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

*U.S. Department of Education*

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

Name of Principal [Mrs. Anita Absher x]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [El Magnet at Reagan Elementary x]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [P.O. Box 3912 2321 E. 21^st^ Street
x]{.underline}

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

[Odessa Texas 79760-3912 x]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County [Ector]{.underline} School Code Number\* [068901118
x]{.underline}

Telephone [( 432 ) 366.3321]{.underline} Fax [( 432 ) 368.3251
x]{.underline}

Website/URL
[www.ector-county.k12.tx.us/schools/Rea](http://www.ector-county.k12.tx.us/schools/Rea)
Email <absheras@ector-county.k12.tx.us>

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

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

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent\* [Mr. Alfred Wendell Sollis x]{.underline}

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

District Name [Ector County Independent School District]{.underline}
Tel. [( 432 ) 332.9151 x]{.underline}

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

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

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson Mr. William Rives

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

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

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

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

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

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

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

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

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

[0]{.underline} Middle schools

[6]{.underline} Junior high schools

[4]{.underline} High schools

\_\_\_\_\_Other

[35]{.underline} TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$6,394 x]{.underline}

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$8,029 x]{.underline}

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

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

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

4\. [2]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

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

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

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

  **PreK**                                                  **7**                             

  **K**       42        44                     **86**       **8**                             

  **1**       35        51                     **86**       **9**                             

  **2**       33        54                     **87**       **10**                            

  **3**       43        41                     **84**       **11**                            

  **4**       34        49                     **83**       **12**                            

  **5**       34        41                     **75**       **Other**                         

  **6**       38        26                     **64**                                         

                                    **TOTAL                                                   **565**
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

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

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [51]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [4]{.underline} % Black or African American

[37]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

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

**100% Total**

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

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

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

  --------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**   Number of students who transferred ***to***  5
            the school after October 1 until the end of  
            the year.                                    

  **(2)**   Number of students who transferred           6
            ***from*** the school after October 1 until  
            the end of the year.                         

  **(3)**   Subtotal of all transferred students \[sum   11
            of rows (1) and (2)\]                        

  **(4)**   Total number of students in the school as of 565
            October 1                                    

  **(5)**   Subtotal in row (3) divided by total in row  .019
            (4)                                          

  **(6)**   Amount in row (5) multiplied by 100          1.946
  --------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------

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

[3]{.underline} Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: [7 x]{.underline}

Specify languages: English, Spanish, Pushto, Kanada, Filipino, Visayan,
Indian

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [20]{.underline} %

Total number students who qualify: [115 x]{.underline}

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

10\. Students receiving special education services: [4]{.underline} %

[20]{.underline} Total Number of Students Served

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

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

\_\_\_\_Deafness \_\_\_\_Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness \_\_\_\_Specific Learning Disability

\_\_\_\_Emotional Disturbance [20]{.underline} Speech or Language
Impairment

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

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

\_\_\_\_Multiple Disabilities

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

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

Classroom teachers [26 x]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists [9 x]{.underline} [3
x]{.underline}

Paraprofessionals [1 x]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Support staff [2 x]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Total number [40 x]{.underline} [3 x]{.underline}

12\. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio: [17:1
x]{.underline}

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

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

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

  Daily teacher attendance   95%         96%         95%         96%         95%

  Teacher turnover rate      11%         17%         11%         16%         3%

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

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

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

+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Graduating class size                                   | >          |
|                                                         | \_\_\_\_\_ |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| 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**

Reagan Magnet School in Odessa, Texas, sits nestled in a town better
known for *Friday Night Lights* football mania, rednecks, roughnecks,
and rowdy bars. Reagan was established in 1984 as the District's
Academic Academy as part of a court-ordered desegregation plan to
integrate schools within our District. This academic bright light among
the dusty West Texas plains offers a rigorous academic program that
includes integrated subject-matter content and critical thinking skills.
Students must maintain a 95% attendance rate, exhibit outstanding
citizenship, and commit to nightly homework assignments. Children
applying for Kindergarten are screened with the Bracken Basic Concept
Scale; students applying for grades one through six are screened with
the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). Scores of 50% or above determine a
child's eligibility. Qualified students are selected from a lottery.
Reagan is further charged with maintaining a student population ratio of
approximately 50% minority and 50% Anglo.

The Reagan vision of *Producing World Class Scholars* and the *Tradition
of Excellence* established from its beginning requires families and
staff who come to Reagan to make a strong commitment to maintain our
unique culture. Despite a physical plant built in 1956 that resembles
elementary schools of old, when one walks under the arch with the
*Tradition of Excellence* sign, it becomes apparent that this is not
just your typical elementary school. The student population of 565
children is 51% Anglo, 37% Hispanic, 5% African American, 3% Asian, and
3% other, or 49% minority population. The school has 20% of its children
qualified for free or reduced lunch. Even though few of the children are
served with bilingual education, seven different languages are
represented in the student population. Odessa, Texas, is not far from
the Mexican border and is below the national average for income and
college-educated families, yet the children from Reagan Magnet School
outscore elementary school populations that are totally comprised of
gifted and talented children as well as neighborhood schools in the most
elite and highly professional suburbs. The state's accountability system
rates schools "Exemplary" if all of the school's population groups
(economically disadvantaged, Hispanic, African American, and Anglo) have
a 90% passing rate on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills
(TAKS). Reagan scored 100% in reading, math, and writing. We also led
the state in the percentage of children scoring in the "Commended"
range, individual scores above 90%, which is a goal stressed in our
campus plan.

**Reagan Mission Statement**

*The Elementary Magnet School at Reagan is committed to the belief that
each student will develop to his/her potential within a positive
learning community. Our students will demonstrate exemplary personal
character, social responsibility, and intellectual, emotional, and
physical excellence.*

This mission or the vision of *Producing World Class Scholars* is played
out constantly as Reagan Magnet has been privileged to receive the
following awards and recognitions in the last three years:

Texas Business Education Coalition/Just for the Kids -- Named a top
performing school in the state compared to schools with similar
demographics

Texas Education Agency Exemplary School -- 10 years

Texas Mentor School

Texas Pathfinders Coalition

Region 18 Demonstration Site for Gifted and Talented Education

Jump Rope for Heart and Hoops for Heart: National, State, and Regional
winner

*Texas Monthly Magazine* Five Star Rating

City gymnastics, football and pep squad champions

Numerous staff and student award winners

Reagan Magnet encompasses four sections of Kindergarten through fourth
grade in self-contained classrooms, and three sections of fifth and
sixth grade with teachers that departmentalize science, math, and
reading/social studies instruction. A strong team of special area
teachers including an innovative Spanish/technology instructional
program are an integral part of a student's experience at Reagan Magnet.

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

1.  **Assessment Narrative**

Texas has been a national trend-setter in challenging student
accountability with standardized testing. Since 2002, the state has
required testing of third -- eleventh grade students in various
subjects. At our elementary campus, all third through sixth grade
children take a reading and math test, plus fourth grade is tested in
writing, and fifth grade tests science. The Texas Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) is extremely rigorous, according to
researcher Margaret Kilgo, with many questions requiring multiple steps
at Benjamin Bloom's top levels or hierarchy of questioning.

Our campus performance on the state's assessments has consistently been
"Exemplary" in the ten years of the state rating system, meaning that
90% of all student populations passed the test. In 2002 [in all tests
combined]{.underline}, Reagan had a 99.4% passing rate followed by a
98.8% passing rate in 2003. In spring 2004 100% of our students passed
TAKS reading, writing, and math, with 96% of our students passing the
fifth grade science. These are the highest scores Reagan has ever
recorded and the second highest in the state using the data analysis
provided by Marilyn Kuehlem from the Texas Education Agency (TEA).
Emphasis on each child's academic growth has led to impressive gains in
children scoring "Commended" in the two years that the state has had
this criterion. "Commended" performance occurs when a child's individual
score is above 90% on the TAKS test.

Improving from a passing score to above 90% required the staff to focus
on analyzing the strengths and gaps of each individual child and provide
exceptional intervention techniques, as well as escalating children into
the position of assessment writers. For example in fourth grade, math
students developed their own resource materials on reasonableness and
probability. Notebook paper was divided into quadrants and the children
each defined the terms in their own words, illustrated examples of the
concept in multiple ways like drawing marbles from a bag, rolling dice,
etc. and then developed assessment questions for every term. The
questions included written explanations for the process and content
steps to solve the problem as well as answer choices with reasons why
each response could be correct or incorrect. The children became so
enthused that they developed the most difficult assessments we had ever
used and had the highest scores. As children synthesized the information
for themselves, developed authentic, rigorous evaluation materials, and
practiced metacognition in the analysis of their questions and answer
choices, their commended scores in math went from 48% in 2003 to 67% in
2004! The shift to student-written assessments and student involvement
in higher-end learning has created a synergy for excellence that far
surpasses the image of a *Friday Night Lights*' stereotypical student.
Data tables are attached showing the tremendous progress of our children
at the Commended Performance level.

Even though our school is approximately 50% minority and 20%
economically disadvantaged, every child passed the reading, math, and
writing portions of the test. In addition, none were exempt or absent
from the testing. On the challenging fifth grade science test, three
children failed the test. One was Hispanic, one was African-American,
and one was Anglo, revealing there is no discrepancy between population
groups. 42% of our children scored "Commended" compared to 9% statewide
reaching this goal in science. State and school data analysis
information may be viewed at the following website:
[www.tea.state.tx.us](http://www.tea.state.tx.us/) or www.just4kids.org.

2.  **Use of Assessment Data to Improve Student and School Performance**

Gathering instructional data, disaggregating it, and studying the
results to make decisions is a critical part of improving individual and
school performance. Reagan Magnet School employs a variety of methods
and assessments to monitor achievement. Teachers begin each fall with
staff and individual professional development based on the spring TAKS
results for the entire school as well as scores of individual children
in their class. Through careful disaggregation of the assessment
information, teachers are able to determine student strengths and
weaknesses by objectives and modify instruction to meet the needs of
individual students. Each staff member analyzes their own results for
children scoring "Commended" and makes comparisons on specific targets
across classrooms to gain assistance from fellow teachers' strengths.
Strong collaboration both horizontally and vertically between teachers
ensures that children are provided our best lessons and strategies to
meet the targets. At the beginning of this year, our entire staff spent
a full day and a half analyzing earth science curriculum across grade
levels based on the objectives our children missed. Each grade level
developed lessons and assessments to raise weaknesses to strengths.

In addition to this cumulative review, it is essential to assess
children frequently as we analyze or unpack the different objectives to
ensure they have each prerequisite skill. Short teacher and
student-developed assessments using Margaret Kilgo's questioning
techniques are given at least bi-weekly with children journaling
solutions. This metacognition by the children is a leading assessment
strategy as the thinking process is unraveled for the instructor to
monitor and make adjustments. District benchmark assessments are also
thoroughly analyzed, and children journal their problem-solving process
for teacher analysis.

Another important assessment tool is classroom walk throughs. The
principal and assistant principal are trained in a monitoring tool that
focuses on the instructional target being taught, the level of
instruction, and how it is assessed for mastery. We are striving to
observe high-yield teaching strategies at Bloom and Erickson's top
levels in approximately 50% of our walk throughs.

3.  **Communication of Student Performance**

Celebrating successful achievement and public disclosure are important
components of the accountability process for parents. Reagan implements
a multi-layered process to communicate student achievement information.
When the school's results on the state assessment are known, a
school-wide announcement is made to celebrate and share the
accomplishments of the children and their teachers. Student reports are
immediately sent home. Teachers make phone calls during the day and have
conferences discussing the results with the children and their parents.
Officials from the District release information to the media regarding
District and individual school performance which is published in the
paper. We started this fall with flyers sent home and posted in the
school halls noting our accomplishments of 100% passing all three tests
as well as the sharp gains in "Commended Performance." Notification by
the Texas Business Education Coalition as one of the "Top 15 Schools in
Texas" brought significant publicity throughout all media sources for
our school.

Each fall the school conducts a thorough data analysis with the parents
during the orientation meetings with each grade level. We review
individual questions and objectives that the school needs to address and
share ways the parents can assist. In February, staff and parent
meetings are held to discuss the test procedures and implications of the
scores. Copies of the School Report Card provided by the Texas Education
Agency are also sent home with each child.

Probably the most effective communication of data occurs throughout the
school year through student-led conferences and ongoing two-way
communication between the school and home. In the student-led conference
format, the children take ownership for their learning and share with
the parent their goals and progress. Staff communication concerning
benchmark results and three-week progress reports occur as well as
notification to parents whose child needs additional academic support.
The report describes the child's status and the intervention strategies
that will be implemented to accelerate instruction.

4.  **Sharing Success With Other Schools**

The recognition that Reagan has received for outstanding student
performance is an incredible honor, yet it is imperative to treat this
success in a collaborative, cooperative manner versus one of competition
with other schools in our area. Some of the more common ways we share
our success is through welcoming visitors from other schools, having
teachers conduct professional development sessions for district,
regional, and state audiences, as well as having teachers develop our
District's scope and sequence and the writing of district benchmark
assessments. The principal has shared best practices through meetings at
the district and state level. An exciting medium employed this year has
been our web-site. We are posting student and faculty-developed
newsletters, lessons, and ideas on the site for others throughout the
world to use. We have served as a mentor school for the Region 18
Service Center, been involved in three state "Share the Success"
seminars for top performing schools, and booklets explaining our
practices have been sent to all schools in the state from the Just for
the Kids organization.

Over the next couple of years, we hope to lead sessions at the district
and state level at technology workshops discussing our *Crossing
Borders* Spanish/technology initiative with student presenters. We have
students working on a brochure and video to highlight our best
practices. As we share our school's story, we are the true beneficiaries
as we learn from other schools' personnel. This tremendous opportunity
to go outside our school walls helps us to update and modify our
instructional strategies to meet the constantly changing needs of
student learners and our adult learning community!

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

1.  **Curriculum and Instruction**

Reagan Magnet School has a twenty-year history of academic excellence
and has fulfilled its promise to produce successful scholars. Throughout
the years, efforts in staff development have focused on meeting the
needs of high-end learners through an interdisciplinary curriculum.
Utilizing the state adopted textbooks in science, social studies, math,
and language arts as the starting point, teachers focus on integrating
other resource materials to provide a rich and rigorous program. The
curriculum includes the basics of the state-mandated *Texas Essential
Knowledge and Skills* (TEKS) yet Kaplan's model of *Depth and
Complexity* is the cornerstone of the curriculum at Reagan Magnet.
Adopting the Kaplan model of scholarly behaviors and *Depth and
Complexity* allows schools to implement thematic interdisciplinary
curriculum that provides challenging exercises for all students,
including advanced learners. Universal themes and applicable
generalizations are designated for use by specific grade levels with
icons recognizable by the children. For example, the icon of a glass of
liquid with a straw translates to "develop a thirst for knowledge." When
teachers are emphasizing that component, children are to test the
knowledge learned, keep a list of unanswered questions for future
investigations, and develop a passion for the topic. Consistent themes
which require scholarliness and a deep, complex look at the school's
curriculum are a collaborative learning process between the teachers and
the students. With the state accountability system's focus on the Texas
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) our school has blended the
Kaplan model with Margaret Kilgo's work to teach students to practice
metacognition. Through modeling, children learn to analyze questions,
describe the steps they took to correctly answer the question, and
eventually create their own complex questions with answer choices and
explanations.

Research done by Marzano, et al. in the book *Classroom Instruction that
Works* has identified the most effective ways to engage children
actively in the curriculum; therefore, Reagan emphasizes identifying
similarities and differences, summarizing, note taking, non-linguistic
representations, and advanced questioning techniques as integral parts
of the active and authentic cooperative learning taking place in the
classroom.

Emphasis is placed on the *Writing Process* and journaling throughout
all content areas. *Kid Writing* introduces Kindergarten to the writing
process, and by fourth grade students actually are writing their own
composition textbook. Journaling in math and science and collaborative
scoring of compositions using rubrics elevates the writing of all
children at Reagan. Reinforcement and recognition for writing culminates
in the annual *Young Authors' Celebration* in May of each year where all
students in Kindergarten through sixth grade exhibit their published
book. Children who remain at Reagan throughout elementary have authored,
illustrated, and published seven books.

In an effort to accentuate our foreign language curriculum and assist
children and staff in technology skills, we spent the summer planning an
innovative approach that has allowed our staff to learn alongside
students in a risk-free environment with support from the two Spanish
teachers and a student technology team. *Crossing Borders* is our title
for fusing technology curriculum into the Spanish language content. Due
to limited funds and resources for technology personnel and training,
this innovative model utilizing two foreign language teachers to teach
technology requirements through Spanish has produced an excitement
throughout the building. Our children are often the ones who cross the
borders to become the teachers in both technology and foreign language
curriculum in this collaborative model.

The adaptation of the state TEKS and adopted textbooks through Kaplan's
model of *Depth and Complexity*, with Kilgo's metacognition skills, as
well as students' extension of their learning with art and other
non-linguistic representations in numerous projects, results in habits
of excellence and our student performance leading the state at the
exemplary level.

2.  **Reading Curriculum**

Reagan Magnet School believes that reading is fundamental to opening the
treasure chest of all knowledge. Recognizing the individual learning
styles of children, varied activities and strategies are incorporated
into the District-mandated *Guided Reading* program. This program was
chosen by the Texas Education Agency due to extensive reading research.
Ongoing staff development of balanced literacy strategies allows
teachers to individualize instruction in this critical skill area. Using
a District-developed assessment program, *Early Reading Assessment*
(ERA), all teachers in grades Kindergarten through second grade assess
students' word recognition, fluency, and comprehension in order to form
small reading groups. First grade students in need of a concentrated
intervention are placed in the *Reading Recovery* program for one-on-one
instruction with a specialist. A reflection of the *Reading Recovery*
program is seen in the regular classroom with primary teachers
maintaining running records of each student to keep assessment current.
A formal assessment provided by the state, *Texas Primary Reading
Institute* (TPRI), provides excellent documentation for each student's
development in reading.

Third grade teachers utilize strategies from the *Texas Reading Academy*
and keep running records as well. In addition to the use of the
state-adopted basal for all readers, *Soar to Success* is an
intervention program available for struggling students. With students in
this grade level facing the TAKS test for the first time, comprehension
and fluency are emphasized.

The District-adopted basal, newspapers, trade books, and other materials
specifically aligned to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)
form the core of the reading program in the upper grades with assessment
focused on Margaret Kilgo's question analysis. Crossing all disciplines,
reading and novel studies are closely correlated with social studies.
Novels with science and mathematical themes, however, are being
introduced with success. *Accelerated Reader (AR)* is used in the
classroom as additional practice for students to develop fluency and
comprehension and to simply develop a joy for reading and allow student
choice.

3.  **Curriculum Choice, Writing**

Writing is a critical component of Reagan's curriculum. The entire
school community believes the ability to write is fundamental for all
children and maintains our *Tradition of Excellence*. During the
2003-2004 school year, the research of Doug Reeves on writing frequency
increasing proficiency across all grade levels was analyzed and
discussed during horizontal staff development meetings. We also included
collaborative scoring of compositions among staff members.

Innovative approaches to writing surface at all grade levels. The *Kid
Writing* program in Kindergarten immerses the very young child in
writing as early as the second day of school. Kindergarten students are
monitored and assessed daily through their journal writing. The majority
of children produce a full-page composition. Editing their writing
individually and with their peers is also introduced from Kindergarten.
The *Writing Process* is vertically aligned in Kindergarten through
sixth grade, resulting in a smooth transition into more sophisticated
writing and research. Vocabulary development is emphasized at all grade
levels, with the upper grades particularly studying SAT vocabulary words
through nonlinguistic approaches when possible.

Writing is the foundation activity in fourth grade. At this grade level
students first experience the state TAKS writing exam. Students tackle a
year-long project\--actually developing a writing textbook for fourth
grade. Fourth grade students also exhibit very creative ideas and
approaches in their writing pieces, and 100% passed the rigorous
two-page composition and skills test.

The success of student writing culminates at the end of the year when a
school-wide *Young Authors' Celebration* is held in May. Every child
publishes a book, bound and illustrated. Parents and members of the
community are invited to come during the day to read and view the
collection. This event further reflects our campus mission statement by
being "...committed to the belief that each student will develop to his
potential within a positive learning community."

4.  **Instructional Methods for Student Improvement**

Sharing content with children to ensure active, authentic engagement
requires an ongoing search and refinement. Strategies with proven
success, such as Margaret Kilgo's analysis of the levels of questioning
on the TAKS assessments are utilized throughout all grade levels. As
children transition to another subject they often start with a short *Do
Now* question that requires children's analysis of the question and
metacognition of the answer process. Progression into student-generated
assessment items, with student analysis of the process steps needed to
solve a problem, have proven particularly effective in raising scores to
the *Commended Performance* level.

A faculty study of Marzano's, et. al., *Classroom Instruction that
Works* has further strengthened the staff's implementation of strategies
proven to engage students with the most effective means of delivering
instruction. Reagan's implementation of scholarly behaviors with
Kaplan's *Depth and Complexity* requires students to take responsibility
for their learning. Faculty meetings focus on sharing student work
utilizing the high-yield strategies to increase understanding and
implementation by other teachers. Visits to other teachers' classes to
view best practices are also encouraged.

Constant monitoring and assessment of student performance is crucial for
identifying areas of weakness in the curriculum as a whole as well as
the performance of each individual student. Grade-level and individual
teacher quarterly coaching meetings take place where student performance
on District benchmark assessments are analyzed, student progress is
reviewed, and strategies for at-risk students are initiated. Discussion
time is spent on the most successful delivery methods of the instruction
to foster best practices among the staff. The entire staff teaming
together for the success of each child is a concept at Reagan Magnet
School that engenders *A* *Tradition of Excellence*. At-risk students
are directed to experts in a particular field for necessary assistance.
All instructors are aware of students' needs and incorporate strategies
to assist students in making connections. An active tutoring program
exists for students in need of intervention. Students are placed in
small groups for reinforcement of learning, yet teachers often work
one-on-one with students if necessary.

5.  **Staff Development**

Meaningful staff development is essential for a campus to keep pace with
new and innovative strategies for curriculum and instruction, yet we are
an isolated area and a school with limited funding and professional
resources. A major focus for the past two years at Reagan has been the
incorporation of technology for both teachers and students through a
model we call *Crossing Borders**. ***A collaborative effort to instruct
students and staff simultaneously in the foreign language classroom with
technology expertise has resulted in both teacher and student honing
their skills in technology and advancing in conversational Spanish.
Students have excitedly taken the lead in technology expertise and
crossed the border into the instructional leader for technology skills.

Having a dedicated, highly professional staff that embraces new
philosophies has attributed to the outstanding student success that has
been maintained for years. Kaplan's *Depth and Complexity* was
established at Reagan to meet the needs of high-end learners. The basic
elements of *Depth and Complexity*, scholarly behavior, point of view,
and the use of a thematic interdisciplinary curriculum, spiral
vertically throughout grade levels. The model has withstood the test of
time and yearly sessions enhance the practices.

Primary teachers are trained in *Guided Reading* and *Reading Recovery*
strategies. Running records of all students' reading abilities enable
the teacher to individualize instruction. Follow-up staff development is
conducted to ensure there is a transfer of learning to the students.

Teachers are also given time provided by the District to deeply probe
into assessment and student performance. The principal served as a
District trainer in *Power Standards and Assessment.* Margaret Kilgo's
strategies for disaggregating and evaluating TAKS test data as well as
studying questions and the content and process steps to solve them have
been effective in elevating the instruction of children as well as
identifying teachers' strengths in instructional delivery methods.

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

> Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline} Test [Texas
> Assessment of Knowledge and Skills x]{.underline}
>
> Edition/publication year [2004]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
> Agency]{.underline} x

+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
|                              | TAKS  | TAKS  | TAAS  | TAAS  | TAAS |
|                              |       |       |       |       |      |
|                              | 2003  | 2002  | 2001  | 2000  | 1    |
|                              | -2004 | -2003 | -2002 | -2001 | 999- |
|                              |       |       |       |       | 2000 |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Testing month                | Ma    | Ma    | April | April | A    |
|                              | r/Apr | r/Apr |       |       | pril |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**            |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended           | 80%   | 68%   | NA    | NA    | NA   |
| Performance                  |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard        | 100%  | 100%  | NA    | NA    | NA   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum         | NA    | NA    | 99%   | 99%   | 99%  |
| Standards                    |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Number of students tested    | 86    | 85    | 83    | 86    | 85   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Percent of total students    | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  | 100% |
| tested                       |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Number of students           | 0     | 0     | 0     | 0     | 0    |
| alternatively assessed       |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Percent of students          | 0%    | 0%    | 0%    | 0%    | 0%   |
| alternatively assessed       |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**          |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| ***1. Economically           |       |       |       |       |      |
| Disadvantaged***             |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended           | 83%   | 82%   | NA    | NA    | NA   |
| Performance                  |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard        | 100%  | 100%  | NA    | NA    | NA   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum         | NA    | NA    | 100%  | 90%   | 86%  |
| Standards                    |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Number of students tested    | 13    | 11    | 10    | 10    | 10   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| ***2. African American***    |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended           | \-    | \-    | NA    | NA    | NA   |
| Performance                  |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
|                              |       |       | NA    | NA    | NA   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum         | NA    | NA    | 83%   | 100%  |      |
| Standards                    |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Number of students tested    | 4     | 3     | 6     | 8     | 5    |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| ***3. Hispanic***            |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended           | 90%   | 59%   | NA    | NA    | NA   |
| Performance                  |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard        | 100%  | 100%  | NA    | NA    | NA   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum         | NA    | NA    | 100%  | 100%  | 100% |
| Standards                    |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Number of students tested    | 30    | 29    | 28    | 28    | 34   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| ***4. White***               |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended           | 74%   | 78%   | NA    | NA    | NA   |
| Performance                  |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard        | 100%  | 100%  | NA    | NA    | NA   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum         | NA    | NA    | 100%  | 98%   | 98%  |
| Standards                    |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Number of students tested    | 74    | 46    | 42    | 42    | 43   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**             |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above         | 35%   | 26%   | NA    | NA    | NA   |
| Commended Performance        |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met     | 91%   | 89%   | NA    | NA    | NA   |
| Standard                     |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum         | NA    | NA    | 87%   | 86%   | 87%  |
| Standards                    |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+

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

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

> Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline} Test [Texas
> Assessment of Knowledge and Skills x]{.underline}
>
> Edition/publication year [2004]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
> Agency]{.underline} x

+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
|                              | TAKS  | TAKS  | TAAS  | TAAS  | TAAS |
|                              |       |       |       |       |      |
|                              | 2003  | 2002  | 2001  | 2000  | 1    |
|                              | -2004 | -2003 | -2002 | -2001 | 999- |
|                              |       |       |       |       | 2000 |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Testing month                | April | April | April | April | A    |
|                              |       |       |       |       | pril |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**            |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended           | 47%   | 45%   | NA    | NA    | NA   |
| Performance                  |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard        | 100%  | 100%  | NA    | NA    | NA   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum         | NA    | NA    | 99%   | 100%  | 98%  |
| Standards                    |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Number of students tested    | 86    | 84    | 84    | 86    | 85   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Percent of total students    | 100%  | 99%   | 100%  | 100%  | 100% |
| tested                       |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Number of students           | 0     | 0     | 0     | 0     | 0    |
| alternatively assessed       |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Percent of students          | 0%    | 0%    | 0%    | 0%    | 0%   |
| alternatively assessed       |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**          |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| ***1. Economically           |       |       |       |       |      |
| Disadvantaged***             |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended           | 18%   | 40%   | NA    | NA    | NA   |
| Performance                  |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard        | 100%  | 100%  | NA    | NA    | NA   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum         | NA    | NA    | 100%  | 100%  | 71%  |
| Standards                    |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Number of students tested    | 11    | 11    | 10    | 10    | 10   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| ***2. African American***    |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended           | \-    | \-    | NA    | NA    | NA   |
| Performance                  |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard        |       |       | NA    | NA    | NA   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum         | NA    | NA    | 100%  | 100%  |      |
| Standards                    |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Number of students tested    | 4     | 3     | 6     | 8     | 5    |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| ***3. Hispanic***            |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended           | 41%   | 34%   | NA    | NA    | NA   |
| Performance                  |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard        | 100%  | 100%  | NA    | NA    | NA   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum         | NA    | NA    | 96%   | 100%  | 100% |
| Standards                    |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Number of students tested    | 29    | 29    | 28    | 28    | 34   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| ***4. White***               |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended           | 47%   | 48%   | NA    | NA    | NA   |
| Performance                  |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard        | 100%  | 100%  | NA    | NA    | NA   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum         | NA    | NA    | 100%  | 100%  | 98%  |
| Standards                    |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Number of students tested    | 47    | 46    | 42    | 42    | 43   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**             |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above         | 25%   | 18%   | NA    | NA    | NA   |
| Commended Performance        |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met     | 90%   | 90%   | NA    | NA    | NA   |
| Standard                     |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum         | NA    | NA    | 87%   | 82%   | 80%  |
| Standards                    |       |       |       |       |      |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+

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

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

> Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [4]{.underline} Test [Texas
> Assessment of Knowledge and Skills]{.underline}
>
> Edition/publication year [2004]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
> Agency]{.underline} x

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                 | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                 |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                   | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                 | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 68%  | 62%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 82   | 85   | 88   | 86   | 83   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. Economically              |      |      |      |      |      |
| Disadvantaged***                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 60%  | 44%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 14   | 12   | 12   | 9    | 13   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***2. African American***       |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \-   |      | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           |      |      | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 3    | 5    | 7    | 5    | 2    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***3. Hispanic***               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 68%  | 55%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 28   | 31   | 31   | 34   | 36   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***4. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 70%  | 68%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 46   | 41   | 43   | 45   | 41   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 25%  | 17%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met        | 85%  | 85%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 92%  | 90%  | 89%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

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

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

> Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [4]{.underline} Test [Texas
> Assessment of Knowledge and Skills]{.underline} x
>
> Edition/publication year [2004]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
> Agency]{.underline} x

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                 | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                 |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                   | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                 | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 67%  | 48%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 82   | 84   | 88   | 86   | 83   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 0%   | 0%   | 0%   | 0%   | 0%   |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. Economically              |      |      |      |      |      |
| Disadvantaged***                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 50%  | 22%  | NA   | NA   | N A  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 14   | 12   | 12   | 9    | 13   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***2. African American***       |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \-   |      | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           |      |      | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 3    | 5    | 7    | 5    | 2    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***3. Hispanic***               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 54%  | 48%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 28   | 31   | 31   | 34   | 36   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***4. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 76%  | 55%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 46   | 40   | 43   | 45   | 41   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 21%  | 15%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met        | 86%  | 87%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 94%  | 91%  | 87%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

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

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

> Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [5]{.underline} Test [Texas
> Assessment of Knowledge and Skills]{.underline} x
>
> Edition/publication year [2004]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
> Agency]{.underline} x

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                 | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                 |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                   | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                 | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 64%  | 48%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 73   | 84   | 78   | 79   | 80   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 0%   | 0%   | 0%   | 0%   | 0%   |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. Economically              |      |      |      |      |      |
| Disadvantaged***                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 67%  | 20%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 9    | 7    | 8    | 11   | 10   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***2. African American***       |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \-   | 33%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           |      | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 4    | 6    | 5    | 2    | 4    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***3. Hispanic***               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 57%  | 39%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 28   | 31   | 30   | 33   | 27   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***4. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 72%  | 59%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 36   | 41   | 41   | 39   | 41   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 25%  | 17%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met        | 79%  | 79%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 92%  | 90%  | 87%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

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

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

> Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [5]{.underline} Test [Texas
> Assessment of Knowledge and Skills]{.underline} x
>
> Edition/publication year [2004]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
> Agency]{.underline} x

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                 | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                 |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                   | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                 | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 81%  | 55%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 73   | 85   | 78   | 79   | 80   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 0%   | 0%   | 0%   | 0%%  | 0%   |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. Economically              |      |      |      |      |      |
| Disadvantaged***                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 83%  | 60%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 9    | 7    | 8    | 11   | 10   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***2. African American***       |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | \-   | 33%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           |      | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 4    | 6    | 5    | 2    | 4    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***3. Hispanic***               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 79%  | 68%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 28   | 31   | 30   | 33   | 27   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***4. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 83%  | 52%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 36   | 42   | 41   | 39   | 41   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 26%  | 17%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met        | 82%  | 86%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 96%  | 94%  | 92%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

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

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

> Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [6]{.underline} Test [Texas
> Assessment of Knowledge and Skills]{.underline} x

Edition/publication year [2004]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
Agency]{.underline} x

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                 | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                 |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                   | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                 | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 70%  | 61%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 81   | 80   | 74   | 79   | 80   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 0%   | 0%   | 0%   | 0%   | 0%   |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. Economically              |      |      |      |      |      |
| Disadvantaged***                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 60%  | 43%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 9    | 9    | 9    | 8    | 4    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***2. African American***       |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 67%  |      | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% |      | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 6    | 5    | 2    | 4    | 1    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***3. Hispanic***               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 66%  | 60%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 29   | 30   | 33   | 27   | 28   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***4. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 76%  | 60%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 38   | 43   | 34   | 40   | 40   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 28%  | 25%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met        | 86%  | 86%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 88%  | 85%  | 86%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

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

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

> Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [6]{.underline} Test [Texas
> Assessment of Knowledge and Skills]{.underline} x
>
> Edition/publication year [2004]{.underline} Publisher [Texas Education
> Agency]{.underline} x

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                 | TAKS | TAKS | TAAS | TAAS | TAAS |
|                                 |      |      |      |      |      |
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                   | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
|                                 | pril | pril | pril | pril | pril |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 74%  | 63%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 81   | 81   | 74   | 79   | 80   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students       | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| tested                          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students              | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of students             | 0%   | 0%   | 0%   | 0%   | 0%   |
| alternatively assessed          |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SUBGROUP SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***1. Economically              |      |      |      |      |      |
| Disadvantaged***                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 60%  | 71%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 9    | 9    | 9    | 8    | 4    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***2. African American***       |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 50%  | 20%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% |      | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 6    | 5    | 2    | 4    | 1    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***3. Hispanic***               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 76%  | 67%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 29   | 30   | 33   | 27   | 28   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| ***4. White***                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Commended Performance  | 74%  | 64%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % Met Standard           | 100% | 100% | NA   | NA   | NA   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested       | 38   | 44   | 34   | 40   | 40   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**                |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or above Commended  | 22%  | 16%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Performance                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAKS) % At or Above Met        | 77%  | 79%  | NA   | NA   | NA   |
| Standard                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| (TAAS) % Met Minimum Standards  | NA   | NA   | 93%  | 91%  | 88%  |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

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