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

*U.S. Department of Education*

**REVISED 3-30-05** Type of School: \_\_ Elementary \_\_ Middle \_X\_
High \_\_ K-12

Name of Principal [Dr. Vonn Murray]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [Bruceville-Eddy High School]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing [Address_1\_\_EagleDrive]{.underline}

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

[Eddy, Texas\_ 76524+3321]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County [McLennan]{.underline} School Code
Number\*\_\_[161-919]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Telephone [( 254 )859-5533]{.underline} Fax [( 254 )
859-5001]{.underline}

Website/URL [www.brucevilleeddyisd.net]{.underline} E-mail
[vonnm@eddy-isd.net]{.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\_\_[2/10/05]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent\* [Mr. Dan Doyen]{.underline}

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

District Name [Bruceville-Eddy ISD]{.underline} Tel. [(254
)]{.underline} [859-5525]{.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[\_\_2/10/05]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
(Superintendent's
Signature)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Name of School Board Mr. Ki Jones

President/Chairperson

(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)

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

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

The signatures on the first page of this application certify that each
of the statements below concerning the school\'s eligibility and
compliance with U.S. Department of Education, Office 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
    years.

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: \_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_Elementary
schools

\_\_\_[0]{.underline}\_ Middle schools

\_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_ Junior high schools

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

\_\_\_[3]{.underline}\_ Other --Intermediate, Achievement Center &
Success

[\_\_\_6\_\_]{.underline} TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: [\_\_\_4,316.00]{.underline}\_\_\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_\_[5,551.00]{.underline}\_\_\_

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

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

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

4\. [14]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

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

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

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

  **PreK**                                                  **7**                             

  **K**                                                     **8**                             

  **1**                                                     **9**                             

  **2**                                                     **10**      38        27          65

  **3**                                                     **11**      34        36          70

  **4**                                                     **12**      33        31          64

  **5**                                                     **Other**                         

  **6**                                                                                       

                                    **TOTAL                                                   199
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL →**                                                
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [88]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [1]{.underline} % Black or African American

[11]{.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:
\_\_\_[14]{.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           22
            ***from*** the school after October 1 until  
            the end of the year.                         

  **(3)**   Subtotal of all transferred students \[sum   32
            of rows (1) and (2)\]                        

  **(4)**   Total number of students in the school as of 227
            October 1                                    

  **(5)**   Subtotal in row (3) divided by total in row  1
            (4)                                          

  **(6)**   Amount in row (5) multiplied by 100          14
  --------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school:
\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_%

\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_\_Total Number Limited English Proficient

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

Specify languages: Spanish

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals:
\_\_\_\_[27]{.underline}\_\_\_\_%

Total number students who qualify: \_\_\_\_[62]{.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:
\_\_[27]{.underline}\_\_\_\_%

\_\_[62]{.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.

\_\_\_\_Autism \_\_\_\_Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_\_\_Deafness \_[3]{.underline}\_\_Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness \_[56]{.underline}\_Specific Learning Disability

\_\_[8]{.underline}\_Emotional Disturbance \_\_\_\_Speech or Language
Impairment

\_\_\_\_Hearing Impairment \_\_\_\_Traumatic Brain Injury

> \_\_\_\_Mental Retardation \_\_\_\_Visual Impairment Including
> Blindness

\_[5]{.underline}\_\_Multiple Disabilities

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

Administrator(s) \_\_\_[2]{.underline}\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Classroom teachers \_\_\_[15]{.underline}\_\_\_\_
\_\_[\_\_\*\_]{.underline}\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists \_\_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Paraprofessionals \_\_\_\_[3]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Support staff \_\_\_[5]{.underline}\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Total number \_\_\_[26]{.underline}\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\* 4.5 FTE'S Shared with Jr. High (grades 6,7,8,9)

12\. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio:
\_\_\_[15]{.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   95 %        95 %        96 %        NA%         NA%

  Daily teacher attendance   97 %        97 %        98 %        NA%         NA%

  Teacher turnover rate      1%          0%          0 %         NA%         NA%

  Student dropout rate       0%          0%          0 %         NA%         NA%
  (middle/high)                                                              

  Student drop-off rate      0%          4 %         0 %         NA%         NA%
  (high school)                                                              
  -------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

14\. **(*High Schools Only*)** Show what the students who graduated in
Spring 2004 are doing as of September 2004.

+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Graduating class size                                   | > \_[64]{. |
|                                                         | underline} |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Enrolled in a 4-year college or university              | > \_\_[    |
|                                                         | 16]{.under |
|                                                         | line}\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Enrolled in a community college                         | > \_\_[    |
|                                                         | 64]{.under |
|                                                         | line}\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Enrolled in vocational training                         | > \        |
|                                                         | _\_[9]{.un |
|                                                         | derline}\_ |
|                                                         | > %        |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Found employment                                        | > \_       |
|                                                         | > [3]{.    |
|                                                         | underline} |
|                                                         | > \_%      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Military service                                        | > \_       |
|                                                         | \_[8]{.und |
|                                                         | erline}\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Other (travel, staying home, etc.)                      | > \        |
|                                                         | _\_\_\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Unknown                                                 | > \        |
|                                                         | _\_\_\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| **Total**                                               | > 100 %    |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+

**PART III ‑ SUMMARY**

Bruceville-Eddy High School is located in rural central Texas and serves
as a 10-12 public school facility serving between 199 and 225 students.
We offer a wide variety of curricular and extra-curricular offerings in
a safe, clean, and respectful environment. Our district is composed of
students from a wide range of economic backgrounds, with over 40%
economically disadvantaged in the lower grade levels, and currently 29%
at the high school level. The high school has been an Exemplary campus
from 1996-2003, a Texas Monthly Five Star Campus in 2002, and a
recognized campus in 2004.

The mission of Bruceville-Eddy High School is to provide instruction at
the highest level of quality with equality for all students. In a
cooperative effort of school, home and community, our youth will be
prepared to meet the challenge of the future. Our slogan is "If Better
is Possible, Then Good is not Enough." Our world is in a period of
dramatic change with the war on terror, economic conditions, technology
and the merging of psychology, biology, and education research. The
community is also changing, growing, and we are working rapidly to keep
pace.

The vision of Bruceville-Eddy High School is to create a learning
environment that will unlock the full potential of each student and to
serve mankind with greatness. We seek to develop the whole student, with
a focus on real world skills by establishing links between academic
achievement and post-secondary goals. All students will acquire a strong
basic education foundation, skills, opportunities, resources and
technology to develop their abilities to think critically and
creatively, problem solve and communicate effectively. Each student will
acquire knowledge of their responsibilities, rights of citizenship, and
an appreciation of our democratic heritage.

Our school has high expectations for achievement that enable us to
maintain consistent efforts toward providing a quality education. We
utilize a SBDM committee and academic teams in order to focus our
efforts upon data found in our needs assessments and student
assessments. During the last several years about 80% of our students
have pursued some type of post-secondary education or training. The
other 20% of our students usually choose either the military or work.
Over 90% of our students participate in some type of extracurricular
activity or student club. We currently have an extra-curricular random
drug testing policy in order to focus our efforts on setting a high
standard for our youth. Our sponsors also emphasize academics before
athletics with required tutoring and eligibility standards.

During the past several years we have added girls' volleyball, softball,
student council, pre-AP and AP classes, one interactive TV lab for
college dual credit courses, an Independent Study course for the
Distinguished Achievement Program (DAP), Principles of Technology (PT1),
Building and Construction Trades, and Calculus. In 2004-2005 we have
also added Grand Central Station (GCS), a learning lab designed for
failing or struggling students. We have combined GCS with our content
mastery lab. One teacher and an aide lead the use of computer technology
to assist the learner with differentiated instructional methods. The GCS
program at other Texas schools has been recognized by Governor Rick
Perry's office as a promising practice in Texas.

It should be noted that Bruceville-Eddy has several unique
circumstances. We have a residential treatment facility in our district
that houses secondary level girls who have been placed there by court
order, child protective services, or other mandated services. Many of
these girls have a special education designation, and many of these
students move in and out of our district based on a variety outside
factors. These girls receive special education services at our
Achievement Center, but they are also placed on the high school campus
through the ARD process. In addition, we are centrally located to four
other districts, and our school district is located on the I-35
corridor. Finally, based on a special education program evaluation that
the district completed in 2004, we discovered that the high school
receives a higher than expected percentage of special education transfer
students from other districts and the middle school.

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

**Meaning of Assessment Results**

Until 2003 we used TAAS assessments, which were scored by the Texas
Education Agency (TEA), and the TEA generated school report cards that
were sent to districts and campuses for teachers, students, parents and
the community. During the last three years, we have switched to the TAKS
assessment system, which is based on a more rigorous curriculum and
test. The results of these assessments are evaluated by administration
and staff to identify strengths and areas that need improvement.

At Bruceville-Eddy High School, we have been vertically and horizontally
aligning our curriculum to the new TEKS state standards. The high school
has provided benchmark assessments to assist in adjusting the curriculum
to better prepare our students for these standards. In addition,
adjustments have been made in scope and sequence timelines, assessments,
and lesson plans based upon achievement data.

The TAKS test includes reading, writing, mathematics, social studies,
and science. Students with scores below 77% are placed in additional
reading, writing, and/or mathematics classes. Our goal has been to help
the students reach 85% mastery. In addition, students have a 30 minute
daily tutorial three days a week in the four core areas. Each student
will rotate to a new discipline each six weeks. Students are grouped
based upon objectives not mastered and needs. Special education students
receive instruction in mainstream classes, resource classes, tutoring
sessions, additional classes, and the ARD committee determines the
appropriate assessment level based upon the instructional level and the
modifications used in the IEP. All of our special education students
have reached their ARD IEP assessment goals and demonstrated growth from
the previous year.

Each core team of teachers reviews the local assessments each six weeks
and each semester. They use benchmark assessments four times a year, as
well as analyzing the end-of-year state assessments. This combination of
data gives us a good snapshot of each student's strengths and needs. In
addition, this process helps us to refine the curriculum based upon what
the students are calling for. Finally, we review year to year student
achievement growth and encourage our students to strive to achieve the
level of college readiness.

**Using Assessment Data**

Bruceville-Eddy High School uses and analyzes all state and local
assessment data for trends, strengths and weaknesses. We disaggregate
results by grades, teachers, subjects, objectives and students. We
review the state data in order to revise our curriculum, lesson plans,
scope and sequence and local assessments. In addition, we use our local
benchmark assessments to adjust curriculum quarterly, and we use our
semester exam analysis by objective to adjust our scope and sequence,
lesson plans, and curriculum alignment by semester. Individual student
results are also used to identify those that need additional classes,
tutoring, review camps, GCS learning lab support, state compensatory
tutoring services or special education services.

Teachers meet in teams by subject area to discuss areas of concern and
to formulate extra learning camps, make changes in lesson plans,
curriculum, and scope and sequence. During the last three years, we have
further adjusted our curriculum, scope and sequence, lesson plans and
timelines, as well as local assessments to prepare our students for
mastery of state standards. Each teacher has a notebook with the state
standards, their curriculum, scope and sequence, assessment calendar
timelines, lesson plans, and assessments. Each teacher's notebook is
organized for continual use, and a copy is placed in the GCS learning
lab for facilitating progress of students failing or identified as
needing level one intervention. This year we are planning to move to a
web based curriculum mapping management system called Rubicon Atlas
during 2005. Finally, teachers deconstruct test items to further
understand the state standards for revised curriculum alignment and
teaching students to understand what they need to know to master a
standard with depth and complexity.

**Communicating Assessment Data**

Each year a state campus report card is mailed to every parent. In
addition, every student and parent receives an individual student
performance report. The teachers and counselor also review the results
with every student. School results are published in the local newspaper
as well as state and regional newspapers. We also send home a three week
progress report, a six week report card and a parent newsletter with an
overview of the assessment results. In addition, the TEA website is
available for anyone to examine data from all districts in the state.
General performance of our students, such as A/AB honor roll are
communicated through the local newspaper and are displayed in our
hallways. Finally, award assemblies are used to recognize academic
achievement.

**Sharing Successes**

The high school principal has networked with other principals in the
area to discuss areas of school improvement, technology integration,
curriculum alignment, and assessment processes related to state
standards. We also participate in a regional wide meeting twice a year
where informal or formal discussions take place. In addition, we
participate in the Texas Association of Secondary School Principals
annual state convention where information is shared formally and
informally. Furthermore, a team of teachers and the principal have
presented the process of an innovative Independent Study course at two
state conferences several years ago. Finally, six-week meetings are held
with vertical and horizontal teacher teams to discuss curriculum and
assessment that is working for our local students. The four core team of
teachers also meet weekly to collaborate about their lesson plans for
student learning improvement. The administrators and teachers would be
glad to share any of our success stories with other campuses within the
district, area, region or state. We also have an interactive TV lab that
can be used to share success stories and learn from other educators.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

**The School's Curriculum**

We have aligned our curriculum to the state TEKS, which are the state
curriculum standards. We have focused on creating more depth and
complexity from the curriculum standards and have aligned the curriculum
vertically and horizontally, eliminating overlaps and filling in any
gaps. We continue to adjust our scope and sequence, assessments, and
curriculum based upon the analysis of the data. In addition, the
integration of technology is being used as part of classroom
instruction. The teachers and the students are using laptop computers, a
wireless i Mac computer lab, a Dell computer lab and Apple computer lab.

The core curriculum consists of English language arts, mathematics,
science and social studies. The state requires two years of science, but
we require three years of science. We also offer Spanish I, II, III,
career and technology courses in family consumer sciences and
agriculture sciences. In addition, we offer building construction,
computer technology, drama, art, band, dance, physical education,
various athletics, reading improvement, technical writing, accounting,
introduction to business and advanced placement classes.

In mathematics, we offer Algebra through Calculus and our focus is on a
spiraling technique to master the standards. The focus in language arts
is on reading, writing, communication, language mechanics, novels and
other literature. Teachers evaluate the reading level for modifications
and differentiated instruction. Science instruction is lab based using
hands on activities for much of the instruction. With a change in the
coaching staff, we have new social studies teachers, who have been
orientated and are involved in upgrading the social studies curriculum
scope and sequence and assessments aligned to the standards.

This school year we added a Building Trades/Construction teacher and
curriculum that is meeting the real world needs of many students.
Finally, during the 2005-2006 school year, we will be adding an
additional Spanish teacher for extra sections of Spanish I and II, and
one new section of Spanish IV.

**English Language Curriculum**

Students are required to pass four years of English. They must earn a 70
each semester in order to gain full credit, and semesters are not
averaged together to gain credit for the year. The TEKS are the
standards that drive the curriculum. Students must also read from
additional literature books to increase their performance level. There
is an emphasis on reading and writing skills with depth and complexity
and research skills for real world applications. Student assessment
results are required, and the results are reviewed with all students.
Curriculum and teaching methods are collaboratively adjusted to improve
instruction and learning. Students read and study American and British
drama, fiction and non-fiction. Teachers and students discuss their work
to analyze reading, improve vocabulary and reading comprehension. Some
other examples of the English curriculum are: main idea, foreshadowing,
mood, identifying text, improving cause, identifying the meaning of
figurative language, text proving effect, creating tension in the plot,
using daily oral language each day for sentence order, comma usage,
effective sentence construction, and the use of punctuation and
mechanics. In addition, the English department teaches summary, main
idea, syntax, word choice, and proofreading. The Accelerated Reader
Program is also used by teachers, but is stressed through the library,
and they have a reward system to encourage more reading. Students below
grade level in reading have modified instruction, extra tutoring,
Accelerated Reader, can have an extra reading class, and reading
improvement is also available through special education services through
the ARD committee. Finally, the new Grand Central Station program
supports extra reading help, reading time, and use of new technology to
assist the student. We are adding an additional reading improvement
section and a math lab section to the master schedule for the 2005-2006
year to provide more assistance in a small group setting for those that
have demonstrated the most need.

**Other Curriculum**

During the 2001-2002 school year, we received a Telecommunication
Infrastructure Fund (TIF) technology grant, which allowed us to add
courses in Desktop Publishing, Multimedia, Video Technology, Web
Mastering, Digital Graphics and Animation, Independent Study of
Technology Applications and expand an Independent Study course. These
students are helping maintain the school webpage, produce digital
pictures for local newspapers, produce a senior prom/graduation video,
as well as producing other student projects. In addition, in our
Independent Study course, our students research individual career
aspirations, job shadow, correspond with e-mail mentors, and produce
final products related to their career aspiration utilizing all the
technologies, English and communication skills. These curriculum
offerings are part of our mission "If Better is Possible, Then Good is
not Enough". We want to create a learning environment that will unlock
the full potential of each student. We believe that real world skills
learned and applied will establish a link between academic achievement
and post-secondary goals.

**Different Instructional Methods Used to Improve Student Learning**

Students at Bruceville-Eddy High School are exposed to a wide variety of
instructional methods. Teachers receive training in modifications,
differentiated instruction, cooperative learning, hands on learning
activities, lab activities, research, technology for projects using the
wireless computer lab, student projects and presentations, cross
curriculum integration activities, team teaching, and other new brain
research based methods. The staff has also spent some time with
curriculum mapping basics, vertical and horizontal alignment of the
curriculum, deconstruction of assessment items, use of data analysis to
adjust timelines and instructional methods. We have also used research
based classroom management strategies to enhance teaching. A reward
system is in place for high attendance, good grades, as well as a
systematic approach for one-on-one tutoring, a pre-referral process for
the GCS learning lab, and individualized instruction in special
education. We also offer college dual credit through the interactive TV
lab, as well as supporting a gifted and talented program in the four
core areas, which focuses on student research and projects.

**Professional Development Program**

Professional development is linked to the improvement of instruction and
maintaining a safe and positive learning environment. Teachers are
provided with four professional development days each year, and they are
also provided four early release staff development days. Teachers also
attend training updates in gifted and talented, ESL, special education,
technology, as well as any other required professional staff
development. In addition, teachers attend AP workshops, and teachers
have attended state conventions such as the state science convention,
and the state mathematics convention. Other staff development has
included learning styles, cooperative learning, Texas Behavior Support
Initiative, Crisis Prevention Intervention, School Safety, Drug Free
Schools, Bullying, TEKS Academies, Dyslexia, ADD, and ADHD.

Our new GCS learning lab teacher and aide attended ten days of staff
development in order to implement the learning lab processes. Their
training included learning styles inventory, dyslexia, ADD and ADHD.
They also had training in use of Kurzweil reader, which is used in
helping failing students succeed and struggling readers pass core
subjects, as well as improve their reading skills. Kurzweil allows the
scanning of any textbook, and it will read at different speeds to
students while it highlights the text and pronounces the words, as well
as giving definitions to any word a student does not understand. In
addition, they had training in Study Hall 101, where teachers use the
computer software program in a game format for review and to learn
important information in a different way than taught by their teachers.

Our teachers have also received technology training which is evaluated
and updated based on each level using the Texas Star Chart, which is a
Texas based technology training evaluation and planning process.
Training is used to increase the teachers' ability to use their
computer. In addition, the teachers teach the students to use technology
in classroom projects. Additional staff development and ongoing team
meetings are held to bring all the staff together to focus on common
goals related to our mission of improving student achievement. Finally,
we use the Professional Development Appraisal System to ensure
implementation of curriculum strategies, assessments, and to promote
professional growth in targeted areas.

**PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

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

> [Subject Reading]{.underline} [Grade 10]{.underline} Test Texas
> Assessments [of Knowledge and Skills]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_
>
> [Edition/publication year 2004]{.underline} [Publisher Texas Education
> Agency]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > \*Data masked by TEA and NA   | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
| > is not available or not       |      |      |      |      |      |
| > applicable                    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month- February         | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                 | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| SCHOOL SCORES                   |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 4%   | 5%   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 98%  | 92 % | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 56   | 60   | 60   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 72%  | 74%  | 78%  |      |      |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 22   | 22   | 16   |      |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 28%  | 26%  | 21%  |      |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 1\. Economically Disadvantaged  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 0%   | 0%   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 100% | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 16   | 13   | 15   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 2\. African American            |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*   | \*   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*   | \*   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | \*   | \*   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | \*   | \*   | 0    |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 3\. Hispanic                    |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*   | 0%   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*   | 80%  | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | \*   | NA   | 100% |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | \*   | 5    | 8    |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 4\. White                       |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 4%   | 6%   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 98%  | 93%  | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 52   | 54   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| STATE SCORES                    |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 4%   | 5%   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met        | 75%  | 72%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 94%  | 90%  | 90%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

\*Data masked by TEA and NA is not available or not applicable

\*\*In accordance with the requirements of the federal No Child Left
Behind Act, Texas calculation of passing percentages in 2002-2003
changed in significant ways from calculations in prior years. First, the
test changed from the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills to the much
more rigorous Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Second, some
students with disabilities who were previously exempted from the
accountability calculations were included in all proficiency
calculations. Third, students were required to be enrolled in a school
for 120 consecutive days in order to be included in the calculations for
that school. These changes may cause the data from the 2002-2003 school
years and beyond to appear different from the data from previous years
for some schools. In addition to the TAKS in English, state scores
include tests in Spanish, Limited English Proficient, and Special
Education. Grade 3 scores are cumulative, given over the course of the
year to facilitate promotion. By law, if students don't pass the 3^rd^
grade reading test, they are not promoted to the next grade.

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

> [Subject Math]{.underline} [Grade 10]{.underline} [Test Texas
> Assessment of Knowledge and Skills\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}
>
> [Edition/publication year 2004]{.underline} [Publisher Texas Education
> Agency]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \*Masked by TEA and NA is not   | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
| available or not applicable     |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month-April             | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                 | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| SCHOOL SCORES                   |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 7%   | 7%   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 94%  | 88   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 98%  |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 55   | 59   | 59   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 72%  | 74%  | 78%  |      |      |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 22   | 22   | 16   |      |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 28%  | 26%  | 21%  |      |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 1\. Economically Disadvantaged  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 0    | 0    | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 93%  | 100% | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 15   | 13   | 14   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 2\. African American            |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*   | \*   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*   | \*   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | \*   | \*   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | \*   | \*   | 0    |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 3\. Hispanic                    |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*   | 0%   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*   | 100% | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | \*   | NA   | 100% |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | \*   | 5    | 9    |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 4\. White                       |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 7%   | 7%   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 94%  | 92%  | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 97%  |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 52   | 53   | 50   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| STATE SCORES                    |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 8%   | 7%   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met        | 63%  | 73%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 92%  | 89%  | 86%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

\*Data masked by TEA and NA is not available or not applicable **\*\*See
explanation on page 13**

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

> [Subject Reading]{.underline} [Grade 11]{.underline} Test Texas
> Assessments [of Knowledge and Skills\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}
>
> [Edition/publication year 2004]{.underline} [Publisher Texas Education
> Agency]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \* Data masked by TEA and NA is | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
| not available or not applicable |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month- February         | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                 | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| SCHOOL SCORES                   |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 24%  | 4%   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 96%  | 90%  | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 56   | 57   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 78%  | 84%  | NA   |      |      |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 16   | 11   | NA   |      |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 22%  | 16%  | NA   |      |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 1\. Economically Disadvantaged  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 11%  | 4%   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 90%  | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 9    | 10   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 2\. African American            |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*   | \*   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*   | \*   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | \*   | \*   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 3\. Hispanic                    |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*   | 0%   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*   | 100% | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | \*   | 7    | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 4\. White                       |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 26%  | 5%   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 96%  | 8    | NA   |      |      |
|                                 |      | 8.4% |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 47   | 43   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| STATE SCORES                    |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 10%  | 5%   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met        | 87%  | 69%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

\*Data masked by TEA and NA is not available or not applicable **\*\*See
explanation on page 13**

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

> [Subject Math]{.underline} [Grade 11]{.underline} [Test Texas
> Assessment of Knowledge and Skills]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_
>
> [Edition/publication year 2004]{.underline} [Publisher Texas Education
> Agency]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \*Masked by TEA and NA is not   | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
| available or not applicable     |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month -April            | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                 | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| SCHOOL SCORES                   |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 17%  | 7%   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 94%  | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 56   | 57   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 78%  | 84%  | NA   |      |      |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 16   | 11   | NA   |      |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 22%  | 16%  | NA   |      |      |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 1\. Economically Disadvantaged  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 11%  | 0%   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 100% | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 11   | 10   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 2\. African American            |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*   | \*   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*   | \*   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | \*   | 0    |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 3\. Hispanic                    |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \*   | 0%   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | \*   | 100% | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | \*   | 5    | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 4\. White                       |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 18%  | 2%   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 99%  | 9    | NA   |      |      |
|                                 |      | 3.3% |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 49   | 50   | NA   |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| STATE SCORES                    |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 15%  | 6%   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met        | 85%  | 68%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

\*Data masked by TEA and NA is not available or not applicable **\*\*See
explanation on page 13**