##### U.S. Department of Education November 2002

**2002-2003 *No Child Left Behind---Blue Ribbon Schools Program***

**Cover Sheet**

Name of Principal \_\_\_ [Mrs. Linda
Aleman\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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

Official School Name \_\_\_\_[Morrill
Elementary]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [834 W. Southcross Bldg. #2]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

[San Antonio TX]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[78211-2736]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

Tel. [( 210 ) 977-1520]{.underline} Fax [( 210 ) 977-1527]{.underline}

Website/URL www.harlandale.k12.tx.us Email
linda.aleman@harlandale.k12.tx.us

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

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

(Principal's Signature)

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

Name of Superintendent Mr. Guillermo Zavala Jr.

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

District Name Harlandale Independent School District Tel. ( 210 )
921-4320

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\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[26 March 2003]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
(Superintendent's Signature)

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson Mrs. Gracie Acuña

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

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

Date\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[26 March 2003]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

**[PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA]{.underline}**

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

1\. Number of schools in the district: [\_\_14]{.underline}\_ Elementary
schools

\_\_\_[4]{.underline}\_\_ Middle schools

\_\_[\_0]{.underline}\_ Junior high schools

\_\_\_[2]{.underline}\_ High schools

\_\_\_[3]{.underline}\_ Alternative/Sp. Ed. schools

\_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_ Academic Alternative High school

\_\_[24]{.underline}\_\_ TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: [\_\_\$5172.00]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [\_\_\$4929.00]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

4\. \_\_[7]{.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 enrolled at each grade level or its equivalent in
applying school:

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

  **K**       46        32                     **78**       **7**                             

  **1**       38        40                     **78**       **8**                             

  **2**       38        46                     **84**       **9**                             

  **3**       37        35                     **72**       **10**                            

  **4**       33        40                     **73**       **11**                            

  **5**       41        33                     **74**       **12**                            

  **6**                                                     **Pre-K**   23        13          36

                                    **TOTAL                                                   495
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [4.2 %]{.underline} White

the students in the school: [0.4 %]{.underline} Black or African
American

[95.4 %]{.underline} Hispanic or Latino

[0 %]{.underline} Asian/Pacific Islander

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

**100% Total**

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
\_\_\_[17]{.underline}\_%

> (This rate includes the total number of students who transferred to or
> from different schools between October 1 and the end of the school
> year, divided by the total number of students in the school as of
> October 1, multiplied by 100.)

  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------
  **(1)**     Number of students who transferred 40
              ***to*** the school after October  
              1 until the end of the year.       

  **(2)**     Number of students who transferred 47
              ***from*** the school after        
              October 1 until the end of the     
              year.                              

  **(3)**     Subtotal of all transferred        87
              students \[sum of rows (1) and     
              (2)\]                              

  **(4)**     Total number of students in the    491
              school as of October 1             

  **(5)**     Subtotal in row (3) divided by     .17
              total in row (4)                   

  **(6)**     Amount in row (5) multiplied by    17
              100                                
  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school:
\_[24.2]{.underline}\_\_%

\_[121]{.underline} \_\_Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: \_\_[2]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_

Specify languages: [English and Spanish]{.underline}

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals:
\_\_\_[91.6]{.underline}\_\_%

\_\_\_[457]{.underline}\_\_Total Number Students Who Qualify

> If this method is not a reasonably 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:
\_\_\_[11]{.underline}\_\_\_%

\_\_\_[55]{.underline}\_\_\_Total Number of Students Served

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

\_\_[1]{.underline}\_Autism \_\_\_\_Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_\_\_Deafness \_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness \_[24]{.underline}\_Specific Learning Disability

\_\_\_\_Hearing Impairment \_[14]{.underline}\_Speech or Language
Impairment

\_\_\_\_Mental Retardation \_\_\_\_Traumatic Brain Injury

\_[13]{.underline}\_Multiple Disabilities \_\_[1]{.underline}\_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) [\_\_\_ 2\_]{.underline} [\_\_\_0\_\_\_]{.underline}

Classroom teachers [\_\_\_28 \_]{.underline} [\_\_\_0\_\_\_]{.underline}

Special resource teachers/specialists [\_\_\_ 6\_]{.underline}
[\_\_\_2\_\_\_]{.underline}

Paraprofessionals [\_\_\_ 7 \_]{.underline} [\_\_\_0\_\_\_]{.underline}

> Support staff [\_\_\_10]{.underline} [\_\_\_2\_\_\_]{.underline}
>
> Total number [\_\_\_53\_]{.underline} [\_\_\_4\_\_\_]{.underline}

12\. Student-"classroom teacher" ratio: [\_\_\_19.1\_]{.underline}

13\. Show the attendance patterns of teachers and students. 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 and drop-off rates.

  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

  Daily student attendance 96.7 %      96.5 %      96.5 %      96.0 %      96.2 %

  Daily teacher attendance 93.9 %      94.0 %      95.7 %      94.7 %      98.4 %

  Teacher turnover rate    2.8 %       8.3 %       5.5 %       19.4 %      13.9 %

  Student dropout rate     na          na          na          na          na

  Student drop-off rate    na          na          na          na          na
  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

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

Morrill Elementary, a historic school on the south side of inner city
San Antonio, Texas, is well known for nurturing and developing
independent learners and productive citizens. Morrill engenders a family
atmosphere in which all stakeholders are encouraged to actively
participate in the school's vision. More than bricks and mortar and more
than pencils and books, Morrill's learning community is committed to
serving our 91.6 % economically disadvantaged population and our 95.4 %
Hispanic population. Morrill applies our belief, in reaching each child
and leaving no child behind, that we must extend services to our
families and communities by building personal connections. The diverse
and dedicated faculty and staff of Morrill provides each student with a
personalized instructional plan through relentless commitment. Morrill
continuously assesses each child's needs, works with the family, and
designs individualized instructional plans using a variety of
instructional materials and effective research based practices.

Since 1894, when Mr. & Mrs. Morrill Poor built the one room Morrill
Chapel School house, children from many cultures have learned how to
adapt as their community evolved from rural farms to the present day
neighborhood of working class people in military and service jobs.
Today, Morrill is home for 495 children in grades PreKindergarten
through 5^th^ grade. The original school building has been demolished
and a new campus is in the final stages of construction. Consequently,
the students have been bused for 2 years to a temporary facility and the
school hours had to be adjusted. Over 150 latch-key students participate
in the After School Challenge Program that helps students with homework,
provides a snack, and promotes recreational activities. The last bus
departs the Challenge Program at 5:30 pm dropping the last child at home
at 6:00 pm. The district has affectionately called Morrill the
successful "school on wheels." Clearly, the Morrill learning community
has displayed a high degree of flexibility by making all kinds of
adjustments to meet community and student needs.

The principal's unique leadership perspective has led the changes that
have taken place toward the nurturing climate and challenging
curriculum. The principal has served Morrill for seven years. In concert
with the academic coordinator who has served Morrill for six years, they
lead by standing behind the students and teachers with a s*ervant
leadership* philosophy*.* Their leadership style promotes a tone that
enables all stakeholders to work harmoniously in developing the
potential of each child by addressing deficiencies and building upon
strengths. For example, in 1999-2000 campus data exposed a critical gap
in the mathematics performance between the girls and the boys.
Consequently, the school examined our expectations, strategies and
attitudes resulting in reducing the gap and increasing the girls' scores
(*Refer to table VIII*). The school team formed a *Girls' Math Club,*
bringing in women presenters from a variety of professions that require
high proficiency in math. This focus met needs of gender specific
students and enhanced the potential of all.

Morrill has consistently received awards over the years. Some of those
awards include:

Four-Star Recognition by the Texas Monthly, Exemplary Rating by Texas
Education Agency, Mayor's Award for Outstanding School, Outstanding
Safety Patrols in the City, 1^st^ Place Track Team in Division, Texas
Winner of "Oscar Mayer Talent School House Jam Contest."

Mission: The Morrill Learning Community is dedicated to the creation and
maintenance of an environment which promotes the physical, emotional,
and social health of all students. Our students will flourish to new
heights of academic excellence enabling them to compete successfully in
the global economy. We will foster each learner's imagination to become
a dreamer of a better tomorrow. Morrill is committed to making their
dreams come true, whatever it takes!

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

> **Limit the narrative to one page and describe the meaning of the
> results in such a way that someone not intimately familiar with the
> tests can easily understand. The school must show assessment results
> in reading (language arts or English) and mathematics for at least 3
> years using the criteria determined by the CSSO for the state
> accountability system. For formatting, if possible use the sample
> tables (no charts or graphs) at the end of this application.**

The Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, TAAS, which has been in place
since the 1990-1991 school year, measures academic skills in reading and
mathematics at Grades 3 through 8 and at the exit level, writing at
Grades 4 and 8 and at the exit level, and science and social studies at
Grade 8. In addition, Spanish-version TAAS tests are administered in
reading and mathematics at Grades 3 through 6 and writing at Grade 4 to
eligible Limited English Proficient students as determined by their LPAC
committees. The TAAS assessments are criterion-referenced tests designed
to ensure that students are learning the critical components of the
statewide curriculum. In July 1997 the State Board of Education adopted
the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, TEKS, as Texas' new statewide
curriculum. A new more challenging criterion-referenced assessment, the
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), will debut in school
year 2002--2003. Closely aligned with the TEKS, the TAKS test has been
designed to be a demanding measure of student progress in learning the
TEKS. This new program will cover more of the state curriculum than the
current test, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills,TAAS.

Morrill is particularly proud of our efforts to ensure that *all*
students master the state curriculum. Over the past five years, scores
in reading, math, and writing have risen dramatically for all subgroups
at every grade level tested. Percentages of students mastering reading
have increased from 84.1 to 96.9 in grade 3, 84.1 to 96.9 in grade 4,
and 81 to 96.9 in grade 5. Subgroup improvements were even more
dramatic. Hispanic student percentages increased from 75.7 to 96.6
(grade 3), 91.5 to 96.7 (grade 4), and 83.7 to 91.8 (grade 5).
Economically disadvantaged students score rose 22.2 percentage points in
grade 3, 1.2 percent in grade 4, and 5.2 percent in grade 5.

Similarly in math, percentages of students mastering rose from 77.6 to
98.2 in grade 3, 77.6 to 98.2 in grade 4, and 81 to 96.9 in grade 5.
Hispanic students scores rose similarly, but most dramatically at grade
3 with a 20.9 percent increase in the number of students meeting the
standard. Economically disadvantaged students also showed the most
significant increase at grade 3 with a 22.2 percent increase.

Writing scores at grade 4 increased from 88.5 to 96.4, with a similar
increase in all subgroups.

The increased performance for all students is even more noteworthy
because the percentage of students participating in the assessment
program has greatly increased. For example, the percentage of students
participating in the math assessment rose from 81.6 to 100 percent at
grade 3, from 81.5 to 100 percent at grade 4, and from 75.3 to 96.4
percent at grade 5. Our student performance data is a testament to the
Morrill learning community's belief in reaching each child and leaving
no child behind.

**Show in ½ page (approximately 200 words) how the school uses
assessment data to understand and improve student and school
performance**.

Both primary, PK through 2^nd^ and intermediate, 3rd through 5^th,^
grade levels use extensive assessment data to target areas of need and
maximize instructional strategies. Diagnostic assessment provides an
avenue for innovative classroom instruction.

Our primary teachers utilize data from assessment tools to include
running records, various reading checklists, and rubrics. They also
administer the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) and the Texas
Primary Reading Inventory to diagnose students' reading needs and
determine reading levels at the beginning of each year. Students'
reading development is closely monitored throughout the year, to ensure
progress and to identify students' needs. Our students must attain a
minimal reading level to pass to the next grade level. This method
ensures that an objective not a subjective standard is used to determine
student promotion.

In the intermediate grade levels, assessment ranges from traditional
assessment tools (quizzes and tests) to technological tools. The
Accelerated Reader, AR, data allows teachers to assess and manage the
students' progress in reading by maintaining daily records. Teachers
attest to a correlation between AR achievement and higher test scores.
Yearly, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) data is
disaggregated in order to identify areas of need for both student and
programmatic improvement in reading, writing and math. Students in
greatest need are provided adult mentors for an enhanced personal
interaction with another adult. Professional retired teacher tutors
provide one on one instruction in identified areas of need, and faculty
and staff provide any additional support.

The district provides district-wide assessments to give students
practice and immediate feedback. Teachers utilize technology driven
analysis tools to obtain feedback on targeted skills. Databases such as
Access, Benchmarks, and Exemplars reinforce tailored instruction toward
student needs.

The Morrill instructional team uses assessment data to improve school
wide performance by collaborating in grade level and vertical team
meetings to ensure campus wide communication on data analysis. The
assessment data is shared in English and Spanish with parents,
colleagues, and community members to improve the lives of our children.

**Describe in ½ page how the school communicates student performance,
including assessment data, to parents, students, and the community.**

Morrill Elementary School communicates in English and Spanish daily and
weekly student performance assessment data to parents, students, and
community in various ways. Information is provided through phone calls,
conferences, progress reports, newsletters and family nights.
Immediately upon receiving the assessments reports from central office,
grade level teachers disaggregate the data. The results are correlated
to in-house test performance and previous year's results to enable the
school team to give the parents and community a more informative report.

An informal conference is held with the child to allow him/her to
participate in goal setting of his/her individualized instructional
plan. Parents receive an informational letter including the child's test
profile, and are provided a personal conference to develop mutual goals
and strategies. Parents may also receive suggested activities to be done
at home to reinforce the student's instructional plan.

The primary grades Pre-K- 2^nd^, require a Daily Take Home Folder where
the parent is given a daily report of their child's academic and social
skills progress. The parent must sign the report and return it with
comments. The intermediate grades 3^rd^ -- 5^th^, require the same
report on a weekly basis.

Formal communications begin one week before school starts in August when
a "Meet The Teacher Night" is held. At this time, teachers review
expectations using the students' previous assessment data. A fall and a
spring parent-student-teacher conference are required to review each
child's performance. Other formal communications include Parent Teacher
Association meetings where campus-wide data is reviewed. An annual
Public School Hearing is held where the school's performance data is
reviewed, as well as a comparison of campus expenditures to those of the
district and state. This campus report card is also sent to each home.
District and campus newsletters highlight campus performance and are
sent home with the students' and distributed in the community. Staff and
faculty make home visits to enhance the partnership in the educational
plan of our children.

**Describe in ½ page how the school will share its successes with other
schools**.

Morrill Elementary will share its successes with other schools by video
taping classroom interactions, sponsoring workshops, collaborating in
instructional planning, providing demonstration lessons, and sharing
sample letters and forms which streamline required documentation or
assist in data management. A videotaped lesson of our *Kindergarten
Literacy Block Activities* is presently shared with other campuses*.*
This video demonstrates essential components of a strong kindergarten
reading and writing program. Professionals, parents and community
members are invited to observe in the classrooms. Teachers conduct
workshops throughout the district and city and actively participate as
core subject facilitators. As facilitators, they share successful
learning experiences which are then carried back to campuses and
implemented by teachers.

First grade teachers developed and implemented *Reading Level Timelines*
ensuring student's mastery of specific reading skills during a specified
grading period. Teacher made forms and notices to parents complement the
timeline providing teacher documentation and parent communication of
specific objectives mastered. These are disseminated throughout the
district. Flow charts are being developed by Morrill's vertical teams to
enhance the utilization of successful strategies. Upon completion these
will be shared with other schools.

Pictorial brochures highlighting components of successful practices and
a Morrill web page with a bulletin board will be finalized enabling
continuous interaction with other schools throughout the area.

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

1.  **Describe in one page the school's curriculum, including foreign
    languages and show how all students are engaged with significant
    content, based on high standards.**

Morrill Elementary School's curriculum is based on the state's standards
as outlined in the TEKS and with a commitment to develop a strong
literacy foundation and problem solving capability. Our focus is to
actively engage students in learning activities using textbooks,
supplemental resources, hands on materials, technology, outside
professional resources, video and miscellaneous publications. The
students are encouraged to think outside the circle and their
performance demonstrates a level of understanding. Research based
programs guide our faculty in creating a curriculum of inquiry,
investigation, exploration and reasonable resolution. A partnership
between the student and teacher where both have mutual input enables the
student to take ownership of TEKS mastery. All Language Arts, Math,
Science, and Social Studies curriculum is consistent across grade
levels. Campus and district assessments provide immediate evidence
should the curriculum need to be modified to meet high standards. The
curriculum reflects a strong focus on what helps the student learn.

A recent survey conducted on students found a profound attraction to the
technology approach to learning. Options available to our students are
internet access, accelerated reader, multiple math, science, and social
studies computer programs. Our students use writing process skills,
guided and shared reading/writing, *Ms Fritzie, Exemplars, Read
it...Draw it, Solve it* and *Investigations.* Manipulatives and kits
with hands-on resources and activities are frequently requested by
students. This tactile endeavor and the resulting visual reasoning have
proven successful, thus increasing student performance at higher than
state standards. Periodicals are also widely used and the school is
involved with a city-wide newspaper program encouraging knowledge of
current events. Our curriculum provides student process and product
choices in achieving personal goals.

To assure participation of each student, teachers utilize tutoring by
retired teachers for those students who learn best one to one or in
small groups. Our Title I program helps us to reduce class size while
providing resources for the student who needs additional assistance in
order to reach the state standards. Even though our After School
Challenge program was conceived to meet the needs of latch key children
it serves a dual purpose. The program is staffed with teachers who
assist in homework assignments and provide expertise for students
struggling with mastery of skills. Our curriculum embraces varied
programs that specifically address fine arts, physical education and
gifted education. We are able to provide additional art instruction
through a visiting artist program. The curriculum includes field trip
experiences that extend or enhance specific learning objectives. This
encompassing approach to curriculum helps students connect school and
the real world. Our total curriculum package offers diverse
opportunities for student excellence.

2.  **Describe in ½ page the school's reading curriculum, including a
    description of why the school chose this particular approach to
    reading.**

Morrill Elementary School embarked on a mission to provide every child a
well balanced literacy program. In 1998, Morrill Elementary received an
*Academics 2000 First Things First Grant* which focused on scientific
research based reading initiatives in grades Pre-Kindergarten-4^th^.
After evaluating several research based reading programs such as Success
For All, Little Red Schoolhouse, America's Choice, etc., Morrill adopted
the *Four Blocks Literacy Model* for grades Kindergarten - 3^rd^. Our
motive behind implementing this reading program was based on the
*teacher -- student interaction* element. Grades 4^th^ -- 5^th^ embraced
the *Reading Renaissance Program* where the students are able to read
and discuss books written by real authors. A critical tool of the
*Reading Renaissance* is the ability to test students to find their Zone
of Proximal Development, which guides the student in selecting books
that promote the best improvement in reading without frustration. These
reading programs have provided for the structuring of specific reading
skills and the organization of reading instruction in addition to our
teacher's instructional delivery of individualized educational plans. At
Morrill, we have embarked in developing our reading curriculum with the
necessary flexibility to serve every child, to foster the love of
reading, and ensuring that no child is left behind.

3.  **Describe in ½ page one other curriculum area of the school's
    choice and show how it relates to essential skills and knowledge
    based on the school's mission**.

In 1998, San Antonio, Texas was acknowledged as the city with the
highest rate of children's diabetes in the United States. In addition to
this troubling distinction, in 2002, San Antonio was ranked the
"fattest\" city in the United States. The belief that every child can
succeed has long since been a philosophy among Morrill teachers and
staff. However, before these recent studies that focused on the health
issues of our population, this belief had generally been restricted to
the academic and content areas in school. In direct response to the
seriousness of these findings, Morrill decided in addition to setting
higher academic goals, every student's physical and health awareness
would become an urgent school wide goal.

As a result, Morrill incorporated the Coordinated Approach to Child
Health, (CATCH) program, emphasizing nutrition, exercise, and health
awareness. Classroom teachers work together with the physical education
teacher implementing the CATCH curriculum on a regular basis. Lessons
available through this health curriculum include: understanding the food
pyramid, calories, carbohydrates, dieting, protein, nutrition, and
average daily allowances. Integrated within the lessons and activities,
are the Health TEKS, Physical Education TEKS, Language Arts TEKS, Math
TEKS, and Science TEKS which constantly reinforce the knowledge and
skills students are exposed in the regular classroom. By choosing to
emphasize the individual needs of our students, Morrill Elementary is
effectively utilizing the CATCH program to significantly close the gap
between our student's high incidence of diabetes and obesity and the
national average in the United States. Furthermore, by teaching students
to become more health conscience, we as paving the way for them to
become practitioners and advocates for a healthy, nutritious, and
physicall*y* fit lifestyle. For over 9 years Morrill has won awards for
raising the most dollars in the region for "Jumping Rope for Heart"
sponsored by the American Heart Association and for "Walking for
Diabetes\" sponsored by the American Diabetes Association.

4.  **Describe in ½ page the different instructional methods the school
    uses to improve student learning**.

At Morrill Elementary School, we incorporate diverse instructional
methods to meet the educational needs of our students. One such method
is the *Multi Sensory Teaching Approach*, (MTA), which is used with
dyslexia students and students with other reading disabilities. Students
use all these senses to provide a basic foundation in reading, writing,
and gross motor movements. Another program that has shown great success
is the *Buddy Reading* program where cross-age buddies reach to each
other. *Buddy Reading* consists of an upper grade class pairing up with
a lower grade class to read every day for 30 minutes. This program
fosters the student's enjoyment and importance of becoming a life long
reader. In grades, Pre-Kindergarten through 3^rd^, the needs of
struggling learners are met through literacy groups and *Accelerated
Reading Initiative,* (ARI). These programs incorporate an intensive
one-hour of literacy instruction daily. The *Title I* program also helps
serve all student populations in all subject areas with differentiated
instruction.

As part of our effective and dynamic math program we utilize a variety
of instructional methods. This approach to mathematics instruction
teaches students higher order thinking skills incorporating concrete
methods with manipulatives and fun interactive educational games.

Another highly effective method incorporated in the delivery of student
learning is *After School Tutoring.* This is an intense low
teacher/student ratio tutoring group that strictly addresses specific
needs.

The *Student Study Team* is another intervention that provides teachers
with a problem solving team to suggest modifications and teaching
strategies and specific services that would best benefit the individual
student experiencing difficulties. After all regular education
strategies have been exhausted a referral to Special Education is
considered.

Family Night is another successful strategy that includes a family
dinner and training using instructional activities that are given to
families to reinforce learning at home with their child.

5.  **Describe in ½ page the school's professional development program
    and its impact on improving student achievement.**

Morrill Elementary School's professional staff development is as diverse
as our curriculum and the population we serve. Morrill's goal is to make
the most of all staff development resources that impact direct
instruction and student achievement. The staff and faculty play an
active role in the decision-making process regarding professional
development issues. Attending national, state and local training
opportunities enhances our ability to implement our instructional
program. The International Reading Association Conference, the State
Literacy Conference, the National Association for the Bilingual
Education Conference and the Texas Library Association are some of the
many national and state conferences Morrill teachers have attended to
acquire skills and knowledge of the latest educational practices. The
district offers staff development in the areas of reading, math,
science, social studies, technology, special programs and the bilingual
maintenance model after school and on Saturdays. The Texas Education
Service Center strengthens our staff development by offering additional
trainings in areas such as, Gifted and Talented Education and Bilingual
Education. After students' assessments are analyzed, solutions and
strategies are discussed during vertical and horizontal teacher planning
days. Teachers may independently seek out staff development to meet
their needs. A core team of four campus facilitators in the areas of
math, science, language arts and social studies attend extensive
training which is shared with the entire staff. This practice enriches
the school\'s ability to provide constant opportunities for professional
growth for all teachers. Professional development has allowed our
teachers to learn, adapt, and consistently monitor and change our
strategies to ensure that students are presented a challenging and
interesting curriculum and no child is left behind.

###### Grade [3rd]{.underline} Test [TAAS Reading]{.underline} 

Edition [Various]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
Agency]{.underline}

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?

^1^ Special Education students for which the ARD committee prescribed
the administration of the State-Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA)
did not participate in the TAAS test.

SDAA is an assessment developed by the Texas Education Agency to
evaluate the academic progress of students receiving special education
services *enrolled* in Grades 3--8 who are receiving instruction in the
TEKS in a subject area tested by TAAS, but for whom TAAS, even with
allowable accommodations, is not an appropriate measure of their
academic achievement.

^2^ Limited English Proficient (LEP) students were excluded from
testing. The Language Proficiency Assessment Committee may exempt
immigrant LEP students from testing. Immigrant LEP students may qualify
for a testing exemption only if factors related to inadequate schooling
outside the United States make their immediate participation in the
testing program inappropriate. These LEP students were not formally
assessed.

Explain the standards for basic, proficient, and advanced, and make
clear what the test results mean in a way that someone unfamiliar with
the test can interpret the results.

Explanation of Data: Texas administered the Texas Assessment of Academic
Skills (TAAS) to students in grades 3-8, 10, and exit. Results are
reported as "did not meet minimum expectations" (score below 70%), "met
minimum expectations"(score of 70% or higher), or "academically
recognized"(score of 95% or higher). Accountability subgroups include:
African American, White, Hispanic, and Economically Disadvantaged. No
scores are reported for groups that are smaller than 30 students, or 10%
of the total testing summed across all grades at the campus for each
content area.

Scores are reported here as (check one) NCE\'s \_\_\_ Scaled Scores
\_\_\_ Percentiles \_[X]{.underline}\_

+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     | 2001   | 2000   | 1999   | 1998   | 1997   |
|                     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
|                     | 2002   | 2001   | 2000   | 1999   | 1998   |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Testing Month-April |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SCHOOL SCORES       | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
| (Passing            | 96.7** | 94.5** | 86.0** | 87.5** | 75.6** |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
| Percentages)        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students  | **57** | **77** | **57** | **63** | **58** |
| tested              |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of          | **     | **2    | **1    | **1    | *      |
| Academically        | 10.5** | 0.77** | 4.03** | 7.46** | *n/a** |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
| Recognized          |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of total    | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
| students            | 96.6** | 95.1** | 76.0** | 80.8** | 81.7** |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
| tested              |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students  | **2**  | **4**  | **18** | **15** | **13** |
| excluded            |        |        |        |        |        |
|                     | *      | *      | **^1,  | **^    | **^    |
|                     | *^1^** | *^2^** | \ 2^** | 1,2^** | 1,2^** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of students | *      | *      | **     | **     | **     |
| excluded            | *3.4** | *4.9** | 24.0** | 19.2** | 18.3** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 1\. Hispanic        | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
|                     | 96.6** | 94.1** | 84.6** | 87.0** | 75.7** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 2\. Economically    | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
|                     | 96.6** | 93.8** | 85.4** | 87.3** | 74.4** |
| Disadvantaged       |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| STATE SCORES        | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
|                     | 88.0** | 86.8** | 87.9** | 88.0** | 86.2** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

Table I

Grade [3rd]{.underline} Test [TAAS Math]{.underline}

Edition [Various]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
Agency]{.underline}

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?

^1^ Special Education students for which the ARD committee prescribed
the administration of the State-Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA)
did not participate in the TAAS test.

SDAA is an assessment developed by the Texas Education Agency to
evaluate the academic progress of students receiving special education
services *enrolled* in Grades 3--8 who are receiving instruction in the
TEKS in a subject area tested by TAAS, but for whom TAAS, even with
allowable accommodations, is not an appropriate measure of their
academic achievement.

^2^ Limited English Proficient (LEP) students were excluded from
testing. The Language Proficiency Assessment Committee may exempt
immigrant LEP students from testing. Immigrant LEP students may qualify
for a testing exemption only if factors related to inadequate schooling
outside the United States make their immediate participation in the
testing program inappropriate. These LEP students were not formally
assessed.

Explain the standards for basic, proficient, and advanced, and make
clear what the test results mean in a way that someone unfamiliar with
the test can interpret the results.

Explanation of Data: Texas administered the Texas Assessment of Academic
Skills (TAAS) to students in grades 3-8, 10, and exit. Results are
reported as "did not meet minimum expectations" (score below 70%), "met
minimum expectations"(score of 70% or higher), or "academically
recognized"(score of 95% or higher). Accountability subgroups include:
African American, White, Hispanic, and Economically Disadvantaged. No
scores are reported for groups that are smaller than 30 students, or 10%
of the total testing summed across all grades at the campus for each
content area.

Scores are reported here as (check one) NCE\'s \_\_\_ Scaled Scores
\_\_\_ Percentiles \_[X]{.underline}\_

+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     | 2001   | 2000   | 1999   | 1998   | 1997   |
|                     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
|                     | 2002   | 2001   | 2000   | 1999   | 1998   |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Testing Month-April |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SCHOOL SCORES       | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
| (passing            | 94.9** | 94.7** | 87.9** | 73.4** | 64.3** |
| percentages)        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students  | **59** | **76** | **59** | **64** | **58** |
| tested              |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of          | *      | **     | **1    | **     | *      |
| Academically        | *1.7** | 10.5** | 3.55** | 15.6** | *n/a** |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
| Recognized          |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of total    | *      | **95** | **     | **     | **     |
| students            | *100** |        | 79.7** | 82.1** | 81.6** |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
| tested              |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students  | **0**  | **4**  | **15** | **14** | **13** |
| excluded            |        |        |        |        |        |
|                     |        | *      | **^    | **^    | **^    |
|                     |        | *^2^** | 1,2^** | 1,2^** | 1,2^** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of students | **0**  | **5**  | **     | **     | **     |
| excluded            |        |        | 20.2** | 17.9** | 18.4** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 1\. Hispanic        | **     | **94** | **     | **     | **     |
|                     | 98.7** |        | 82.3** | 74.5** | 63.2** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 2\. Economically    | *      | **     | **     | **75** | **     |
|                     | *100** | 96.8** | 83.9** |        | 62.5** |
| Disadvantaged       |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| STATE SCORES        | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
|                     | 87.4** | 83.1** | 80.6** | 83.1** | 81.0** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

Table II

Grade [4th]{.underline} Test [TAAS Reading]{.underline}

Edition [Various]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
Agency]{.underline}

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?

^1^ Special Education students for which the ARD committee prescribed
the administration of the State-Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA)
did not participate in the TAAS test.

SDAA is an assessment developed by the Texas Education Agency to
evaluate the academic progress of students receiving special education
services *enrolled* in Grades 3--8 who are receiving instruction in the
TEKS in a subject area tested by TAAS, but for whom TAAS, even with
allowable accommodations, is not an appropriate measure of their
academic achievement.

^2^ Limited English Proficient (LEP) students were excluded from
testing. The Language Proficiency Assessment Committee may exempt
immigrant LEP students from testing. Immigrant LEP students may qualify
for a testing exemption only if factors related to inadequate schooling
outside the United States make their immediate participation in the
testing program inappropriate. These LEP students were not formally
assessed.

Explain the standards for basic, proficient, and advanced, and make
clear what the test results mean in a way that someone unfamiliar with
the test can interpret the results.

Explanation of Data: Texas administered the Texas Assessment of Academic
Skills (TAAS) to students in grades 3-8, 10, and exit. Results are
reported as "did not meet minimum expectations" (score below 70%), "met
minimum expectations"(score of 70% or higher), or "academically
recognized"(score of 95% or higher). Accountability subgroups include:
African American, White, Hispanic, and Economically Disadvantaged. No
scores are reported for groups that are smaller than 30 students, or 10%
of the total testing summed across all grades at the campus for each
content area.

Scores are reported here as (check one) NCE\'s \_\_\_ Scaled Scores
\_\_\_ Percentiles \_[X]{.underline}\_

+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     | 2001   | 2000   | 1999   | 1998   | 1997   |
|                     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
|                     | 2002   | 2001   | 2000   | 1999   | 1998   |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Testing Month-April |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SCHOOL SCORES       | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
| (passing            | 96.8** | 96.2** | 85.1** | 78.4** | 92.2** |
| percentages)        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students  | **62** | **52** | **67** | **51** | **64** |
| tested              |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of          | **     | **     | **1    | **1    | *      |
| Academically        | 25.8** | 25.0** | 8.18** | 5.09** | *n/a** |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
| Recognized          |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of total    | *      | **     | **     | **     | **     |
| students            | *100** | 98.1** | 75.3** | 78.5** | 79.0** |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
| tested              |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students  | **0**  | **1**  | **22** | **14** | **17** |
| excluded            |        |        |        |        |        |
|                     |        | *      | **^    | **^    | **^    |
|                     |        | *^2^** | 1,2^** | 1,2^** | 1,2^** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of students | **0**  | *      | **     | **     | **     |
| excluded            |        | *1.8** | 24.7** | 21.5** | 20.1** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 1\. Hispanic        | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
|                     | 96.7** | 95.8** | 84.4** | 77.1** | 91.5** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 2\. Economically    | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
|                     | 96.5** | 95.9** | 84.6** | 77.5** | 95.3** |
| Disadvantaged       |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| STATE SCORES        | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
|                     | 92.5** | 90.8** | 89.9** | 88.8** | 89.7** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

Table III

Grade [4th]{.underline} Test [TAAS Math]{.underline}

Edition [Various]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
Agency]{.underline}

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?

^1^ Special Education students for which the ARD committee prescribed
the administration of the State-Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA)
did not participate in the TAAS test.

SDAA is an assessment developed by the Texas Education Agency to
evaluate the academic progress of students receiving special education
services *enrolled* in Grades 3--8 who are receiving instruction in the
TEKS in a subject area tested by TAAS, but for whom TAAS, even with
allowable accommodations, is not an appropriate measure of their
academic achievement.

^2^ Limited English Proficient (LEP) students were excluded from
testing. The Language Proficiency Assessment Committee may exempt
immigrant LEP students from testing. Immigrant LEP students may qualify
for a testing exemption only if factors related to inadequate schooling
outside the United States make their immediate participation in the
testing program inappropriate. These LEP students were not formally
assessed.

Explain the standards for basic, proficient, and advanced, and make
clear what the test results mean in a way that someone unfamiliar with
the test can interpret the results.

Explanation of Data: Texas administered the Texas Assessment of Academic
Skills (TAAS) to students in grades 3-8, 10, and exit. Results are
reported as "did not meet minimum expectations" (score below 70%), "met
minimum expectations"(score of 70% or higher), or "academically
recognized"(score of 95% or higher). Accountability subgroups include:
African American, White, Hispanic, and Economically Disadvantaged. No
scores are reported for groups that are smaller than 30 students, or 10%
of the total testing summed across all grades at the campus for each
content area.

Scores are reported here as (check one) NCE\'s \_\_\_ Scaled Scores
\_\_\_ Percentiles \_[X]{.underline}\_

+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     | 2001   | 2000   | 1999   | 1998   | 1997   |
|                     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
|                     | 2002   | 2001   | 2000   | 1999   | 1998   |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Testing Month-April |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SCHOOL SCORES       | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
| (passing            | 95.2** | 97.9** | 88.4** | 83.3** | 78.8** |
| percentages)        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students  | **62** | **52** | **77** | **53** | **66** |
| tested              |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Academically        | *      | *      | **1    | *      | *      |
| Recognized          | *4.8** | *5.7** | 5.58** | *9.4** | *n/a** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of total    | *      | **     | **     | **     | **     |
| students            | *100** | 96.3** | 84.6** | 81.5** | 81.5** |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
| tested              |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students  | **0**  | **2**  | **14** | **12** | **15** |
| excluded            |        |        |        |        |        |
|                     |        | **^    | **^    | **^    | **^    |
|                     |        | 1,2^** | 1,2^** | 1,2^** | 1,2^** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of students | **0**  | *      | **     | **     | **     |
| excluded            |        | *3.7** | 15.4** | 18.5** | 18.5** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 1\. Hispanic        | **     | **94** | **     | **     | **     |
|                     | 95.1** |        | 86.5** | 81.6** | 77.1** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 2\. Economically    | **     | **94** | **88** | **     | **     |
|                     | 94.7** |        |        | 84.3** | 81.4** |
| Disadvantaged       |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| STATE SCORES        | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
|                     | 94.1** | 91.3** | 87.1** | 87.6** | 86.3** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

Table IV

Grade [4th]{.underline} Test [TAAS Writing]{.underline}

Edition [Various]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
Agency]{.underline}

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?

^1^ Special Education students for which the ARD committee prescribed
the administration of the State-Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA)
did not participate in the TAAS test.

SDAA is an assessment developed by the Texas Education Agency to
evaluate the academic progress of students receiving special education
services *enrolled* in Grades 3--8 who are receiving instruction in the
TEKS in a subject area tested by TAAS, but for whom TAAS, even with
allowable accommodations, is not an appropriate measure of their
academic achievement.

^2^ Limited English Proficient (LEP) students were excluded from
testing. The Language Proficiency Assessment Committee may exempt
immigrant LEP students from testing. Immigrant LEP students may qualify
for a testing exemption only if factors related to inadequate schooling
outside the United States make their immediate participation in the
testing program inappropriate. These LEP students were not formally
assessed.

Explain the standards for basic, proficient, and advanced, and make
clear what the test results mean in a way that someone unfamiliar with
the test can interpret the results.

Explanation of Data: Texas administered the Texas Assessment of Academic
Skills (TAAS) to students in grades 3-8, 10, and exit. Results are
reported as "did not meet minimum expectations" (score below 70%), "met
minimum expectations"(score of 70% or higher), or "academically
recognized"(score of 95% or higher). Accountability subgroups include:
African American, White, Hispanic, and Economically Disadvantaged. No
scores are reported for groups that are smaller than 30 students, or 10%
of the total testing summed across all grades at the campus for each
content area.

Scores are reported here as (check one) NCE\'s \_\_\_ Scaled Scores
\_\_\_ Percentiles \_[X]{.underline}\_

+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     | 2001   | 2000   | 1999   | 1998   | 1997   |
|                     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
|                     | 2002   | 2001   | 2000   | 1999   | 1998   |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Testing             |        |        |        |        |        |
| Month-February      |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SCHOOL SCORES       | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
| (passing            | 96.4** | 95.8** | 95.3** | 80.4** | 88.5** |
| percentages)        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students  | **59** | **50** | **69** | **50** | **68** |
| tested              |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of          | **2    | **0**  | **0**  | **2**  | *      |
| Academically        | 7.11** |        |        |        | *n/a** |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
| Recognized          |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of total    | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
| students            | 98.3** | 98.1** | 77.5** | 79.4** | 86.1** |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
| tested              |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students  | **1**  | **1**  | **20** | **13** | **14** |
| excluded            |        |        |        |        |        |
|                     | *      | *      | **^    | **^    | **^    |
|                     | *^2^** | *^2^** | 1,2^** | 1,2^** | 1,2^** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of students | *      | *      | **     | **     | **     |
| excluded            | *1.7** | *1.9** | 22.5** | 20.6** | 13.9** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 1\. Hispanic        | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
|                     | 96.4** | 95.8** | 95.3** | 81.4** | 87.5** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 2\. Economically    | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
|                     | 96.1** | 95.8** | 95.3** | 80.4** | 90.9** |
| Disadvantaged       |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| STATE SCORES        | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
|                     | 89.8** | 89.2** | 90.3** | 88.4** | 88.7** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

Table V

Grade [5th]{.underline} Test [TAAS Reading]{.underline}

Edition [Various]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
Agency]{.underline}

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?

^1^ Special Education students for which the ARD committee prescribed
the administration of the State-Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA)
did not participate in the TAAS test.

SDAA is an assessment developed by the Texas Education Agency to
evaluate the academic progress of students receiving special education
services *enrolled* in Grades 3--8 who are receiving instruction in the
TEKS in a subject area tested by TAAS, but for whom TAAS, even with
allowable accommodations, is not an appropriate measure of their
academic achievement.

^2^ Limited English Proficient (LEP) students were excluded from
testing. The Language Proficiency Assessment Committee may exempt
immigrant LEP students from testing. Immigrant LEP students may qualify
for a testing exemption only if factors related to inadequate schooling
outside the United States make their immediate participation in the
testing program inappropriate. These LEP students were not formally
assessed.

Explain the standards for basic, proficient, and advanced, and make
clear what the test results mean in a way that someone unfamiliar with
the test can interpret the results.

Explanation of Data: Texas administered the Texas Assessment of Academic
Skills (TAAS) to students in grades 3-8, 10, and exit. Results are
reported as "did not meet minimum expectations" (score below 70%), "met
minimum expectations"(score of 70% or higher), or "academically
recognized"(score of 95% or higher). Accountability subgroups include:
African American, White, Hispanic, and Economically Disadvantaged. No
scores are reported for groups that are smaller than 30 students, or 10%
of the total testing summed across all grades at the campus for each
content area.

Scores are reported here as (check one) NCE\'s \_\_\_ Scaled Scores
\_\_\_ Percentiles \_[X]{.underline}\_

+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     | 2001   | 2000   | 1999   | 1998   | 1997   |
|                     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
|                     | 2002   | 2001   | 2000   | 1999   | 1998   |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Testing Month-April |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SCHOOL SCORES       | **     | **     | **     | **94** | **     |
| (passing            | 92.4** | 89.4** | 88.9** |        | 86.8** |
| percentages)        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students  | **53** | **66** | **52** | **53** | **55** |
| tested              |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of          | **3    | **2    | **1    | **2    | *      |
| Academically        | 2.07** | 7.27** | 3.46** | 2.64** | *n/a** |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
| Recognized          |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of total    | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
| students            | 96.4** | 89.2** | 75.4** | 76.8** | 75.3** |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
| Tested              |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students  | **2**  | **8**  | **17** | **16** | **18** |
| excluded            |        |        |        |        |        |
|                     | *      | **^    | **^    | **^    | **^    |
|                     | *^1^** | 1,2^** | 1,2^** | 1,2^** | 1,2^** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of students | *      | **     | **     | **     | **     |
| excluded            | *3.6** | 10.8** | 24.6** | 23.2** | 24.7** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 1\. Hispanic        | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
|                     | 91.8** | 88.7** | 87.5** | 88.0** | 83.7** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 2\. Economically    | **94** | **     | **     | **     | **     |
|                     |        | 89.1** | 86.3** | 88.2** | 84.8** |
| Disadvantaged       |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| STATE SCORES        | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
|                     | 92.7** | 90.2** | 87.8** | 86.4** | 88.4** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

Table VI

Grade [5th]{.underline} Test [TAAS Math]{.underline}

Edition [Various]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
Agency]{.underline}

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?

^1^ Special Education students for which the ARD committee prescribed
the administration of the State-Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA)
did not participate in the TAAS test.

SDAA is an assessment developed by the Texas Education Agency to
evaluate the academic progress of students receiving special education
services *enrolled* in Grades 3--8 who are receiving instruction in the
TEKS in a subject area tested by TAAS, but for whom TAAS, even

with allowable accommodations, is not an appropriate measure of their
academic achievement.

^2^ Limited English Proficient (LEP) students were excluded from
testing. The Language Proficiency Assessment Committee may exempt
immigrant LEP students from testing. Immigrant LEP students may qualify
for a testing exemption only if factors related to inadequate schooling
outside the United States make their immediate participation in the
testing program inappropriate. These LEP students were not formally
assessed.

Explain the standards for basic, proficient, and advanced, and make
clear what the test results mean in a way that someone unfamiliar with
the test can interpret the results.

Explanation of Data: Texas administered the Texas Assessment of Academic
Skills (TAAS) to students in grades 3-8, 10, and exit. Results are
reported as "did not meet minimum expectations" (score below 70%), "met
minimum expectations"(score of 70% or higher), or "academically
recognized"(score of 95% or higher). Accountability subgroups include:
African American, White, Hispanic, and Economically Disadvantaged. No
scores are reported for groups that are smaller than 30 students, or 10%
of the total testing summed across all grades at the campus for each
content area.

Scores are reported here as (check one) NCE\'s \_\_\_ Scaled Scores
\_\_\_ Percentiles \_[X]{.underline}\_

+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     | 2001   | 2000   | 1999   | 1998   | 1997   |
|                     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
|                     | 2002   | 2001   | 2000   | 1999   | 1998   |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Testing Month-April |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SCHOOL SCORES       | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
| (passing            | 98.1** | 95.8** | 94.7** | 94.5** | 86.8** |
| percentages)        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students  | **54** | **72** | **57** | **55** | **57** |
| tested              |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of          | **2    | **1    | **2    | **2    | *      |
| Academically        | 0.37** | 3.88** | 6.31** | 3.63** | *n/a** |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
| Recognized          |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of total    | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
| students            | 98.1** | 97.3** | 82.6** | 79.7** | 78.1** |
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
| tested              |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students  | **1**  | **2**  | **12** | **14** | **16** |
| excluded            |        |        |        |        |        |
|                     | *      | *      | **^    | **^    | **^    |
|                     | *^1^** | *^2^** | 1,2^** | 1,2^** | 1,2^** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of students | *      | *      | **     | **     | **     |
| excluded            | *1.9** | *2.7** | 17.4** | 20.3** | 21.9** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 1\. Hispanic        | **98** | **     | **     | **     | **     |
|                     |        | 95.6** | 94.3** | 94.2** | 77.0** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 2\. Economically    | *      | **     | **     | **     | **     |
|                     | *100** | 95.7** | 94.6** | 94.3** | 78.3** |
| Disadvantaged       |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| STATE SCORES        | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
|                     | 96.2** | 94.6** | 92.1** | 90.1** | 89.6** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

Table VII