##### ***Revised 3/16/05***

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

*U.S. Department of Education*

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

Name of Principal [Mr. Joel Garcia]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [Charles H. Mims Elementary School]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

SchoolMailingAddress\_[\_2 Mile Line
Rd.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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

###### Mission Texas 78572-4399

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County
[\_\_Hidalgo\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}School
Code Number\*[#108908110]{.underline}

Telephone [(956 )580-5645]{.underline} Fax [(956 ) 580-5892]{.underline}

Website/URL [http://www.mission-cons.k12.tx.us/]{.underline} E-mail
[jgarci31@mcisd.org]{.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 all information is accurate.

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

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent\* [Mrs. Elizabeth Garza]{.underline}

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

District Name [Mission Consolidated Independent School
District]{.underline} Tel. [(956) 580-5500]{.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. J.D. Villarreal]{.underline}

(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\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

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

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

1\. Number of schools in the district: [13]{.underline} Elementary
schools

[0]{.underline} Middle schools

[3]{.underline} Junior high schools

[2]{.underline} High schools

[0]{.underline} Other

[18]{.underline} TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: \$ [8,480]{.underline}

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: \$ [7,708]{.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
>
> \[ \] Suburban
>
> \[ X\] Small city or town in a rural area
>
> \[ \] Rural

4\. [1]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

[4]{.underline} If fewer than three years, how long was the previous
principal at this school?

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

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

  **PreK**    24        23                     **47**       **7**                             

  **K**       57        36                     **93**       **8**                             

  **1**       50        47                     **97**       **9**                             

  **2**       50        49                     **99**       **10**                            

  **3**       38        52                     **90**       **11**                            

  **4**       54        39                     **93**       **12**                            

  **5**       43        49                     **92**       **Other**                         

  **6**       44        53                     **97**                                         

                                    **TOTAL                                                   708
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

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

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

the students in the school: [0]{.underline} % Black or African American

[94]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

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

**100% Total**

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

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
[15%]{.underline}

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

  --------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**   Number of students who transferred ***to***  10
            the school after October 1 until the end of  
            the year.                                    

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

  **(3)**   Subtotal of all transferred students \[sum   17
            of rows (1) and (2)\]                        

  **(4)**   Total number of students in the school as of 304
            October 1                                    

  **(5)**   Subtotal in row (3) divided by total in row  .055921
            (4)                                          

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

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school: [19]{.underline}%

> [134]{.underline} Total Number Limited English
>
> Proficient

Number of languages represented: [1]{.underline}

Specify languages: [Spanish]{.underline}

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [53]{.underline} %

Total number students who qualify: [378]{.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} %

[56]{.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.

[3]{.underline} Autism [2]{.underline} Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_\_\_ Deafness [5]{.underline} Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_ Deaf-Blindness [29]{.underline} Specific Learning Disability

\_\_\_\_ Emotional Disturbance [28]{.underline} Speech or Language
Impairment

\_\_\_\_ Hearing Impairment \_\_\_\_ Traumatic Brain Injury

> [8]{.underline} Mental Retardation [4]{.underline} Visual Impairment
> Including Blindness

\_\_\_\_ Multiple Disabilities [1]{.underline} Emotional Disturbance

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} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Classroom teachers [35]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

Paraprofessionals [13]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Support staff [5]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Total number [62]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

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

  \*Daily teacher attendance 83%         77%         73%         79%         80%

  Teacher turnover rate      2%          1%          6%          4%          6%

  Student dropout rate       N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A
  (middle/high)                                                              

  Student drop-off rate      N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A
  (high school)                                                              
  -------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

\*attendance rate for teachers include all professional development
workshops.

**PART III -- SUMMARY**

Charles H. Mims Elementary School was built in 1985. Constructed to
accommodate growth within the Mission School District, Mims has always
been synonymous with excellence. Through the years the population has
fluctuated. The school demographics are comprised of 93.8% Hispanic,
5.8% White, 0.3% Black and 0.1% Asian. The Limited English population
(LEP) is 18.9%, with economically disadvantaged currently at 53.2% and
attendance rates at 98.1%, while the mobility rate is 5.6% . With
statistical variance, success has been continuous.

Mims has had three principals. Hurla Midkiff, a long time successful
educational leader, established the foundation of success for the
school. Alicia Rios continued the formula, complementing existing
programs with an innovative style. Our new principal, Joel Garcia,
arrived (Spring of 2004) committed to keeping Mims exemplary. Reading
has been the building block that has transcended instruction to
complement all academic areas. Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction
(ECRI) at the primary level develops modalities through structured
vocabulary and comprehension development. Another component to our
reading program is Reading Renaissance, a researched based,
individualized guided reading practice program. Through teacher
modeling, monitoring, and intervention, students proceed systematically
within certification levels. Reading success and growth is experienced.
All three principals have led Mims in achieving goals for academic
success in balancing curriculum by including technology, physical and
social development, and extra-curricular activities. Students are
assisted and supported into the Mims model.

The Mims vision, "Determined to Blaze the Trails for Student
Achievement" is adhered to daily. With its success, Mims adjusts to
challenges that arise. Mims resembles a "magnet" school. Secondary honor
classes are comprised primarily of former Mims students. Valedictorians
and college scholarship recipients have been alumni. These results
initially came from middle to upper middle class families. The same
result is apparent today with more economically disadvantaged students
and an influx of Mexican immigrants. With an enrollment as high as 1100
in 2003, a neighboring school was constructed easing our population.
Losing staff and students, adjustments were made with Mims maintaining
its standards. The new school has emulated Mims in its instructional
approach honoring our first principal with the name-Midkiff Elementary.

The physical plant has changed as the population has fluctuated. The
quality of student remains steady with facilities changing and
improving. New students are indistinguishable from old students within
months. With the technological curriculum based teaching methods and
innovative techniques taking place, the Mims student is a constant. A
well balanced student excelling in numerous activities mirrors the
philosophy that believes in the dignity of the individual. The students
are treated with respect so they are afforded the opportunity to develop
intellectually, physically, and emotionally. It speaks to service,
respect for person and tradition, character development,
responsibilities of citizenship, and other attributes necessary for the
making of a contributing member of society. School visitors remark about
the ease of talking with Mims students. Their confidence and rapport is
evident. The maturity and self discipline is apparent in their
responsible demeanor throughout the school.

With the odds stacked against educating students, Mims is an oasis in a
sea of educational uncertainty. The tradition of excellence continues
because of the students and staff. With numerous honors in all areas,
Mims continues to shine. It was named as one of two elementary campuses
to be awarded the Texas Business and Education Coalition (TBEC) "Just
for the Kids" award for five consecutive years. Mims Elementary provides
all encompassing services for all students, including counseling,
special education, speech therapy, at-risk tutoring, after school
daycare, enhanced learning program activities, and athletic/intramural
competition. All educational components coexist to provide an education
with a style of learning that is known as the "Mims Way."

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

**1. School Assessment Results**

The school accountability system in Texas plays a crucial role in
determining how well public schools are performing. The statewide
assessment program is comprised of Texas Assessment of Academic Skills
(TAAS) in the period 2000-2002, and the Texas Assessment of Knowledge
and Skills (TAKS) beginning in the year 2003, both of which are aligned
with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). However, the
change to TAKS in 2003 included testing in more grades and subjects, and
is more challenging in content and format than the previous assessment.
Schools are rated as exemplary, recognized, academically acceptable, or
academically unacceptable based upon the performance of students and
attendance rates. Performance of special education students on the
State-Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA) is also included in the
school's rating. In addition, new passing standards were phased in over
a three year period for grades 3 through 11. For example, in 2003, the
third grade passing standard for the reading test was at 56%. In 2004,
the passing standard was increased to 61%, and in 2005, it will increase
to 67%. To further increase the stakes, passing these tests is required
for promotion in some grades. (State guidelines available at
www.tea.state.tx.us)

Mims Elementary has received "exemplary" ratings for seven consecutive
years up to the year 2003. An exemplary rating, the highest rating,
requires at least 90% of the students tested to pass in every subject.
Based on our assessment results, Mims has consistently maintained its
high ratings above the state and district averages. The last year of
TAAS in 2002, 96.3% of the sum of our students met the standard in the
area of reading, as compared to the state of 91.3%. In the area of
writing, 100% met the standard, whereas the state was 88.7%. In math,
97.8% met the standard, above the state at 92.7%. The following year was
the transition to the new TAKS standard, and Texas schools carried over
the previous year's rating. In 2004, Mims maintained scores well above
90% with the new criteria in the areas of reading (95%), math (95%), and
writing (99%). Due to rigorous state demands, science was included in
the criteria for the school's rating, and 82% of the students met this
passing requirement as compared to the state with 70%; thus, resulting
in a "recognized" rating for our campus. Based on assessment results
accumulated during an eight year period, the Texas Business and
Educators Coalition (TBEC) "Just for the Kids" has recognized Mims with
prestigious awards. Our school is one out of two schools, in the state
of Texas, to receive this accolade for five consecutive years. Due to
the students' achievements, our campus has also been featured in *Texas
Monthly* (November 2001) as one of the top schools in Texas.

Mims has been able to pave a path of success for all its students,
including all subgroups. Our school is part of a district in which 84.4%
of the student population is economically disadvantaged, and where we
have experienced an influx of second language learners. Our Hispanic
population continues academic equity amongst all subgroups. Furthermore,
special education students performed well at 93% on the SDAA assessments
in 2004. It is also important to mention that Mims was able to retain
its focus on instruction for our students despite the sudden loss of our
principal, Alicia Rios, in January of 2004. Our administrators,
teachers, staff, and parents are committed in continuing the tradition
of excellence for our students while cultivating our school's mission.

**2. Monitoring and Use of Assessment Data**

Desegregation of assessment data is an integral component of our
success. This endeavor is a spiraling effort which is multi-faceted.
Mission CISD provides every school with district benchmarks. The
district utilizes Test Mate to disaggregate data and provide reports to
campus administrators and teachers. The reports include a building item
report and an objective report which are reviewed and discussed during
grade level meetings. A plan of action is prepared to address
weaknesses.

Content area coordinators provide campuses with assessment results by
teacher, campus, and district. These reports are utilized to target
students who did not perform well. Administrators then meet with
individual teachers to discuss strategy implementation for student
improvement. Knowing how other schools are performing provides us with
healthy competition. Our district assessments give us a preview on how
our students will perform on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills (TAKS), thus the results are disaggregated by class and student.

Our vertical alignment team meets on the first week of each six weeks to
bridge the gaps between grade levels. Benchmark results are again used
to determine which Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) need to
be addressed vertically. Presentations on teaching techniques and
strategies are offered by teachers to focus on weaknesses and
enrichment.

Progress report card night is fundamental as a means to communicate
assessment data to parents. Our progress report card night is held on
the third week of each six weeks to present parents assessment data. In
turn, our parents are expected to sit with their children to work on
weaknesses utilizing the TAKS Study Guide that is provided to students
who are at-risk. Reading Renaissance STARtest, Texas Primary Reading
Inventory (TPRI), Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction (ECRI), and
the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) provide meaningful feedback,
diagnosis, and intervention.

Assessment data is an intricate part for each classroom teacher in
evaluating and justifying progress for each and every student. The basis
for student progress is determined daily with all phases of testing and
individual assignments. The reports are a determining factor on both the
weak and strong points in the instruction for student success.

3\. Communicating Student Performance

Establishing an effective communication process between teachers,
students, parents, and the community is instrumental in the overall
success of educating our Mims students. Parents are notified about their
child's performance during progress report night held every six weeks,
report cards, and letters with detailed results of state and local
benchmark assessments. Individual conferences may also be scheduled with
teachers and administrators. Our campus report card is accessible via
the internet on the Texas Education Agency website. Students are
provided with a homework planner in each grade level so that parents may
review and sign daily assignments. The campus liaison is available for
home visits and provides parents with workshops and resources with
emphasis on maintaining open lines of communication for student success.

Performance is also rewarded with proper recognition of students and
parents. At Mims, the recognition of both the child and the parents are
presented in a light that expectations for commended performance and
exceptional work is a requirement. Thus, these types of assemblies and
community presentations are essential to fulfill the needs of all
students, parents, and all involved in the education of our students.

A contributing member of education in the local community, Dr. Charles
H. Mims personified the attributes of personal dignity, respect, and
character development. A pioneer in the field of medicine and education,
as well as a philanthropist, his beliefs speak to service. A champion
for the population of Mission, he instilled the foundations for equal
health care and educational opportunity as he served in the capacities
of local doctor and school board member. The "Mims Way" is exemplified
by a learning environment that is fostered by ideals based on
expectations of success.

**4. Sharing Success With Other Schools**

In keeping with the district model, "Success for Every Student," Mims is
very proud of our students and gladly shares methodology, strategies,
practices, and curriculum. Sharing begins within our campus and extends
to cover our district, region, state, and national level. Blazing the
trail through training has guided the path for best practices and
leadership.

Within our campus, sharing begins with meetings: grade level, vertical,
horizontal, technology mini --lessons, and staff development. New
teachers have mentors to guide them to reach the success that is
expected at Mims. We have mentored new principals, instructional
supervisors, and teachers, who in turn have used several or all programs
utilized at Mims.

Mims has been the leader in our district, and our doors are always open
for visits and the opportunity to have a question /answer forum. We have
hosted numerous visits from surrounding campuses and districts
throughout the state. They observe and question our methods in
academics, ECRI, technology, and Reading Renaissance. Mims has been
invited to present our practices with other educators at events such as
district in services, Region 1 Service Center trainings, and TBEC.

We have had the opportunity to meet many educators from across the state
and nation while attending conferences. The staff's recognition as a
member of our school is the evidence of our contribution in providing
strategies and knowledge base for other schools. We have and will
continue to accommodate every request to share. We are humbled by their
visits and always strive to uphold the excellence and tradition at Mims
Elementary.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

**1.** **The School's Curriculum**

Mims Elementary curriculum components are found in each subject and we
utilize the programs and resources provided by the school and the
district. Each subject area is carefully monitored with assessments and
teacher input. The foundation of our curriculum lies on the lower grade
levels. Basic spelling, pronunciation, addition, and subtraction facts
are emphasized and build on to the upper grade levels. The Texas
Essential Knowledge and Skills are the outlines, but the perimeters of
learning are pushed to their limits by staff and student.

Our reading program uses Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction and
the Reading Renaissance Program in conjunction with the Accelerated
Reader program for instructional and monitoring purposes. The emphasis
on reading produces over 15,000 plus books in circulation through our
library in a six weeks period. Furthermore, the majority of students
read at or up to two and a half years above grade level. Accountability
for students meeting their goals is checked weekly. ECRI promotes
reading and develops young readers at the levels of Pre-Kinder to 2^nd^
grade. This timed program is based on a focused instruction delivery
with emphasis on spelling, pronunciation, and vocabulary usage.

Math is taught incrementally from year to year. The curriculum contains
Accelerated Math, and Excel Math that reinforces concepts and problem
solving. Teaching the TEKS with the use of math manipulatives,
computer-based programs, and computer assisted instruction (CAI) enhance
the daily production of work. With requirements by the state rising
every year, our program is quickly adjusting to high-order thinking
skills and the use of Bloom's Taxonomy questioning techniques.

Science and Social Studies utilize topic maps and timelines based on the
objectives. Science has recently become part of the accountability
system. With science, lab activities and scientific process type of
lessons have been implemented. The campus has placed all science
materials in one lab setting for the entire campus to prepare science
laboratory experiments.

Physical Education and Music enhance the instruction inside the
classroom by focusing on healthy bodies and developing articulate and
well-rounded students in the arts. Both classes are responsible for
presenting our students in a different light that allows the student to
surpass the goals academically, physically, and emotionally.

Other programs that enhance the curriculum are the gifted and talented
Program, U.I.L., and resource labs. They systematically contribute to
all concepts for student recollection and mastery. These types of pull
out or after school programs keep the trail of success at its maximum
and success at the students' reach.

**2a. Reading Curriculum**

Our reading curriculum begins with a research-based foundation,
implementing the ECRI

program in Pre-Kinder to 2^nd^. ECRI is a systematic approach,
incorporating multiple learning

styles. Students use all modalities in acquiring phonemic skills and
become confident vocabulary

decoders.

We believe that vocabulary acquisition facilitates fluency and enables
students to master literal

and critical comprehension strategies that continue to promote
successful reading in all subjects

in each respective grade. All grade levels utilize the McMillan/McGraw
Hill state adopted basal

reading program. Authentic literature stimulates student interest to
master the state mandated

reading objectives. The staff utilizes commercial materials to foster
necessary skills in building

well balanced readers.

Reading timelines provided by the district language arts coordinator
guide teacher instruction

assuring a solid vertical foundation of literacy skills. Student mastery
of timeline objectives are

assessed every week. The staff reviews reports allowing individual needs
to be addressed, as well

as classroom strengths and weaknesses. Grade level personnel focus on
student mastery to

generate action plans. We implement a cooperative approach to
instruction in that we believe in

the success of each child.

"Today a Reader, Tomorrow a Leader," compels us in supporting classroom
instruction with a

minimum of 30 minutes daily guided reading practice. The techniques and
practices are based on

the Reading Renaissance Program. We hold the belief that to be a good
reader a child must

practice reading at his/her own individual reading level and experience
success. Student reading

levels are identified within their zone of proximal development through
the STAR reading

program. Library books are labeled with corresponding reading levels
ensuring student selection

of materials that will encourage and promote growth.

**3. P.E. Curriculum**

The physical education curriculum of Charles H. Mims Elementary School
is based on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and
supplemented by Mission Consolidated Independent School District's
Coordinated Approach to Child Health (CATCH) program. The school's high
incidence of Acanthosis Nigricans (ANTES) the type II diabetes visual
marking indicating insulin resistance, necessitates added instruction.
Students are educated in preventive measures by improving lifestyle
management. Each respective grade level masters state essential elements
while adhering to national standards based on the National Association
for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE). The CATCH program aligns
physical, nutritional, and health classroom instruction. In a
cooperative effort the physical education instructor, cafeteria manager,
and classroom teachers reinforce the curriculum content. Diabetes
prevention education is correlated with health screenings, at-risk
education, parent liaison contacts, and fund-raising efforts associated
with American Diabetes Association (ADA).

With academic success prevalent at Mims, physical education also assists
in compliance with the school's mission, "Determined to Blaze the Trails
for Student Achievement". Activities that develop and refine patterns of
movement in three areas are locomotion, manipulation, and non-
locomotion which are in place at the primary, intermediate, and advanced
levels. Success is recognized through mastery of basic motor skills,
complicated athletic movements, and neuromuscular skill development.
Fitness assessment takes place yearly with the President's Challenge
Fitness Test. The students are made aware of specific fitness components
and strive to improve their individual health. The children are
recognized with monthly, six week, and yearly achievements. The awards
are for fitness, athletic, and personal endeavors. Success takes place
on a daily basis with skills strengthened that carry over to academic
and life benefits. Responsibility, determination, effort, cooperation,
and honor are words that students learn through action. Their
achievements indicate awareness and adherence to a mission that
permeates through the school.

**4. Instructional Methods**

Mims instruction centers on expectations that teaching to the
"high-level" student enhances the education for the entire class. The
Enhance Learning Program (ELP) principles are practiced on a daily basis
for Gifted and Talented students. This program is implemented by a
single teacher that cradles the population at the lower grade levels
with high order thinking skills, project-based instruction, technology
implementation, curriculum related field trips, and hands on
multi-tasking teaming among the students, while the newly certified
gifted and talented teachers serve upper grade levels. The ELP program
facilitates peer tutoring for every other subgroup in the grade levels.
Initial screening for participation has now been modified in the
district within the past year, due to complaints that Mims had over 15%
of population as Gifted and Talented instead of the state required 5%.
After the district wide testing of over 800 students for this program,
Mims was able to qualify 108 students. This testing fortified the notion
that Mims Elementary is considered the "magnet school." Staff, students,
and parents acknowledged the fact that the student outcomes for our
campus are primarily based on expectations, assessment, strategies and
positive feedback for student success. The excellence continues with
providing the best education situations for, not only our ELP students,
but everyone that enters the doors at Mims Elementary.

In connection to the learning of all students towards the high end of
the instructional spectrum, our school's ventures in methods are also
proven in our University Interscholastic League (UIL) participation. UIL
is utilized as academic competition in our district for the areas of
number sense, science, and literary events to name a few. Mims succeeds
in most and takes the competition to areas around the state. The
challenge is met by competing with other elementary and middle school
students. Mims is recognized throughout the state for taking 1^st^-
5^th^ place in several events. Again, Mims is the trailblazer.

**5. The School's Professional Development**

Continuous implementation of programs from the state and district level
has depleted resources on the economic side of instruction. Mims
Elementary builds on current and old programs by providing professional
development at the pace of the teacher's requirements. The Site-Based
Decision Making Committee utilizes its position to promote the needed
curriculum materials and in services for maintaining student outcomes on
the exemplary side. Region 1 Service Center, local conventions or
presentations, and state conventions are available for teachers to
address the areas of the current and future programs. Administration is
well aware that fostering this type of open door policy can better
service the needs of the students. Technology is an intricate part of
success in this modern age of instruction. The current and latest in
services have been guided for such things as: united streaming, video
connections, internet use and/or use of computer projectors, and
document viewers for an outstanding environment in the classroom.
Current staff members are capable and have been utilized to present on
programs, subject areas, and strategies at the campus, district, and
regional level. Relying on the 12.5 average years of experience for the
staff, all staff members use their expertise to cooperate with one
another. Continuous checks and balances in each grade level allow for
creativity and cohesive planning.

Just as the continuous success of the campus is evident, the staff is
consistent in providing professional development for each other
throughout the year. Frequent department and grade level meetings,
planning sessions, vertical alignment, and brain storming fulfill the
requirements in complementing the existing programs. Teachers seek other
components and are able to make recommendations on purchasing and
utilizing new programs.

Grade [Kinder]{.underline} Test [Terra Nova]{.underline}

Publisher [CTB McGraw-Hill]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as (check one): NCEs [X]{.underline} Scaled
scores \_\_\_\_ Percentiles\_\_\_\_

+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     | 2000  | 1999  | 2000  | 1999  |
|                                     | -2001 | -2000 | -2001 | -2000 |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Testing month                     | April | April | April | April |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Publication Year                    | 2001  | 1997  | 2001  | 1997  |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > **SCHOOL SCORES**                 | Math  | Math  | Re    | Re    |
|                                     |       |       | ading | ading |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Total Score                       | 85    | 93    | 78    | 88    |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Number of students tested         | 100   | 88    | 100   | 88    |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Percent of total students tested  | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Number of students alternatively  | 0     | 0     | 0     | 0     |
| > assessed                          |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Percent of students alternatively | 0%    | 0%    | 0%    | 0%    |
| > assessed                          |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > SUBGROUP SCORES                   |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

> \*Terra Nova scores are not disaggregated for ethnic/racial or
> socioeconomic groups

  ------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                        2000-2001   1999-2000   2000-2001   1999-2000

                                        Math        Math        Reading     Reading

  **NATIONAL MEAN SCORE**               65          76          65          74

  **NATIONAL STANDARD DEVIATION**       7           7           7           7
  ------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Grade [1^st^]{.underline} Test [Terra Nova]{.underline}

Publisher [CTB McGraw-Hill]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as (check one): NCEs [X]{.underline} Scaled
scores \_\_\_\_ Percentiles\_\_\_\_

+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     | 2000  | 1999  | 2000  | 1999  |
|                                     | -2001 | -2000 | -2001 | -2000 |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Testing month                     | April | April | April | April |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Publication Year                  | 2001  | 1997  | 2001  | 1997  |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > **SCHOOL SCORES**                 | Math  | Math  | Re    | Re    |
|                                     |       |       | ading | ading |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Total Score                       | 78    | 85    | 79    | 91    |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Number of students tested         | 101   | 108   | 101   | 108   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Percent of total students tested  | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Number of students alternatively  | 0     | 0     | 0     | 0     |
| > assessed                          |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Percent of students alternatively | 0%    | 0%    | 0%    | 0%    |
| > assessed                          |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > SUBGROUP SCORES                   |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

> \*Terra Nova scores are not disaggregated for ethnic/racial or
> socioeconomic groups

  ------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                        2000-2001   1999-2000   2000-2001   1999-2000

                                        Math        Math        Reading     Reading

  **NATIONAL MEAN SCORE**               66          71          67          75

  **NATIONAL STANDARD DEVIATION**       7           7           7           7
  ------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Grade [2^nd^]{.underline} Test [Terra Nova]{.underline}

Publisher [CTB McGraw-Hill]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as (check one): NCEs [X]{.underline} Scaled
scores \_\_\_\_ Percentiles\_\_\_\_

+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     | 2000  | 1999  | 2000  | 1999  |
|                                     | -2001 | -2000 | -2001 | -2000 |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Testing month                     | April | April | April | April |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Publication Year                  | 2001  | 1997  | 2001  | 1997  |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > **SCHOOL SCORES**                 | Math  | Math  | Re    | Re    |
|                                     |       |       | ading | ading |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Total Score                       | 73    | 77    | 68    | 71    |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Number of students tested         | 125   | 85    | 125   | 85    |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Percent of total students tested  | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Number of students alternatively  | 0     | 0     | 0     | 0     |
| > assessed                          |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Percent of students alternatively | 0%    | 0%    | 0%    | 0%    |
| > assessed                          |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > SUBGROUP SCORES                   |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

> \*Terra Nova scores are not disaggregated for ethnic/racial or
> socioeconomic groups

  ------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                        2000-2001   1999-2000   2000-2001   1999-2000

                                        Math        Math        Reading     Reading

  **NATIONAL MEAN SCORE**               61          65          57          61

  **NATIONAL STANDARD DEVIATION**       6           6           6           6
  ------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Grade [Kinder]{.underline} Test [Iowa Tests of Basic Skills]{.underline}

Publisher [Riverside Publishing Company]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as (check one): NCEs [X]{.underline} Scaled
scores \_\_\_\_ Percentiles\_\_\_\_

+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                | 2        | 2        |
|                                                | 003-2004 | 003-2004 |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Testing month                                | April    | April    |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Publication Year                               | 2002     | 2002     |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > **SCHOOL SCORES**                            | Math     | Reading  |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Total Score                                  | 67       | 52       |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Number of students tested                    | 99       | 99       |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Percent of total students tested             | 96%      | 95%      |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Number of students alternatively assessed    | 0        | 0        |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Percent of students alternatively assessed   | 0%       | 0%       |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > SUBGROUP SCORES                              |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+

> \*Terra Nova scores are not disaggregated for ethnic/racial or
> socioeconomic groups

  ------------------------------------------------ ----------- -----------
                                                   2003-2004   2003-2004

                                                   Math        Reading

  **NATIONAL MEAN SCORE**                          79          55

  **NATIONAL STANDARD DEVIATION**                  7           5
  ------------------------------------------------ ----------- -----------

Grade [1^st^]{.underline} Test [Iowa Tests of Basic Skills]{.underline}

Publisher [Riverside Publishing Company]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as (check one): NCEs [X]{.underline} Scaled
scores \_\_\_\_ Percentiles\_\_\_\_

+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                | 2        | 2        |
|                                                | 003-2004 | 003-2004 |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Testing month                                | April    | April    |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Publication Year                               | 2002     | 2002     |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > **SCHOOL SCORES**                            | Math     | Reading  |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Total Score                                  | 69       | 70       |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Number of students tested                    | 91       | 91       |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Percent of total students tested             | 100%     | 100%     |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Number of students alternatively assessed    | 2        | 2        |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Percent of students alternatively assessed   | 0%       | 0%       |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > SUBGROUP SCORES                              |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+

> \*Terra Nova scores are not disaggregated for ethnic/racial or
> socioeconomic groups

  ------------------------------------------------ ----------- -----------
                                                   2003-2004   2003-2004

                                                   Math        Reading

  **NATIONAL MEAN SCORE**                          82          83

  **NATIONAL STANDARD DEVIATION**                  7           7
  ------------------------------------------------ ----------- -----------

Grade[2nd]{.underline} Test [Iowa Tests of Basic Skills]{.underline}

Publisher [Riverside Publishing Company]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as (check one): NCEs [X]{.underline} Scaled
scores \_\_\_\_ Percentiles\_\_\_\_

+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                | 2        | 2        |
|                                                | 003-2004 | 003-2004 |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Testing month                                | April    | April    |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Publication Year                               | 2002     | 2002     |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > **SCHOOL SCORES**                            | Math     | Reading  |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Total Score                                  | 61       | 60       |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Number of students tested                    | 80       | 80       |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Percent of total students tested             | 100%     | 100%     |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Number of students alternatively assessed    | 2        | 2        |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Percent of students alternatively assessed   | 1%       | 1%       |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > SUBGROUP SCORES                              |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+

> \*Terra Nova scores are not disaggregated for ethnic/racial or
> socioeconomic groups

#  

  ------------------------------------------------ ----------- -----------
                                                   2003-2004   2003-2004

                                                   Math        Reading

  **NATIONAL MEAN SCORE**                          69          68

  **NATIONAL STANDARD DEVIATION**                  6           6
  ------------------------------------------------ ----------- -----------

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# Texas Tests 

# Texas Assessment of Academic Skills(2000-2002) 

# Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills(2003-2004)

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

+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                  | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                  |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                  | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                  | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                  | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                    | June | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                  |      | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 94%  | 96%  | 98%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Met Standard (TAKS)             | 95%  | 94%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Commended Performance (TAKS)    | 49%  | 35%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Mastered All Objectives (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 75%  | 68%  | 60%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested        | 81   | 113  | 121  | 88   | 93   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students tested | 90%  | 97%  | 90%  | 95%  | 100% |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students alternatively | 1    | 3    | 3    | 2    | 1    |
| assessed                         |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students              | 1%   | 2%   | 2%   | 2%   | 1%   |
| alternatively assessed           |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 1\. Economically Disadvantaged   |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 90%  | 87%  | 92%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 90%  | 92%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 60%  | 26%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested        | 41   | 54   | 69   | 52   | 61   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 2\. Hispanic                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 94%  | 96%  | 99%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 95%  | 93%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  |      | 32%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested        | 81   | 104  | 116  | 91   | 91   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | N/A  | N/A  | 87%  | 86%  | 87%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 91%  | 89%  | N/A  | N/A  | N/A  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 35%  | 26%  | N/A  | N/A  | N/A  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

Met Standard = Meeting state minimum passage of 70% of objectives
answered correctly.

Commended Performance = Meeting 100% of all objectives. Subgroups not
available on state

scores and campus scores when less than five students are tested.

Below Standard = Vendor does not report these numbers.

State Mean Score -- State Mean Scores not reported by test vendor.

N/A = Not Available

+= The minimum amount of students needed for group assessment was not
met.

\- = Not Applicable

# 

# Texas Tests 

# Texas Assessment of Academic Skills(2000-2002) 

# Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills(2003-2004)

Grade [3^rd^]{.underline} Subject [Math]{.underline}

+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                  | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                  |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                  | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                  | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                  | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                    | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                  | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 9    | 97%  | 96%  |
|                                  |      |      | 5.2% |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Met Standard (TAKS)             | 96%  | 99%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Commended Performance (TAKS)    | 40%  | 31%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Mastered All Objectives (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 30%  | 39%  | 35%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested        | 81   | 114  | 121  | 84   | 94   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students tested | 96%  | 98%  | 90%  | 88%  | 100% |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students alternatively | 1    | 2    | 3    | 2    | 1    |
| assessed                         |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students              | 1%   | 2%   | 3%   | 2%   | 1%   |
| alternatively assessed           |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 1\. Economically Disadvantaged   |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 91%  | 96%  | 97%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 95%  | 98%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 24%  | 32%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested        | 41   | 56   | 69   | 53   | 66   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 2\. Hispanic                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 94%  | 98%  | 96%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 96%  | 99%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 40%  | 27%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested        | 81   | 104  | 116  | 94   | 92   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | N/A  | N/A  | 87%  | 82%  | 80%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 90%  | 90%  | N/A  | N/A  | N/A  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 25%  | 18%  | N/A  | N/A  | N/A  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

Met Standard = Meeting state minimum passage of 70% of objectives
answered correctly.

Commended Performance = Meeting 100% of all objectives. Subgroups not
available on state

scores and campus scores when less than five students are tested.

Below Standard = Vendor does not report these numbers.

State Mean Score -- State Mean Scores not reported by test vendor.

N/A = Not Available

+= The minimum amount of students needed for group assessment was not
met.

\- = Not Applicable

# Texas Tests 

# Texas Assessment of Academic Skills(2000-2002) 

# Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills(2003-2004)

Grade [4^th^]{.underline} Subject [Reading]{.underline}

+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                  | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                  |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                  | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                  | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                  | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                    | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                  | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 98%  | 96%  | 97%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Met Standard (TAKS)             | 94%  | 92%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Commended Performance (TAKS)    | 30%  | 24%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Mastered All Objectives (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 63%  | 60%  | 68%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested        | 83   | 135  | 101  | 110  | 97   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students tested | 94%  | 94%  | 97%  | 97%  | 100% |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students alternatively | 0    | 9    | 3    | 2    | 4    |
| assessed                         |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students              | \-   | 6%   | 2%   | 2%   | 4%   |
| alternatively assessed           |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 1\. Economically Disadvantaged   |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 97%  | 92%  | 93%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 92%  | 91%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 24%  | 16%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested        | 38   | 58   | 66   | 66   | 45   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 2\. Hispanic                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 98%  | 94%  | 96%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 93%  | 92%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 26%  | 33%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested        | 74   | 124  | 97   | 109  | 92   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | N/A  | N/A  | 92%  | 90%  | 89%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 85%  | 85%  | N/A  | N/A  | N/A  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 25%  | 17%  | N/A  | N/A  | N/A  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

Met Standard = Meeting state minimum passage of 70% of objectives
answered correctly.

Commended Performance = Meeting 100% of all objectives. Subgroups not
available on state

scores and campus scores when less than five students are tested.

Below Standard = Vendor does not report these numbers.

State Mean Score -- State Mean Scores not reported by test vendor.

N/A = Not Available

+= The minimum amount of students needed for group assessment was not
met.

\- = Not Applicable

# 

# 

# 

# 

# Texas Tests 

# Texas Assessment of Academic Skills(2000-2002) 

# Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills(2003-2004)

Grade [4^th^]{.underline} Subject [Math]{.underline}

+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                  | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                  |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                  | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                  | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                  | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                    | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                  | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 97%  | 99%  | 97%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Met Standard (TAKS)             | 98%  | 96%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Commended Performance (TAKS)    | 43%  | 16%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Mastered All Objectives (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 35%  | 15%  | 40%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested        | 83   | 135  | 102  | 114  | 90   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students tested | 98%  | 93%  | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students alternatively | 0    | 9    | 0    | 3    | 4    |
| assessed                         |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students              | \-   | 7%   | \-   | 3%   | 4%   |
| alternatively assessed           |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 1\. Economically Disadvantaged   |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 97%  | 99%  | 96%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 95%  | 97%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 32%  | 9%   | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested        | 38   | 58   | 66   | 68   | 45   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 2\. Hispanic                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 97%  | 96%  | 96%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 97%  | 96%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 42%  | 15%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested        | 74   | 124  | 97   | 111  | 83   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | N/A  | N/A  | 94%  | 91%  | 87%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 86%  | 87%  | N/A  | N/A  | N/A  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 21%  | 15%  | N/A  | N/A  | N/A  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

Met Standard = Meeting state minimum passage of 70% of objectives
answered correctly.

Commended Performance = Meeting 100% of all objectives. Subgroups not
available on state

scores and campus scores when less than five students are tested.

Below Standard = Vendor does not report these numbers.

State Mean Score -- State Mean Scores not reported by test vendor.

N/A = Not Available

+= The minimum amount of students needed for group assessment was not
met.

\- = Not Applicable

# 

# Texas Tests 

# Texas Assessment of Academic Skills(2000-2002) 

# Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills(2003-2004)

Grade [5^th^]{.underline} Subject [Reading]{.underline}

+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                  | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                  |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                  | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                  | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                  | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                    | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                  | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 96%  | 95%  | 96%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Met Standard (TAKS)             | 90%  | 88%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Commended Performance (TAKS)    | 31%  | 28%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Mastered All Objectives (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 49%  | 69%  |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested        | 87   | 116  | 120  | 110  | 79   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students tested | 90%  | 98%  | 93%  | 99%  | 100% |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students alternatively | 6    | 3    | 1    | 1    | 1    |
| assessed                         |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students              | 6%   | 2%   | 1%   | 1%   | 1%   |
| alternatively assessed           |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 1\. Economically Disadvantaged   |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 95%  | 92%  | 93%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 92%  | 90%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 14%  | 25%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested        | 36   | 69   | 73   | 63   | 43   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 2\. Hispanic                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 96%  | 95%  | 97%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 88%  | 92%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 31%  | 27%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested        | 78   | 106  | 94   | 102  | 65   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | N/A  | N/A  | 92%  | 90%  | 87%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 79%  | 79%  | N/A  | N/A  | N/A  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 25%  | 17%  | N/A  | N/A  | N/A  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

Met Standard = Meeting state minimum passage of 70% of objectives
answered correctly.

Commended Performance = Meeting 100% of all objectives. Subgroups not
available on state

scores and campus scores when less than five students are tested.

Below Standard = Vendor does not report these numbers.

State Mean Score -- State Mean Scores not reported by test vendor.

N/A = Not Available

+= The minimum amount of students needed for group assessment was not
met.

\- = Not Applicable

# 

# 

# 

# 

# Texas Tests 

# Texas Assessment of Academic Skills(2000-2002) 

# Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills(2003-2004)

Grade [5^th^]{.underline} Subject [Math]{.underline}

+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                  | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                  |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                  | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                  | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                  | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                    | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                  | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 100% | 99%  | 100% |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Met Standard (TAKS)             | 91%  | 92%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Commended Performance (TAKS)    | 38%  | 20%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Mastered All Objectives (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 49%  | 34%  | 33%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested        | 87   | 118  | 120  | 108  | 79   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students tested | 95%  | 98%  | 96%  | 98%  | 100% |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students alternatively | 4    | 5    | 0    | 1    | 1    |
| assessed                         |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students              | 5%   | 5%   | \-   | 1%   | 1%   |
| alternatively assessed           |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 1\. Economically Disadvantaged   |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 100% | 97%  | 100% |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 86%  | 89%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 31%  | 12%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested        | 36   | 74   | 73   | 62   | 43   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 2\. Hispanic                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 100% | 98%  | 100% |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 91%  | 93%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 40%  | 18%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested        | 78   | 110  | 94   | 101  | 65   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | N/A  | N/A  | 96%  | 94%  | 92%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 82%  | 86%  | N/A  | N/A  | N/A  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 26%  | 17%  | N/A  | N/A  | N/A  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

Met Standard = Meeting state minimum passage of 70% of objectives
answered correctly.

Commended Performance = Meeting 100% of all objectives. Subgroups not
available on state

scores and campus scores when less than five students are tested.

Below Standard = Vendor does not report these numbers.

State Mean Score -- State Mean Scores not reported by test vendor.

N/A = Not Available

+= The minimum amount of students needed for group assessment was not
met.

\- = Not Applicable

# 

# Texas Tests 

# Texas Assessment of Academic Skills(2000-2002) 

# Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills(2003-2004)

Grade [6^th^]{.underline} Subject [Reading]{.underline}

+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                  | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                  |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                  | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                  | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                  | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                    | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                  | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 98%  | 98%  | 95%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Met Standard (TAKS)             | 99%  | 94%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Commended Performance (TAKS)    | 49%  | 40%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Mastered All Objectives (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 40%  | 70%  | 51%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested        | 80   | 129  | 111  | 82   | 101  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students tested | 92%  | 97%  | 97%  | 98%  | 100% |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students alternatively | 1    | 3    | 0    | 0    | 1    |
| assessed                         |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students              | 1%   | 2%   | \-   | \-   | 1%   |
| alternatively assessed           |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 1\. Economically Disadvantaged   |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 97%  | 96%  | 92%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 99%  | 91%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 44%  | 38%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested        | 52   | 77   | 68   | 46   | 52   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 2\. Hispanic                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 98%  | 97%  | 9    |
|                                  |      |      |      |      | 4.7% |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 100% | 94%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 47%  | 39%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested        | 74   | 124  | 104  | 69   | 94   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | N/A  | N/A  | 88%  | 85%  | 86%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 86%  | 86%  | N/A  | N/A  | N/A  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 28%  | 25%  | N/A  | N/A  | N/A  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

Met Standard = Meeting state minimum passage of 70% of objectives
answered correctly.

Commended Performance = Meeting 100% of all objectives. Subgroups not
available on state

scores and campus scores when less than five students are tested.

Below Standard = Vendor does not report these numbers.

State Mean Score -- State Mean Scores not reported by test vendor.

N/A = Not Available

+= The minimum amount of students needed for group assessment was not
met.

\- = Not Applicable

# 

# 

# 

# 

# Texas Tests 

# Texas Assessment of Academic Skills(2000-2002) 

# Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills(2003-2004)

Grade [6^th^]{.underline} Subject [Math]{.underline}

+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                  | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                  |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                  | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                  | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                  | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                    | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                  | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 99%  | 100% | 97%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Met Standard (TAKS)             | 95%  | 85%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Commended Performance (TAKS)    | 44%  | 30%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| %Mastered All Objectives (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   |      | 100% |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested        | 81   | 130  | 111  | 82   | 102  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students tested | 93%  | 98%  | 97%  | 98%  | 98%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students alternatively | 2    | 2    | 0    | 1    | 2    |
| assessed                         |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students              | 2%   | 2%   | \-   | 1%   | 2%   |
| alternatively assessed           |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 1\. Economically Disadvantaged   |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 98%  | 100% | 96%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 92%  | 82%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 43%  | 24%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested        | 53   | 78   | 68   | 45   | 53   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 2\. Hispanic                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | \-   | \-   | 99%  | 100% | 97%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 95%  | 85%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 44%  | 29%  | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of Students Tested        | 75   | 125  | 104  | 69   | 95   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Minimum Standards (TAAS)  | N/A  | N/A  | 93%  | 91%  | 88%  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Met Standard (TAKS)           | 77%  | 79%  | N/A  | N/A  | N/A  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% Commended Performance (TAKS)  | 22%  | 16%  | N/A  | N/A  | N/A  |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

Met Standard = Meeting state minimum passage of 70% of objectives
answered correctly.

Commended Performance = Meeting 100% of all objectives. Subgroups not
available on state

scores and campus scores when less than five students are tested.

Below Standard = Vendor does not report these numbers.

State Mean Score -- State Mean Scores not reported by test vendor.

N/A = Not Available

+= The minimum amount of students needed for group assessment was not
met.

\- = Not Applicable