In the last issue of La Voz, information on the district’s TAKS scores was provided by virtue of the fact that Uvalde CISD board members who supported the salary increase for UCISD Supt. Wendell Brown stated that positive results were part of the reason for the raise.

In this issue of La Voz more information concerning UCISD TAKS results and other information is provided to parents and the community in order to obtain a better perspective on where the district is headed.

As was done in the previous issue tables are provided in order to fully explain the results of the state mandated tests. Elementary grades are included in Table 1 (at right) which provides similar information to that provided in the last issue.

However, no comparative state or regional data is provided. Instead, two new columns were added. These last two columns in the table reflect TAKS results for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students and academically At Risk students. At Risk students are identified as such due to factors such as poverty, language, medical reasons, family problems, or other issues that may interfere with the student’s ability to perform their work.

These two columns were added due to the district’s bilingual education program being under scrutiny of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) for the past three years, and both LEP and At Risk students are found in the bilingual education program. How these student perform is therefore of importance to the district.

In comparing the scores of LEP students to the scores for the entire district, Hispanic, and white students, LEP students overall have lower scores. The only exceptions are third grade reading and math in 2007.

Note should also be made of the lower scores in the table when comparing 2006 to 2008. The scores for LEP students decrease in third-grade math, fourth-grade reading, fourth-grade writing, fifth-grade math, sixth-grade reading, and sixth-grade math.

Also, note the increases in 2007 followed by decreases in 2008 for third grade reading, third grade math, fourth grade reading, fourth grade math, fourth grade writing, fifth grade math, sixth grade reading, and sixth grade math. In some instances, the decreases in 2008 were extensive, such as sixth grade reading where the scores fell by 49% and sixth grade math where they fell by 27%.

Although increases can be seen in some scores of At Risk students, similar decreases between 2007 and 2008 can also be seen for At Risk students. And, decreases between 2006 and 2008 are also evident. For instance, decreases can be seen between 2006 and 2008 for third-grade reading, third-grade math, fourth-grade reading, fourth-grade writing, sixth-grade reading, and sixth-grade math.

The increase in scores from 2006 to 2007, then decreases from 2007 to 2008 can also be determined. These fluctuations can be seen in fourth-grade math, and fourth-grade writing. Although overall increases are evident, such as fifth-grade reading, fifth-grade math, and fifth grade-science, the fact remains that the increases are not consistent across grade levels and the rise and fall of scores leaves much to be desired.

Table 2 (pg. 7) is reflective of similar information for the secondary grades. In all instances, the scores for both LEP and At Risk students are lower than those for the district, Hispanic students and white students. Further, just as is the case for students at the elementary grades, some of the scores for LEP and At Risk students at the secondary level have increases in 2007, only to decrease in 2008. Just as testing scores are inconsistent across elementary grade levels so, too, are they inconsistent across secondary levels.

However, the exceedingly low scores for secondary level LEP students are clearly evident, and the contrast with the scores of both white and Hispanic students is appalling. The difference in scores between Hispanic and LEP students can range anywhere from one point in eleventh grade math to 68 points in eleventh-grade English Language Arts. The differences in scores for white and LEP students are even larger with a low of 21 points in eleventh-grade math and a high of 90 points in eighth-grade science.

Overall, in the three-year span that is covered by the table, the differences between Hispanic, white and At Risk students are lower in comparison to LEP students. In only one instance are the scores for At Risk students higher than that for Hispanic students – tenth-grade social studies.

The smallest difference between Hispanic and At Risk students is in eleventh-grade social studies at 2 points; the largest difference is eighth grade science at 35 points.

The differences for white and At Risk students are higher; the lowest point differential is in eleventh grade English Language Arts at 6 points, and the highest difference in eighth grade science at 67 points. Much as with elementary grade scores, the scores for secondary level At Risk students increase and decrease between 2006 to 2007 and 2007 to 2008.

This is evident in seventh-grade reading, math and writing, eighth-grade reading, science and social studies, ninth-grade reading, tenth-grade math and science and for eleventh-grade English Language Arts, math, science, and social studies.

In only three areas are the increases consistent over the three-year period – ninth-grade math, tenth-grade English Language Arts, and tenth-grade social studies. Again, the issue of inconsistency over grade levels is evident.

To provide a broader review of UCISD academic information, Table 3 (pg. reflects the College Readiness information for 2006, 2007, and 2008.

College readiness is measured based on how well students do in English Language Arts and math. When comparing white students to state and regional scores, it is only in math in 2008 in which these students score lower. Hispanic students, on the other hand, score lower than students at both state and regional levels.

The comparison of scores is much worse for LEP and At Risk students. For LEP students it is only in math in 2006 and 2007 that they score at greater than 1%. At Risk students also score lower than both white and Hispanic students in both subjects throughout the three years covered.

The inconsistency of scores is clearly evident in math for white and LEP students. The scores of white students increase from 2006 to 2007, but decrease from 2007 to 2008. The opposite is the case for LEP students, their scores decrease from 2006 to 2007, and then increase from 2007 to 2008. For At Risk students the inconsistency is in English Language Arts where their scores increase from 2006 to 2007, then decrease from 2007 to 2008.

There is consistency, however, in the increase in scores for Hispanic and white students in English Language Arts, and in math for Hispanic students. Another way to look at these scores is to view them inversely, that is, for instance, if 41% of Hispanic students in 2008 were college ready, that means that 59% were not.

For LEP students this means that nearly 100% were not college ready, and for At Risk students 69% were not college ready. It is exceedingly evident that UCISD is doing a poor job in this area.

The last table (Table 4; pg. provides the SAT and ACT test scores, these scores are not provided for LEP and At Risk students. These tests are administered as a means of providing entrance examination data to colleges and universities, thus preparing the students for entrance into higher education.

The first set of rows provides the percent of students who take the examinations. The percent of white students in the district taking the exams exceed the state and regional level, with the exception of 2005. Hispanic student percentages, on the other hand, are consistently below state and regional levels. This means that Hispanic students are less prepared to enter college because they will still require testing.

The scores on the exams is another indicator of preparedness. Once again, in comparing the scores of white students to the scores at the state and regional level, only in 2006 are the ACT score lower.

Based on the reasoning of the board members who voted for the salary increase for Superintendent Brown that the district was doing quite well, it has been shown that the opposite is true. Although there is improvement in some areas, there is lack of improvement, and even regression in other areas.

The inconsistency and the differences in scores between groups is unmistakable. The question that remains is the whether or not the decision of the four board members who voted for the salary increase was unmistakable.