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

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

**Cover Sheet**

Name of Principal [Mrs. Wendy Hines]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [Cameron Dual Language Magnet School]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [P.O. Box 3912 2401 W. 8^th^ Street]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

[Odessa TX]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_[79760-3912]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

Tel. [( 915 ) 331 - 7861]{.underline} Fax [( 915 ) 334-
6744]{.underline}

Website/URL [www.ector-county.k12.tx.us/ecisd]{.underline} Email
[hineswl@ector-county.k12.tx.us]{.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)

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

Name of Superintendent [Dr. Roy Benavides]{.underline}

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

District Name [Ector County Independent School District]{.underline}
Tel[. ( 915 ) 332-9151]{.underline}

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

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

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson Mrs. Carol Gregg

(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)

**Technical Specifications**

Please keep the following requirements in mind when completing the
application. Failure to comply will result in the school\'s application
not being reviewed.

1.  **Eligibility.** To be eligible, the school must completely fill in
    the cover sheet and all sections of the application. For example,
    the school must give a street address even if the mailing address is
    a post office box number, provide the nine-digit zip code, the
    school's Web address, and the email address.

2.  **Paper, Spacing, and Type Size**. All responses must be typed on
    white paper, single-spaced, with one-inch margins on right, left,
    top, and bottom. Use normal spacing between lines, as in the example
    in the box below.

> Print size must not be reduced smaller than 11-point computer font,
> the same physical size as the Times New Roman font used in this box.
> Do not use condensed or compressed type; the font style used should be
> easily reproducible.

3.  **Copies**. Each school submits three copies (the original plus two)
    of the completed application. The original and copies must be
    without any additional covers or folders and stapled in the upper
    left-hand corner. The signed original should be printed on one side.
    To minimize environmental impact, the two copies may be photocopied
    on both sides of the paper. The application should have no
    additional plastic cover page or backing, nor be placed in a folder,
    nor have attachments other than assessment data.

4.  **Electronic Files**. The school also submits the application on a
    3.5-inch floppy disk that contains the entire application. The file
    must be written in Microsoft Word in PC format; the assessment
    tables may be in either Word or Excel in PC format.

5.  **Cover Sheet**. Note that the cover sheet requires the signatures
    of the principal, the district superintendent, and the
    president/chairperson of the local school board. These signatures
    certify that each of the three individuals has reviewed the content
    of the application, including the statement of eligibility, and has
    determined that it is accurate. (All of these signatures may not be
    applicable for private schools; write N/A in the space where the
    position or its equivalent is not applicable.)

6.  **Pagination**. Paginate the application and number all pages
    consecutively including the appendices.

7.  **Format**. Narrative answers to questions are generally limited to
    one-half page, approximately 200 words. No attachments to the
    application are allowed except for the school assessment tables and
    subgroup norms/standards supplied by publishers needed to interpret
    assessment data. Any other attachments will be discarded.

8.  **Submission**. All applications are submitted to the U.S.
    Department of Education at the following address:

> J. Stephen O'Brien
>
> *No Child Left Behind -- Blue Ribbon Schools Program*
>
> Office of Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs
>
> U.S. Department of Education
>
> 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 5E205
>
> Washington, DC 20202-3521

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

> 1\. The school has some configuration that includes grades K-12.
>
> 2\. The school has been in existence for five full years.
>
> 3\. The nominated school or district is not refusing OCR access to
> information necessary to investigate a civil rights complaint or to
> conduct a district‑wide compliance review.
>
> 4\. 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 OCR
> has accepted a corrective action plan from the district to remedy the
> violation.

5.  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.

6.  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**

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

1\. Number of schools in the district: \_\_[25]{.underline}\_ Elementary
schools

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

[\_\_ 6]{.underline}\_\_ Junior high schools

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

[\_ 35]{.underline}\_ TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_[\$4,556]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_[\$4,929]{.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
>
> \[ \] Small city or town in a rural area
>
> \[ \] Rural

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

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

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

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

  **K**       69        52                     **121**      **7**       0         0           0

  **1**       54        59                     **113**      **8**       0         0           0

  **2**       37        47                     **84**       **9**       0         0           0

  **3**       42        44                     **86**       **10**      0         0           0

  **4**       47        44                     **91**       **11**      0         0           0

  **5**       46        52                     **98**       **12**      0         0           0

  **6**       27        41                     **68**       Other       0         0           0

                                    **TOTAL                                                   661
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [16.0]{.underline}% White

the students in the school: [4.2]{.underline} % Black or African
American

[79.3]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

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

**100% Total**

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
\_\_[26.8]{.underline}\_\_%

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

  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------
  **(1)**     Number of students who transferred 93
              ***to*** the school after October  
              1 until the end of the year.       

  **(2)**     Number of students who transferred 91
              ***from*** the school after        
              October 1 until the end of the     
              year.                              

  **(3)**     Subtotal of all transferred        184
              students \[sum of rows (1) and     
              (2)\]                              

  **(4)**     Total number of students in the    686
              school as of October 1             

  **(5)**     Subtotal in row (3) divided by     0.268
              total in row (4)                   

  **(6)**     Amount in row (5) multiplied by    26.8
              100                                
  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school:
\_\_[27.2]{.underline}\_%

\_\_[180]{.underline}\_\_Total Number Limited English Proficient

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

Specify languages: Spanish

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals:
\_\_\_[90.2]{.underline}\_%

\_\_\_[596]{.underline}\_\_Total Number Students Who Qualify

> If this method is not a reasonably accurate estimate of the percentage
> of students from low‑income families or the school does not
> participate in the federally‑supported lunch program, specify a more
> accurate estimate, tell why the school chose it, and explain how it
> arrived at this estimate.

10\. Students receiving special education services:
\_\_[12.8]{.underline}\_\_%

\_\_ [85]{.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.

\_\_0_Autism \_\_[0]{.underline}\_Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_Deafness \_\_[3]{.underline}\_Other Health Impaired

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_Deaf-Blindness \_[53]{.underline}\_Specific
Learning Disability

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_Hearing Impairment \_[28]{.underline}\_Speech or
Language Impairment

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_Mental Retardation \_\_[1]{.underline}\_Traumatic
Brain Injury

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_Multiple Disabilities \_\_[0]{.underline}\_Visual
Impairment Including Blindness

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

Administrator(s) \_\_\_[2]{.underline}\_\_\_
\_\_\_[0]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Classroom teachers \_\_[34]{.underline}\_\_\_
\_\_\_[0]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists \_\_[10]{.underline}\_\_\_
\_\_\_[4]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Paraprofessionals \_\_\_[8]{.underline}\_\_\_
\_\_\_[0]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

> Support staff \_\_\_[3]{.underline}\_\_\_
> \_\_\_[1\_\_\_\_]{.underline}
>
> Total number \_\_[57]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_\_[5]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

12\. Student-"classroom teacher" ratio: \_[15.3: 1]{.underline}\_\_

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

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

  Daily student attendance 95.5%       96.2%       95.4%       95.7%       95.7%

  Daily teacher attendance 95.6%       94.8%       94.6%       94.3%       93.3%

  Teacher turnover rate    15.22%      11.43%      8.57%       3.03%       12.9%

  Student dropout rate     NA          NA          NA          NA          NA

  Student drop-off rate    NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

14\. **(*High Schools Only*)** Show what the students who graduated in
Spring 2002 are doing as of September 2002.

+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Graduating class size                               | > \_\_\_\_\_   |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Enrolled in a 4-year college or university          | > \_\_\_\_\_%  |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Enrolled in a community college                     | > \_\_\_\_\_%  |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Enrolled in vocational training                     | > \_\_\_\_\_%  |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Found employment                                    | > \_\_\_\_\_%  |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Military service                                    | > \_\_\_\_\_%  |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Other (travel, staying home, etc.)                  | > \_\_\_\_\_%  |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Unknown                                             | > \_\_\_\_\_%  |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| **Total**                                           | > 100 %        |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+

**PART III ‑ SUMMARY**

Provide a brief, coherent narrative snapshot of the school in one page
(approximately 475 words). Include at least a summary of the school's
mission or vision in the statement and begin the first sentence with the
school's name, city, and state.

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

> **Public Schools**
>
> A public school may be recognized as a *No Child Left Behind -- Blue
> Ribbon School* in two ways. First, a school may be recognized if it
> has at least 40 percent of its students from disadvantaged backgrounds
> who have dramatically improved their performance and are achieving at
> high levels in reading (language arts or English) and mathematics, as
> measured by state criterion-referenced assessments or assessments that
> yield national norms.
>
> A student from a "disadvantaged background" is defined as one having
> low socioeconomic status who is eligible for free or reduced-priced
> meals at the school or is identified by some other method determined
> by the school. At least 40 percent of the school's total enrollment
> must be from low-income families, students with limited English
> proficiency, migratory students, or students receiving services under
> Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by
> the *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.*
>
> "Dramatically improved" is defined by the CSSO of each state. All
> student groups, including disadvantaged students, must show dramatic
> improvement as shown by disaggregated data. The nomination criteria,
> including assessments, must pertain equally to all schools that are
> nominated from the individual state. "High levels" is defined by the
> CSSO of each state, but at a minimum includes student achievement at
> the 55^th^ percentile on state assessments. **States must rely on the
> state accountability system to identify schools for submission to the
> Secretary.** If the state does not have an accountability system in
> place, in the letter to the Secretary the CSSO explains in detail the
> criteria used by the state to nominate the schools.
>
> Second, regardless of a school's demographics, it may be recognized if
> its students achieve at the highest levels, that is, the school is in
> the top 10 percent in the state in reading (language arts or English)
> and mathematics. This achievement is measured by state
> criterion-referenced assessments or assessments that yield national
> norms. If the state uses only assessments referenced against national
> norms at a particular grade, the state should explain how these tests
> measure the depth and breadth of the state's academic content
> standards.
>
> The CSSO of each state certifies in a letter to the U.S. Secretary of
> Education that accompanies the list of nominated schools that the
> schools have all met the minimum requirements established by the CSSO
> for "dramatically improved" and achieving at "high levels." The letter
> from the CSSO to the Secretary explains the criteria used by the state
> to nominate the schools. **States may not submit schools that have
> been in school improvement status within the last two years.**

1.  The school must show assessment results in reading (language arts or
    English) and mathematics for at least the last three years using the
    criteria determined by the CSSO for the state accountability system.
    For formatting, if possible use the sample tables (no charts or
    graphs) at the end of this application. Limit the narrative to one
    page and describe the meaning of the results in such a way that
    someone not intimately familiar with the tests can easily understand
    them. If the state allows the use of the SAT or ACT as part of its
    accountability system, at least 90 percent of the students in the
    appropriate classes must take the tests. If fewer than 90 percent
    take the tests, do not report the data.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Disaggregate the data for any ethnic/racial or socioeconomic groups
    that comprise sufficient numbers to be statistically significant.
    Schools should use their own state's interpretation of statistical
    significance. Show how all subgroups of students achieve at high
    levels or improve dramatically in achievement for at least three
    years. Explain any disparity among subgroups.

b.  Specify which groups, if any, are excluded from a test, the reasons
    for the exclusion, as well as the number and percentage of students
    excluded. Describe how these students are assessed.

> c\. Attach all test data to the end of this application and continue
> to number the pages consecutively.
>
> **Private Schools**
>
> A private school may be recognized as a *No Child Left Behind -- Blue
> Ribbon School* in two ways. First, a school can be recognized if it
> has at least 40 percent of its students from disadvantaged backgrounds
> who have dramatically improved their performance in the past three
> years in reading (language arts or English) and mathematics, and are
> achieving at high levels. A student from a "disadvantaged background"
> is defined as one having low socioeconomic status who is eligible for
> free or reduced-priced meals at the school or is identified by some
> other method determined by the school. At least 40 percent of the
> school's total enrollment must be from low-income families, students
> with limited English proficiency, migratory students, or students
> receiving services under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
> Education Act, as amended by the *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.*
>
> "Dramatically improved" is defined as an increase of at least one-half
> standard deviation over at least three years and includes the
> disadvantaged students as shown by disaggregated data. "High levels"
> is defined as student achievement at or above the 55^th^ percentile on
> assessments referenced against national norms at a particular grade,
> or at or above the 55^th^ percentile on state tests.
>
> Second, regardless of the school's demographics, it may be recognized
> if its students achieve at the highest levels, that is, if the school
> is in the top 10 percent of the schools in the nation in reading
> (language arts or English) and mathematics in the last grade tested,
> as measured by an assessment referenced against national norms at a
> particular grade or in the top 10 percent in its state as measured by
> a state test.

1.  Report the school's assessment results in reading (language arts or
    English) and mathematics for at least the last three years for all
    grades tested using either state tests or assessments referenced
    against national norms at a particular grade. For formatting, use
    the sample tables (no charts or graphs) at the end of this
    application. Present data for all grades tested for all standardized
    state assessments and assessments referenced against national norms
    administered by the school. If at least 90 percent of the students
    take the SAT or ACT, high schools should include the data. If fewer
    than 90 percent of the students in the appropriate classes take the
    SAT or ACT, *do not report the data.* Limit the narrative to one
    page.

> a\. Disaggregate the data for any ethnic/racial or socioeconomic
> groups that comprise sufficient numbers to be statistically
> significant (generally 10 percent or more of the student body of the
> school). Show how all subgroups of students achieve at high levels or
> improve dramatically in achievement for at least three years. Explain
> any disparity among subgroups.
>
> b\. Specify which groups, if any, are excluded from a test, the
> reasons for the exclusion, as well as the number and percentage of
> students excluded. Describe how these students are assessed.
>
> c\. Attach all test data to the end of this application and continue
> to number the pages consecutively.
>
> **For Public and Private Schools**

2.  Show in one-half page (approximately 200 words) how the school uses
    assessment data to understand and improve student and school
    performance.

3.  Describe in one-half page how the school communicates student
    performance, including assessment data, to parents, students, and
    the community.

4.  Describe in one-half page how the school will share its successes
    with other schools.

    **PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Describe in one page the school's curriculum, including foreign
    languages (foreign language instruction is an eligibility
    requirement for middle, junior high, and high schools), and show how
    all students are engaged with significant content, based on high
    standards.

2.  (**Elementary Schools**) Describe in one-half page the school's
    reading curriculum, including a description of why the school chose
    this particular approach to reading.

> (**Secondary Schools**) Describe in one-half page the school's English
> language curriculum, including efforts the school makes to improve the
> reading skills of students who read below grade level.

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

4.  Describe in one-half page the different instructional methods the
    school uses to improve student learning.

5.  Describe in one-half page the school's professional development
    program and its impact on improving student achievement.

**PART VI - PRIVATE SCHOOL ADDENDUM**

*The purpose of this addendum is to obtain additional information from
private schools as noted below. Attach the completed addendum to the end
of the application, before the assessment data.*

Private school association(s):

(Give primary religious or independent association only)

Does the school have nonprofit, tax exempt (501(c)(3)) status? Yes
\_\_\_\_\_\_

No \_\_\_\_\_\_

**Part II ‑ Demographics**

1\. What are the 2001-2002 tuition rates, by grade? (Do not include
room, board, or fees.)

\$\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_
\$\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_

K 1^st^ 2^nd^ 3^rd^ 4^th^ 5^th^

\$\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_
\$\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_

6^th^ 7^th^ 8^th^ 9^th^ 10^th^ 11^th^

\$\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_

12^th^ Other

2\. What is the educational cost per student? \$\_\_\_\_\_\_

(School budget divided by enrollment)

3\. What is the average financial aid per student? \$\_\_\_\_\_\_

4\. What percentage of the annual budget is devoted to \_\_\_\_\_\_%

scholarship assistance and/or tuition reduction?

5\. What percentage of the student body receives

scholarship assistance, including tuition reduction? \_\_\_\_\_\_%

**[SAMPLE FORMAT FOR STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS]{.underline}**

The Data Display Table is illustrated on the following page.

Provide the following information for all tests in reading (language
arts or English) and mathematics. Complete a separate form for reading
(language arts or English) and mathematics at each grade level.

Grade\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Test\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/publication year\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Publisher
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

Number excluded\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Percent excluded\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

For the school and state, report scores as the percentage of students
tested whose performance was scored at or above the cutpoint used by the
state for 1) basic, 2) proficient, and 3) advanced, or similar
categories as defined by the state. States will vary in their
terminology and cutpoints. Note that the reported percentage of students
scoring above the basic cutpoint should include students scoring above
the proficiency, and advanced cutpoints.

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

**[SAMPLE FORMAT FOR STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS,
Continued]{.underline}**

Data Display Table for Reading (language arts or English) and
Mathematics

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

  Testing month                                                                                          

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                                                          

  Total                                                                                                  

  At or Above Basic                                                                                      

  At or Above Proficient                                                                                 

  At Advanced                                                                                            

  Number of students tested                                                                              

  Percent of total students tested                                                                       

  Number of students excluded                                                                            

  Percent of students excluded                                                                           

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                                        

  1.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (specify                                                  
  subgroup)                                                                                              

  At or Above Basic                                                                                      

  At or Above Proficient                                                                                 

  At Advanced                                                                                            

  2.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_(specify                                                   
  subgroup)                                                                                              

  At or Above Basic                                                                                      

  At or Above Proficient                                                                                 

  At Advanced                                                                                            

  3.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_(specify                                                   
  subgroup)                                                                                              

  At or Above Basic                                                                                      

  At or Above Proficient                                                                                 

  At Advanced                                                                                            

  STATE SCORES                                                                                           

  Total                                                                                                  

  At or Above Basic                                                                                      

  State Mean Score                                                                                       

  At or Above Proficient                                                                                 

  State Mean Score                                                                                       

  At Advanced                                                                                            

  State Mean Score                                                                                       
  ------------------------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Use the same basic format for subgroup results. Complete a separate form
for each test and each grade level. Present *at least* three years of
data to show decreasing disparity among subgroups. Some subgroup
examples are:

(a) Socioeconomic Status (e.g., eligible for free and reduced meals, not
    eligible for free and reduced meals)

> \(b\) Ethnicity (e.g., White, Black or African American, Hispanic or
> Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaskan Native)

**[SAMPLE FORMAT FOR DISPLAYING ASSESSMENTS]{.underline}**

**[REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS]{.underline}**

Provide the following information for all tests in reading (language
arts or English) and mathematics. Show at least three years of data.
Complete a separate form for each test and grade level.

Grade\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Test\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/publication year\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Publisher
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

Scores are reported here as (check one): NCEs\_\_\_\_ Scaled scores
\_\_\_\_ Percentiles\_\_\_\_

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

  Testing month                                                                                             

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                                                         

  Total Score                                                                                               

  Number of students tested                                                                                 

  Percent of total students tested                                                                          

  Number of students excluded                                                                               

  Percent of students excluded                                                                              

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                                           

  1.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                                                  
  (specify subgroup)                                                                                        

  2.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                                                  
  (specify subgroup)                                                                                        

  3.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                                                  
  (specify subgroup)                                                                                        

  4.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                                                  
  (specify subgroup)                                                                                        

  5.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                                                  
  (specify subgroup)                                                                                        
  ------------------------------------------ -- ----------- -- ----------- -- ----------- -- ----------- -- -----------

If the reports use scaled scores, provide the national score (mean
score) and standard deviation for the total test and each subtest.

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

  **NATIONAL SCORES**                                                            

  Total Score                                                                    

  **STANDARD DEVIATIONS**                                                        

  Total Standard Deviation                                                       
  ------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**PART III ‑ SUMMARY**

Campus Snapshot

Cameron Elementary, later becoming Cameron Dual Language Magnet School,
in Odessa, Texas, was constructed in 1953. The school will celebrate 50
years of quality instruction in the fall of 2003. Cameron Elementary
served neighborhood children living within specified boundaries from the
date of its construction until August, 2001, when the school converted
to a magnet program with the assistance of a Magnet School Assistance
Program grant. The name of the school was changed to Cameron Dual
Language Magnet School to reflect the model of instruction offered to
students throughout the District. Currently, students living within
specified boundaries and Anglo students throughout the District may
attend Cameron Dual Language Magnet School. Qualification for enrollment
based on ethnicity was necessary to comply with the 1984 federal
desegregation order.

Cameron is the only school in the Ector County Independent School
District and one of a few in West Texas offering dual language
instruction. After intense research of the dual language concept,
Cameron, with the support of the Ector County Independent School
District, chose to implement a 45/45/10 model of instruction for
students. Beginning in August, 2001, all kindergarten and first grade
students received 45% of their academic instruction in Spanish and 45%
in English. Students received 10% of each instructional day studying a
third language. Currently, students may choose to study either French or
German to meet third language requirements. Since its inception in 2001,
the Cameron Dual Language Magnet program has expanded to serve second
grade students and will continue to expand one grade yearly to
accommodate students' progression through sixth grade.

According to the current Public Education Information Management System
(PEIMS) report, 90.2% of Cameron's 661 students are economically
disadvantaged. The student population is primarily Hispanic with 79.3%
of the students claiming this ethnicity. Anglo students comprise 16.0%
of the student population and African American students, 4.2%. One of
every four students is limited English proficient (LEP) and the mobility
rate is 26.8%. The conversion to a dual language magnet school and the
requirement for teachers in kindergarten through second grade to reapply
for teaching positions created an above average teacher mobility rate.
Over half the teachers employed at Cameron have between zero and five
years teaching experience.

Cameron Dual Language Magnet has experienced remarkable improvements in
student performance during the last four years. Once the lowest
performing elementary school in the Ector County Independent School
District, Cameron is now one of the higher performing campuses. We have
achieved an accountability rating of "Recognized" the last three years,
based on the performance of all students on the Texas Assessment of
Academic Skills (TAAS). It is our belief that all students are capable
of success and reaching the standards outlined by the Texas Education
Agency. The school mission describes the expectations we have for
students. "Our students will be a productive part of the multilingual
community through exposure to different cultures, languages and ideas,
thus gaining appreciation of cultural and individual differences.
Cameron Dual Language Magnet will provide academic opportunities in a
risk-free environment, enabling students to compete successfully in the
next stage of their educational development."

In order to reach the goals stated in the mission, Cameron Dual Language
Magnet School believes the involvement of parents is critical to the
success of our students and the instructional program. We offer foreign
language classes for parents daily with daycare services provided for
children. Parents have the option to learn either Spanish or English.
There is no fee associated with these classes, and materials to enhance
learning are provided. An exclusive Parent Center is available for
parents during school hours. The family resource provider, funded
through Compensatory Education funds, manages the center and invites
parents to attend various workshops and encourages them to serve as
Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS). The staff at Cameron Dual Language
Magnet School believes it is the responsibility of the parents,
students, staff, and community to ensure the success of all students.

Assessment Narrative

The Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) is the assessment
instrument Texas has chosen to measure student performance and determine
the accountability rating for schools. TAAS is a criterion-referenced
test that was originally developed in 1990. The TAAS has undergone
several modifications with an increase in standards among the most
important. At Cameron Dual Language Magnet, students in grades three
through six are assessed in reading and math. Additionally, fourth grade
students are assessed in writing.

The accountability subset used by the Texas Education Agency to
determine the accountability rating is attached (pg. 30). Also, data
tables presenting scores by grade level and subject area tested for the
1999 TAAS administration through the 2002 TAAS administration are
attached (pg. 31 ff). As indicated by the data tables, tremendous
improvement in TAAS scores is evident since the 1998-1999 test
administration. When examining the Sum of Grades 3 -- 6 Accountability
Subset data table, campus scores have increased in every area each year
and subset scores have improved in nearly every area yearly as well. All
students tested are included in the campus score data. The campus scores
increased from 1999 to 2002 by 23.9% in reading, 27.8% in mathematics,
and 30.5% in writing. Cameron Dual Language Magnet has a very high
percentage of students identified economically disadvantaged.
Approximately 90% of the students meet this criteria. This is much
higher than the District (57.3%) and the State (50.5%). Economically
disadvantaged students showed tremendous gains on the State assessment
as well. Since 1999, these students have improved by 24.8% in reading,
29.2% in mathematics, and 32.8% in writing. Hispanic students improved
their scores yearly as well except for a slight decrease in writing
(4.1%) in 2002. However, this population's assessment scores increased
from 1999 to 2002 by 25.8% in reading, 27.2% in mathematics, and 26.4%
in writing. Anglo students have also shown growth on the TAAS. Their
scores increased yearly with the exception of 2001. At this time, there
was a 13.8% decrease in writing scores. However, it is important to
remember that the Anglo population comprised only 17.5% of the total
population in 2001. In 2002, Anglo students increased 21.5% in reading,
24.6% in mathematics, and 42.9% in writing when compared to the 1999
data. It is interesting to note the only two decreases in subsets over
the four year period occurred in writing. This is partially due to the
fact that only one grade level (fourth grade) is tested in writing while
students in grades three through six are assessed in reading and math
and the scores are combined.

When analyzing assessment data, it is very important to examine the
number of students excluded from the assessment and the alternative
testing provided for these students. Cameron Dual Language Magnet has a
very low exemption rate as detailed in the grade level data tables. The
highest rate of exemption occurred in the 2000 testing year due to the
aggregation of special education student scores and the lack of an
alternative assessment. However, even during this year, the highest
exemption rate for a grade level assessment was five students for a
total of 6% of the students excluded. In 2001, the State Developed
Alternative Assessment (SDAA) became available for qualifying students.
Students taking this test are not considered exempt by the State.
Therefore, our exemption rate since the development of this alternative
test is less than 1%.

Many campuses have inquired of our success during the past four years.
This success is contributed to several factors including the
implementation of an after-school instruction program for at-risk
children. The Compensatory Education budget was altered to fund this
opportunity for students. Also, instructional monitoring techniques were
implemented after the 1999 school year to help all staff focus on the
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills and provide focused instruction for
students. Another important factor contributing to the increase in
student performance was an administrative leadership change for the
1999-2000 school year. The goal at Cameron Magnet Dual Language is to
ensure success for all students and to leave no child behind.

Use of Assessment Data To Improve Student and School Performance

Disaggregating and studying assessment data is a critical part of
improving individual student and school performance. Cameron Dual
Language Magnet employs a variety of assessments at all grade levels.
Although the assessments may vary depending on the grade level and
student, the results of all students are used to assist personnel in
individualizing instructional services for students. Through careful
disaggregation of the assessment information, classroom teachers are
able to determine student strengths and weaknesses by objective and
modify instruction to meet the needs of individual students. The teacher
also uses these results to ascertain which students need assistance in
our after-school instructional program. Student rosters for the
after-school instructional program may vary depending on the objective
to be addressed and student needs. Cameron utilizes Compensatory
Education funds to employ two instructional resource teachers to
instruct in the areas of math and reading. These specialists teach
students within the classroom assisted by the classroom teacher.
Accurate test analysis enables these teachers to focus instruction on
those Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills needing improvement. Often,
an analysis of assessment data will identify a weakness in instruction.
Staff development needs are likely to be identified during this process.
This information is also critical in making adjustments in teaching
calendars and methods. Assessment data is a critical component of
constructing the campus budget. Materials needed to help address areas
of weakness and enrichment must be budgeted and purchased to assist the
instructor.

While assessment data is a very important component of the campus
improvement process, it is important to assess students during the
school year and not wait on summative data. Cameron Dual Language Magnet
students participate in District-developed and commercial benchmark
assessments throughout the year to determine progress and allow the
teacher to modify instruction. The diligent use of disaggregated
assessment and benchmark data has enabled the campus to improve student
performance.

Communication of Student Performance

Public disclosure is a very important part of the accountability
process. The parents, students, and community must be fully informed of
student performance and be allowed to participate in both the
celebration of student success and the processes to increase student
performance. Cameron Dual Language Magnet adheres to a multi-step
process yearly to ensure the awareness of all parties affected by our
campus accountability statistics. When the state assessment data arrives
on campus from the Texas Education Agency, the campus administrators
review the information and quickly determine the anticipated
accountability rating. All students in kindergarten through sixth grade,
all staff, and parents on campus immediately congregate in the gymnasium
to receive the news of the scores. The student performance statistics
are announced and celebrated by all. Throughout this day and the next
few days to follow, classroom teachers conduct conferences with students
and their parents to discuss individual student performance. Parents
receive a copy of their child's individual testing report. Officials
from the Ector County Independent School District release information to
the media regarding District performance. Since assessment information
is received at the end of the school year, an additional public
announcement of this information to the community and parents occurs at
the "Meet Your Teacher" activity that is scheduled prior to the first
day of school. The scores are also reviewed at the first Parent-Teacher
Association meeting in September. The accountability rating is also
announced at this meeting. After the accountability ratings are
announced, the School Board publicly recognizes campuses for their
performance and issues this news to the media. The School Report Card
provided by the Texas Education Agency is attached to each student's
semester report card and is distributed to parents. After the release of
the School Report Card, a public hearing is conducted on the campus to
fully discuss all information related to the School Report Card,
Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) report, and accountability
rating. This information is also sent to the home of each student
through campus newsletters and magnet recruitment advertisements. All of
these steps are performed yearly to share student performance data with
parents, students, and the community. Parents are informed of their
child's individual progress each nine weeks through report cards, and
each three weeks through progress reports prepared by the classroom
teacher. Parent-teacher conferences are also conducted routinely to
advise parents of their child's progress.

Sharing Success With Other Schools

Recognition for outstanding student performance on a state assessment is
an incredible honor. However, it is imperative to remember that student
success is a cooperative venture rather than competitive in nature.
Several schools throughout Region 18, the Education Service Center
provided by the Texas Education Agency, have sent representatives to
visit Cameron Dual Language Magnet school to research our magnet program
as well as investigate the instructional methods and data disaggregation
methods employed to increase the opportunities for success for each
child. An extensive Magnet School Assistance Program grant evaluation is
performed yearly and is shared with magnet campuses throughout the
United States. Instructional leaders throughout Ector County Independent
School District observe and interview staff and administrators to
discuss student success and determine which strategies will be of
benefit to their population. Also, strategies for student success have
been shared at local professional conferences and administrator's
meetings. Aligning the curriculum with "feeder" schools provides many
opportunities to share and receive ideas from other campuses. When time
is limited, ideas may be shared via technology. All campus improvement
plans in the District are available on-line and can be accessed at the
educator's convenience. Similarly, the school's curriculum maps for each
teacher by subject area will soon be available on-line for all local
educators to view and study. Odessa is fortunate to support a four-year
university with an outstanding teacher preparation and certification
program. Representatives from Cameron frequently visit teacher
preparation classes and discuss our methods for success with college
professors and potential teachers. As we share our success with other
campuses, it is important we learn from them as well. We continue to
modify our instructional strategies to meet the constantly changing
needs of the learners.

School's Curriculum

The teachers at Cameron Dual Language Magnet strive to provide an
enhanced curriculum to not only meet the basic needs of all students,
but to allow students to achieve at the highest levels possible.
Currently, all students in kindergarten through second grade participate
in the dual language program. Although instruction in foreign language
is not a requirement for elementary schools, Cameron students receive
45% of their daily instruction in English, 45% in Spanish, and 10% in
either French or German. The teachers utilize the immersion technique to
present the curriculum to the students. Spanish materials, including
Estrellita (Spanish phonics), library books, trade books, textbooks and
locally developed materials are used to teach the Spanish component of
dual language. The French and German teachers use the Berlitz program
and teacher-developed materials to teach children conversational skills
in these languages.

A variety of materials are used to provide intense reading instruction
for students. Saxon Phonics is utilized in kindergarten through second
grade to provide a phonological reading foundation for students.
Teachers use leveled books through guided reading strategies to provide
small group instruction for younger students. All grade levels use the
state-adopted textbook, trade books, and Texas Essential Knowledge and
Skills (TEKS) aligned commercial materials to teach reading. The
Accelerated Reader program is available to all Cameron students and is
individualized to meet the needs of the students.

A program known as the Effective Writing Process for All Students is
used at all grades to instruct students in writing. Teachers use the
Daily Oral Language (DOL) materials each morning to begin the day and
establish the learning environment in the classroom. Students
participate in student-led conferences, particularly in writing, to
evaluate their own work and make adjustments to their writing.

The mathematics textbook serves as the foundation for instruction in
this area. Teachers have access to a variety of manipulatives to provide
a hands-on approach to learning for students. Accelerated Math is a
self-paced, independent learning tool for students in third and fourth
grades. Through this program, students may advance to academic levels
usually reserved for older students. As in reading, teachers have access
to Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) aligned commercial
materials to teach mathematics.

Teachers rely mostly on the state-adopted textbooks to provide
instruction in science and social studies. Many science experiments are
conducted in classrooms to familiarize students with scientific
processes. The use of technology plays a major role in the teaching of
social studies. Students may study the attributes of every location in
the world through a monitored Internet and software programs.

It is our philosophy that students must have an adequate understanding
of technology at a young age to be successful in school as well as
function in an adult environment. Internet services, with parent
agreement, are available to students in all grades. Students have many
opportunities to research topics, respond to appropriate surveys, study
various programs (including Microsoft Word and Excel), and present
research through the use of Power Point. Career studies are accomplished
through the use of the Internet. All students are required to study
twenty career paths to meet the requirements of the Magnet School
Assistance Program grant.

Fine arts are an important part of each student's education. Cameron
students are required to attend music classes weekly. Students may
choose to participate in a hand-chime choir each morning prior to the
beginning of the school day. Sixth grade students may participate daily
in orchestra after-school if they desire. Art classes are integrated
into the reading and language arts curriculum. A state-adopted textbook
is available for art instruction.

The careful selection of curriculum to meet the needs of the students is
very important. The teachers at Cameron Dual Language Magnet are always
evaluating the curriculum and researching new materials or programs that
might be of benefit to students.

Reading Curriculum

Teachers at Cameron Dual Language Magnet utilize a variety of teaching
methods and materials to instruct students in reading. Consistent with
current research, we believe early intervention is the most critical
component of a reading program. First grade students experiencing
serious difficulties in reading skills are selected to participate in
Reading Recovery. This service is offered in both English and Spanish
(Descubriendo la Lectura). Students receive follow-up intervention
through third grade. Second grade students testing below grade level in
reading participate in the Accelerated Reading Instruction program. Two
part-time, retired teachers work with these students four days per week
in small groups. All students in kindergarten through second grade
participate in Saxon Phonics to help them with word decoding and usage
skills. Although Cameron is a dual language campus and students receive
instruction in three languages, it is a requirement that each student in
the lower grades be taught literacy daily in the native language. The
third grade students are privileged to receive reading instruction from
a reading specialist four days weekly. This specialist provides a lesson
to all students in the classroom with the assistance of the classroom
teacher. Students in fourth through sixth grade receive reading
instruction through the District adopted basal reader, trade books,
materials specifically aligned to the Texas Essential Knowledge and
Skills (TEKS), and teacher-created materials. All students at Cameron
participate in the Accelerated Reader program. A diagnostic test known
as STAR enables the teacher to determine a reading level. It also allows
children to check out books within their reading range, and test on
these books. The flexible library schedule allows students access to
books as needed. Students in kindergarten through sixth grade
experiencing difficulty in reading may attend after-school instruction
three days weekly. These one hour instructional sessions focus on the
child's needs. Finally, curriculum alignment activities allow all staff
to eliminate redundancies and omissions in planning effective reading
instruction and curriculum for all students. These instructional methods
are used to provide early intervention to students and provide services
for all students including those identified as at-risk.

Other Curriculum Choice - Writing

The staff of Cameron Dual Language Magnet believes writing is a critical
component of the school's curriculum and warrants a discussion on its
impact on student achievement. The ability of a student to demonstrate
adequate or excellent writing skills allows the student to better
perform expected classroom tasks as well as increase the marketability
for the student in the work force in future years. Students at Cameron
Dual Language Magnet keep journals in various subject areas to not only
increase success opportunities in the subject area, but to demonstrate
the connections between writing and other academic areas. Students in
all grades participate in Daily Oral Language (DOL) activities each
morning during breakfast. The purpose of this activity is to address the
mechanics of writing and remind the students daily of the importance of
effective written communication. The Effective Writing Process for All
Students is the curriculum primarily used in the classrooms. This
curriculum focuses on teaching the writing process to be successful in
all types of writing. Students maintain writing portfolios from the time
they enter kindergarten until the portfolio accompanies them to junior
high. The portfolios serve a diagnostic purpose as well as measure
individual student growth throughout the child's educational career.
Student-led conferences provide students with the opportunity to discuss
the writing with their peers and their teacher. This technique is used
to allow the student to self-correct the work and increase the
likelihood of retention of newly learned knowledge. Part of the Cameron
Dual Language mission statement is "... Students will be a productive
part of the multilingual community through exposure to different
cultures, languages and ideas...". In accordance with the mission
statement, our kindergarten through second grade students alternate
writing in English and Spanish. Students complete the entire writing
process in one language before alternating to the other. Code-Switching
is not permitted within a composition. This same process will be used
with older students as the program progresses. Student progress in
writing is closely monitored through benchmark assessments and portfolio
reviews. The ability to communicate through writing is paramount to
student success throughout the school years as well as adulthood.

Different Instructional Methods To Improve Student Learning

Teaching in a dual language program requires an array of teaching
methods that are not as common in other settings. All instructors must
be highly trained in the use of total physical response. It is important
to remember students are responsible for learning the Texas Essential
Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) while receiving instruction in both English
and Spanish. Since dual language requires a total immersion environment
for learners, it is critical teachers, especially teachers of younger
children, aid the students by giving physical clues or pictures for
assistance. Two teachers are partnered to form a dual language team.
Teachers, regardless of the setting, are only allowed to speak their
assigned language in the presence of students. Spanish component
teachers may use and display only Spanish materials. Campus
administrators allocate 50% of the instructional day to work with
teachers in the classrooms and assist students. This allows the
principal and assistant principal many opportunities to become
acquainted with all students and monitor their academic progress. It
also ensures more personal, productive conferences with parents. In
addition to formal appraisals, teachers engage in quarterly monitoring
sessions with a campus administrator and set goals pertaining to student
performance. The purpose of these sessions is to review the progress of
each individual child in the classroom. Intervention strategies for
at-risk students are discussed and initiated at these sessions. All
Cameron students participate in benchmark assessments. These assessments
are administered, scored, and results disaggregated to determine
students' strengths and weaknesses based on the curriculum previously
taught and provide intervention at the earliest possible time. Careful
scheduling and consideration given to student time on task are important
when discussing instructional methods. Protected learning time and
uninterrupted morning learning time for kindergarten through second
grade are critical to student success. Allowing teachers to teach in an
uninterrupted environment is also very important. The "send-in" approach
to special services is implemented where possible as opposed to the
"pull-out" approach. Activities that take students out of the classroom
are also limited. Students cannot afford to miss any of the exciting
instructional activities occurring in the classrooms. All of these
methods to teach students and provide a productive teaching/learning
environment contribute to the success of Cameron Dual Language Magnet.

Professional Development Program

It is our philosophy that when educators fail to become learners,
students no longer possess the probability of becoming successful in an
ever-changing society. Therefore, it is imperative that teachers be
given opportunities to attend on-going, effective professional
development. Fortunately for Cameron Dual Language Magnet staff, the
Ector County Independent School District hosts a National School
Conference Institute with nationally recognized keynote speakers
including Larry Lazotte, Lisa Carter, Lynn Erickson and John Antonelli.
Teachers are allocated ample time to disaggregate and evaluate student
assessment data for their former class as well as for their current
class. Teachers, after identifying student needs through the
disaggregation of data, may choose concurrent sessions that address
their students' needs. Since the District pays the fees, it is mandatory
that all staff attend. Curriculum mapping and curriculum alignment are
important tools used to guarantee consistency of instruction for the
students. Staff members have had several opportunities to hear and
interact with Heidi Hayes Jacobs, one of the initiators of curriculum
mapping, to share her strategies for completing this process. As a
result of this professional development, all Cameron teachers have
mapped the curriculum for mathematics and science. They will continue
mapping other subject areas in the future. Kindergarten, first, and
second grade teachers have traveled to El Paso, Texas, to observe dual
language campuses. The goals of these visits were to familiarize
themselves with dual language instruction and identify methods and
strategies to use in classrooms. As the Cameron Dual Language Magnet
program continues to grow, teachers at each grade level will have the
opportunity to visit dual language campuses. In order to support and
understand the dual language program, Cameron staff members receive
professional development yearly in this method of teaching. Many
opportunities for professional development are available on the campus
as well. Teachers are trained in guided reading, Reading Recovery
strategies including running records, intervention strategies for
students identified as at-risk, technology, and discipline management
including the Texas Behavior Support Initiative. Staff development
follow-up is conducted to ensure the transfer of learning to the
students in the classroom.

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

+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Texas Assessment of Academic |         |         |         |         |
| Skills Passing               |         |         |         |         |
|                              |         |         |         |         |
| Sum of Grades 3-6            |         |         |         |         |
| Accountability Subset        |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                              |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| READING                      |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                              | 20      | 20      | 19      | 19      |
|                              | 01-2002 | 00-2001 | 99-2000 | 98-1999 |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| District Scores              | 88.9%   | 85.3%   | 82.6%   | 81.0%   |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| State Scores                 | 91.3%   | 88.9%   | 87.4%   | 86.5%   |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Campus Scores                | 91.5%   | 89.2%   | 86.9%   | 67.6%   |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Hispanic                     | 89.9%   | 89.0%   | 87.6%   | 64.1%   |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Anglo                        | 96.9%   | 91.5%   | 88.5%   | 75.4%   |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Economically Disadvantaged   | 91.1%   | 88.9%   | 86.0%   | 66.3%   |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                              |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| MATHEMATICS                  |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                              | 20      | 20      | 19      | 19      |
|                              | 01-2002 | 00-2001 | 99-2000 | 98-1999 |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| District Scores              | 90.5%   | 85.4%   | 81.1%   | 79.4%   |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| State Scores                 | 92.7%   | 90.2%   | 87.4%   | 85.7%   |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Campus Scores                | 97.9%   | 88.6%   | 85.2%   | 70.1%   |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Hispanic                     | 98.0%   | 88.4%   | 85.8%   | 70.8%   |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Anglo                        | 98.4%   | 93.3%   | 86.8%   | 73.8%   |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Economically Disadvantaged   | 97.6%   | 89.0%   | 85.1%   | 68.4%   |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                              |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| WRITING                      |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                              | 20      | 20      | 19      | 19      |
|                              | 01-2002 | 00-2001 | 99-2000 | 98-1999 |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| District Scores              | 83.3%   | 80.4%   | 79.7%   | 80.8%   |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| State Scores                 | 88.7%   | 87.9%   | 88.2%   | 88.2%   |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Campus Scores                | 92.3%   | 91.8%   | 88.5%   | 61.8%   |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Hispanic                     | 89.7%   | 93.8%   | 87.5%   | 63.3%   |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Anglo                        | 100.0%  | 80.0%   | 93.8%   | 57.1%   |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Economically Disadvantaged   | 92.8%   | 91.2%   | 90.0%   | 60.0%   |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

  ------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  Texas Assessment of Academic                                       
  Skills Scores -3rd Grade                                           
  Reading                                                            

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

  Testing Month                  April       April       April       April

  DISTRICT SCORES                                                    

  District Meeting Minimum       89.0%       85.0%       86.0%       83.0%

  STATE SCORES                                                       

  State Meeting Minimum          87.0%       86.0%       87.0%       88.0%

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                      

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   94.0%       88.0%       89.0%       65.0%

  Advanced - Percent Mastery     44.0%       49.0%       46.0%       33.0%

  Number of students tested      78          86          71          81

  Percent of total students      100.0%      100.0%      96.0%       100.0%
  tested                                                             

  Number of students excluded    0           0           3           0

  Percent of students excluded   0.0%        0.0%        4.0%        0.0%

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                    

  1\. Hispanic                                                       

  Campus Tested Population       74.4%       72.1%       76.1%       72.8%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   91.0%       90.0%       85.0%       61.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       85.0%       83.0%       84.0%       78.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          83.0%       82.0%       83.0%       84.0%

  2\. Anglo                                                          

  Campus Tested Population       20.5%       17.5%       16.9%       19.8%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   100.0%      87.0%       100.0%      81.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       93.0%       90.0%       91.0%       91.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          94.0%       93.0%       93.0%       93.0%

  3\. African American                                               

  Campus Tested Population       5.1%        9.3%        5.6%        7.4%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   \*          75.0%       \*          67.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       86.0%       69.0%       74.0%       74.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          80.0%       77.0%       79.0%       76.0%

  4\. Other                                                          

  Campus Tested Population       0.0%        1.1%        1.4%        0.0%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   \*          \*          \*          \*

  District Meeting Minimum       \*          \*          \*          \*

  State Meeting Minimum          \*          \*          \*          \*

  5\. Economically Disadvantaged                                     

  Campus Tested Population       80.8%       90.8%       90.1%       88.9%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   92.0%       87.0%       88.0%       64.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       85.0%       81.0%       83.0%       78.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          81.0%       80.0%       81.0%       81.0%

  \* Represents no data report                                       
  available due to fewer than 5                                      
  students tested                                                    

  Note: Special Education                                            
  students taking the State                                          
  Developed Alternative                                              
  Assessment (SDAA)                                                  

  are included in percent of                                         
  total students tested for                                          
  2000-2001 and 2001-2002.                                           

  Texas Assessment of Academic                                       
  Skillls Scores - 3rd Grade                                         
  Mathematics                                                        

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

  Testing Month                  April       April       April       April

  DISTRICT SCORES                                                    

  District Meeting Minimum       87.0%       75.0%       73.0%       76.0%

  STATE SCORES                                                       

  Percent Passing                87.0%       82.0%       80.0%       82.0%

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                      

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   94.0%       67.0%       72.0%       48.0%

  Advanced - Percent Mastery     15.0%       5.0%        19.0%       19.0%

  Number of students tested      80          86          72          81

  Percent of total students      100.0%      100.0%      96.0%       100.0%
  tested                                                             

  Number of students excluded    0           0           3           0

  Percent of students excluded   0.0%        0.0%        4.0%        0.0%

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                    

  1\. Hispanic                                                       

  Campus Tested Population       73.7%       74.4%       73.6%       72.8%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   95.0%       64.0%       70.0%       47.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       85.0%       72.0%       69.0%       72.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          83.0%       78.0%       75.0%       79.0%

  2\. Anglo                                                          

  Campus Tested Population       21.3%       16.3%       16.7%       19.8%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   94.0%       93.0%       83.0%       63.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       91.0%       83.0%       81.0%       84.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          93.0%       90.0%       88.0%       90.0%

  3\. African American                                               

  Campus Tested Population       5.0%        8.1%        7.0%        7.4%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   \*          43.0%       80.00%      17.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       76.0%       53.0%       52.0%       55.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          76.0%       69.0%       65.0%       65.0%

  4\. Other                                                          

  Campus Tested Population       0.0%        1.2%        2.7%        0.0%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   \*          \*          2.00%       \*

  District Meeting Minimum       \*          \*          \*          \*

  State Meeting Minimum          \*          \*          \*          \*

  5\. Economically Disadvantaged                                     

  Campus Tested Population       80.0%       91.9%       90.3%       88.9%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   92.0%       68.0%       72.0%       47.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       84.0%       70.0%       68.0%       70.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          81.0%       75.0%       72.0%       75.0%

  \* Represents no data report                                       
  available due to fewer than 5                                      
  students tested                                                    

  Note: Special Education                                            
  students taking the State                                          
  Developed Alternative                                              
  Assessment (SDAA)                                                  

  are included in percent of                                         
  total students tested for                                          
  2000-2001 and 2001-2002.                                           
  ------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

  ------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  Texas Assessment of Academic                                       
  Skills Scores - 4th Grade                                          
  Reading                                                            

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

  Testing Month                  April       April       April       April

  DISTRICT SCORES                                                    

  District Meeting Minimum       91.0%       89.0%       86.0%       83.0%

  STATE SCORES                                                       

  State Meeting Minimum          92.0%       90.0%       89.0%       88.0%

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                      

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   92.0%       97.0%       92.0%       68.0%

  Advanced - Percent Mastery     45.0%       43.0%       41.0%       22.0%

  Number of students tested      92          65          76          79

  Percent of total students      98.0%       97.0%       94.0%       98.0%
  tested                                                             

  Number of students excluded    2           2           4           2

  Percent of students excluded   2.0%        3.0%        6.0%        2.0%

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                    

  1\. Hispanic                                                       

  Campus Tested Population       72.8%       76.9%       69.7%       79.8%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   93.0%       98.0%       94.0%       65.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       88.0%       87.0%       84.0%       78.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          89.0%       87.0%       85.0%       84.0%

  2\. Anglo                                                          

  Campus Tested Population       19.6%       15.4%       21.1%       17.7%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   94.0%       100.0%      94.0%       79.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       96.0%       92.0%       90.0%       90.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          96.0%       95.0%       95.0%       94.0%

  3\. African American                                               

  Campus Tested Population       6.5%        6.2%        9.2%        2.5%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   83.0%       \*          71.0%       \*

  District Meeting Minimum       77.0%       81.0%       78.0%       70.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          86.0%       83.0%       82.0%       79.0%

  4\. Other                                                          

  Campus Tested Population       1.1%        1.5%        0.0%        0.0%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   \*          \*          \*          \*

  District Meeting Minimum       \*          \*          \*          \*

  State Meeting Minimum          \*          \*          \*          \*

  5\. Economically Disadvantaged                                     

  Campus Tested Population       90.2%       93.8%       89.5%       91.1%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   93.0%       97.0%       93.0%       68.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       87.0%       85.0%       82.0%       77.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          88.0%       85.0%       84.0%       82.0%

  \* Represents no data report                                       
  available due to fewer than 5                                      
  students tested                                                    

  Note: Special Education                                            
  students taking the State                                          
  Developed Alternative                                              
  Assessment (SDAA)                                                  

  are included in percent of                                         
  total students tested for                                          
  2000-2001 and 2001-2002.                                           

  Texas Assessment of Academic                                       
  Scores - 4th Grade Mathematics                                     

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

  Testing Month                  April       April       April       April

  DISTRICT SCORES                                                    

  District Meeting Minimum       93.0%       88.0%       81.0%       82.0%

  STATE SCORES                                                       

  State Meeting Minimum          94.0%       91.0%       87.0%       87.0%

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                      

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   99.0%       95.0%       89.0%       66.0%

  Advanced - Percent Mastery     14.0%       6.0%        35.0%       6.0%

  Number of students tested      88          63          80          82

  Percent of total students      98.0%       97.0%       94.0%       98.0%
  tested                                                             

  Number of students excluded    2           1           3           2

  Percent of students excluded   2.0%        3.0%        6.0%        2.0%

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                    

  1\. Hispanic                                                       

  Campus Tested Population       75.0%       79.3%       72.5%       79.3%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   98.0%       96.0%       88.0%       68.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       91.0%       86.0%       78.0%       79.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          92.0%       89.0%       83.0%       84.0%

  2\. Anglo                                                          

  Campus Tested Population       18.2%       15.9%       20.0%       17.1%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   100.0%      90.0%       100.0%      64.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       97.0%       91.0%       86.0%       88.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          97.0%       95.0%       93.0%       93.0%

  3\. African American                                               

  Campus Tested Population       5.7%        4.8%        7.5%        3.6%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   100.0%      \*          67.0%       \*

  District Meeting Minimum       87.0%       81.0%       67.0%       65.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          88.0%       82.0%       75.0%       73.0%

  4\. Other                                                          

  Campus Tested Population       1.1%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   \*          \*          \*          \*

  District Meeting Minimum       \*          \*          \*          \*

  State Meeting Minimum          \*          \*          \*          \*

  5\. Economically Disadvantaged                                     

  Campus Tested Population       90.0%       92.1%       90.0%       91.5%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   99.0%       95.0%       90.0%       64.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       91.0%       84.0%       75.0%       76.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          91.0%       87.0%       80.0%       81.0%

  \* Represents no data report                                       
  available due to fewer than 5                                      
  students tested                                                    

  Note: Special Education                                            
  students taking the State                                          
  Developed Alternative                                              
  Assessment (SDAA)                                                  

  are included in percent of                                         
  total students tested for                                          
  2000-2001 and 2001-2002.                                           
  ------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

  ------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  Texas Assessment of Academic                                                   
  Skills Scores - 4th Grade                                                      
  Writing                                                                        

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

  Testing Month                  April       April       April                   April

  DISTRICT SCORES                                                                

  District Meeting Minimum       90.0%       89.0%       86.0%                   84.0%

  STATE SCORES                                                                   

  State Meeting Minimum          89.0%       89.0%       90.0%                   88.0%

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                                  

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   92.0%       90.0%       90.0%                   62.0%

  Advanced - Percent Mastery     26.0%       40.0%       38.0%                   16.0%

  Number of students tested      88          63          77                      79

  Percent of total students      99.0%       100.0%      95.0%                   100.0%
  tested                                                                         

  Number of students excluded    1           0           4                       0

  Percent of students excluded   1.0%        0.0%        5.0%                    0.0%

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                

  1\. Hispanic                                                                   

  Campus Tested Population       72.7%       77.7%       71.4%                   79.8%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   89.0%       92.0%       89.0%                   63.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       88.0%       88.0%       82.0%                   81.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          86.0%       87.0%       86.0%                   85.0%

  2\. Anglo                                                                      

  Campus Tested Population       20.5%       17.5%       20.8%                   17.7%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   100.0%      82.0%       94.0%                   57.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       94.0%       91.0%       91.0%                   89.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          94.0%       92.0%       94.0%                   92.0%

  3\. African American                                                           

  Campus Tested Population       5.7%        4.8%        7.8%                    2.5%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   100.0%      \*          83.0%                   \*

  District Meeting Minimum       87.0%       87.0%       88.0%                   67.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          84.0%       83.0%       84.0%                   80.0%

  4\. Other                                                                      

  Campus Tested Population       1.1%        0.0%        0.0%                    0.0%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   \*          \*          \*                      \*

  District Meeting Minimum       \*          \*          \*                      \*

  State Meeting Minimum          \*          \*          \*                      \*

  5\. Economically Disadvantaged                                                 

  Campus Tested Population       89.8%       93.7%       89.6%                   91.1%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   92.0%       90.0%       91.0%                   60.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       87.0%       86.0%       82.0%                   79.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          85.0%       85.0%       85.0%                   83.0%

  \* Represents no data report                                                   
  available due to fewer than 5                                                  
  students tested                                                                

  Note: Special Education                                                        
  students taking the State                                                      
  Developed Alternative                                                          
  Assessment (SDAA)                                                              

  are included in the percent of                                                 
  total students tested for                                                      
  2000-2001 and 2001-2002.                                                       

  Texas Assessment of Academic                                                   
  Skills Scores - 5th Grade                                                      
  Reading                                                                        

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

  Testing Month                  April       April       April                   April

  DISTRICT SCORES                                                                

  District Meeting Minimum       91.0%       88.0%       84.0%                   79.0%

  STATE SCORES                                                                   

  State Meeting Minimum          92.0%       90.0%       87.0%                   86.0%

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                                  

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   99.0%       81.0%       84.0%                   69.0%

  Advanced - Percent Mastery     46.0%       29.0%       34.0%                   21.0%

  Number of students tested      74          78          79                      61

  Percent of total students      99.0%       100.0%      94.0%                   100.0%
  tested                                                                         

  Number of students exluded     1           0           5                       0

  Percent of students excluded   1.0%        0.0%        6.0%                    0.0%

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                

  1\. Hispanic                                                                   

  Campus Tested Population       71.6%       73.1%       79.7%                   68.8%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   100.0%      79.0%       86.0%                   69.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       90.0%       85.0%       80.0%                   73.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          90.0%       86.0%       82.0%                   79.0%

  2\. Anglo                                                                      

  Campus Tested Population       24.3%       19.2%       15.2%                   23.0%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   94.0%       87.0%       75.0%                   64.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       95.0%       93.0%       91.0%                   87.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          96.0%       95.0%       94.0%                   93.0%

  3\. African American                                                           

  Campus Tested Population       4.1%        7.7%        5.1%                    8.2%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   \*          83.0%       \*                      80.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       78.0%       77.0%       69.0%                   69.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          87.0%       83.0%       79.0%                   76.0%

  4\. Other                                                                      

  Campus Tested Population       0.0%        0.0%        0.0%                    0.0%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   \*          \*          \*                      \*

  District Meeting Minimum       \*          \*          \*                      \*

  State Meeting Minimum          \*          \*          \*                      \*

  5\. Economically Disadvantaged                                                 

  Campus Tested Population       91.9%       89.7%       96.2%                   88.5%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   100.0%      80.0%       83.0%                   67.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       89.0%       83.0%       79.0%                   72.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          88.0%       84.0%       81.0%                   78.0%

  \* Represents no data report                                                   
  available due to fewer than 5                                                  
  students tested                                                                

  Note: Special Education                                                        
  students taking the State                                                      
  Developed Alternative                                                          
  Assessment (SDAA)                                                              

  are included in percent of                                                     
  total students tested for                                                      
  2000-2001 and 2001-2002.                                                       

  Texas Assessment of Academic                                                   
  Skills Scores - 5th Grade                                                      
  Mathematics                                                                    

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

  Testing Month                  April       April       April       April       

  DISTRICT SCORES                                                                

  District Meeting Minimum       97.0%       94.0%       89.0%       85.0%       

  STATE SCORES                                                                   

  State Meeting Minimum          96.0%       94.0%       92.0%       90.0%       

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                                  

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   100.0%      96.0%       94.0%       89.0%       

  Advanced - Percent Mastery     34.0%       16.0%       29.0%       23.0%       

  Number of students tested      76          79          82          62          

  Percent of total students      99.0%       1OO%        94.0%       100.0%      
  tested                                                                         

  Number of students excluded    1           0           5           0           

  Percent of students excluded   1.0%        0.0%        6.0%        0.0%        

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                

  1\. Hispanic                                                                   

  Campus Tested Population       72.4%       74.7%       80.5%       69.3%       

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   100.0%      95.0%       97.0%       93.0%       

  District Meeting Minimum       97.0%       92.0%       88.0%       83.0%       

  State Meeting Minimum          95.0%       93.0%       89.0%       87.0%       

  2\. Anglo                                                                      

  Campus Tested Population       23.7%       17.7%       14.6%       22.6%       

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   100.0%      100.0%      83.0%       79.0%       

  District Meeting Minimum       98.0%       96.0%       91.0%       89.0%       

  State Meeting Minimum          98.0%       97.0%       96.0%       95.0%       

  3\. African American                                                           

  Campus Tested Population       3.9%        7.6%        4.9%        8.1%        

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   \*          100.0%      \*          80.0%       

  District Meeting Minimum       95.0%       88.0%       79.0%       67.0%       

  State Meeting Minimum          92.0%       89.0%       83.0%       78.0%       

  4\. Other                                                                      

  Campus Tested Population       0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   \*          \*          \*          \*          

  District Meeting Minimum       \*          \*          \*          \*          

  State Meeting Minimum          \*          \*          \*          \*          

  5\. Economically Disadvantaged                                                 

  Campus Tested Population       89.5%       92.4%       96.3%       88.7%       

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   100.0%      96.0%       94.0%       87.0%       

  District Meeting Minimum       96.0%       91.0%       86.0%       79.0%       

  State Meeting Minimum          94.0%       91.0%       88.0%       84.0%       

  \* Represents no data report                                                   
  available due to fewer than 5                                                  
  students tested                                                                

  Note: Special Education                                                        
  students taking the State                                                      
  Developed Alternative                                                          
  Assessment (SDAA)                                                              

  are included in percent of                                                     
  total students tested for                                                      
  2000-2001 and 2001-2002.                                                       

  Texas Assessment of Academic                                                   
  Skills Scores - 6th Grade                                                      
  Reading                                                                        

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

  Testing Month                  April       April       April                   April

  DISTRICT SCORES                                                                

  District Meeting Minimum       90.0%       86.0%       85.0%                   85.0%

  STATE SCORES                                                                   

  State Meeting Minimum          88.0%       85.0%       86.0%                   84.0%

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                                  

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   87.0%       88.0%       88.0%                   74.0%

  Advanced - Percent Mastery     40.0%       33.0%       36.0%                   14.0%

  Number of students tested      83          73          58                      69

  Percent of total students      100.0%      99.0%       100.0%                  99.0%
  tested                                                                         

  Number of students excluded    0           1           0                       1

  Percent of students excluded   0.0%        1.0%        0.0%                    1.0%

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                

  1\. Hispanic                                                                   

  Campus Tested Population       75.9%       83.6%       69.0%                   69.6%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   83.0%       87.0%       93.0%                   71.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       86.0%       82.0%       81.0%                   80.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          82.0%       78.0%       78.0%                   77.0%

  2\. Anglo                                                                      

  Campus Tested Population       19.3%       12.3%       22.4%                   24.6%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   100.0%      89.0%       85.0%                   76.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       95.0%       92.0%       91.0%                   91.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          95.0%       93.0%       93.0%                   92.0%

  3\. African American                                                           

  Campus Tested Population       4.8%        4.1%        8.6%                    5.8%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   \*          \*          60.0%                   \*

  District Meeting Minimum       81.0%       76.0%       79.0%                   78.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          81.0%       77.0%       79.0%                   77.0%

  4\. Other                                                                      

  Campus Tested Population       0.0%        0.0%        0.0%                    0.0%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   \*          \*          \*                      \*

  District Meeting Minimum       \*          \*          \*                      \*

  State Meeting Minimum          \*          \*          \*                      \*

  5\. Economically Disadvantaged                                                 

  Campus Tested Population       90.4%       91.8%       84.5%                   76.8%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   85.0%       88.0%       86.0%                   72.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       84.0%       79.0%       80.0%                   79.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          81.0%       77.0%       77.0%                   76.0%

  \* Represents no data report                                                   
  available due to fewer than 5                                                  
  students tested                                                                

  Note: Special Education                                                        
  students taking the State                                                      
  Developed Alternative                                                          
  Assessment (SDAA)                                                              

  are included in percent of                                                     
  total students tested for                                                      
  2000-2001 and 2001-2002.                                                       

  Texas Assessment of Academic                                                   
  Skills Scores - 6th Grade                                                      
  Mathematics                                                                    

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

  Testing Month                  April       April       April                   April

  DISTRICT SCORES                                                                

  District Meeting Minimum       96.0%       93.0%       88.0%                   87.0%

  STATE SCORES                                                                   

  State Meeting Minimum          93          91          88                      86

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                                  

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   100.0%      96.0%       95.0%                   87.0%

  Advanced - Percent Mastery     23.0%       11.0%       14.0%                   9.0%

  Number of students tested      88          75          58                      69

  Percent of total students      100.0%      99.0%       100.0%                  99.0%
  tested                                                                         

  Number of students excluded    0           1           0                       1

  Percent of students excluded   0.0%        1.0%        0.0%                    1.0%

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                

  1\. Hispanic                                                                   

  Campus Tested Population       77.3%       84.0%       69.0%                   69.6%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   100.0%      97.0%       98.0%                   88.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       96.0%       92.0%       86.0%                   84.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          91.0%       87.0%       83.0%                   81.0%

  2\. Anglo                                                                      

  Campus Tested Population       18.2%       12.0%       22.4%                   24.6%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   100.0%      89.0%       92.0%                   88.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       97.0%       95.0%       91.0%                   93.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          97.0%       96.0%       94.0%                   93.0%

  3\. African American                                                           

  Campus Tested Population       4.5%        4.0%        8.6%                    5.8%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   \*          \*          80.0%                   \*

  District Meeting Minimum       93.0%       91.0%       84.0%                   76.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          88.0%       84.0%       79.0%                   75.0%

  4\. Other                                                                      

  Campus Tested Population       0.0%        0.0%        0.0%                    0.0%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   \*          \*          \*                      \*

  District Meeting Minimum       \*          \*          \*                      \*

  State Meeting Minimum          \*          \*          \*                      \*

  5\. Economically Disadvantaged                                                 

  Campus Tested Population       90.9%       92.0%       84.5%                   76.8%

  Meeting Minimum Expectations   100.0%      97.0%       94.0%                   85.0%

  District Meeting Minimum       94.0%       90.0%       83.0%                   83.0%

  State Meeting Minimum          90.0%       86.0%       82.0%                   80.0%

  \* Represents no data report                                                   
  available due to fewer than 5                                                  
  students tested                                                                

  Note: Special Education                                                        
  students taking the State                                                      
  Developed Alternative                                                          
  Assessment (SDAA)                                                              

  are included in percent of                                                     
  students tested for 2000-2001                                                  
  and 2001-2002.                                                                 
  ------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------