through eleventh grades in Texas take the
TAKS in reading and mathematics annually, and test in science, writing,
and social studies in incrementally staggered years. As specified in the
Texas Student Success Initiative, all third grade students must
demonstrate mastery on the TAKS reading test to be promoted to fourth
grade. Each TAKS test consists of questions designed to measure the
application of knowledge and skills in content-specific areas. Special
education students, who are receiving instruction in the state
curriculum but for whom the TAKS test is not an appropriate measure may,
by Admission Review and Dismissal (ARD) Committee decision, take the
State Developed Alternative Assessment II (SDAA II). For a school to be
rated exemplary, 90% of the students must meet ARD expectations on the
SDAA II. Schools are rated by the state as Exemplary, Recognized,
Academically Acceptable, or Academically Unacceptable, based on overall
campus results of passing rates in each tested area, as well as the
performance of subpopulations reflecting campus ethnicity, special
education, and economically disadvantaged. In addition to meeting the
passing standard of Met Standard level with a scale score of 2100 or
70%, Texas school results are further compared to show Commended
Performance that is reflected in a scale score of 2400 or 90%. For the
2005 school year, a Commended Performance of 20% was required to earn a
Gold Performance Acknowledgement.

University Park is committed to performing as well as, or outperforming
comparable schools. We continuously extend performance targets to ensure
that all students are equipped for success today and in their future.
After a thorough analysis of all available student, grade-level, and
campus data, a needs assessment is developed by the CLT and CLC for
their use in setting performance goals and measures. UP students
continue to exceed state standards and perform at the Exemplary level.
We measure student achievement not only by the percentage of students
passing the TAKS, but also by analyzing Commended Performance levels,
scale score growth, and the proficiency of continuously enrolled
students on each reading, math and writing objective. We use data
strategically. There are no discrepancies noted between represented
subpopulations, as defined by Texas or Federal criteria. All represented
student subpopulations have consistently met expectations on the math,
reading, and writing sections of TAKS at 97% or greater.

[Performance in Reading 2003-2005 at University Park as measured by
TAKS]{.underline}: **Third Grade Reading** performance for all students
has been 100% passing or achieving the Met Standard level since the
introduction of the more rigorous state assessment, TAKS. The rate of
students scoring Commended Performance has increased from 56% Commended
in 2003 to 85% Commended in 2005. **Fourth Grade Reading** for all
students has exceeded 97% passing or achieving the Met Standard level.
Commended Performance has increased from 50% Commended in 2003 to 56%
Commended in 2005.

[Performance in Mathematics 2003-2005 at University Park as measured by
TAKS]{.underline}: **Third** **Grade Math** for all students has
consistently been 100% passing or achieving the Met Standard level.
Commended Performance has increased from 59% in 2003 to 76% Commended
Performance in 2005. **Fourth Grade Math** has been 100% passing or
achieving the Met Standard level. Commended Performance has increased
from 54% Commended in 2003 to 60% Commended in 2005.

A Professional Community of Learners, our teachers continue to
collectively learn and to systemically implement strategic, effective
instructional strategies to optimize the use of time and resources to
best serve each child. Students' strengths and weaknesses, identified
through the analysis of a variety of data, are the starting points for
custom tailoring instruction to the needs of each learner. Performance
improvement at sustained high levels of achievement is the result of a
powerful partnership between eager students, caring teachers, and
involved parents. Nothing is left to chance. More information on the
state assessment system can be located at the following internet site:

<http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2005/campus.srch.html>

**2**. **Using Assessment Results:** Effective assessment is the vital
link between learning, planning for further learning, and for addressing
the individual differences and needs of students. The teachers,
principal, and staff at UP use a variety of assessment tools to identify
student and campus needs to ensure all students are successful and the
school continues to improve its performance. We know data offers us
valuable information to guide our daily work with individual students,
grade level teams, and in designing curriculum. Using technologies, our
work begins with a methodical analysis of assessment results received
from the state in the spring. In addition, our staff also examines other
state and local assessment reports including the Texas Primary Reading
Inventory (TPRI), Diagnostic Reading Assessment (DRA), Fluency Probes®,
local benchmarks, and student work samples. In our data-mining, we look
for confirmation of the effectiveness of our strategic instructional
work, as well as indications of areas of weakness for determining
strategic, targeted adjustments to our instructional program. These
early indicators provide the basis for our needs assessment, campus
improvement planning, and instructional adjustments.

At University Park, our teachers, counselor, and principal receive
annual training in data analysis. Before school even begins, campuses
are provided with carefully structured reports by the district that
detail performance by student expectation and objective, including
individual teacher and campus-wide grade level trends. This information
guides the work of grade level teams and the principal as they analyze
student performance. Teachers share the results of their analyses within
grade level team meetings for use in planning and with other staff
during instructional meetings. Through careful attention to this
information, teachers incorporate targeted strategies at an
appropriately developmental level into their curriculum. Examples
include the addition and use of visual representation as a
problem-solving strategy campus-wide, the vocabulary for and use of
common problem-solving strategies, and an increase in the proportion of
time spent on applied problem-solving in mathematics across the campus.
Through the use of unified strategies for teaching and learning,
curriculum alignment is reinforced systemically.

Students identified in need of assistance are supported by their
teachers and the principal in two ways: First, they have Individual
Learning Plans (ILP's), which are monitored every six weeks by the
principal; second, they receive additional instructional intervention.
Often this is provided in the classroom using small, flexible group
instruction, one-on-one tutoring, or placement in a specialized
intervention program such as Accelerated Reading or Math, with a
strategic focus, targeted instruction using assessment results, and a
preferential teacher-pupil ratio of 1:5.

**3**. **Communicating Assessment Results:** At UP, we are diligent in
fostering positive, mutually supportive relationships between our staff
and community. Our parents and public supporters have a myriad of
opportunities to lead and volunteer in the PTA, Dad's Club, UPPA, TAG
Advisory, and Special Education Parent Advisory Committee (SEPAC), as
well as Campus Leadership Council. To provide parents timely information
about our school and student performance, we use a variety of
communication tools. Student progress on learning goals is shared
through individual conferences, grade level meetings, written
communication, and meetings of the Student Support Team (SST). Each
grade level team and program hosts a Parent Academic Night at the
beginning of the school year to provide a curriculum overview, set
instructional focus, and establish expectations for student learning for
the academic year. Ongoing communication to parents includes a weekly
folder with comments on student work, report cards, e-mail
correspondence, personal conferences, and phone calls. Each year parents
of primary students attend scheduled conferences with their child's
teacher. More official, written communication is provided to parents
through Admission, Review, and Dismissal Committee, Section 504, and
LPAC meetings, as required. *The Panther News* is published weekly by
the PTA. *The UP Beat*, the school newsletter, is published by the
principal each six weeks. Along with news features, every grade level
and department provides a curriculum overview for the coming six weeks.
The campus maintains an easily navigable and extensive website for
stakeholders of University Park.

Official reports of all standardized test results (TAKS, SDAA II, TPRI,
TELPAS-RPTE, TOP, and TAG Matrix) are sent to individual parents, as
appropriate. Teachers, administrators, and the counselor answer
questions and interpret test results to parents. Student performance
results are published in local newspapers, campus, and PTA publications,
as well as the Highland Park and University Park websites. The State of
Texas electronically publishes an annual report on the performance of
each of its campuses. The School Report Card is distributed annually to
parents and interested stakeholders.

**4.** **Sharing Success:** University Park has enjoyed a time-honored
reputation for excellence in education. University Park, one of 89
elementary schools statewide, was recently recognized for the second
time as an Honor Roll School by TBEC and Just 4 the Kids. Through this
process, teachers from high-performing Honor Roll Schools share
replicable successful practices with other schools in the state and
provide information for dissemination through the Just 4 the Kids and
TBEC website, which are both recognized state clearinghouses for
information and site visit locations.

University Park teaching professionals open their classrooms to area
universities for classroom observations, field experiences, and to
sponsor student teachers. In a partnership with Scottish Rite Hospital,
our school counselor sponsors a pediatrician completing the educational
component of her fellowship as a developmental pediatrician. As
co-learners, we have all deepened understandings about the physiology of
children with learning disabilities. These are some of the ways, we
invest in our profession.

Our principal, along with other successful school leaders from across
the state, has been a Best Practices panelist member for the past three
years at the Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association
annual conference. UP teachers serve on campus and district committees
to shape strategic district work through information sharing, curriculum
writing, and serving as trainer-of-trainers for summer staff
development. Our teacher appraisal model, the Self Directed Appraisal
System (SDAS), is a collaborative, action research model focused on the
study and implementation of best practices in the classroom.
Collaborative dialogue groups meet monthly to share their research-based
action plan, methodologies, and progress. Our music teacher and 130
third graders will showcase the use of Orff instrumentation in a choral
ensemble at the Texas Music Educators Association annual conference in
February, 2006. Students from UP have been published authors in *Texas
Rising Star* magazine, [Poetry Anthology]{.underline} and [Celebrate
Poetry]{.underline} for the past several years. Recently, a UP student's
art was the featured cover for the *Texas Rising Star* magazine. Last
fall, we hosted 16 North Texas area schools at a Regional Student
Council Conference, "Leaders 'R Us." There, students learned leadership
skills with area peers.

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

1.  **Curriculum:** Our classrooms reflect the district's commitment to
    providing a dynamic, responsive curriculum and instructional
    delivery system for the students of Highland Park ISD by
    incorporating, evidence-based best practices for teaching and
    learning. It is reviewed and revised on a continuing basis with
    support provided for implementation. As a result, it is vertically
    and horizontally aligned to the state standards, the TEKS, and
    articulates student expectations for learning experiences at each
    level. Through curriculum writing and lesson designing, the staff of
    UP challenge themselves to improve on already high performance
    results, while continuing to offer high quality educational
    experiences that are based on sound curriculum principles. Guided by
    the work of H. Lynn Erickson and content experts, the curriculum
    emphasizes concept development and scaffolding understanding so that
    student learning is not just practiced but is transferable between
    and among disciplines. Teachers ensure our students have daily
    opportunities to interact with significant content that requires
    high level thinking, critical reading, problem-solving, team work,
    and the use of technology as a tool. At UP, there are no limits on
    learning.

Math: Problem-solving is the heart of math instruction at University
Park. Teachers using objectives from math content strands provide daily
warm-ups that are designed to build mathematical concepts through direct
instruction and targeted, distributed practice of new concepts with
previously taught skills. Classroom experiences in the area of
mathematics provide our students with opportunities to use reasoning,
demonstrate critical thinking skills and mathematical knowledge and use
a variety of problem-solving strategies to connect concrete to abstract
concepts, solve authentic, real-world problems, and communicate with
others to justify results. By way of generous PTA classroom learning
environment funds, UP classrooms have an ample inventory of
manipulatives that provide hands-on tools for learning.

Language Arts: The goal of our language arts program is to develop
lifelong readers and writers who communicate effectively. We recognize
that speaking, listening, reading, and writing are all reciprocal
processes that build on and strengthen one another. Our teachers'
repertoire of skills are developed and strengthened through district and
campus literacy initiatives that provide training in comprehensive
literacy and writing as a process. The library is the hub of our
literacy learning environment.

Science: At UP, the science lab provides the perfect environment to
cultivate the curious minds of the young scientists that abound in our
classrooms. Our process-based curriculum allows students to observe,
investigate, explore, experiment, and draw their own conclusions about
subjects in the Life, Physical, and Earth Sciences, as they make
connections to their natural world. In collaborative groups, using the
Scientific Method, students build understandings through web-based
technologies, enter inquiry-based labs, make hypotheses, and use
scientific tools and instruments to investigate, validate, and share
results.

Social Studies: Through our social studies curriculum, students build a
foundation in history, geography, economics, government, citizenship,
and social studies skills. This content enables our students to
understand the importance of patriotism, function in a free-enterprise
society, attach historical significance to events, and appreciate the
democratic values of our state and nation. The richness of social
studies concepts provide students with opportunities to think critically
and connect learning experiences to personal experiences, while
examining other cultures, people, and places. Using rich literature,
field trips, and cultural events, students discover our interdependence
with the global community.

Fine Arts and Physical Education**:** Instructional specialists in art,
music, and physical education provide UP students with a foundation and
appreciation of the arts and instruction in the importance of health and
fitness in developing an active, healthy lifestyle. Students learn to
read music, play instruments, and participate skillfully in grade level
and choir performances. Through the visual arts, students learn about
art history, art criticism, aesthetics, and art production. Students
express themselves through drawing, painting, print making, weaving, and
sculpting. A permanent art collection showcases exceptional young
artists. These instructional programs round out UP's focus on the
development of the whole child.

**2. Reading:** On our literacy-focused campus, we believe that first
instruction in reading must be the best instruction to ensure our
children acquire the language skills they need for success in life. Our
approach to reading in our print-rich, reading/writing classrooms is
comprehensive literacy. This research-based model was selected by the
HPISD Literacy Cadre because it employs the fundamentals of letter-sound
correspondence, decoding, and word study, as well as holistic
experiences in reading, writing, speaking, and listening to create one
integrated model that addresses all the facets of literacy learning. A
balance of literacy activities and instruction at appropriate
developmental levels provides a variety of opportunities for growth in
both reading and writing processes. As students progress, they engage in
increasingly challenging opportunities for reading and writing in
real-life situations through experiences in an abundance of models and
genres of literature.

Flexible blocks of time, varying from 2-3 hours, are devoted to
comprehensive literacy instruction and allow opportunities for teachers
to integrate subject matter from other disciplines in all grade levels.
Read-aloud, guided reading, shared reading, word study, independent
reading of self-selected materials, and attention to spelling and the
writing process provides the foundation experiences for student success
in language arts. Teachers of all grade levels easily access materials
from many sources, including classroom libraries, state-adopted reading
materials, and a Literacy Library (containing hundreds of leveled
fiction and non-fiction literature, and Big Books, that are chosen by
our staff). These resources support reading instruction for our emergent
and early fluent readers through developing decoding, fluency, and
comprehension skills that are taught in flexible, Guided Reading groups.
Fluent readers participate in Literature Circles where they read from a
variety of classic, contemporary, and multicultural fiction and
non-fiction selections.

Our aligned curriculum establishes rigorous standards for both emergent
and fluent readers. All students are assessed at the beginning of each
academic year with the TPRI and DRA at specified intervals appropriate
to the grade. These assessments inform instruction, determine growth,
and guide intervention decisions. Additional support is provided to
students and teachers by specialists in English as a Second Language
(ESL), special education, gifted education, and Jump Start for students
experiencing severe difficulty in reading. Specialized support is
delivered in a variety of instructional formats with least restrictive
environment a primary consideration. With early intervention a priority,
every aspect of the stages of reading development are consistently
monitored to ensure our students success.

**3.** **Mathematics:** Math instruction at University Park is based on
the student expectations reflected in the TEKS and HPISD aligned
curriculum. Current research indicates that children develop
understanding, skills, and problem-solving strategies simultaneously. An
array of problem-solving strategies used campus-wide creates a common
mathematical language, while strengthening and unifying our work. Daily
classroom experiences in mathematics provide UP students with rich
opportunities to use reasoning, demonstrate critical thinking skills and
mathematical knowledge, apply a variety of problem-solving strategies to
connect concrete to abstract concepts, solve authentic, real-world
problems, and communicate with peers, "thinking aloud" through their
solution strategies to justify their results.

Teachers structure interactive learning experiences to ensure all
students are provided with the opportunity to manipulate real objects
and develop concrete concepts before moving on to more abstract
concepts. Selecting from an abundance of resources including Unifix
cubes, counters, play money, Judy Clocks, fraction blocks, pattern
blocks, tangrams, scale and measuring devices, etc., our students learn
to select the tools for their work. After grappling with the challenge
of teaching all students problem-solving at mastery levels, we have come
to believe analytical and higher order thinking skills are best learned
when using applied problem-solving approaches in authentic contexts,
rather than merely focusing on drill and rote computation. We have
adjusted scheduled math time to address this change in our classrooms by
increasing the proportion of time spent on authentic, problem-solving.
Students in special education receive targeted, strategic instruction in
small groups using strategies and tools that parallel their general
education peers. Identified gifted and talented students in math receive
above-level, accelerated instruction using a differentiated curriculum,
[Everyday Mathematics]{.underline}, which focuses on applied
problem-solving.

**4. Instructional Methods:** Challenging our students to go beyond the
expected, exhibit teamwork, and take on tasks that are significant,
meaningful, and relevant to their world, is our foremost intentioned
strategy. Everything that occurs in and out of our classrooms is
directed toward that end. We know that building the capacity to sustain
a successful school takes teamwork and collaboration.

To ensure we address the needs and interests of the whole child, we
first begin with a strong foundation in the academic core subjects and
then, enhance our program through the arts and physical education. High
expectations for student learning and performance are established
through the selection and use of differentiated instructional strategies
matched to the identified learning needs and interests of our students.
A variety of instructional methods are employed by UP staff, including
discussion, effective questioning, inquiry, discovery learning,
problem-solving, whole group or small group instruction, flexible
groupings, scientific investigation, independent research projects,
conferencing with peers and teachers, peer tutoring, independent study,
cooperative groups, and project-based learning experiences in which
students conduct research and complete challenging projects using print,
electronic, or web-based resources. *We continually seek ways to improve
our service to students.* For example, ESL students now benefit from the
use of the Ellis Language System, which accelerates the learning of
basic English using computerized translation modules in a student's
native language. Finally, parents assist with instruction by
facilitating Literature Circles, reading to classes, publishing student
writing, and providing clerical support.

University Park is a district cluster site for the Behavior Adjustment
Class for emotionally disturbed and behaviorally affected autistic
students. Students with mild to moderate disabilities are provided a
continuum of services that include: speech, occupational and physical
therapy, adaptive physical education, full inclusion, small, flexible
group instruction, intensive reading and math focus groups, and resource
instruction. In addition, students with dyslexia are served in Jump
Start, a program that uses a multi-sensory approach to teaching
literacy. Using an inclusion philosophy, special and general education
teachers collaborate to educate our most challenged children in the
least restrictive environment possible. Our SST process provides for
efficient study and program adaptation to meet emerging student needs,
determine timely interventions, and monitor progress and results. At UP,
our processes keep us agile.

**5. Professional Development:** In preparing our children for the
future, our staff realizes that we cannot reach the ambitious goals
we've set for our students' learning and success alone. A campus
specific Professional Development Plan is developed annually based on
district and campus needs assessments and each teacher's Individual
Development Plan (IDP). The plan is coordinated with our campus
improvement plan and approved by our CLC. Our goals are accomplished
through the use of district resources and financial contributions of our
PTA. Vital to our vision of developing academically prepared students in
every way---original thinkers, critical readers, effective
communicators, problem-solvers, team workers, community contributors,
and quality producers is having a highly qualified teacher in every
classroom.

Teachers collaborate to provide effective, learner-centered instruction
that engages students at the depth and complexity of the curriculum
objectives. In common planning meetings, teachers share ideas,
strategies, and resources to improve student performance and
achievement. In vertical district cadre and school improvement meetings,
teachers write curriculum, learn new methodologies, problem-solve issues
and concerns, and invent solutions to the many challenges of teaching
and learning. Our teachers have worked diligently to implement unified
theories of learning reflected in literacy initiatives including all of
the components of Comprehensive Literacy---Guided Reading, Shared
Reading, Literacy Centers, Word Study, New Jersey Writing Project styled
Writer's Workshop, and 6+1 Traits of Writing.

Our teachers must complete a Masters Degree within their first six years
of employment, but for the UP staff learning doesn't stop there.
District and campus leadership teams provide a palette of core training
opportunities, district hosted workshops, and collaborative learning
experiences to support campus goals. Teachers attend district and
regional conferences to study and learn from national experts in the
field, such as, H. Lynn Erickson, Ralph Fletcher, Barry Lane, Lucy
Calkins, Margaret Mooney, Phil Schlechty, and Thomas Guskey. Through
participating in Faculty Book Studies, studying in discipline-based
Cadre's, attending curriculum meetings, visiting other school sites,
serving as a mentor, supervising pre-service teacher candidates, and
visiting other classrooms, teachers are actively involved in a variety
of job-embedded learning experiences. At UP, we are becoming models for
the change we wish to see.

**[PART VII - ASSESSMENT
RESULTS\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}**

**A Summary Explanation of Data Tables for University Park Elementary
School**

**Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS)**

Years of Administration: 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

**Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS)**

Years of Administration 2001-2002 2000-2001

The accountability provisions in the federal No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (NCLB) Act were first applied to the Texas public schools in 2003,
after the introduction of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills
Assessment (TAKS), which was first administered in the spring of 2003.
TAKS resulted in significant changes in the performance calculations and
accountability reporting experienced in prior years. First, the TAKS
represented a much more complex and rigorous test than its predecessor,
the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS). 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 days to be
counted in the calculations for that school. In addition to the TAKS in
English, state scores included tests for the following student groups:
Spanish TAKS, Limited English Proficient, and Special Education. The
state's Student Success Initiative required Grade 3 Reading scores to
meet the passing standards of the TAKS for automatic promotion. In
addition, provisions of this statute required that Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) status be earned by all districts and campuses beginning
in the summer of 2003.

**TAAS to TA**KS Side By Side Comparison

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **TAAS Test Standards 2000-2002**   **TAKS Test Standards 2003-2005**

  **Academic Recognition:** 95% of    **Commended Performance:** TAKS
  the items tested were correct. This Commended Performance is the
  represented high academic           highest performance level set by
  achievement in reading, math, or    the State Board of Education on the
  writing.                            TAKS. Students earn a Scale Score
                                      2400, or above.

  **Met Minimum Expectations**: This  **Met the Standard:** This
  represented satisfactory            represents satisfactory
  achievement. Students performed at  achievement. Students performed at
  or above the state passing standard or above the standard set by the
  by the State Board of Education.    State Board of Education. Students
                                      earn a Scale Score of 2100 (70%) or
                                      above.

  **Did Not Meet Minimum              **Did Not Meet Standard:** This
  Expectations**: This represented    represents unsatisfactory academic
  unsatisfactory academic             achievement. Students performed
  performance. Students performed     below the state passing standard.
  below the passing standard.         Students earn a Scale Score below
                                      2100 (70%).
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**Student Exemptions from TAAS or TAKS:**

-   Identified Special Education students for which the TAAS or TAKS
    would not be an appropriate assessment measure, even with allowable
    modifications, are assessed using the State Developed Alternative
    Assessment (SDAA or SDAA II) or a Locally Developed Alternative
    Assessment (LDAA). Decisions regarding state assessment, for
    eligible special education students are made by the Admission,
    Review, and Dismissal Committee (ARD). The baseline year for SDAA
    was 2000-2001 and for SDAA II was 2004-2005).

-   Recent immigrant students who have not yet had adequate time to
    acquire the necessary academic language for performance success are
    assessed on alternative assessments. These students are assessed by
    the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS)
    components of Reading Proficiency Test in English (RTPE) and Texas
    Observation Protocol (TOP). The decision is made by the Language
    Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC).

    **University Park Elementary School**

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

Subject: [Reading]{.underline} Grade: [3rd]{.underline}

Test: [\_\_Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills\_(TAKS)]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year: [\_2003, 2004, 2005]{.underline}

Publisher: \_\_[Texas Education
Agency]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

# State Tests

+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
|                                | 200 | 200 | 200 |   | 2    | 2    |
|                                | 4-2 | 3-2 | 2-2 |   | 001- | 000- |
|                                | 005 | 004 | 003 |   | 2002 |      |
|                                |     |     |     |   |      | 2001 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| **Testing month**              | **  | **M | **M |   | *    | *    |
|                                | Feb | arc | arc |   | *Apr | *Apr |
|                                | .** | h** | h** |   | il** | il** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| **Test Administered**          | **  | **  | **  |   | **TA | **TA |
|                                | TAK | TAK | TAK |   | AS** | AS** |
|                                | S** | S** | S** |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**              |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At or Above Met Standard    | \>  | \>  | \>  |   | n/a  | n/a  |
|                                | 99% | 99% | 99% |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standard        | n/a | n/a | n/a |   | 97%  | 96%  |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At Commended Performance    | 85% | 68% | 56% |   | n/a  | n/a  |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At Academic Recognition     | n/a | n/a | n/a |   | 78%  | 82%  |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| Number of students tested      | 130 | 111 | 109 |   | 116  | 107  |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| Percent of total students      | 97% | 98% | 99% |   | 99%  | 97%  |
| tested                         |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% Met ARD Expectations        | \*  | \*  | \*  |   | n/a  | n/a  |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| Number of students             | \*  | \*  | \*  |   | n/a  | n/a  |
| alternatively assessed         |     |     |     |   |      |      |
|                                |     |     |     |   |      |      |
| State Developed Alternative    |     |     |     |   |      |      |
| Assessment(SDAA)               |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| Percent of students            | \*  | \*  | \*  |   | n/a  | n/a  |
| alternatively assessed         |     |     |     |   |      |      |
|                                |     |     |     |   |      |      |
| State Developed Alternative    |     |     |     |   |      |      |
| Assessment (SDAA)              |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**            |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| 1\. Economically Disadvantaged |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At or Above Met Standard    | n/a | n/a | n/a |   | n/a  | n/a  |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At Commended Performance    |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested      | 0   | 0   | 0   |   | 0    | 0    |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| 2\. African American           |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At or Above Met Standard    | n/a | n/a | n/a |   | n/a  | n/a  |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| At Commended Performance       |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested      | 0   | 0   | 0   |   | 0    | 0    |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| 3\. White                      |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At or Above Met Standard    | \>  | \>  | \>  |   | 98%  | 98%  |
|                                | 99% | 99% | 99% |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At Commended Performance    | 86% | 68% | 56% |   | 79%  | 86%  |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested      | 116 | 108 | 108 |   | 114  | 208  |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| 4\. Hispanic                   |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At or Above Met Standard    | \*  | \*  | \*  |   | \*   | \*   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At Commended Performance    |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested      | \*  | \*  | \*  |   | \*   | \*   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| 5\. Asian/Pacific islander     |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At or Above Met Standard    | \*  | \*  | \*  |   | \*   | \*   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At Commended Performance    |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested      | \*  | \*  | \*  |   | \*   | \*   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**               |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended | 37% | 35% | 26% |   | n/a  | n/a  |
| Performance                    |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Met       | 93% | 91% | 89% |   | n/a  | n/a  |
| Standard                       |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards | n/a | n/a | n/a |   | 86%  | 87%  |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+

\*Fewer than 10 students were in the subpopulations, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander,

therefore results are masked to protect student confidentiality.

**University Park Elementary School**

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

Subject: [Mathematics]{.underline} Grade: [3rd]{.underline}

Test: \_\_\_[Texas Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Year: [2003,2004,2005]{.underline}

Publisher: \_\_[Texas Education
Agency]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

# State Tests

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    |   | 20  | 20  |
|                                 | 004- | 003- | 002- |   | 01- | 00- |
|                                 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 |   |     |     |
|                                 |      |      |      |   | 2   | 2   |
|                                 |      |      |      |   | 002 | 001 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| **Testing month**               | *    | *    | *    |   | **A | **A |
|                                 | *Apr | *Apr | *Apr |   | pri | pri |
|                                 | il** | il** | il** |   | l** | l** |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| **Test Given**                  | **TA | **TA | **TA |   | **  | **  |
|                                 | KS** | KS** | KS** |   | TAA | TAA |
|                                 |      |      |      |   | S** | S** |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**               |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At or Above Met Standard     | \    | \    | 99%  |   | n/a | n/a |
|                                 | >99% | >99% |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% Met Minimum Standard         | n/a  | n/a  | n/a  |   | 99% | 97% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At Commended Performance     | 76%  | 70%  | 59%  |   | n/a | n/a |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At Academic Recognition      | n/a  | n/a  | n/a  |   | 50% | 45% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| Number of students tested       | 131  | 115  | 110  |   | 115 | 109 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| Percent of total students       | \    | 96%  | \    |   | 98% | 99% |
| tested                          | >99% |      | >99% |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% Met ARD Expectations         | \*   | \*   | \*   |   | n/a | n/a |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| Number of students              | \*   | \*   | \*   |   | n/a | n/a |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |   |     |     |
|                                 |      |      |      |   |     |     |
| State Developed Alternative     |      |      |      |   |     |     |
| Assessment(SDAA)                |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| Number of students              | \*   | \*   | \*   |   | n/a | n/a |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |   |     |     |
|                                 |      |      |      |   |     |     |
| State Developed Alternative     |      |      |      |   |     |     |
| Assessment(SDAA)                |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| 1\. Economically Disadvantaged  |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At or Above Met Standard     | n/a  | n/a  | n/a  |   | n/a | n/a |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At Commended Performance     |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| Number of Students Tested       | 0    | 0    | 0    |   | 0   | 0   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| 2\. African American            |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At or Above Met Standard     | n/a  | n/a  | n/a  |   | n/a | n/a |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| At Commended Performance        |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| Number of Students Tested       | 0    | 0    | 0    |   | 0   | 0   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| 3\. White                       |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At or Above Met Standard     | \    | \    | 99%  |   | 99% | 99% |
|                                 | >99% | >99% |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At Commended Performance     | 78%  | 71%  | 55%  |   | 50% | 43% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| Number of Students Tested       | 120  | 112  | 108  |   | 113 | 109 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| 4\. Hispanic                    |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At or Above Met Standard     | \*   | \*   | \*   |   | \*  | \*  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At Commended Performance     |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| Number of Students Tested       | \*   | \*   | \*   |   | \*  | \*  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| 5\. Asian/Pacific Islander      |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At or Above Met Standard     | \*   | \*   | \*   |   | \*  | \*  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At Commended Performance     |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| Number of Students Tested       | \*   | \*   | \*   |   | 0   | \*  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| STATE SCORES                    |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 25%  | 25%  | 18%  |   | n/a | n/a |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| (TAKS) % At or above Met        | 82%  | 90%  | 90   |   | n/a | n/a |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | n/a  | n/a  | n/a  |   | 87% | 82% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+

\*Fewer than 10 students were in the subpopulations, Hispanic and
Asian/Pacific Islander, Economically

Disadvantaged, therefore results are masked to protect student
confidentiality.

**University Park Elementary School**

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

Subject: [Reading]{.underline} Grade: [**4**th]{.underline}

Test: \_\_\_[Texas Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Year: \_[2003, 2004, 2005]{.underline}\_\_

Publisher: [Texas Education Agency]{.underline}\_

# State Tests

+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
|                               | 200 | 200 | 200 |   | 2    | 2    |
|                               | 4-2 | 3-2 | 2-2 |   | 001- | 000- |
|                               | 005 | 004 | 003 |   |      |      |
|                               |     |     |     |   | 2002 | 2001 |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| **Testing month**             | **A | **A | **A |   | *    | *    |
|                               | pri | pri | pri |   | *Apr | *Apr |
|                               | l** | l** | l** |   | il** | il** |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| **Test Given**                | **  | **  | **  |   | **TA | **TA |
|                               | TAK | TAK | TAK |   | AS** | AS** |
|                               | S** | S** | S** |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**             |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At or Above Met Standard   | 99% | 97% | 98% |   | n/a  | n/a  |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standard       | n/a | n/a | n/a |   | 98%  | 99%  |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At Commended Performance   | 56% | 69% | 50% |   | n/a  | n/a  |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At Academic Recognition    | n/a | n/a | n/a |   | 83%  | 83%  |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| Number of students tested     | 126 | 110 | 130 |   | 107  | 106  |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| Percent of total students     | 98% | \>  | \>  |   | 99%  | 99%  |
| tested                        |     | 99% | 99% |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% Met ARD Expectations       | \*  | \*  | \*  |   | n/a  | n/a  |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| Number of students            | \*  | \*  | \*  |   | n/a  | n/a  |
| alternatively assessed        |     |     |     |   |      |      |
|                               |     |     |     |   |      |      |
| State Developed Alternative   |     |     |     |   |      |      |
| Assessment (SDAA)             |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| Percent of students           | \*  | \*  | \*  |   | n/a  | n/a  |
| alternatively assessed        |     |     |     |   |      |      |
|                               |     |     |     |   |      |      |
| State Developed Alternative   |     |     |     |   |      |      |
| Assessment (SDAA)             |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**           |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| 1\. Economically              |     |     |     |   |      |      |
| Disadvantaged                 |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At or Above Met Standard   | n/a | n/a | n/a |   | n/a  | n/a  |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At Commended Performance   |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested     | 0   | 0   | 0   |   | 0    | 0    |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| 2\. African American          |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At or Above Met Standard   | n/a | n/a | n/a |   | n/a  | n/a  |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| At Commended Performance      |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested     | 0   | 0   | 0   |   | 0    | 0    |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| 3\. White                     |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At or Above Met Standard   | \>  | 97% | 98% |   | 98%  | 99%  |
|                               | 99% |     |     |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At Commended Performance   | 54% | 68% | 50% |   | 84%  | 85%  |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested     | 120 | 107 | 124 |   | 105  | 103  |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| 4\. Hispanic                  |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At or Above Met Standard   | \*  | \*  | \*  |   | \*   | \*   |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At Commended Performance   |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested     | \*  | \*  | \*  |   | \*   | \*   |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| 5\. Asian/Pacific Islander    |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| \% At or Above Met Standard   | \*  | \*  | \*  |   | \*   | \*   |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| %At Commended Performance     |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested     | \*  | \*  | \*  |   | \*   | \*   |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| STATE SCORES                  |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above          | 23% | 25% | 17% |   | n/a  | n/a  |
| Commended Performance         |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Met      | 80% | 85% | 85% |   | n/a  | n/a  |
| Standard                      |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum          | n/a | n/a | n/a |   | 92%  | 90%  |
| Standards                     |     |     |     |   |      |      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---+------+------+

\*Fewer than 10 students were in the subpopulations, Hispanic and
Asian/Pacific Islander, Economically

Disadvantaged, therefore results are masked to protect student
confidentiality.

**University Park Elementary School**

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

Subject: [Mathematics]{.underline} Grade: 4th

Test: [\_\_\_Texas Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Years: [2003, 2004, 2005]{.underline}

Publisher: \_\_[Texas Education
Agency]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

# State Tests

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    |   | 20  | 20  |
|                                 | 004- | 003- | 002- |   | 01- | 00- |
|                                 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 |   |     |     |
|                                 |      |      |      |   | 2   | 2   |
|                                 |      |      |      |   | 002 | 001 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| **Testing month**               | *    | *    | *    |   | **A | **A |
|                                 | *Apr | *Apr | *Apr |   | pri | pri |
|                                 | il** | il** | il** |   | l** | l** |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| **Test Given**                  | **TA | **TA | **TA |   | **  | **  |
|                                 | KS** | KS** | KS** |   | TAA | TAA |
|                                 |      |      |      |   | S** | S** |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**               |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At or Above Met Standard     | \    | \    | \    |   | n/a | n/a |
|                                 | >99% | >99% | >99% |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% Met Minimum Standard         | n/a  | n/a  | n/a  |   | \>  | \>  |
|                                 |      |      |      |   | 99% | 99% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At Commended Performance     | 60%  | 60%  | 54%  |   | n/a | n/a |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At Academic Recognition      | n/a  | n/a  | n/a  |   | 38% | 42% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| Number of students tested       | 125  | 109  | 130  |   | 107 | 106 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| Percent of total students       | 97%  | 97%  | \    |   | 99% | 99% |
| tested                          |      |      | >99% |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% Met ARD Expectations         | \*   | \*   | \*   |   | n/a | n/a |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| Number of students              | \*   | \*   | \*   |   | n/a | n/a |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |   |     |     |
|                                 |      |      |      |   |     |     |
| State Developed Alternative     |      |      |      |   |     |     |
| Assessment(SDAA)                |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| Number of students              | \*   | \*   | \*   |   | n/a | n/a |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |   |     |     |
|                                 |      |      |      |   |     |     |
| State Developed Alternative     |      |      |      |   |     |     |
| Assessment(SDAA)                |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| 1\. Economically Disadvantaged  |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At or Above Met Standard     | n/a  | n/a  | n/a  |   | n/a | n/a |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At Commended Performance     |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| Number of Students Tested       | 0    | 0    | 0    |   | 0   | 0   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| 2\. African American            |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At or Above Met Standard     | n/a  | n/a  | n/a  |   | n/a | n/a |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| At Commended Performance        |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| Number of Students Tested       | 0    | 0    | 0    |   | 0   | 0   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| 3\. White                       |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At or Above Met Standard     | \    | \    | \    |   | \>  | \>  |
|                                 | >99% | >99% | >99% |   | 99% | 99% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At Commended Performance     | 61%  | 59%  | 55%  |   | 39% | 42% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| Number of Students Tested       | 119  | 106  | 124  |   | 105 | 103 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| 4\. Hispanic                    |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At or Above Met Standard     | \*   | \*   | \*   |   | n/a | \*  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At Commended Performance     |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| Number of Students Tested       | \*   | \*   | \*   |   | n/a | \*  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| 5\. Asian                       |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At or Above Met Standard     | \*   | \*   | \*   |   | n/a | \*  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| \% At Commended Performance     |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| Number of Students Tested       | \*   | \*   | \*   |   | n/a | \*  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| **STATE SCORES**                |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 28%  | 21%  | 15%  |   | n/a | n/a |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| (TAKS) % At or above Met        | 82%  | 86%  | 87%  |   | n/a | n/a |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | n/a  | n/a  | n/a  |   | 94% | 91% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+---+-----+-----+

\*Fewer than 5 students were in the subpopulations, Hispanic and
Asian/Pacific Islander, Economically

Disadvantaged, therefore results are masked to protect student
confidentiality.