2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools A Report to the 85th Legislature from the Texas Education Agency March 2017 Submitted to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Members of the 85th Texas Legislature. The 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools describes the status of Texas public education, as required by §39.332 of the Texas Education Code. The report, available on the Texas Education Agency (TEA) website at http://tea.texas.gov/acctres/comp_annual_index.html, contains 16 chapters on the following topics: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • state progress on academic performance indicators; student performance on state assessments; performance of students at risk of dropping out of school; students in disciplinary alternative education settings; secondary school graduates and dropouts; grade-level retention of students; district and campus performance in meeting state accountability standards; status of the curriculum; charter schools and waivers; school district expenditures and staff hours used for direct instructional activities; district reporting requirements; TEA funds and expenditures; performance of open-enrollment charters in comparison to school districts; character education programs; student health and physical activity; and Foundation High School Program endorsements. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools A Report to the 85th Legislature from the Texas Education Agency March 2017 Texas Education Agency Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education Penny Schwinn, Deputy Commissioner of Academics Additional Acknowledgments Special thanks to all Texas Education Agency staff who contributed to this report. Citation. Texas Education Agency. (2017). 2016 comprehensive biennial report on Texas public schools (Document No. GE17 601 07). Austin, TX: Author. For general information about this report, contact the Texas Education Agency Division of Research and Analysis at (512) 475-3523 or the Office of Academics, at (512) 463-8934. For additional information on specific issues, contact the agency staff listed at the end of each chapter. This report is available on the Texas Education Agency website at http://tea.texas.gov/ acctres/comp_annual_index.html. Copyright © Notice. The materials are copyrighted © and trademarked ™ as the property of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of TEA, except under the following conditions: (1) Texas public school districts, charter schools, and Education Service Centers may reproduce and use copies of the Materials and Related Materials for the districts' and schools' educational use without obtaining permission from TEA; (2) residents of the state of Texas may reproduce and use copies of the Materials and Related Materials for individual personal use only without obtaining written permission of TEA; (3) any portion reproduced must be reproduced in its entirety and remain unedited, unaltered and unchanged in any way; and (4) no monetary charge can be made for the reproduced materials or any document containing them; however, a reasonable charge to cover only the cost of reproduction and distribution may be charged. Private entities or persons located in Texas that are not Texas public school districts, Texas Education Service Centers, or Texas charter schools or any entity, whether public or private, educational or non-educational, located outside the state of Texas MUST obtain written approval from TEA and will be required to enter into a license agreement that may involve the payment of a licensing fee or a royalty. For information contact: Copyrights Office, Texas Education Agency, 1701 N. Congress Ave., Austin, TX 78701-1494; phone 512-463-9041; email: Copyrights@tea.state.tx.us. Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS™) and State Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR®) are either registered trademarks or trademarks of the Texas Education Agency. Advanced Placement Program®, AP®, and SAT® are registered trademarks of the College Entrance Examination Board. ACT Assessment® is a registered trademark of the ACT, Inc. Fitnessgram® is a registered trademark of The Cooper Institute. Career Clusters® is a registered trademark of the National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium. Other product and company names mentioned in this report may be the trademarks of their respective owners. ii 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Contents 1. Performance Indicators ..............................................................................................................1 2. Student Performance ................................................................................................................43 3. Performance of Students At Risk of Dropping Out of School.................................................71 4. Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs .........................................................................81 5. Graduates and Dropouts ...........................................................................................................89 6. Grade-Level Retention ...........................................................................................................107 7. District and Campus Performance .........................................................................................121 8. Status of the Curriculum ........................................................................................................195 9. Charter Schools and Waivers .................................................................................................207 10. Expenditures and Staff Hours for Direct Instructional Activities ..........................................211 11. District Reporting Requirements ...........................................................................................213 12. Agency Funds and Expenditures ...........................................................................................217 13. Performance of Open-Enrollment Charters ...........................................................................221 14. Character Education ...............................................................................................................227 15. Student Health and Physical Activity ....................................................................................229 16. Foundation High School Program Endorsements ..................................................................231 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools iii iv 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 1. Performance Indicators T his chapter of the 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools presents the progress the state is making on the performance indicators established in Texas law. These indicators were presented in Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports from 1990-91 to 2011-12. In the 2012-13 school year, the AEIS was renamed the Texas Academic Performance Report (TAPR) to reflect changes in legislation. Detailed analyses of three key performance indicators can be found in Chapters 2 and 5 of this report. Chapter 2 presents State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) results, and Chapter 5 presents graduation rates and dropout rates. This chapter presents results for other measures and indicators presented in the TAPR (pages 4-41) that are used in state accountability performance index calculations and in distinction designation calculations, including the following: ♦ student progress; ♦ Recommended High School Program (RHSP)/ Distinguished Achievement Program (DAP)/ Foundation High School Program with endorsement (FHSP-E)/Foundation High School Program with distinguished level of achievement (FHSP-DLA) graduates; ♦ college-ready graduates; ♦ attendance rate; ♦ Advanced Placement (AP)/International Baccalaureate (IB) results; ♦ SAT/ACT results; ♦ advanced course/dual enrollment completion; and ♦ profile information on students, programs, and staff. Student Progress Student progress is determined by the STAAR progress measure and the English language learner (ELL) progress measure. The STAAR progress measure is based on the difference between a student's current and prior-year scale scores. A student is assigned to one of three growth categories based on the change in his or her scale score: Did Not Meet, Met, or Exceeded. The ELL progress measure was reported for ELLs beginning in 2014. The measure accounts for the time needed to acquire English language proficiency and fully demonstrate grade-level academic competency in English. Year-to-year performance expectations for the STAAR content-area tests identify ELL progress as meeting or exceeding an individual year-to-year expectation plan. An ELL's plan is determined by the number of years the student has been enrolled in U.S. schools and the student's Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) composite proficiency level. In the accountability system, Index 2 measures student progress by subject and reports results by race/ethnicity, special education status, and ELL status. In 2015, the STAAR and ELL progress measures were used for Index 2. In 2016, STAAR, STAAR Accommodated, STAAR Alternate 2, and ELL progress measures were used. For each subject area and student group evaluated, the Index 2 calculation credits districts and campuses with one point for each percentage of tests that Met or Exceeded progress and one point for each percentage of tests that Exceeded progress. The percentage of tests that Exceeded progress is also an indicator for distinction designations in English language arts (ELA)/ reading and mathematics. In the 2015 ratings cycle, 59 percent of tests Met or Exceeded progress and 16 percent Exceeded progress in reading; 47 percent of tests Met or Exceeded progress and 19 percent Exceeded progress in mathematics; and 56 percent of tests Met or Exceeded progress and 7 percent Exceeded progress in writing. In the 2016 ratings cycle, 60 percent of tests Met or Exceeded progress and 16 percent Exceeded progress in reading; and 63 percent of tests Met or Exceeded progress and 17 percent Exceeded progress in mathematics. A progress measure was unavailable for writing in 2016. Note. The STAAR results shown in the TAPR state performance report (pages 4-41) differ by 1 or 2 percentage points from those reported in Chapter 2 of this report. The TAPR indicators, which form the basis for the state accountability system, reflect the performance of only those students who were enrolled in the same districts as of October of each school year. This ensures that accountability ratings are based only on the performance of students who have been in the same districts for most of the academic year. Chapter 2 contains the results for all students who took the STAAR in the spring of each year, regardless of their enrollment status the previous October. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 1 Graduation Plans This indicator, which shows the percentage of graduates reported as having satisfied the course requirements for the Recommended High School Program (RHSP), Distinguished Achievement Program (DAP), Foundation High School Program with endorsement (FHSP-E), or Foundation High School Program with distinguished level of achievement (FHSP-DLA) is included in Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness) calculations. For 2015 ratings, the graduation plan score was calculated as a rate based on a longitudinal cohort of students graduating under the RHSP or DAP. If no longitudinal rate was available, the graduation plan score was based on an annual rate of students graduating under the RHSP or DAP. It was also used as an indicator for the postsecondary readiness distinction designation (PRDD) in 2015. For 2016 ratings, the graduation plan score was based on the percentage of students graduating under (a) RHSP or DAP or (b) RHSP, DAP, FHSP-E, or FHSP-DLA. Beginning with the class of 2018, all students will be on the FHSP. Until then, students may earn an FHSP, Minimum High School Program (MHSP), RHSP, or DAP diploma. During this transition period, this approach addresses the varying degrees to which FHSP graduation plans have been implemented across districts. Statewide, 86.1 percent of graduates in the class of 2015 met the requirements for the RHSP or DAP, up from 85.5 percent in the class of 2014. In addition, 84.1 percent of graduates in the class of 2015 graduated under the RHSP, DAP, FHSP-E, or FHSP-DLA. This measure was unavailable for the class of 2014. College-Ready Graduates This indicator provides a measure of college readiness. Under standards established by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, a student may satisfy the Texas Success Initiative (TSI) requirements with (a) a score of 2200 on the exit-level Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test in ELA with a score of 3 on the essay and/or a score of 2200 on the exit-level TAKS test in mathematics; (b) a combined score of 1070 on the SAT, with a score of 500 on the critical reading and/or mathematics sections; (c) a composite score of 23 on the ACT, with a score of 19 on the English and/or mathematics sections; or (d) a score of 351 in reading and/or a score of 350 in mathematics on the TSI assessment. Results for the college-ready graduates indicator are reported for ELA and mathematics separately and for both subjects combined. For 2015 ratings, to be considered college ready in one or both subjects, a student must have met the TSI standards or the exemption standards for the applicable subject area or areas on any combination of the exit-level TAKS, 2 the SAT, or the ACT. For 2016 ratings, the TSI assessment replaced the exit-level TAKS in the college-ready graduates indicator calculations. The college-ready graduates indicator was included in the Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness) calculation for both 2015 and 2016. It is also used as an indicator for the PRDD. For the class of 2015, 42 percent of graduates were considered college ready in reading, and 38 percent were considered college ready in mathematics. Overall for the class of 2015, 35 percent were considered college ready in both subjects. The standards for the class of 2014 were different, as they included results for exit-level TAKS, a test that was required for graduation. In 2014, 68 percent of graduates were considered college ready in reading, 67 percent were considered college ready in mathematics, and 54 percent were considered college ready in both subjects. Attendance Rate Attendance rates are calculated for students in Grades 1 through 12 in all Texas public schools. Statewide, the attendance rate in 2014-15 (95.7%) decreased slightly from the previous year's rate (95.9%). Attendance rate was an indicator for distinction designations in ELA/reading, mathematics, science, and social studies. Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Results High school students who take the College Board's AP or the International Baccalaureate's IB examinations may receive advanced placement or course credit, or both, upon entering college. Generally, colleges award credit or advanced placement for scores at or above 3 on AP examinations and 4 on IB examinations. AP/IB participation and performance were evaluated for distinction designations in ELA/reading, mathematics, science, and social studies, and for the PRDD. Statewide, the percentage of 11th and 12th graders taking at least one AP or IB examination rose from 23.5 percent in 2014 to 24.9 percent in 2015. The percentage of examinees with at least one score at or above criterion decreased slightly statewide from 51.3 percent in 2014 to 49.1 percent in 2015. SAT/ACT Results The TAPR presents participation and performance results for the SAT, published by the College Board, and the ACT, published by ACT, Inc. The results were 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools evaluated for distinction designations in ELA/reading, mathematics, science, and social studies and for the PRDD. Exclusion of Results from 2015 Accountability The percentage of graduates who took either the SAT or the ACT increased from 66.3 percent for the class of 2014 to 68.3 percent for the class of 2015. Of the class of 2015 examinees, 24.3 percent scored at or above criterion on either test (1110 on the SAT or 24 on the ACT), a decrease from 25.1 percent for the class of 2014. In 2015, results for the following assessments were excluded from all four performance indices: The average SAT combined score (critical reading, writing, and mathematics) for the class of 2015 was 1394, a decrease from 1417 for the class of 2014. The average ACT composite score was 20.6 for the class of 2015, the same as for the class of 2014. Advanced Course/Dual-Credit Completion The percentage of students completing advanced/dual credit courses is based on the number of students who complete and receive credit for at least one advanced course. This data is available for Grades 9-12 and Grades 11-12. Advanced courses include AP courses, IB courses, dual credit courses for which students can earn both high school and college credit, and other courses designated as academically advanced. The results for Grades 11-12 were evaluated for the PRDD. In 2014-15, 54.5 percent of students in Grades 11-12 completed at least one advanced course, an increase from 53.2 percent in 2013-14. Across racial/ethnic groups in 2014-15, percentages of students completing advanced courses ranged from 45.2 percent for African American students to 81.5 percent for Asian students. Between 2014 and 2015, the percentages of students completing advanced courses increased for all student groups except Pacific Islander students. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools ♦ STAAR mathematics assessments in Grades 3-8; and ♦ STAAR A and STAAR Alternate 2 assessments in all subjects and grade levels, including end-ofcourse tests. Because of these exclusions, comparisons to prior-year results are not appropriate; therefore, the 2015 and 2016 TAPRs present only current-year STAAR data. Profile Information In addition to performance data, the TAPR provides descriptive statistics on a variety of student, program, and staff data. Agency Contact Persons For more information about the Texas Academic Performance Report indicators, contact Penny Schwinn, Deputy Commissioner of Academics, (512) 463-8934; or Shannon Housson or Jamie Crowe, Performance Reporting Division, (512) 463-9704. Other Sources of Information Texas Academic Performance Reports and profiles for each public school district and campus are available from each district and on the Texas Education Agency website at http://tea.texas.gov/accountability/. 3 $00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaqaxdmog 91oz TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Academic Performance Report 2014-15 State Performance Two or African American Paci?c More Special Econ State American Hispanic White Indian Asian Islander Races Ed Disadv STAAFtPercent at Phase-in Satisfactory Standard or Above Grade 3 Reading 2015 72% 62% 23% 88% 28% 92% 28% 84% 51% 20% 69% STAAR Percent at Phase-in Satisfactory Standard or Above Grade 4 Reading 2015 74% 61% 68% 86% 22% 91% 26% 82% 44% 65% 60% Writing 2015 70% 60% 66% 29% 68% 91% 26% 22% 32% 62% 61% STAAFtPercent at Phase-in Satisfactory Standard or Above Grade 5 Reading 2015 82% 80% 84% 94% 82% 96% 82% 93% 60% 82% 24% Science 2015 22% 52% 66% 85% 24% 91% 21% 81% 41% 63% 52% STAAFtPercent at Phase-in Satisfactory Standard or Above Grade 6 Reading 2015 72% 68% 21% 89% 26% 94% 81% 86% 40% 68% 49% Percent at Phase-In Satlsfactory Standard or Above Grade 7 Reading 2015 26% 69% 20% 88% 22% 92% 81% 86% 36% 62% 40% Writing 2015 73% 64% 62% 83% 24% 92% 81% 81% 26% 64% 38% STAARPercent at Phase-In Satisfactory Standard or Above Grade 8 Reading 2015 88% 82% 84% 95% 89% 96% 91% 94% 52% 83% 58% Science 2015 62% 38% Social Studies 2015 65% 54% 52% 29% 66% 90% 66% 26% 29% 53% 29% STAARPercent at Phase-In Satisfactory Standard or Above End of Course English 2015 21% 63% 65% 83% 20% 88% 24% 80% 32% 63% 40% English II 2015 22% 62% 62% 84% 23% 86% 23% 82% 35% 64% 38% s100qas 3?an sexal uo nodau [eguuagg aAgsuaandmog 91oz TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Academic Performance Report 2014-15 State Performance 1'ch or African American Paci? More Special Econ State Amerlcan Hlspanlc White Indlan Aslan Islander Races Ed Dlsadwr STAAFtPercent at Phase-in Satisfactory Standard or Above End of Course Algebral 2015 81% 21% 28% 90% 80% 96% 83% 82% 45% 25% 59% Biology 2015 91% 82% 89% 96% 90% 92% 93% 96% 65% 88% 21% U5. Historyr 2015 91Phase-in Satisfactory Standard or Above All rades All Subjects 2015 22% 68% 22% 82% 22% 92% 80% 85% 43% 69% 55% Readin 2015 72% 63% 22% 88% 22% 92% 29% 86% 43% 20% 56% Mathematics 2015 81% 21% 28% 90% 80% 96% 83% 82% 45% 25% 59% Writing 2015 72% 62% 66% 81% 21% 91% 29% 29% 29% 63% 54% Science 2015 28% 68% 23% 89% 29% 93% 81% 86% 42% 21% 53% Social Studies 2015 28Postseccndary Readiness Standard All rades Two or More Subjects 2015 41 28% 32% 55% 41% 24% 45% 51% 12% 28% 12% Readin 2015 46% 32% 36% 61% 46% 22% 43% 52% 14% 32% 15% Mathematics 2015 43% 31% 40% 61% 45% 84% 53% 52% 11% 36% 16% Writing 2015 3423% 15% Science 2015 44% 29% 36% 59% 44% 26% 42% 55% 15% 32% 13% Social Studies 2015 44STAARPercent at Advanced Standard All rades All Subjects 2015 16$00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aArsuaandmog 91oz TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Academic Performance Report 2014-15 State Performance 1: TWO or African American Paci? i: More Special Econ State American Hispanic White Indian Asian Islander Races Ed Dlsamr ELL-1 STAARPercent at Advanced Standard Ali rades Reading 2015 12Math ematics 2015 Writing 2015 Science 2015 16Social Studies 2015 19STAARPercent Met or Exceeded Progress Ali rades All Subjects 2015 52% 53% 54% 62% 56% 23% 59% 62% 46% 53% 54% Reading 2015 59% 56% 52% 63% 56% 21% 61% 63% 52% 56% 56% Math emetic: 2015 47% 34% 41% 53% 44% 31% 49% 54% 16% 36% 33% Writing 2015 56% 53% 53% 60% 59% 25% 60% 62% 46% 52% 52% STAARPercent Exceeded Progress Ali rades All Subjects 2015 15% 13% 13% 16% 14% 26% 15% 16% 12% 13% 14% Readin 2015 16% 14% 15% 13% 15% 24% 15% 19% 14% 14% 16% Math emaiics 2015 1912% 10% Writing 2015 Progress of Prior Year ETAAR Fallers (Percent of Fall ers Passing STA Sum of Grades 4-3 Readin 2015 39% 36% 38% 49% 42% 49% 43% 46% 22% 37% 32% 2014 4.48% 42% 36% s100qas 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaqaxdmog 91oz TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Academic Performance Report 2014-15 State Performance 1: Two or African American Paci? More Sp eeial Econ State Amerlcan Hlspanlc White Indlan Aslan Islander Races Ed Dlsadv ELL Student Success Initiative Grade 5 Reading Students Meeting Phase-in 1 Level II Standard on First STAAR Administration 2015 75% 611% mum 86% 73% 91% MW.- 34% 31 57% Students Ftequiri ng Accelerated Instruction 2015 25% 36% 30% 14% 9% 26% 10% 69% 33% 41.3% STAAR cumulatlve Met Standard 2015 34% 26% 80% 92% 83% 94% 8.3% 90% 44% 3"8% 71% STAAFlFailers Promoted by Grade Placement Committee 2014 92% 93% 92% 91% 38% 94% 96% 93% 92% 92% Met Standard [Failed in Previous Year) Promoted to Grade 6 2015 1413% 12% Retained in Grade 5 2015 59% 59% 55% 69% 38% 45% 50% 57% 53% 53% 53% $00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaqaxdmog 91oz TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Academic Performance Report 2014-15 State Performance 1: Two or African American Paci? t: More Special Econ State Amerlcan Hlspanlc White Indlan Aslan Islander Races Ed Dlsadv ELL Student Success Initiative Grade 8 Reading Students Meeting Phase-in 1 Level II Standard on First STAAR Administration 2015 76% 82% 1 Elxi. 88% 91% $3941. 35% 27% 88% 38% Students Ftequiri ng Accelerated Instruction 2015 24% 33% 29% 12% 23% 9% 21% 14% 73% 32% 82% STAAR cumulatlve Met Standard 2015 85% 28% 81% 93% 86% 94% 88% 92% 39% 3"8% 52% STAAFlFailers Promoted by Grade Placement Committee 2914 95% 98% 98% 95% 94% 93% 100% 98% 98% 95% 98% Met Standard [Failed in Previous Year) Promoted to Grade 9 2015 Retained in Grade 2915 46% 39% 42% 52% 40% 25% 100% 33% 44% 37% TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Academic Performance Report 2014-15 State Performance 1: s100qas 3?an sexal uo nodau [eruuarg aArsuaandmog 910z Bilingual EducationIEnglish as a Second Language (Current Year ELL Students) Bi lingual ns BE-Trans BE-Dual BE-Dual ESL ESL LEP No LEP With Total State Education Early Exlt Late Exlt Two-Way One-Way ESL Content Pull-Out Sewlces Services ELL STAAR Percent at Fhas e-in Satisfactory Standard or Above All Grades All Subje (:13 2015 ading 201 5 7 2% 52% 55% 55% 21% 55% 49% 51% 45% 55% 55% 55% aihe matics 2015 31% 79% 50% 55% 51% 93% 59% 50% 59% 59% 59% 59% Writin 201 5 7 2% 53% 51% 52% 58% 54% 44% 49% 40% 51% 54% 54% Science 201 5 75% 53% 51% 51% 59% 54% 53% 55% 50% 55% 53% 53% ocial Studies 2015 7 5% 41% 42% 49% 43% 42% 39% 52% 43% 43% STAAR Percent at Fostsecondary Readiness Standard All Grades Two or More Subjects 2015 41ading 201 12% 15% 15% aihe matics 201 5 45% 22% 25% 15% 15% 15% 19% 15% 15% Writin 201 15% 15% Science 2015 44% 14% 12% 13% 15% 15% 12% 15% 10% 15% 13% 13% Social Studies 2015 44STAAR Percent at Advanced Standard All Grades All Subje ?Reading 2015 Mathematics 201 Writin 201 Science 2015 01 $00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aArsuaqaxdmog 910z TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Academic Performance Report 2014-15 State Performance 1: Bilingual EducationIEngliah a5 a Second Language (Current Year ELL Students) Bi lingual ns BE-Trans BE-Dual BE-Dual ESL ESL LEP No LEP With Total State Education Early Exit Late Exit ?ue-Way One-Way ESL Content Pull-Out Services Services ELL STAAR Percent at Advanced Standard All Grades Social Studies 2015 STAAR Peree nt Met er Exceeded Progress All Grades All Subje :15 201 5 5 7% 50% 50% 50% 52% 50% 50% 50% 49% 53% 54% 54% Reading 2015 59% 51% 51% 51% 53% 52% 52% 53% 52% 55% 55% 55% Mathematics 2015 47% 32% 55% 12% 34% 55% 31% 31% 31% 24% 31% 30% Writin 201 5 5 5% 52% 53% 52% 57% 47% 50% 49% 50% 53% 50% 51% STAAR Peree nt Exe eeded Progress All Grades All subjects 2015 ading 2015 1 6% 22% 22% 21% 22% 21% 13% 14% 13% 15% 17% 12% athe matics 201 Writin 201 Progress of Prior Year STAAR Fail ers {Percent of Failers Passing Burn 01 Grades 4.5 Reading 2015 3945%. 42% 44% 43% 32% 40% 35% 35% 35% 41% 33% 33% s100qas 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaqaxdmog 91oz II TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Academic Performance Report 2014-15 State 2F Tim or African American Paci?c More Special Econ State American Hispanl White Indian Asian Islander Races Ed Bleach: ELL 201 5 STAARPanicipatian (All Grad es} All Tests Te st Participant 95% 99% 99% 99% 99% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% Included in Accountability 94% 92% 94% 95% 91% 93% 91% 94% 92% 93% Not Included in Accountability Mobile Other Exclusions 1 '35 1% 2% 0% 2% 441'. 2% 0% 2% Elli. 3% Not Tested Absent Other ZI 51001133 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaandmog 91oz TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Academic Performance Report 2014-15 State Attendance and Postsecondary Readlness African American Paci?c or Special Econ State American Hispanic White Indian Asian Islander More Races Ed Disad'ur ELL Attendance Rate 2013-14 95.9% 95.6% 95.2% 96.0% 95.4% 92.8% 95.2% 96.0% 94.6% 95.5% 96.6% 2012-13 95.8% 95.6% 95.6% 95.9% 95.3% 92.2% 95.291: 95.9% 94.5% 95.4% 966% Annual Dropout Rate {Gr 2-8) 2013-14 0.5% 0.4% 0.8% 0.2% 0.5% 0.1% 1.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 2.2% 2012-13 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.2% 0.5% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 2.0% Annual Dropout Rate {Gr 9.12] 2013?14 2.2% 3.1% 2.2% 1.1% 2.3% 0.2% 3.0% 1.5% 3.0% 2.6% 4.8% 2012-13 2.2% 3.3% 2.8% 1.1% 2.5% 0.8% 2.2% 1.5% 3.2% 2.6% 4.9% 4-Year Longitudinal Rate [Gr 9-12} Class of 2014 Graduated 88.3% 84.2% 85.5% 93.0% 82.1% 94.8% 88.9% 91.2% 22.5% 85.2% 60.3% Received 0.8% 0.6% 0.8% 0.9% 1.1% 0.1% 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 0.9% 0.4% Continued HS 4.3% 5.3% 5.6% 2.5% 4.0% 2.2% 3.2% 3.2% 10.8% 5.0% 13.6% Dropped Out 6.6% 9.8% 8.2% 3.6% 2.9% 2.4% 2.0% 4.8% 11.2% 9.0% 25.2% Graduates and 89.1% 84.9% 86.3% 94.0% 88.1% 94.9% 89.391: 92.0% 28.0% 86.0% 60.8% Grads. GED, 3: Cont 93.4% 90.2% 91 96.4% 92.1% 92.6% 93.0% 95.2% 88.8% 91.0% 24.3% Class of 2013 Graduated 88.0% 84.1% 85.1% 93.0% 85.8% 93.8% 89.5% 91.2% 22.8% 85.2% 61.2% Received IGED 0.8% 0.2% 0.8% 0.9% 1.3% 0.2% 0.5% 0.9% 0.5% 0.9% 0.6% Continued HS 4.6% 5.3% 5.9% 2.6% 4.4% 3.0% 4.2% 3.1% 10.2% 5.4% 14.1% Dropped Out 6.6% 9.9% 8.2% 3.5% 8.5% 3.0% 5.3% 4.4% 11.1% 8.5% 23.2% Graduates and GED 88.9% 84.8% 85.9% 93.9% 82.2% 94.0% 90.0% 92.6% 28.2% 86.1% 62.2% Grads. GED, 8c Cont 93.4% 90.1% 91 96.5% 91.5% 92.0% 94.2% 95.6% 88.9% 91.5% 26.3% 5-Year Extended Longitudinal Rate (Gr 9-12] Class of 2013 Graduated 90.4% 86.2% 88.2% 94.4% 82.6% 95.3% 91.4% 93.4% 82.1% 88.2% 62.9% Received GED 1.1% 1.0% 1.2% 1.2" . 2.1 I 0.3% 0.5% 1.1% 1.3% 0.8% Continued HS 1.3% 1.3% 1.6% 0.8% 1.3% 1.0% 1.2% 0.8% 5.6% 1.4% 3.8% Dropped Out 2.2% 10.9% 9.0% 3.6% 9.0% 3.5% 2.0% 4.2% 11.5% 9.1% 22.6% Graduates and GED 91.5% 82.2% 89.3% 95.6% 89.2% 95.5% 91.8% 94.6% 82.9% 89.5% 68.6% Grads, GED, 8c Cont 92.8% 89.1% 91.0% 96.4% 91.0% 96.5% 93.0% 95.3% 88.5% 90.9% 22.4% Class of 2012 Graduated 90. 4% 86. 5% 88.0% 94.5% 88.6% 96.2% 92.0% 94.0% 81.6% 88. 2% 66. 9% Received GED 1.2% 1.0% 1.2% 1.3% 2.3% 0.2% 0.5% 1.2% 0.8% 1.2% 0.2% Continued HS 1.3% 1.4% 1.2% 0.8% 1.2% 1.0% 1.2% 0.2% 5.8% 1.5% 3.8% Dropped Out 2.1% 11.1% 9.1 3.4% 2.8% 2.5% 5.8% 4.1% 11.8% 8.6% 28.2% Graduatea and 91.6% 82.5% 89.2% 95.8% 90.9% 96.5% 92.5% 95.2% 82.4% 89.9% 62.5% Grads. GED, 8c Cont 92.9% 88.9% 90.9% 96.6% 92.2% 92.5% 94.2% 95.9% 88.2% 91.4% 21.3% s100qas 3?an sexal uo nodau [eguuagg aAgsuaandulog 91oz SI TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Academic Performance Report 2014-15 State Attendance and Postsecondary Readlness African American Paci?c or Special Ecen State American Hispanic White Indian Asian Islander More Races Ed Disad'l:r ELL 6-Year Extended Lengltudlnal Rate (Gr 9-121 Class of 2012 Graduated 90.9% 36.9% 33.6% 94.3% 39.2% 96.6% 93.2% 94.2% 33.6% 39.4% 63.6% Received GED 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 2.6% 0.3% 0.5% 1.2% 1.0% 1.6% 0.9% Continued HS 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3% 3.6% 0.6% 1.3% Dropped Out 2.0% 11.0% 9.0% 3.2% 2.2% 2.5% 6.1% 3.9% 11.2% 3.4% 29.3% Graduates and GED 92.4% 33.4% 90.2% 96.4% 91.3% 92.0% 93.2% 95.9% 34.6% 90.9% 69.4% Grads. GED. 3: Cent 93.0% 39.0% 91.0% 96.3% 92.3% 92.5% 93.9% 96.1% 33.3% 91.6% 20.2% Class 01' 2011 Graduated 39.3% 35.0% 32.0% 94.3% 90.0% 92.0% 92.5% 94.4% 33.2% 33.2% 32.9% Received IGED 1.5% 1.3% 1.6% 1.6% 2.2% 0.3% 1.1% 1.3% 0.9% 1.4% 0.9% Continued HS 0.6% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 3.2% 0.2% 1.4% Dropped lOut 3.1% 13.0% 10.6% 3.6% 2.5% 2.1 5.9% 3.3% 12.1% 9.1% 29.3% Graduates and GED 91.3% 36.3% 33.3% 96.0% 92.1% 92.3% 93.2% 95.2% 34.2% 90.2% 33.3% Grads. GED, 3: Cont 91.9% 32.0% 39.4% 96.4% 92.5% 92.9% 94.1% 96.2% 32.9% 90.9% 20.2% Graduates {Longitudinal Ftatei Class of 2014 35.5% 29.3% 35.2% 36.1% 31.5% 95.4% 36.2% 35.9% 22.4% 32.0% 23.3% Class of 2013 33.5% 26.2% 33.2% 34.6% 29.3% 94.0% 85.21%: 34.61%: 22.3% 29.6% 20.0% RHSPIDAP Graduates {Annual Rate) 201 3-14 33. 3% 22.4% 33.9% 34.3% 29.3% 94.6% 33.6% 34.3% 25.1% 30. 6% 22. 3% 2012-13 31.6% 24.3% 31.5% 33.1% 23.3% 92.9% 33.3% 33.0% 25.1% 22.9% 33.3% Advanced CourselDual Enrollment Completlon [Grades ?-121 Any Subject 201 3-14 53. 2% 42. 2% 49.0% 59.5% 43.3% 30.5% 52.2% 53.English Language Arts 201 3-14 23. 9% 20. 3% 24.9% 34.1% 24.3% 54.2% 22.5% 33.3% 4.6% 22.0% 3.9% Mathematics 2013-14 42.4% 33.1% 36.9% 49.5% 39.4% 21.1% 43.3% 43.4% 3.3% 34.4% 15.5% Science 2013-14 13.4% 2.6% 10.0% 16.4% 10.3% 42.3% 12.3% 12.1% 1.2% 3.2% 2.1% Soclal Studles 2013-14 22.3% 19.1% 23.0% 33.3% 24.4% 59.2% 26.5% 32.4% 2.3% 20.2% 5.0% Advanced CourselDual Enrollment Completion [Grades 9-12} Any Subject 2013-14 33.1% 25.4% 30.4% 32.1% 29.6% 59.3% 31.5% 36.4% 3.2% 22.5% 16.6% 2012-13 31.4% 24.2% 23.5% 35.6% 23.9% 52.0% 30.0% 35.0% 2.1% 25.6% 14.2% English Language Arts 2013-14 15.4% 11.5% 13.3% 12.2% 13.5% 29.4% 14.3% 12.0% 3.5% 12.2% 2.5% 2012-13 14.3% 10.2% 12.4% 12.0% 12.4% 22.6% 12.3% 12.0% 2.6% 10.3% 5.4% Mathematics 2013-14 13.3% 14.3% 16.0% 22.2% 12.2% 36.6% 20.1% 21.6% 3.2% 14.5% 5.6% 2012-13 13.4% 14.0% 15.4% 22.4% 12.1% 35.2% 12.9% 21.0% 3.1% 13.9% 5.2% 171 $00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaandmog 91oz TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas. Academic Performance Report 2014-15 State Attendance and Postsecondary Readlness African American Paci?c or Special Ecen State American Hispanic White Indian Asian Islander More Races Ed Disad'l:r ELL Advanced CourselDual Enrollment Completlon [Grades 9-1 2) Science 201 3-14 5.6% 3.2% 4.1 6.9 4.5% 20.2% 2.451: 7.251: 0.4% 3.5% 0.7% 2012?1 3 5.2% 2.5% 3.7% 6.7% 4.1% 15.2% 5.2% 7.0% 0.3% 3.1% 0.5% Soclal Studles 2013-14 18.3% 12.5% 14.5% 22.8% 15.5% 45.8% 12.5% 22.3% 1.4% 12.4% 2.6% 2012-13 17.0% 11.2% 13.3% 21.4% 15.5% 42.5% 12.7% 21.4% 14% 11.4% 2.1% College-Ready Graduates Language Arts Class of 201 4 68% 56% 62% 77% 68% 82% 74% 76% 15% 58% 13% Class of 201 3 65% 53% 58% 75% 65% 80% 60% 74% 16% 55% 12% Mathematics Class of 201 4 67% 51% 62% 28% 68% 88% 65% 74% 18% 58% 33% Class of 201 3 74% 60% 65% 63% 28% 50% 20% 80% 22% 66% 40% Both Subjects Class Class College and Career Fteadg.l Graduates Class of 2014 78.4% 66.5% 76.0% 84.5% 26.4% 50.4% 72.1% 80.5% 50.2% 73.4% 48.6% CTE Coherent Sequence Graduates Class of 2014 46.4% 5.0% 23.4% 15.6% 0.2% 1.5% 0.0% 0.2% 3.5% 23.5% 1.0% 3 Results {Far?cipationp All Subjects 201 4 23. 5% 15. 2% 20.5% 26.3% 15.5% 55.5% 24.5% 22.5% nfa 17. 7% Na 2013 22.1% 13.7% 15.5% 24.5% 16.4% 53.6% 21.8% 26.6% nfa 16.7% ma English Language Arts 2014 15.0% 10.3% 12.5% 12.3% 12.4% 38.2% 12.6% 16.5% nfa 10.7% NH 201 3 14. 0% 5.4% 11.5% 16.4" . 10.3" I 36.0% 1 3.4% 16.2% nfa 5.9% Na athematice 201 4 6.5% 2.5% 4.4% 8.2% 5.0% 26.2% 2.4% 8.6% nfa 3.6% Na 2013 5.7% 2.6% 3.5% 7.2% 4.4% 23.4% 2.0% 8.1% nfa 3.2% Na Science 2014 6.5% 3.4% 5.1% 8.1% 4.5% 27.8% 8.6% 5.2% nfa 4.3% Na 201 3 6.2% 2.8% 4.5% 7.4% 4.2% 26.0% 2.1 8.5% nfa 3.8% Na Social Studies 2014 13.8% 8.5% 11.3% 15.7% 11.7% 40.1% 14.7% 17.2% nfa 5.7% Na 2013 12.7% 7.6% 10.4% 14.8% 5.1% 38.5% 13.0% 16.5% nfa 8.5% Na APH Results {Exa mlnees a: Crlterlon] All Subjects 201 4 51 .3511 27. 6% 33.3% 64.6% 52.6% 23.5% 42.6% 61 .6'511 nfa 35. ?l ?137.5% 64.3% 48.5% 72.5% 50.0% 60.3% nfa 34. 3% Na Language Arts 201 4 44.7% 25.1% 24.4% 62.4% 46.5% 65.5% 40.5% 55.8% nfa 21.2% ma 201 3 45. 2% 24.1% 24.7% 62.5% 40.6% 68.8% 46.5% 57.5% nfa 21.2% Ma s100qas 3?an sexal uo nodau [eguuagg aAgsuaandmog 91oz SI Texas Academic Performance Report TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY 2014-15 State Attendance and Postseccndary Readlness African American Paci?c or Special Econ State American Hispanic White Indian Asian Islander More Races Ed Disad'l:r ELL APII Results {Exa mlnees a: Crlterlon] Mathematics 2014 53.6% 34. 6% 33.3% 63.6% 53.3% 72.9% 49.391: 62.6% nfa 32.1% Ma 2013 52.3% 32.6% 33.0% 61.6% 42.9% 71.3% 47.5% 60.4% nfa 31.4% Ma Science 2014 45.7% 23.2% 24.5% 59.3% 36.3% 65.5% 36.8% 58.3% nfa 22.6% Na 2013 47.6% 25.6% 26.4% 60.1% 40.9% 67.7% 46.7% 56.4% nla 24.5% Ma Social Studies 201 4 41.6% 21 6% 22.2% 57.4% 40.1% 65.6% 35.0% 52.7% I173 19. 6% Na 2013 42.0% 23.9% 22.3% 57.2% 39.9% 63.9% 33.6% 52.7% nfa 19.6% Ma SA?ACTResults Tested Class of 2014 66.3% 69.7% 60.9% 69.1% 61.6% 91.7% 70.6% 71.0% nJ'a 59.1% Ma Class of 2013 63.6% 66.7% 57.2% 66.2% 56.9% 90.2% 61.7% 70.2% nla 55.6% Ma A?Aboue Criterlon Class of 2014 25.1% 6.4% 11.9% 41.9% 24.0% 54.1% 24.0% 35.6% nfa 9.6% Na Class of 2013 25.4% 6.2% 12.3% 41.5% 25.2% 53.6% 23.5% 36.3% nfa 9.9% Na Average SAT Score All Subjects Class of 2014 1417 1255 1306 1557 1417 1650 1404 1524 nfa 1273 Na Class of 2013 1422 1254 1317 1556 1425 1633 1376 1516 nfa 1261 Na English Language Arts and Writing Class of 2014 925 624 651 1020 929 1062 914 1000 nJ'a 629 Ma Class of 2013 927 621 655 1019 932 1047 691 992 nfa 631 na'a Mathematlcs Class of 2014 491 430 455 536 466 566 490 524 nfa 444 Ma Class of 2013 496 432 462 539 494 565 467 523 nfa 450 nfa Average ACT Score All Subjects Class of 2014 20.6 17.5 16.5 23.1 20.6 25.0 20.6 22.3 nla 16.0 Ma Class of 2013 20.6 17.5 16.5 23.0 20.7 25.0 20.9 22.3 nfa 16.0 Ma English Language Arts Class of 2014 20.0 16.6 17.6 22.9 20.4 24.3 20.1 22.0 nfa 17.2 Ma Class of 2013 20.0 16.7 17.6 22.7 20.0 24.2 20.0 21.9 nfa 17.1 na'a Mathematlcs Class of 2014 1.2 16.2 19.3 23.3 26.4 21.3 22.5 nfa 16.9 na'a Class of 2013 3 16.2 19.5 23.3 26.5 21 9 22.6 nfa 19.0 nfa Science Class of 2014 20.7 17.8 16.8 23.0 20.9 24.6 20.5 22.3 nfa 16.4 nfa Class of 2013 20.7 17.6 16.9 22.6 20.9 24.5 21.4 22.2 nJ'a 16.5 Ma Graduates Enrolled In TX of ngher Educa? on IIHE) 2012?1 3 56.9% nfa nla nfa ?1'3 nl'a nfa nfa nfa nfa m'a 2011-12 57.nla nfa nfa nn'a 91 Texas Academic Performance Report TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY 2014-15 State Attendance and Postsecondary Readlness Afric an American Paei? I: or Special Econ State American Hispanic White Indian Asian Islander More Races Ed Disarmur ELL Graduates In TX IHE Cempletlng One Year WIthout Remedlatlon 201 2-nfa nfa nia ninfa n13 nfa na'a $00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaqaxdmog 91oz s100qas 3?an sexal uo nodau [etuuatg aAtsuaandmog 91oz LI TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Academic Performance Report 2014-15 State Pro?le State Student Information Count Percent Total Students: 5.215.282 100.0% Students by Grade: Early Childhood Education 12.201 0.2% Pie-Kindergarten 219,225 4.2% Kindergarten 390.276 7.5% Grade 1 412.144 7.9% Grade 2 407.896 7.8% Grade 3 396,103 7.5% Grade 4 390,351 7.5% Grade 5 388.101 7.4% Grade 6 383.487 7.4% Grade 7' 382.838 7.3% Grade 5 393.190 7.4% Grade 9 419.715 8.0% Grade 10 372.900 7.2% Grade 11 341.724 6.6% Grade 12 310,033 5.9% Ethnic Distribution: African American 659.074 12.6% Hispanic 2.714.266 52.0% White 1 509,555 20.9% American Indian 21.411 0.4% Asian 201.733 3. 9% Paci?c Islander 7.085 0.1% Two or More Races 102.153 2.0% Economically Disadvantaged 3.068.820 58.8% Non?Edu cationally Disadvantaged 2.146.462 41.2% English Language Learners (ELL) 948.391 18.2% Students 1M Disciplinary Placements [2013-2014) 78,821 1.5% At-FtiSI-t 2.668.590 51.2% Gradu atestCIass of 2014); Total Graduates 303,109 100.0% By Ethnicity (incl. Special Ed]: African American 33.046 12.5% Hispanic 141.907 46.8% White 103.764 34.2% American Indian 1.278 0.4% Asian 12.420 4.1% Paci?c Islander 401 0.1% Two or More Races 5.293 1.7% Ely Graduation Type (incl. Special Ed}: Minimum H.S. Program 48.435 16.0% Recommended H5. PrograWDAF' 251,154 02.9% Foundation High Schooi Plan 3.520 1.2% Special Education Graduates 23.654 7.8% 81 $00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaqaxdmog 91oz TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas. Academic Performance Report 2014-15 State Pro?le Non-Special Special Education Education Student Information Rates Rates Retention Rates by rade: Kindergarten 2.0% 3.6% Grade 1 4.3% 3.1% Grade 2 2.9% 3.9% Grade 3 2.2% 16% Grade 4 1.2% 0.9% Grade 5 1.3% 0.9% Grade 0.2% 0.3% Grade 7 1.0% 1.1% Grade 1.0% 1.4% State Count Percent Data Quality: PID Errors (students) 4.688 01% Underreported Students 8.429 0.4% class Size Information State Class Size Averages by Grade and Subject (Derived from teacher responsibility records]: Elementary: Kindergarten 19.2 Grade 1 19.3 Grade 2 19.3 Grade 3 19.1 Grade 4 19.1 Grade 5 20.3 Grade 6 20.3 Secondary: EnglishrLanguage Arts 1?.2 Foreign Languages 18.9 Mathematics 13.1 Science 19.1 Social Studies 19.6 $00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [eruuarg aArsuaqaxdmog mm 61 TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Academic Performance Report 2014-15 State Pro?le State Staff lnformati on Count Percent Total Staff 623.1403 100.0% Professional Staff: 433.985.? 84.5% Teachers 342.1918 50.8% Professional Support 65.1190 0.2% Campus Administration [Sch ool Leadership) 19.8299 29% Central Administration 8 .9951 1.0% Educational Aides: 64.5408 9.5% Auxiliary Staff: 124.5138 25.9% Total Minority Staff: 311.8623 46.3% Teachers by Ethnicity and Sex: African American 33863.? 9.0% Hispanic 81214.8 25.8% White 210.0448 51.4% American Indian 1,244.6 0.4% Asian 4,890.6 1.4% Paci?c Islander 258.8 0.2% Two or More Races 3.8245 1.1% Males 29.9429 23.4% Females 262.2439 28.6% Teachers by High est Degree Held: No Degree 2.9802 0.9% Bachelors 252.1482 25.1% Masters 29997.8 23.4% Doctorate 2.007.? 0.5% Teachers by Years of Experience: Beginning Teachers 29.2564 8.5% 1-5 Years Experience 89.2411 28.1% 8-10 Years Experience 77.1682 22.6% 11-20 Years Experience 91.8590.)r 28.9% Over 20 Years Experience 54.5294 18.0% Number of Students per Teacher 15.2 nra OZ $00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAtsuaqaxdmog 910z TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Academic Performance Report 2014-15 State Pro?le Staff Information Average Years Experience of Teachers: Average Years Experience of Teachers with District: Average Teach er Salary by Years of Experience (regular duties only}: Beginning Teachers 1-5 Years Experience 5-10 Years Experience '1 1-20 Years Experience Over 20 Years Experience Average Actual Salaries {regular duties only}: Teachers Professional Support Campus Administration (School Leadership) Central Administration Instructional Staff Percent: Turnover Rate for Teachers: Staff Exclusions: Shared Services Arrangement Staff: Professional Staff Educational Aides Auxiliary Staff Contracted ction al Staff: stat; 11.0 7".5 $44,540 $45.95 $49.12? $52,540 $59.?e7 3:50.715 $59391 94.292 $95,907 64.6 15.6 1,143.2 223.9 508.3 2,090.1 s100qas 3?an sexal uo nodau [etuuatg aAtsuaqaxdmog 91oz IZ TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas. Academic Performance Report 2014-15 State Pro?le State Frouram Information Count Percent Student Enrollment by Program: BilingualtESL Education 93023? 17.8% Career 3. Technical Education 1.209384 23.2% Gilt ed 5: Talented Edu cation 397.159 7. 5% Special Education 442,4?6 3.5% Teach are by Program (population served): BilingualJESL Education 20.0815 5.9% Career Education 14.5162 4.3% Compensatory Education 10.485.6- 3.1% Billed as Talented Education 5473.6 1.9% Regular Education 243.541 .9 Special Education 30.6816 9.0% Other 1,303.5 3.3% Link to: PEIMS Financial Standard Reports! 2013-2014 Financial Actual Report In dicates that for 201 5 STAARgrade 3 through 8 mathematics. STAARA. and STAARAIternatez assessments were excludedfrom TAPR rate calculations. Indicates that ELL rates at met or exceeded standard and exceeded standard include current and monitored students. Indicates that the rates for Reading are based on the cumulativeresults from the first and second administrations of STAAR. In dicates that the data for this item were stalisticallyimprobable. or were reported outside a reason able range. Indicates results are masked due to small numbersto protect student confidentiality. Indicates zero observations reported for this group. we Indicates data reporting Is not applicablefor this group. ZZ $00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aArsuaqaxdmog 91oz TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 2015-18 State Performance Two or African American Pacific More Special Econ State American Hispanic White Indian Asian Islander Races Ed Disadv STAARPer-zent at Level II Satisfactory Standard or Above Grade 3 Reading 201 6 73% 61% 69% 84% 70% 91% 29% 81% 46% 65% 65% Mamematics 201 6 75% 61% 72% 85% 71% 93% 77% 81% 49% 68% 70% STAARPercent at Level II Satisfactory Standard orAbove Grade 4 Reading 201 78% 82% 42% 87% 62% Malhemalics 201 69% 60% 64% 79% 66% 89% 71% 26% 32% 61% 58% STAARPercent at Level II Satisfactory Standard drAbove Grade 5 Reading 201 6 81% 71% 77% 90% 81% 94% 82% 8.7% 46% 74% 66% Malhematics 201 6 88% 75% 84% 92% 86% 97% 88% 89% 56% 81% 80% Science 201 6 74% 58% 70% 85% 75% 92% 75% 80% 43% 68% 60% STAARF'ercent at Level II Satisfactory Standard or Above Grade 6 Reading 201 70% 79% 32% 59% 42% Mathematics 201 6 72% 59% 68% 83% 74% 94% 75% 79% 40% 84% 58% STAARF'ercent at Level II Satisfactory Standard or Above Grade 7 Reading 201 6 71% 60% 64% 82% 69% 92% 76% 79% 30% 61% 37% Mathematics 201 6 69% 55% 64% 81% 67% 93% 76% 27% 33% 60% 44% Wriljng 201 6 69% 59% 63% 81% 62% 92% 27% 28% 28% 59% 35% STAARPercent at Level II Satisfactory Standard or Above Grade Reading 201 6 87% 80% 84% 93% 86% 96% 86% 92% 45% 81% 61% s100qas 3?an sexal uo nodau [eruuarg aArsuaqaxdmog 91oz SZ TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 2015-16 State Performance 11m: or African American Pacific More Special Econ State American Hispanic White Indian Asian Islander Races Ed Disadv STAARPer-aent at Level II Satisfactory Standard or Above Grade 8 Malhematics 201 6 62% 72% 79% 66% 61 95% 87% 66% 42% 76% 67% Science 201 6 75% 63% 70% 65% 77% 94% 61% 62% 35% 66% 47% Social Studies 2016 63% 52% 56% 76% 66% 69% 69% 73% 29% 53% 31% STAARF'ercent at Level II Satisfactory Standard or Above End of Course English I 2016 65% 56% 60% 76% 64% 66% 75% 25% 57% 32% English II 2016 67% 57% 61% 61 66% 65% 67% 79% 26% 56% 26% Algebra I 2016 7667% 61% 65% 94% 66% 96% 67% 92% 52% 63% 66% US. Histtirj.r 2016 91% 66% 69% 95% 91% 96% 93% 94% 56% 67% 70% STAARF'ercent at Level II Satisfactory Standard or Above All Grades All Subjects 2016 75% 64% 70% 65% 74% 92% 76% 62% 39% 67% 57% Reading 201 6 73% 63% 66% 64% 72% 91% 75% 62% 35% 65% 52% Mathematics 201 6 76% 64% 73% 65% 75% 94% 79% 62% 43% 70% 65% Wriljng 201 6 69% 60% 64% 60% 67% 90% 74% 77% 32% 60% 50% Science 201 6 79% 66% 75% 66% 79% 94% 61% 65% 44% 72% 56% Social Studies. 2016 77% 70% 73% 66% 79% 92% 61% 64% 42% 69% 47% STAARF'ercent at Fostsecondary Readiness Standard All Grades TWO or More Subjects 2016 4532% 19% Reading 201 6 46% 32% 36% 60% 45% 76% 46% 56% 10% 34% 21% 17Z $00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaandmog 91oz TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 2015-16 State Performance TWO or African American Pacific More Special Econ State American Hispanic White Indian Asian Islander Races Ed Disadv STAARPercent at Postsecondary Readiness Standard All Grades Ma?tema?32% 26% Wn'ling 201 30% 24% Science 201 35% 16% Social Studies 201 6 47% 36% 40% 60% 51% 22% 53% 52% 12% 36% 13% STAARPercent at Advanced Standard All Grades All Subjects 201 Reading 201 Malhemab'12% 13% Wriling 201 Science 201 Social Studies 2016 22STAARPercent Met or Exceeded Progress All Grades All Subjects 2016 62% 56% 60% 64% 60% 76% 62% 64% 55% 59% 50% Reading 201 6 60% 58% 59% 63% 56% 21% 60% 63% 55% 56% 57% Mamemab'cs 201 6 63% 53% 61% 67% 62% 61% 64% 66% 54% 60% 61% STAARPercent Exceeded Progress A ll Grad es All Subjects 201 6 17% 14% 16% 12% 15% 29% 16% 18% 13% 15% 16% Reading 2016 16% 15% 16% 16% 14% 22% 15% 17% 14% 16% 17% Malitemalics 2016 17% 13% 16% 19% 16% 37% 12% 19% 12% 15% 18% s100qas 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaqaxdwog 91oz SZ TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 2915-15 State Performance 11w or African American Pacific More Special Econ State American Hispanic White Indian Asian Islander Races Ed Disadv Progress of Prior-Year Non-Pro?cient Students Sum 01' Grades 4-8 Reading 201 E5 35% 30% 34% 40% 34% 43% 37% 38% 17% 33% 31% 9Z $00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaqaxdmog 91oz TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 2015-16 State Performance T'wo or African American Pacific More Special Econ State American Hispanic Imil-lite Indian Asian Islander Races Ed Disadv ELL Student Success Initiative Grade 5 Read'ng Students Meet'rlg Level II Standard on First STAARAdministmtion 201 6 23% 62% 66% 65% 74% 90% 25% 61% 30% 64% 54% Students Requir'ng Accelerated Instruction 201 6 22% 36% 32% 15% 26% 10% 25% 19% 20% 36% 46% STAARQmuIative Met Stan dard 201 6 60% 70% 26% 90% 60% 93% 62% 62% 39% 23% 65% STAAR Non-Proficient Students Promoted by Grade Placement Committee 201 5 95% 95% 94% 94% 95% 93% 100% 94% 99% 94% 94% Standard [Non-Proficient In Previous Year) Promoted to Grade 6 2016 1110% 10% Retained 'n Grade 46% 32% 45% 43% Grade 5 Mathematics Students Meethg Level II Standard on First STAARAdmInIstratlon 201 36% 20% 62% Students Requir'ng Accelerated 201 19% 19% 02% 30% 33% STAARCtmulative Met Standard 201 6 65% 24% 64% 92% 65% 96% 66% 66% 51% 60% 29% s100qas 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaqaxdulog 91oz LZ TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 2015-13 State Performance T'wo or African American Pacific More Special Econ State American Hispanic White Indian Asian Islander Races Ed Disadv ELL Student Success Initiative Grade 3 Read'ng Students Meet'rlg Level II Standard on First STAARAdministmtion 201 30% 72% 25% 39% 79% 92% 80% 33% 29% 22% 44% Students Requir'ng Accelerated Instruction 201 20% 12% 21% 23% 56% STAARQmuIative Met Standard 201 36% 80% 83% 93% 35% 94% 86% 92% 39% 30% 58% STAAR Non-Proficient Students Promoted by Grade Placement Committee 201 5 97% 92% 92% 96% 93% 96% 100% 93% 99% 9.7% 92% Standard [Non-Proficient In Previous Year) Promoted to Grade 9 2016 12% 14% 11% 15% 11% 18% 20% 1.7% 3% 11% 2% Retained 'n Grade 25% 43% 38% Grade 3 Mathematics Students Meethg Level II Standard on First STAARAdmInIstratlon 201 23% 27% 25% 63% 49% Students Requir'ng Accelerated 201 29% 4-1 34% 19% 29% 9% 22% 23% 75% 32% 51% STAARCtmulative Met Standard 201 31% 72% 29% 39% 31% 94% 30% 30% 20% 64% 8Z $00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaandmog 91oz TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 2015-16 State Performance Bilingual EducationIEnglish as. a Second Language [Cunent Year ELL Students) Bilingual ESE-Trans BE-Trans BE-Dual ESL ESL LEP No LEP With Total State Education Early Exit Late Exit Tum-Way One-Way ESL Content Full-Out Services Services ELL STAARPercent at Level II Satisfactory standard or Above All Grades All Subjects 2016 75% 66% 65% 65% 66% 66% 51% 53% 46% 54% 57% 57% Reading 2016 73% 64% 63% 63% 67% 65% 44% 46% 42% 50% 52% 52% Mamemaljcs 2016 76% 72% 72% 72% 72% 73% 60% 63% 57% 61% 65% 65% 1t"'uln'tin 2016 69% 60% 57% 59% 61% 64% 41% 46% 36% 47% 50% 50% Science 2016 79% 62% 63% 57% 63% 62% 57% 59% 54% 56% 56% 56% Social Studies 2016 77% 36% 64% 55% 35% 45% 47% 51% 43% 51% 46% 47% STAARPercent at Poetsecondary Read'ness Standard All Grades Two or More Subjects 2016 45% 26% 25% 25% 26% 30% 14% 17% 11% 17% 19% 19% Reading 2016 4621% Malhemaljcs 2016 43% 34% 32% 32% 35% 36% 22% 25% 16% 23% 27% 26% 1t"'uln'tin 2016 41% 37% 30% 36% 37% 42% 14% 16% 10% 17% 24% 24% Science 2016 47% 21% 20% 19% 23% 22% 16% 19% 14% 16% 16% 16% Social Studies 2016 47Advanced Standard All Grades All Subjects 2016 16Reading 2016 17Malhemaljcs 2016 1913% 13% Writin 2016 15Science 2016 16s100qas 3?an sexal uo nodau [eguuagg aAgsuaqaxdmog 91oz 6Z TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 2015-16 State Performance Bilingual EducationIEnglish as a Second Language [Cunent Year ELL Students] Bilingual ESE-Trans BE-Trans BE-Dual ESL ESL LEP No LEP With Total State Education Early Exit Late Exit Tum-Way One-Way ESL Content Pull-Out Services Services ELL STAARPercent at Advanced standard All Grades Social Studies 2016 22STAARPercent Met or Exceeded Progress All Grades All Subjects 2016 62% 64% 64% 64% 64% 65% 54% 55% 54% 59% 56% 56% Reading 2016 60% 61% 61% 66% 62% 63% 53% 53% 52% 60% 56% 56% Mahema?cs 2016 63% 6.7% 62% 62% 65% 67% 56% 52% 5.5% 56% 60% 60% STAARPercent Exceeded Progress All Grades All Subjects 2016 17% 25% 25% 24% 23% 25% 15% 16% 13% 16% 19% 19% Reading 2016 16% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 15% 15% 15% 16% 16% 16% Mathematics 2016 1716% 12% 15% 19% 10% Progress of Prior-Year Non-Pro?cient Students Sun of Grades 4-8 Re ad in 2016 35% 33% 35% 31% 33% 32% 30% 30% 20% 29% 31% 31% 09 s100qas 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaqaxdmog 91oz TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 201 5-16 State Participation Tim: or African American Pacific Mere Special Eccn State American HisEanic White Indian Asian Islander Races Ed Disadv ELL 201 5 STAARParticiaatidn (All Grades} All Tests Test Parlj cipant 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 193% 99% rt! 99% 99% 99% Included in Accou ntanility 94% 92% 94% 95% 91 93% 91% 94% 93% 93% 39% Not Included in ll?iccuuntalzlilitjlI Mobile Other Exclusions Not Tested Absent Olher s100qas 3?an sexal uo nodau [etuuatg aAtsuaandmog 91oz IE TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 2015-16 State Attendance and P01915913)ndarjpr Readiness African American Pacific Tm or Special Econ State American White Ind ian Asian Islander More Races Ed Disadv ELL Attendance Rate 201415 95.2% 95.5% 95.6% 95.8% 95.3% 92.2% 95.6% 95.8% 94.4% 95.4% 96. 4% 2013-14 95.9% 95.6% 95.2% 96.0% 95.4% 92.8% 95.2% 96.0% 94.6% 95.5% 96.6% Annual Dropout Rate (Gr 245) 2014-15 0.3% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0. 4% 0.2% 0.5% 0.4% 0. 6% 2013?14 0.5% 0.4% 0.8% 0.2% 0.5% 0.1% 1.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 2.2% Annual Dropout Rate (Gr 9?12) 2014?15 2.1% 3.0% 2.5% 2.8% 0.8% 2.1% 1.5% 2.9% 2.5% 4.5% 201314 2.2% 3.1% 2.2% 2.3% 0.2% 3.0% 1.5% 3.0% 2.6% 4.8% 4?Year Longitudinal Rate (Gr 9?12] Class of 2015 Gradu ated 89.0% 85.2% 86.5% 93.4% 86.3% 95.4% 88.2% 92.1% 28.2% 85.6% 21.5% Received GED 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 0.9% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% Continued HS 4.1% 4.8% 5.3% 2.4% 4.2% 2.2% 39% 3.0% 11.1% 5.0% 10.2% mpped Out 6.3% 9.5% 2.2% 3.4% 8.2% 2.2% 6.5% 4.3% 10.4% 8.2% 18.0% Graduates and GED 89.6% 85.2% 82.0% 94.2% 82.1% 95.6% 89.6% 92.2% 28.5% 86.3% 21.80? Grads, GED, 8: Cont 93.2% 90.5% 92.3% 916.6% 91.3% 92.8% 93.5% 95.2% 89.6% 91.3% 82.0% Class of 2014 Graduated 88.3% 84.2% 85.5% 93.0% 82.1% 94.8% 88.9% 91 22.5% 85.2% 60.3% Received GED 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.1% 0.1% 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 0.9% 0.4% Continued HS 4.3% 5.3% 5.6% 2.5% 4.0% 2.2% 3.2% 3.2% 10.8% 5.0% 13.6% Dropped Out 6.6% 9.8% 8.2% 3.6% 2.9% 2.4% 2.0% 4.8% 11.2% 9.0% 25.2% Graduates and GED 89.1% 84.9% 86.3% 94.0% 88.1% 94.9% 89.3% 92.0% 28.0% 86.0% 60.8% Grads. GED. 8 Cont 93.4% 90.2% 91 96.4% 92.1% 92.6% 93.0% 95.2% 88.8% 91 24.30? 5-Year Extended Longitudinal Rate {Gr 9?12} Class of 2014 Graduated 90.4% 86.8% 88.3% 94.3% 89.3% 95.9% 896% 92.9% 81 6% 82.8% 65.9% Received GED 1.0% 0.9% 1.0% 1.3% 1.1% 0.2% 1.2% 1.0% 0.6% 1 0.2% Continued HS 13% 14% 1.2% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.2% 1.1% 9.1% 1.4% 3.9% Dropped Out 2.2% 10.9% 9.1% 3.9% 9.9% 3.0% 9.1% 5.1% 11.2% 9.9% 29.9% Graduates and GED 91.5% 92.2% 99.3% 95.9% 90.4% 99.1% 90.9% 93.9% 92.2% 99.9% 99.9% Grads, GED, 8: Cont 92.8% 89.1% 911.9% 95.4% 91.1% 92.0% 919% 94.9% 88.3% 90.4% 20.4% Class of 2013 Graduated 90.4% 86.2% 88.2% 94.4% 82.6% 95.3% 91 4% 93.4% 82.1 88.2% 62.9% Received GED 1.1% 1.0% 1.2% 1.2% 2.1% 0.3% 0.5% 1.1% 0.8% 1.3% 0.8% Continued HS 1.3% 1.3% 1.6% 0.8% 1.3% 1.0% 1.2% 0.8% 56% 1.4% 3.8% Dropped Out 2.2% 10.9% 9.0% 3.6% 9.0% 3.5% 2.0% 4.2% 11 6% 9.1% 22.6% Graduates and GED 91.5% 92.2% 99.3% 95.9% 99.2% 95.5% 91.9% 94.9% 92.9% 99.5% 99.9% Grads, GED, 9 Cont 92.9% 99.1% 91.0% 99.4% 91.0% 99.5% 93.0% 95.3% 99.5% 90.9% 22.4% ZS $00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaandmog 91oz TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 2015-18 State Attendance and Perstsecuzrndanir Readiness African American Pacific Tim or Special Econ State American Hispanic White ian Asian Island er More Races Ed Disadv ELL ?-Year Extended Longitudinal Rate {Gr 9?1 2} Class of 2013 Graduated 90.9% 82.2% 88.8% 94.2% 82.8% 95.8% 91 8% 93.2% 84.0% 88.8% 89.1 Received GED 1.4% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5% 2.4% 0.3% 0.5% 1.3% 0.9% 1.5% 1.0% Continued HS 0.8% 0.8% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3% 3.5% 0.8% 1.4% Dropped Out 2.2% 10.9% 9.1% 3.5% 9.1% 3.5% 2.2% 4.8% 11 8% 9.0% 28.8% Graduates and GED 92.3% 88.5% 90.2% 98.1% 90.2% 98.0% 92.1% 95.1% 85.0% 90.3% 20.1% Grads. GE D. 8: Cont 92.8% 89.1% 90.9% 98.5% 90.9% 98.5% 92.3% 95.4% 88.4% 91 21.4% Class of 2012 Graduated 90.9% 88.9% 88.8% 94.8% 89.2% 98.8% 93.2% 94.2% 83.8% 89.4% 88.8% Received GED 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.8% 2.8% 0.3% 0.5% 1.2% 1.0% 1.8% 0.9% Continued HS 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3% 3.8% 0.8% 1.3% Dropped Out 2.0% 11.0% 9.0% 3.2% 2.2% 2.5% 8.1% 3.9% 11.2% 8.4% 29.3% Graduates and GED 92.4% 88.4% 90.2% 98.4% 91 8% 92.0% 93.2% 95.9% 84.8% 90.9% 89.4% Grads. GE D. 8: Cont 93.0% 89.0% 91.0% 98.8% 92.3% 92.5% 93.9% 98.1% 88.3% 91 20.2% Graduates {Longitudinal Rate) Class 012015 88.1% 80.4% 88.5% 88.8% 81.8% 95.2% 84.4% 88.5% 25.0% 82.8% 28.8% Class 012014 85.5% 29.3% 85.2% 88.1% 81.5% 95.4% 88.2% 85.9% 22.4% 82.0% 23.3% FHSP-E Graduates (Longiiud 'nal Rate] Class of 201 5 3.5% 8.8% 3.1% 2.2% 0.0% 13.4% 0.0% 2.5% 3.3% 3.8% 8.4% FHSP-DLA Graduates (Longitudinal Rate) Class 01201 5 38.2% 18.4% 34.0% 52.8% 48.9% 35.5% 41.2% 38.0% 18.9% 32.5% 1 8.2% Graduates {Longitudinal Rate] Class 01201 5 84.1% 28.1% 84.0% 85.1% 80.5% 94.2% 83.3% 84.8% 24.8% 80.5% 25.4% Graduates (Annual Rate) 2014-15 84.3% 28.2% 84.5% 85.2% 80.0% 94.2% 84.2% 85.2% 22.9% 81.1% 28.9% 2013-14 83.8% 22.4% 83.9% 84.8% 29.8% 94.8% 83.8% 84.8% 25.1% 80.8% 22.3% FHSP-E Graduates (Anrual Rate) 201415 3.5% 8.5% 3.0% 2.2% 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 2.3% 3.5% 3.2% 8.4% FHSP-DLA Graduates {Annual Rate} 2014-15 32.3% 12.5% 32.8% 51.0% 45.1% 34.2% 41.2% 34.2% 18.4% 31.3% 1 2.5% Graduates nnual Rate) 2014-15 82.2% 25.8% 81 9% 83.2% 28.2% 93.2% 83.1% 83.3% 22.8% 28.2% 23.2% Advanced CourseiDual Cred it Course Completion (Grades 1 1-12} Anyr Subject 2014-15 54.5% 45.2% 50.4% 80.5% 49.2% 81.5% 51.9% 59.1% 14.4% 48.9% 31 2013-14 53.2% 42.2% 49.0% 59.5% 48.3% 80.5% 52.2% 58.3% 13.3% 45.5% 28.8% s100qas 3?an sexal uo nodau [eguuagg 91oz SS TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 2015-16 State Attendance and Postsecondary Readiness African American Pacific Tim or Special Econ State American HisEanic White Indian Asian Islander More Races Ed Disadv ELL Advanced CourseIDual Cred It Course Comp Ietlon (Grades 11-1 2} English Language Arts 2014-15 29.0% 21.6% 24.2% 34.4% 24.9% 56.5% 26.6% 33.5% 4.5% 21 9.3% 201314 26.9% 20.6% 24.9% 34.1% 24.6% 54.2% 22.5% 33.3% 4.6% 22.0% 6.9% Mathematics 2014-15 43.6% 36.0% 36.3% 50.6% 40.6% 22.9% 43. 2% 46.6% 9.2% 35.9% 21.3% 201314 42.4% 33.1% 36.9% 49.5% 39.4% 21 43.6% 46.4% 6.3% 34.4% 15.5% Science 2014-15 12.2% 6.2% 9.3% 15.1% 10.4% 40.7% 14.2% 15.5% 1.1% 6.4% 2.6% 201314 13.4% 2.6% 10.0% 16.4% 10.6% 42.6% 12.3% 12.1% 1.2% 6.2% 2.1% Social Studies 201415 26.4% 19.9% 23.6% 34.4% 23.9% 60.6% 22.2% 33.2% 2.3% 20.6% 5.4% 201314 22.6% 19.1% 23.0% 33.6% 24.4% 59.2% 26.5% 32.4% 2.3% 20.2% 5.0% Advanced CourseIDual Cred it Course Completion (Grades 9?12) .AnyI Subject 201 4-1 5 34.6% 22.4% 31.9% 36.3% 30.5% 61.6% 32.4% 32.2% 9.3% 26.6% 1 9.0% 201314 33.1% 25.4% 30.4% 32.1% 29.6% 59.6% 31 36.4% 6.2% 22.5% 16.6% English Language Arts 2014-15 15.2% 12.1% 13.9% 12.9% 13.6% 30.2% 14.2% 12.1% 4.0% 12.4% 6.1% 201314 15.4% 11.5% 13.6% 12.2% 13.5% 29.4% 14.3% 12.0% 3.5% 12.2% 2.5% Mathematics 201415 19.4% 15.6% 16.6% 23.9% 16.2% 32.1% 19.9% 21.6% 3.5% 15.9% 2.4% 201314 16.6% 14.3% 16.0% 22.2% 12.2% 36.6% 20.1% 21.6% 3.2% 14.5% 5.6% Science 2014-15 5.2% 3.3% 3.6% 6.3% 4.4% 19.2% 5.6% 6.4% 0.4% 3.3% 0.6% 201314 5.6% 3.2% 4.1% 6.9% 4.5% 20.2% 2.4% 2.2% 0.4% 3.5% 0.2% Social Studies 2014-15 19.5% 13.6% 15.2% 24.1% 16.4% 42.9% 19.6% 23.6% 1.5% 13.5% 3.0% 201314 16.3% 12.5% 14.5% 22.6% 15.9% 45.6% 12.5% 22.3% 1.4% 12.4% 2.6% College-Ready Graduates English Language Arts. 201415 42.0% 23.0% 30.0% 61.0% 46.0% 66.0% 43.0% 54.0% 13.0% 26.0% 6.0% h?ta?'lematics 2014-15 36.0% 16.0% 25.0% 56.0% 41.0% 20.0% 40.0% 46.0% 6.0% 22.0% 12.0% Both Subject 2014-15 35.0% 16.0% 22.0% 53.0% 36.0% 65.0% 36.0% 46.0% 2.0% 19.0% 6.0% Either Subject 2014-15 45.0% 25.0% 34.0% 63.0% 49.0% 23.0% 45.0% 56.0% 15.0% 29.0% 1 4.0% College and Career Ready Graduates 201415 24.5% 62.9% 21 6% 60.2% 23.3% 69.5% 20.4% 26.4% 50.2% 69.4% 55.2% Texas Success Initiative Assessment English Language Arts 2014-15 10.6% 6.6% 10.6% 11.2% 10.6% 10.1% 6.0% 10.6% 2.2% 9.3% 3.4% 175 $00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaandmog 91oz TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 2015-16 State Attendance and Postsecondary Readiness African American Pacific T'm or Special Econ State American White ian Asian Island er More Races Ed Disadv ELL Texas Success Inltlatiue Assessment (1614) Mathematics 2014-15 2.1% 5.3% 2.0% 2.5% 2.1% 9.9% 6.4% 2.0% 1 6.3% 4.9% Completion of TM or More Advanceerual Credit Courses "n Current andlor Prior Year [Annual Graduates] 2014-15 43.1% 36.6% 43.5% 54.3% 42.5% 30.1% 43.3% 52.9% 3.1% 39.2% 22.2% Completion of TWehe or More Hours of Credit (Anr'ual Graduates) Any Subject 201415 10.6% 4.6% 9.3% 14.2% 10.6% 11.3% 6.6% 10.5% 0.9% 2.5% 1.6% APIIB Course Completion (Anmal Graduates] 201415 43.4% 34.2% 40.6% 46.4% 33.2% 23.1% 45.5% 43.0% 5.4% 36.2% 23.0% CTE Coherent Sequence (Annual Graduates) 2014?15 46.6% 40.1% 49.2% 46.2% 45.2% 36.9% 33.9% 41 .1 45.9% 49.3% 42.1% 2013-14 46.4% 5.0% 23.4% 15.6% 0.2% 1 5% 0.0% 0.2% 3.5% 23.5% 1 AFIIB Results [Partic'pationl All Subjects 2015 24.9% 16.6% 22.5% 22.4% 19.6% 53.3% 25.3% 23.4% We 19.3% NS 2014 23.5% 15.2% 20.9% 26.3% 19.5% 55.9% 24.5% 22.5% We 12.2% NS English Language Arts 2015 15.1% 10.6% 12.6% 12.1% 11.2% 39.0% 16.0% 13.6% NS 11.0% Ma 2014 15.0% 10.3% 12.5% 12.3% 12.4% 33.2% 12.6% 13.5% nfa 10.2% Ma Mathematics 2015 6.6% 3.0% 4.2% 6.6% 5.3% 22.1% 6.3% 9.1% Me 4.0% Na 2014 6.5% 2.9% 4.4% 6.2% 5.0% 26.2% 2.4% 3.6% nfa 3.6% Na Science 2015 10.2% 5.6% 6.1% 11.9% 2.6% 35.0% 11.6% 12.9% Me 2.0% Na 2014 6.9% 3.4% 5.1% 6.1% 4.9% 22.3% 3.6% 9.2% nfa 4.3% Na Social Studies 2015 14.4% 9.4% 12.2% 16.1% 11.3% 41.2% 15.3% 12.5% ma 10.5% Ma 2014 13.6% 3.0% 11.3% 15.2% 11.2% 40.1% 14.2% 12.2% nra 9.2% Na AFIIB Results (Examinees Criterion) All Subjects 2015 49.1% 22.2% 36.5% 62.9% 43.9% 22.0% 51 2% 61 nfa 33.4% Ma 2014 51.3% 22.6% 36.3% 64.6% 52.6% 23.9% 42.6% 61 nfa 35.1% ma English Language Arts 2015 43.2% 24.5% 23.6% 62.1% 41 3% 69.9% 41 9% 60.2% Ma 20.2% nfa 2014 44.2% 25.1% 24.4% 62.4% 46.5% 69.5% 40.9% 59.3% nra 21 2% Na mathematics 2015 51.2% 31.9% 31 2% 62.6% 55.0% 21 2% 43.1% 63.2% 1119 29.3% Ma 2014 53.6% 34.6% 33.3% 63.6% 53.3% 22.9% 49.3% 62.6% nfa 32.1% Ma Science 2015 35.4% 12.0% 12.2% 46.1% 35.2% 56.6% 33.6% 46.4% Ma 16.0% Ma 2014 45.2% 23.2% 24.5% 59.3% 36.3% 65.5% 33.3% 53.3% nfa 22.6% ma s100qas 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaqaxdmog 91oz SS TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 2015-16 State Attendance and Postsecondary Readiness African American Pacific Two or Special Econ State American H??nic White [nd ian Asian Island er More Races Ed Disadv ELL AFIIB Results [Examlnees Crlterion} Social Studies 2015 40.1% 23.5% 21 2% 56.2% 37.5% 65.2% 39.9% 55.6% nfa 1 9.0% nfa 2014 41.6% 21.3% 22.2% 57.4% 40.1% 65.8% 35.0% 52.7% nfa 19.6% nfa Results Tested Class of 201 5 63.3% 71.9% 63.7% 70.1% 64.3% 92.7% 70.6% 71.0% nia 62.6% Ma Class M2014 66.3% 69.7% 60.9% 69.1% 61.6% 91.7% 70.6% 71.0% nfa 59.1% nfa A?Above Criterion Class Uf2015 24.3% 3.2% 11.7% 41.3% 26.4% 54.7% 26.3% 35.0% ma 9.5% Na Class of 201 4 25.1% 3.4% 11.9% 41.9% 24.0% 54.1% 24.0% 35.3% nfa 9.3% nfa Average EATS-core All Subjects Class of 201 5 1394 1234 1236 1543 1413 1641 1406 1509 nia 1252 Na Class 01'2014 1417 1255 1306 1557 1417 1650 1404 1524 nia 1273 Na English Language Arts and Writing Class Uf2015 912 813 839 1017 926 1059 920 993 ma 316 ma Class of 201 4 925 324 351 1020 929 1 (162 914 103?.) ma 329 nfa Mamematics Class 01201 Class of 201 4 491 430 455 536 433 53-3 490 524 444 Ma Average ACT Score All Subjects Class Uf2015 20.6 17.4 13.4 23.1 21.0 25.1 21.0 22.3 ma 17.9 ma Class of2014 20.6 17.5 13.5 23.1 20.3 25.0 20.6 22.3 ma 13.0 nfa English Language Arts Class Uf2015 20.1 16.8 17.6 22.9 20.6 24.5 20.5 22.1 ma 17.1 ma Class of2014 20.0 16.3 17.6 22.9 20.4 24.3 20.1 22.0 ma 17.2 nfa Mathematics Class 20.9 17.3 19.0 23.0 21.0 26.2 21.4 22.4 ma 13.5 Ma Class 0f2014 21.2 13.2 19.3 23.3 21.2 26.4 21.3 22.5 Ma 13.9 Ma Science Class 012015 20.7 17.3 13.9 23.0 21.3 24.3 21.1 22.3 13.4 Ma Class 012014 20.7 17.3 13.3 23.0 20.9 24.6 20.5 22.3 13.4 Ma Graduates Errolled in TX Institution of Higher Education (IHE) 2013-14 57.2012-13 56.9% Ma nfa nia nr'a nra nia nfa nfa nfa nfa Graduates in TX IHE Completing One Year Without Remediation 2013-14 70.5% nia na2012-13 70.99 $00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aArsuaqaxdmog 91oz TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 2015-18 State Pro?le State Student Information Count ercent Total Sludents: 5.284.252 100.0% Students by Grade: Eany Childndod Educaiicln 13.009 0.2% Pre?Kindergarten 220.390 4.2% Kindergarten 378.505 7.1% Grade 1 409.787 7.8% Grade 2 411.080 7.8% Grade 3 409.157 7.7% Grade 4 398.895 7.5% Grade 5 393.941 7.5% Grade 8 390.379 7.4% Grade 7 389.411 7.4% Grade 8 388.455 7.3% Grade 9 428.470 8.1% Grade 10 388.290 7.3% Grade 11 351.888 8.7% Grade 12 320.815 8.1% Ethnic: Distribution: African American 888.933 12.8% Hispanic 2.780.302 52.2% White 507,225 28.5% American Indian 20.855 0.4% Asian 212.973 4.0% Paci?c Islander 7.392 0.1% Two car More Races 108.572 2.1% Economically Disadvantaged 3,118,758 59.0% Non-Educa?onally Disadvantaged 2.185.494 41.0% English Language Learners (E 979.888 18.5% Students Disciplinary Placements {2014-2015) 78.811 1.4% At?Risk 2,645,402 50.1% Graduates {Class of 2015): Total Graduates 313.397 100.0% Ely Ethnicity (incl. Special Ed): African American 39.892 12.7% Hispanic 140.988 47.5% White 104. 377 33. 3% American Indian 1.335 0.4% Asian 13.090 4.2% Paci?c Islander 488 0.2% We or More Races 5.451 1.7% s100qas 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaqaxdmog 91oz LE TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 2015-1 6 State Pro?le state Count Percent By Gradualion Type (incl. Special Ed): Minimum HS. Program 46.?23 14.9% Recommended H13. ProgramlDAP 251.524 30.3% Foundation High School Plan (No Endorsement} 8.982 2.9% Foundation High School Plan (Endorsement) 523 Foundation High School Plan (DLA) 5.645 1.8% Special Education Graduates 23.541 15% 89 $00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaqaxdmog 91oz TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 2015-16 State Pro?le Non-Special Spec Education Education Student Information Rates Rates Retenijon Rates by Grade: Kindergarten 1.9% 6.2% Grade 1 4.1% 14% Grade 2 2.7% 3.4% Grade 3 2.0% 1.0% Grade 4 1.0% 0.0% Grade 5 0.9% 1.0% Grade 6 0.0% 0.0% Grade 7 0.0% 0.9% Grade 0.8% 1.3% State Count Percent Data lQuality: PID Errors {students} 1? . . Unden?eported Students 7.834 0.3% Class Size Information State Class Size Averages by Grade and Subject {Derived from teacher responsibility records); Elementary: Kindergarten 10.9 Grade 1 19.1 Grade 2 19.1 Grade 3 19.1 Grade 4 19.0 Grade 5 20.8 Grade E: 20.4 Secondary: Englishianguagemts 17.1 Foreign Languages 19.1 Mathematics 13.1 Science 19.1 Social Studies 19.5 $00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaqaxdmog 91oz 69 Texas Aademic Performance Report TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY 2015-1 5 State Pro?le State Staff Information Count Percerrt Total Staff 658.1422 100.0% Professional Staff: 442 .5380 Teachers 342.2221 50.5% Profession al Support 02.2552 9.8% Campus Adminish?ation {School Leadership) 201205 2.9% Central Administraijon 2.3402 1.1% Educational Aides: 65.8032 9.5% Auxiliary Staft 129.8009 20.1% Total Minority Stall: 331.5993 48.2% Teachers by Elhniclt}:l and Sex: African American 34.9498 10.1% Hispanic 90.2149 25.0% White 211.1904 00.8% American Indian 1.2429 0.4% Asian 5.1343 1.5% Paci?c Islander 819.3 0.2% Two or More Races 3.2206 1.1% Males 81.2568 23.5% Females 265.5153 25.5% Teachers by Highest Degree Held; No Degree 3.5240 1.0% Bachelors 259.5592 24.2% Masters 82.0295 23.0% Docbarate 2,155.9 0.5% Teachers by Years of Experience: Beginning Teachers 22.9954 8.1% 1-5 Years Expert en ce 94.2859 22.3% 5-10 Years Experience 25.2551 21.2% 11-20 Years Experience 94,549.? 22.3% Over 20 Year?s Experience 54.5550 15.2% Number of Students per Teacher 15.2 nla 017 $00an 3?an sexal uo nodau [2111119151 aAgsuaandmog 91oz TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 2015-15 State Pro?le Staff Information State Average Years Experience of Teachers: 10.9 Average Years Experience of Teachers with District: 7.3 Average Teacher Salary 55: Years of Experience {regular duties only}: Beginning Teachers $45.50? 1?5 Years Experience $41995 5-10 Years Experience $50,459 11?20 Years Experience $53394 Over 20 Years Experience $59513 Average Actual Salaries (regular duties only}; Teachers $51 .591 Professional Su pport $51 .145 Campus Administration (School Leadership) $75,554 Cenlral Administraljon $99,111 Instructional Percent: 54.5 Turnover Rate for Teachers; 15.5 Staff Exclusions: Shared Services Arran gement Staff: Professional Staff 1,115.5 Educaijonal Aides 230.5 Auxiliaryr Staff 493.5 Contracted Instrucljonal Staff: 1,914.4 s100qas 3?an sexal uo nodau [eruuarg aArsuaqaxdulog 91oz U7 TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Texas Aademic Performance Report 2015-16 State Pro?le State Program Information Count Percent Student Enrollment by Program: BilinguaIlESL Educa?on 966.569 16.3% Career 8: Technical Education 1.264.?46 24.3% lSitted 6: Talented Educaljon 404.540 7.2% Special Education 453.955 6.6% Teachers by Program {populaljon served}: BilingualrESL Educalion 206500 5.9% Careers: Technical Education 15.3112 4.4% Compensatory Educalion 10.0664 2.9% lGilted 6 Talented Educaljon 6,656.1 1.9% Regular Educa?on 252.1004 72.6% Special Education 30.5610 6.6% l:ZJIher 11.9210 3.4% Link to: PEIMS Financial Standard Reports! 20144015 Financial Actual Report Indicates that ELL rates atmet or exceeded standard and exceeded standard include current and monitored students. Indicates results are masked due to small numbers to protect student con?denljality. Indicates zero obsenraljons reported for this group. 'nr?a' Indicates data reporting is not applicable for this group. Indicates that rates for Reading and Malhemaljcs are based on the cumulativeresulls from the ?rst and second administrabons of STAAR. Indicates that Ihe data for this item were statisljcally improbable, or were reported outside a reasonable range. Indicates that Error rate informaljon cannot be reported in 2015-16 due to the transiljon from PEIMS Edit+ to TSDS. 42 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 2. Student Performance T his chapter provides an overview of student performance on statewide assessments, including the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), STAAR Spanish, STAAR L, STAAR A, STAAR Alternate 2, and the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS). STAAR is an assessment designed to measure the extent to which students have learned and are able to apply the knowledge and skills outlined in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), the statemandated curriculum. One important function of STAAR is to gauge how well schools and teachers are preparing students academically. The test is specifically designed to measure individual student progress in relation to content that is directly tied to the TEKS. Every STAAR question is directly aligned to the TEKS currently in effect for the grade and subject area or the course being assessed. Students are tested in mathematics and reading in Grades 3-8, writing in Grades 4 and 7, science in Grades 5 and 8, and social studies in Grade 8 (Table 2.1). State law also requires students to pass five STAAR end-of-course (EOC) assessments— Algebra I, English I, English II, biology, and U.S. history—to be eligible to receive a diploma from a Texas public school. STAAR Spanish assessments are offered in Grades 3-5, including: mathematics and reading in Grades 3-5, writing in Grade 4, and science in Grade 5. STAAR Spanish assessments are designed to measure the academic skills of students who receive their academic instruction primarily in Spanish. STAAR and STAAR Spanish assess the same TEKS content standards and have the same test blueprint. STAAR L is a linguistically accommodated version of the general STAAR mathematics, science, and social studies assessments. STAAR L is not offered for reading or writing assessments. For English language learners (ELLs) who meet eligibility requirements, STAAR L is administered online and provides a substantial degree of embedded linguistic accommodation. STAAR A, an accommodated version of STAAR, is offered as an online assessment in the same grades Table 2.1. State Assessments and Subjects, 2016 Subject Area Reading Writing Mathematics Science Social Studies Grade K-1 2-12 a 3 STAAR STAAR Spa STAAR A STAAR Alt 2b STAAR STAAR Sp STAAR L STAAR A STAAR Alt 2 State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Grade 4 5 6 7 8 STAAR STAAR STAAR STAAR STAAR STAAR Sp STAAR Sp STAAR A STAAR A STAAR A STAAR A STAAR A STAAR Alt 2 STAAR Alt 2 STAAR Alt 2 STAAR Alt 2 STAAR Alt 2 STAAR STAAR STAAR Sp STAAR A STAAR A STAAR Alt 2 STAAR Alt 2 STAAR STAAR STAAR STAAR STAAR STAAR Sp STAAR Sp STAAR L STAAR L STAAR L STAAR L STAAR L STAAR A STAAR A STAAR A STAAR A STAAR A STAAR Alt 2 STAAR Alt 2 STAAR Alt 2 STAAR Alt 2 STAAR Alt 2 STAAR STAAR STAAR Sp STAAR L STAAR L STAAR A STAAR A STAAR Alt 2 STAAR Alt 2 STAAR STAAR L STAAR A STAAR Alt 2 End-of-Course English I STAAR STAAR A STAAR Alt 2 English II STAAR STAAR A STAAR Alt 2 Algebra I STAAR STAAR L STAAR A STAAR Alt 2 Biology STAAR STAAR L STAAR A STAAR Alt 2 U.S. History STAAR STAAR L STAAR A STAAR Alt 2 Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) Holistically rated listening, reading, speaking, and writing assessments. Reading test and holistically rated listening, speaking, and writing assessments. STAAR Spanish. bSTAAR Alternate 2. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 43 and subjects as STAAR. The passing standards for STAAR A are the same as those for STAAR. STAAR A provides embedded supports designed to help students with disabilities access the content being assessed. These embedded supports include visual aids, graphic organizers, clarifications of construct-irrelevant terms, and text-to-speech functionality. STAAR Alternate 2 is an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards and is designed for students receiving special education services who have the most significant cognitive disabilities and who also meet the specific participation requirements for the assessment. STAAR Alternate 2 is designed to meet state and federal requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and is offered in the same grades and subjects, and for the same courses, assessed by STAAR. As required under ESEA, Title III, Part A, TELPAS measures the annual progress students identified as ELLs in Grades K-12 make in learning English in four language domains: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The TELPAS assessments are performancebased and holistically rated, with the exception of the reading assessments for Grades 2-12, which are multiple-choice tests. For each language domain, TELPAS measures four levels, or stages, of increasing English language proficiency: beginning, intermediate, advanced, and advanced high. TELPAS measures learning in alignment with the English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS), which are part of the TEKS. The ELPS outline the instruction that ELLs must receive to support their ability to develop academic English language proficiency and acquire challenging academic knowledge and skills. The ELPS are composed of second language acquisition knowledge and skills that ELLs are expected to learn, as well as proficiency-level descriptors characterizing the four English language proficiency levels reported in Texas. STAAR Performance Levels and Policy Definitions For the STAAR Grades 3-8 and EOC assessments (including STAAR Spanish and STAAR L), the performance levels are as follows. Level I: Unsatisfactory Academic Performance. Performance in this category indicates that students are inadequately prepared for the next grade or course. They do not demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the assessed knowledge and skills. Students in this category are unlikely to succeed in the next grade or course without significant, ongoing academic intervention. 44 Level II: Satisfactory Academic Performance. Performance in this category indicates that students are sufficiently prepared for the next grade or course. They generally demonstrate the ability to think critically and apply the assessed knowledge and skills in familiar contexts. Students in this category have a reasonable likelihood of success in the next grade or course but might need short-term, targeted academic intervention. Level III: Advanced Academic Performance. Performance in this category indicates that students are well prepared for the next grade or course. They demonstrate the ability to think critically and apply the assessed knowledge and skills in varied contexts, both familiar and unfamiliar. Students in this category have a high likelihood of success in the next grade or course with little or no academic intervention. Setting STAAR Standards When setting STAAR standards, a variety of factors were taken into consideration, such as state education policy, TEKS content standards, educator knowledge about what students should know and be able to do, and information about how student performance on statewide assessments compares with performance on other assessments. Standard-setting committees made up of diverse groups of stakeholders carefully considered the interaction of these elements for each STAAR assessment. The goal of the STAAR program is to have a comprehensive assessment system with curriculum standards and performance standards that are vertically aligned within a content area; that is, the curriculum and performance standards link from the high school courses back to the middle school and elementary school grades and subject areas. Accordingly, the STAAR performance standards were set for the STAAR EOC assessments first, the middle school assessments next, and the elementary school assessments last. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) used an evidence-based standard-setting approach for the STAAR program that incorporated elements of a traditional standard-setting framework (e.g., performancelevel descriptors and item-mapping methods) and supported that framework with empirically based research studies and policy considerations. STAAR performance standards were approved by the commissioner of education and subsequently adopted in 2012. A phase-in period has been implemented to provide school districts with time to adjust instruction, provide targeted professional development, increase teacher effectiveness, and close knowledge gaps. For all STAAR tests except STAAR Alternate 2, Level II results in this chapter are presented at the Phase-in 1 standard, and Level III results are presented at the final standard. For STAAR Alternate 2, Level II and 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Level III results are both presented at the final standard. The Level II passing standards changed between 2015 and 2016, therefore results for the two years are not comparable. In social studies, 61 percent of eighth-grade examinees met the Level II passing standard in 2016, and 16 percent achieved Level III performance. STAAR Results in Grades 3-8: State Summary In reading, Level II passing rates in 2016 ranged from 68 percent in Grade 6 to 79 percent in Grade 8 (Table 2.2). Across grades, examinees achieved Level III performance at the highest rate in Grade 5 (24%). STAAR Results by Race/Ethnicity Table 2.2. STAAR Performance, All Students, by Grade and Subject, 2015 and 2016 Achieved (%), 2015 Grade Level II Level III Reading 3 74 20 4 70 20 5 75 22 6 73 18 7 72 18 8 76 22 Writing 4 67 6 7 69 9 Mathematics 3 74 14 4 70 16 5 75 17 6 72 13 7 68 11 8 71 6 Science 5 68 10 8 67 16 Social Studies 8 61 11 In science, 72 percent of Grade 5 examinees and 73 percent of Grade 8 examinees met the Level II passing standard in 2016. Ten percent of fifth-grade examinees and 18 percent of eighth-grade examinees achieved Level III performance. Achieved (%), 2016 Level II Level III 72 74 72 68 69 79 23 19 24 18 21 19 67 67 15 12 74 72 76 71 67 69 18 20 19 15 16 8 72 73 10 18 61 16 Note. Results are based on the primary administrations of STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR L combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). In writing, 67 percent of Grade 4 examinees and 67 percent of Grade 7 examinees met the Level II passing standard in 2016. Fifteen percent of fourth-grade examinees and 12 percent of seventh-grade examinees achieved Level III performance. In mathematics, Level II passing rates in 2016 ranged from 67 percent in Grade 7 to 76 percent in Grade 5. Across grades, examinees achieved Level III performance at the highest rate in Grade 4 (20%). 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools In reading, Level II passing rates for African American examinees in 2016 ranged from 57 percent in Grade 6 to 72 percent in Grade 8 (Appendices 2-A through 2-F, beginning on page 58). Across grades, African American examinees achieved Level III performance at the highest rate in Grade 5 (15%). Among Hispanic examinees in 2016, Level II passing rates in reading ranged from 61 percent in Grade 6 to 74 percent in Grade 8. Across grades, Hispanic examinees achieved Level III performance at the highest rate in Grade 3 (18%). Among White examinees in 2016, Level II passing rates in reading ranged from 81 percent in Grades 6 and 7 to 89 percent in Grade 8. Across grades, White examinees achieved Level III performance at the highest rate in Grade 5 (35%). In writing, 58 percent of African American examinees in Grade 4 and 57 percent in Grade 7 met the Level II passing standard in 2016. Nine percent of African American examinees in Grade 4 and 7 percent in Grade 7 achieved Level III performance. Hispanic examinees in 2016 had Level II passing rates in writing of 63 percent in Grade 4 and 61 percent in Grade 7. Eleven percent of Hispanic examinees in Grade 4 and 8 percent in Grade 7 achieved Level III performance. White examinees in 2016 had Level II passing rates in writing of 77 percent in Grade 4 and 80 percent in Grade 7. Twenty-one percent of White examinees in Grade 4 and 19 percent in Grade 7 achieved Level III performance. In mathematics, Level II passing rates for African American examinees in 2016 ranged from 54 percent in Grade 7 to 61 percent in Grade 5. Across grades, African American examinees achieved Level III performance at the highest rates in Grades 3 and 4 (9% each). Among Hispanic examinees in 2016, Level II passing rates in mathematics ranged from 62 percent in Grade 7 to 73 percent in Grade 5. Across grades, Hispanic examinees achieved Level III performance at the highest rate in Grade 4 (15%). Among White examinees in 2016, Level II passing rates in mathematics ranged from 80 percent in Grades 7 and 8 to 85 percent in Grade 5. Across grades, White examinees achieved Level III performance at the highest rate in Grade 4 (30%). 45 In science, 57 percent of African American examinees in Grade 5 and 61 percent in Grade 8 met the Level II passing standard in 2016. Four percent of African American examinees in Grade 5 and 8 percent in Grade 8 achieved Level III performance. Hispanic examinees in 2016 had Level II passing rates in science of 68 percent in both Grade 5 and Grade 8. Seven percent of Hispanic examinees in Grade 5 and 12 percent in Grade 8 achieved Level III performance. White examinees in 2016 had Level II passing rates in science of 84 percent in both Grade 5 and Grade 8. Sixteen percent of White examinees in Grade 5 and 28 percent in Grade 8 achieved Level III performance. In social studies, 50 percent of African American eighth-grade examinees met the Level II passing standard in 2016, and 8 percent achieved Level III performance. Fifty-four percent of Hispanic eighth-grade examinees met the Level II passing standard in social studies in 2016, and 10 percent achieved Level III performance. Seventy-five percent of White eighth-grade examinees met the Level II passing standard in social studies in 2016, and 24 percent achieved Level III performance. STAAR Results by Special Population STAAR results for examinees identified as at risk of dropping out of school are presented in Appendices 2-A through 2-F, beginning on page 58. See Chapter 3 of this report for detailed information about the participation and performance of at-risk examinees on state assessments. A student is considered economically disadvantaged if he or she is eligible for free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch and Child Nutrition Program. In 2016, approximately 60 percent of students who took STAAR assessments in Grades 3-8 were identified as economically disadvantaged. STAAR results for economically disadvantaged examinees are presented in Appendices 2-A through 2-F, beginning on page 58. Across all tests in Grades 3-8, the average Level II passing rate in 2016 for economically disadvantaged examinees was lower than for all students tested. Assessment options for students receiving special education services are considered by each student's admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee to determine the most appropriate assessment and the allowable accommodations required for each subjectarea test administered to the student. Approximately 8 percent of all students who took at least one STAAR subject-area test in Grades 3-8 received special 46 education services. STAAR results for examinees receiving special education services are presented in Appendices 2-A through 2-F, beginning on page 58. In 2016, Level II passing rates for these examinees were considerably lower than for the general population of examinees. STAAR Spanish Results STAAR Spanish tests are administered to eligible students receiving instruction in Spanish in Grades 3-5. A student's language proficiency assessment committee (LPAC) is responsible for determining the language version of STAAR the student is to be administered. The decision is based on the language in which instruction is provided to the student and the language in which the student is best able to demonstrate academic skills. If deemed appropriate by the student's LPAC, the decision to administer STAAR in English or Spanish may vary by subject area. In 2016, the number of students taking STAAR Spanish ranged from 4,613 in Grade 5 mathematics to 36,453 in Grade 3 reading (Appendices 2-G through 2-I, beginning on page 64). In reading, Level II passing rates in 2016 ranged from 57 percent in Grade 4 to 64 percent in Grade 3. In mathematics, Level II passing rates ranged from 47 percent in Grade 5 to 63 percent in Grade 3. Sixty-six percent of Grade 4 examinees met the Level II passing standard in writing, and 50 percent of Grade 5 examinees met the Level II passing standard in science. STAAR EOC Results: State Summary In 2016, Level II passing rates on EOC tests ranged from 60 percent in English I to 91 percent in U.S. history (Appendix 2-J on page 67). Percentages of examinees achieving Level III performance ranged from 7 percent in both English I and English II to 28 percent in U.S. history. STAAR EOC Results by Race/Ethnicity Across EOC tests in 2016, Level II passing rates for African American, Hispanic, and White examinees were highest in U.S. History (86%, 89%, and 95%, respectively), followed by Biology (81%, 83%, and 94%), Algebra 1 (65%, 73%, and 86%), English II (52%, 56%, and 80%), and English I (49%, 53%, and 76%). Similarly, percentages of African American, Hispanic, and White examinees achieving Level III performance were 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools highest in U.S. history (18%, 21%, and 41%, respectively) and lowest in English I or English II (3%, 3%, and 12%). STAAR EOC Results by Special Population STAAR EOC results for examinees identified as at risk of dropping out of school are presented in Appendix 2-J on page 67. See Chapter 3 of this report for detailed information about the participation and performance of at-risk examinees on state assessments. In 2016, approximately 57 percent of students who took STAAR EOC tests were identified as economically disadvantaged. STAAR EOC results for economically disadvantaged examinees are presented in Appendix 2-J on page 67. For every EOC test administered in 2016, the Level II passing rate for economically disadvantaged examinees was lower than for all students tested. Approximately 6 percent of all students who took at least one STAAR EOC test received special education services. STAAR EOC results for examinees receiving special education services are presented in Appendix 2-J on page 67. In 2016, Level II passing rates for these examinees were lower than for the general population of examinees. STAAR Alternate 2 STAAR Alternate 2 Grades 3-8 and EOC tests are available for students who have significant cognitive disabilities. Unlike other statewide assessments in Texas, STAAR Alternate 2 is not a traditional paper or multiple-choice test. Instead, the assessment involves teachers observing students as they complete teacherdesigned activities that link to the grade-level TEKS curriculum. Teachers score student performance using the STAAR Alternate 2 rubric, which sets specific criteria at each score point to determine demonstration of a skill, level of support, and ability to generalize the skill. Results and supporting documentation are then submitted online. Although other students served in special education programs may be tested with different versions of STAAR, according to the content area and as determined by their ARD committees, students assessed with STAAR Alternate 2 are administered STAAR Alternate 2 in all the content areas assessed by STAAR at their grade levels. STAAR Alternate 2 was administered for the first time in spring 2011 as a mandatory field test for all students meeting the participation criteria. Based on the results, standards were set for satisfactory and accomplished performance. Across subject-area tests and grades in 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 2016, Level II passing rates on STAAR Alternate 2 ranged from 85 percent in Grade 7 writing to 95 percent in Grade 8 science (Table 2.3). Percentages of examinees achieving Level III performance ranged from 15 percent in Grade 5 reading to 32 percent in Grade 6 mathematics and Grade 8 science. Table 2.3. STAAR Alternate 2 Participation and Performance, by Subject and Grade, 2015 and 2016 Grade Reading 3 4 5 6 7 8 Writing 4 7 Mathematics 3 4 5 6 7 8 Science 5 8 Social Studies 8 Tested 2015 2016 Achieved (%) Level II Level III 2015 2016 2015 2016 4,768 4,594 4,614 4,305 4,081 4,039 5,300 5,216 5,010 4,831 4,470 4,354 82 82 82 81 81 83 86 89 89 87 87 88 15 15 11 21 18 17 19 20 15 27 24 20 4,594 4,078 5,215 4,477 80 79 87 85 18 21 26 29 4,766 4,598 4,616 4,304 4,084 4,037 5,296 5,218 5,008 4,833 4,474 4,338 87 88 86 87 87 81 90 93 91 92 92 86 23 19 23 25 22 22 30 25 29 32 29 30 4,619 4,037 5,009 4,357 90 92 94 95 23 27 30 32 4,038 4,359 86 90 25 30 Student Success Initiative STAAR Results Overview The Student Success Initiative (SSI) was enacted by the 76th Texas Legislature in 1999 as a system of supports structured to ensure that all public school students have the skills they need to meet on-grade-level performance expectations. Under the SSI grade advancement requirements, students in Grades 5 and 8 are provided three testing opportunities in the spring and summer to meet the passing standards in reading and mathematics. Students served by special education who take STAAR tests, as well as ELLs who take STAAR or STAAR L tests, are also subject to SSI grade advancement requirements. However, ELLs who are identified as unschooled asylees/refugees are subject to SSI grade advancement requirements only in the subject areas in which they participate in a state assessment. If a student 47 does not demonstrate proficiency after the second testing opportunity, a grade placement committee (GPC) is convened to prescribe an appropriate accelerated plan of instruction and to make promotion decisions for the student. The GPC consists of the principal or principal's designee, the teacher in the subject tested, and the student's parent or guardian. For a student in a special education program, the ARD committee functions as the GPC. The SSI accelerated instruction requirements include the provision that students in Grade 5 or Grade 8 who do not demonstrate proficiency on the STAAR reading or mathematics assessments must complete accelerated instruction before they may be promoted to the next grade level. Additionally, they must be assigned to highly qualified teachers the following year in the subject areas failed. Another SSI provision requires districts to provide accelerated instruction to students who fail any STAAR subject-area test in Grades 3-8. The accelerated instruction may be provided outside normal school hours or the normal school year. To ensure that as many students as possible meet SSI requirements, the state has approved direct support for classroom instruction. The support includes professional development for K-12 teachers, diagnostic tools to assess student learning difficulties, and funding for local implementation of accelerated instructional strategies. For the 2014-15 school year, performance standards for 2015 STAAR mathematics tests in Grades 3-8 were not set until after the spring 2015 administration. As a result, SSI requirements for mathematics were suspended, and SSI retest opportunities for STAAR mathematics tests in Grades 5 and 8 were not offered in May and June of 2015. SSI requirements for reading remained in effect in 2014-15. For the 2015-16 school year, SSI requirements for both reading and mathematics in Grades 5 and 8 were suspended because retest administrations of STAAR reading and mathematics tests in Grades 5 and 8 scheduled for June of 2016 were cancelled. Results In 2015, fifth graders took the STAAR reading test for the first time in March. Of those students, 75 percent met the Level II passing standard (Table 2.4). Students in the March cohort who retested or tested for the first time in May had a Level II passing rate of 37 percent. After the third and final testing opportunity in June, the cumulative Level II passing rate in reading for all Grade 5 examinees was 86 percent. 48 In 2015, eighth graders took the STAAR reading test for the first time in March. Of those students, 76 percent met the Level II passing standard (Table 2.5). Students in the March cohort who retested or tested for the first time in May had a Level II passing rate of 36 percent. After the third and final testing opportunity in June, the cumulative Level II passing rate in reading for all Grade 8 examinees was 87 percent. STAAR and TELPAS Performance of Students Identified as English Language Learners STAAR and TELPAS are used to demonstrate the extent to which districts and the state meet federal Annual Measurable Achievement Objective accountability indicators that are specific to the academic achievement and English language proficiency of students identified as ELLs. STAAR measures achievement of academic knowledge and skills, and TELPAS measures how well ELLs are able to understand and use the English needed for effective participation in academic instruction delivered in the English language. TELPAS satisfies the requirement under Title III, Part A, of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 for states to measure annual progress in the English language proficiency of ELLs in Grades K-12 in the domains of reading, listening, speaking, and writing. TELPAS consists of writing collections and observational assessments that are holistically rated by students' teachers, as well as multiplechoice reading proficiency assessments (Table 2.1 on page 43). Unlike some assessments that measure mastery of content with a pass or fail score, TELPAS provides an annual measure of progress on a continuum of second language development. A composite score for a student indicates the overall level of his or her English language proficiency and is computed from the student's ratings in reading, listening, speaking, and writing. The composite score is reported in terms of four proficiency levels: beginning, intermediate, advanced, and advanced high. In determining composite results, ratings in the domain of reading are given the greatest weight. Only students rated in all four language areas receive composite results. Yearly progress is determined by comparing the composite score from the previous year to the current year's composite score. Students who score at the highest level of English proficiency on TELPAS (advanced high) demonstrate minimal difficulty with grade-level academic English. Students who score high on STAAR demonstrate 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 2.4. STAAR Reading Passing Rates, Grade 5, All Administrations, by Student Group, 2015 Group All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education March Cohorta Achieved Level II Rate (%)e 285,779 75 29,914 64 868 73 14,045 90 139,327 69 345 73 94,676 86 6,533 83 116,780 58 153,233 66 43,970 57 10,289 30 May Results for March Cohortb Achieved Level II Rate (%)e 35,086 37 5,775 35 113 37 566 37 21,510 36 48 40 6,538 44 531 42 28,638 35 26,612 35 10,469 32 4,436 21 June Results for March Cohortc Achieved Level II Rate (%)e 9,258 21 1,528 19 38 30 131 20 6,113 20 11 20 1,309 26 123 26 8,084 20 7,491 20 3,370 18 789 12 Cumulatived Achieved Level II Rate (%) 330,123 86 37,217 79 1,019 85 14,742 94 166,950 83 404 86 102,523 93 7,187 91 153,502 76 187,336 81 57,809 74 15,514 46 Note. Results are based on STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR Spanish combined. For the 2014-15 school year, SSI requirements for mathematics were suspended. For the 2015-16 school year, SSI requirements for both reading and mathematics were suspended. Please see the section "Student Success Initiative STAAR Results" for additional information. aIncludes students tested in March and students whose answer documents were coded absent or other. bIncludes students in the March cohort who retested or tested for the first time in May. cIncludes students in the March cohort who retested or tested for the first time in June. dIncludes all students in the March cohort who tested in March and/or May and/or June. eThe percentage of students tested during the designated STAAR administration who met the passing standard. Table 2.5. STAAR Reading Passing Rates, Grade 8, All Administrations, by Student Group, 2015 Group All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education March Cohorta Achieved Level II Rate (%)e 287,119 76 31,134 66 1,011 76 13,465 90 137,145 70 376 77 98,145 87 5,797 85 109,824 58 146,046 67 15,480 37 8,301 27 May Results for March Cohortb Achieved Level II Rate (%)e 32,562 36 5,726 36 125 40 435 31 19,545 34 48 41 6,225 45 446 45 27,294 35 23,724 34 5,874 23 3,626 18 June Results for March Cohortc Achieved Level II Rate (%)e 9,526 23 1,837 25 23 19 112 16 5,900 21 5 14 1,534 32 113 32 8,529 22 7,406 21 2,116 13 840 13 Cumulatived Achieved Level II Rate (%) 329,207 87 38,697 81 1,159 87 14,012 94 162,590 83 429 87 105,904 94 6,356 93 145,647 76 177,176 81 23,470 56 12,767 42 Note. Results are based on STAAR and STAAR A combined. For the 2014-15 school year, SSI requirements for mathematics were suspended. For the 2015-16 school year, SSI requirements for both reading and mathematics were suspended. Please see the section "Student Success Initiative STAAR Results" on page 47 for additional information. aIncludes students tested in March and students whose answer documents were coded absent or other. bIncludes students in the March cohort who retested or tested for the first time in May. cIncludes students in the March cohort who retested or tested for the first time in June. dIncludes all students in the March cohort who tested in March and/or May and/or June. eThe percentage of students tested during the designated STAAR administration who met the passing standard. thorough knowledge of grade-level academic skills in core content areas. Students who score high on STAAR Spanish demonstrate thorough knowledge of the same skills that are assessed on English-version STAAR. Students who score high on STAAR Spanish may score at any English proficiency level on TELPAS, depending on how much English they have learned. Students exit the current ELL classification when their LPACs determine, based on a combination of performance measures, that they are able to participate 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools equally in regular, all-English, instructional programs (Texas Education Code §29.056). At that point, they are reclassified as former ELLs and monitored academically for the next two years by their LPACs. For all current ELLs assessed by TELPAS in 2016, the rate at which examinees progressed at least one proficiency level was lowest for examinees in Grade 9 (41%) and highest for examinees in Grade 5 (63%) (Table 2.6 on page 50). 49 Table 2.6. Participation and Performance of Current and Former English Language Learners (ELLs) on STAAR Reading and TELPAS,a by Grade and Special Language Program Instructional Model, 2016 Group Grade K All Current ELLsg All Bil.i Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESLj Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Grade 1 All Current ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Grade 2 All Current ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services STAAR Reading Achieved (%) Tested Level II Level III Tested TELPAS Proficiency Level Met (%) Prog. At Least Adv. One Prof. Beg.b Int.c Adv.d Highe Level (%)f n/ah n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 97,947 71,041 26,359 7,435 9,445 27,802 23,645 17,344 6,301 3,261 57 71 60 82 66 79 22 21 24 26 24 20 25 13 23 17 34 34 35 31 13 7 11 3 8 4 28 29 27 25 6 2 4 1 3 1 16 17 14 18 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 109,722 78,218 29,390 8,684 9,578 30,566 27,243 19,577 7,666 4,261 27 35 24 48 31 43 8 8 9 11 35 38 37 34 39 39 27 26 28 26 23 19 23 13 20 15 33 34 32 30 15 9 15 4 9 4 32 32 31 33 59 55 64 43 56 50 68 68 68 65 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 107,077 74,998 28,673 8,931 7,653 29,741 27,046 19,431 7,615 5,033 11 13 9 17 11 16 5 5 5 7 37 41 37 43 39 45 27 27 28 27 33 32 35 28 33 28 36 36 37 36 19 14 18 12 17 11 31 32 29 29 54 55 55 58 54 56 50 50 49 48 Note. STAAR results are based on the primary administrations of STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR Spanish combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). Results reflect the performance of only those students who were tested in the same districts in which they were last identified as ELLs. Only students rated in all four language areas receive TELPAS composite ratings. Of those, proficiency progress is calculated for those with composite ratings in both 2015 and 2016. aTexas English Language Proficiency Assessment System. bBeginning. cIntermediate. dAdvanced. eAdvanced High. fProgressed at least one proficiency level. gCurrent ELLs were identified as ELLs in 2015-16. The group, all current ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. hNot applicable for one of the following reasons: (a) STAAR tests are not administered in Grades K-2, and STAAR end-of-course tests are course-based, rather than grade-level based; (b) TELPAS progress cannot be calculated for kindergarten students because they have only one year of results; (c) former ELLs do not participate in TELPAS; or (d) no students were tested. iBilingual. jEnglish as a second language. kFormer ELLs are those in the first and second years of academic monitoring after exiting ELL status. The group, all former ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. lA dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. continues 50 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 2.6. Participation and Performance of Current and Former English Language Learners (ELLs) on STAAR Reading and TELPAS,a by Grade and Special Language Program Instructional Model, 2016 (continued) Group Grade 3 All Current ELLsg All Bil.i Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESLj Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services STAAR Reading Achieved (%) Tested Level II Level III Tested TELPAS Proficiency Level Met (%) Prog. At Least Adv. One Prof. Beg.b Int.c Adv.d Highe Level (%)f 102,812 70,901 27,664 8,892 6,864 27,481 26,564 18,053 8,511 5,324 63 63 60 64 67 65 62 64 59 60 15 15 11 16 18 18 14 16 11 13 103,320 71,386 27,614 8,651 6,792 28,329 26,618 18,196 8,422 5,316 7 8 6 10 6 9 4 4 3 4 24 27 23 29 25 30 19 18 20 21 38 38 40 36 38 36 38 38 40 36 31 28 31 25 31 24 39 41 36 39 55 55 57 56 56 52 57 58 54 56 All Former ELLsk All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Grade 4 All Current ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services 7,346 3,518 2,923 55 346 194 3,289 1,710 1,579 537 94 93 93 98 97 92 96 96 96 93 43 38 36 53 53 41 48 49 47 46 n/ah n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 90,451 62,051 23,642 8,179 5,401 24,829 23,628 15,730 7,898 4,674 61 62 62 62 65 61 60 62 57 59 9 10 8 10 13 12 7 7 5 7 90,830 62,413 23,917 8,136 5,344 25,016 23,788 15,838 7,950 4,629 5 5 5 6 4 6 3 3 3 3 21 22 19 22 20 25 20 19 20 19 42 42 43 40 41 41 44 44 46 42 32 31 34 32 35 28 33 34 31 35 50 51 52 53 53 49 48 49 46 50 All Former ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services 13,474 6,069 4,317 400 404 948 6,003 3,779 2,224 1,399 95 95 94 96 97 96 96 97 95 93 32 29 28 29 39 33 35 35 33 31 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Note. STAAR results are based on the primary administrations of STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR Spanish combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). Results reflect the performance of only those students who were tested in the same districts in which they were last identified as ELLs. Only students rated in all four language areas receive TELPAS composite ratings. Of those, proficiency progress is calculated for those with composite ratings in both 2015 and 2016. aTexas English Language Proficiency Assessment System. bBeginning. cIntermediate. dAdvanced. eAdvanced High. fProgressed at least one proficiency level. gCurrent ELLs were identified as ELLs in 2015-16. The group, all current ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. hNot applicable for one of the following reasons: (a) STAAR tests are not administered in Grades K-2, and STAAR end-of-course tests are course-based, rather than grade-level based; (b) TELPAS progress cannot be calculated for kindergarten students because they have only one year of results; (c) former ELLs do not participate in TELPAS; or (d) no students were tested. iBilingual. jEnglish as a second language. kFormer ELLs are those in the first and second years of academic monitoring after exiting ELL status. The group, all former ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. lA dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 51 Table 2.6. Participation and Performance of Current and Former English Language Learners (ELLs) on STAAR Reading and TELPAS,a by Grade and Special Language Program Instructional Model, 2016 (continued) TELPAS Proficiency Level Met (%) Prog. At Least Adv. One Prof. Beg.b Int.c Adv.d Highe Level (%)f STAAR Reading Achieved (%) Tested Level II Level III Tested 79,213 53,067 19,968 7,289 4,144 21,666 22,015 13,769 8,246 4,074 54 56 54 53 66 58 50 51 50 49 7 8 6 7 11 9 6 7 5 6 78,920 52,944 20,038 7,269 4,080 21,557 21,991 13,748 8,243 3,985 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 14 14 12 14 11 15 13 13 13 14 39 38 37 38 35 38 41 41 41 41 44 45 47 44 51 43 43 43 43 42 63 64 64 64 67 64 60 60 59 56 All Former ELLsk All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Grade 6 All Current ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services 19,318 10,002 5,804 1,336 695 2,167 7,156 4,473 2,683 2,152 92 92 90 94 96 93 93 94 92 91 30 28 26 32 35 28 34 35 32 29 n/ah n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 62,532 6,913 2,630 1,393 1,495 1,395 52,224 22,573 29,651 3,338 40 41 35 38 54 43 40 42 39 39 3 3 1 2 6 3 3 4 3 3 62,454 6,921 2,746 1,366 1,496 1,313 52,207 22,736 29,471 3,326 3 3 5 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 16 15 17 16 11 13 16 17 15 15 46 44 47 48 39 42 46 45 47 48 35 38 32 33 48 42 35 35 35 35 47 52 48 48 58 56 46 46 47 43 All Former ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services 18,836 10,644 4,888 2,120 815 2,821 6,367 3,730 2,637 1,814 81 80 75 84 90 81 83 84 81 77 14 13 9 14 19 17 16 17 13 12 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Group Grade 5 All Current ELLsg All Bil.i Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESLj Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Note. STAAR results are based on the primary administrations of STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR Spanish combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). Results reflect the performance of only those students who were tested in the same districts in which they were last identified as ELLs. Only students rated in all four language areas receive TELPAS composite ratings. Of those, proficiency progress is calculated for those with composite ratings in both 2015 and 2016. aTexas English Language Proficiency Assessment System. bBeginning. cIntermediate. dAdvanced. eAdvanced High. fProgressed at least one proficiency level. gCurrent ELLs were identified as ELLs in 2015-16. The group, all current ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. hNot applicable for one of the following reasons: (a) STAAR tests are not administered in Grades K-2, and STAAR end-of-course tests are course-based, rather than grade-level based; (b) TELPAS progress cannot be calculated for kindergarten students because they have only one year of results; (c) former ELLs do not participate in TELPAS; or (d) no students were tested. iBilingual. jEnglish as a second language. kFormer ELLs are those in the first and second years of academic monitoring after exiting ELL status. The group, all former ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. lA dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. continues 52 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 2.6. Participation and Performance of Current and Former English Language Learners (ELLs) on STAAR Reading and TELPAS,a by Grade and Special Language Program Instructional Model, 2016 (continued) TELPAS Proficiency Level Met (%) Prog. At Least Adv. One Prof. Beg.b Int.c Adv.d Highe Level (%)f STAAR Reading Achieved (%) Tested Level II Level III Tested 50,860 937 45 34 779 79 46,821 18,529 28,292 3,071 35 41 31 35 42 39 34 37 33 37 2 2 0 0 3 3 2 3 2 4 50,889 916 47 33 760 76 47,072 18,798 28,274 2,901 3 2 2 0 2 1 4 4 4 2 14 11 11 9 10 20 15 16 14 12 46 47 51 58 45 55 46 45 47 47 36 41 36 33 43 24 36 36 36 39 50 54 42 43 56 41 50 51 50 47 All Former ELLsk All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Grade 8 All Current ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services 16,933 6,204 2,561 1,284 665 1,694 9,444 4,102 5,342 1,281 77 76 69 76 84 84 78 79 77 72 12 12 7 11 17 17 12 14 11 12 n/ah n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 42,449 456 4 8 373 71 39,341 15,614 23,727 2,633 44 54 –l 38 55 49 44 46 43 49 2 2 – 0 2 0 1 2 1 2 42,113 451 4 7 371 69 39,164 15,566 23,598 2,498 3 1 – 0 1 1 4 4 3 1 16 7 – 14 7 6 16 17 16 13 46 40 – 57 38 46 46 45 46 47 35 53 – 29 54 46 35 34 35 39 48 63 – 43 65 55 48 48 49 45 All Former ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services 11,029 929 357 204 209 159 9,184 3,761 5,423 886 87 84 81 75 92 91 88 88 88 84 9 8 5 5 13 12 9 10 8 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Group Grade 7 All Current ELLsg All Bil.i Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESLj Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Note. STAAR results are based on the primary administrations of STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR Spanish combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). Results reflect the performance of only those students who were tested in the same districts in which they were last identified as ELLs. Only students rated in all four language areas receive TELPAS composite ratings. Of those, proficiency progress is calculated for those with composite ratings in both 2015 and 2016. aTexas English Language Proficiency Assessment System. bBeginning. cIntermediate. dAdvanced. eAdvanced High. fProgressed at least one proficiency level. gCurrent ELLs were identified as ELLs in 2015-16. The group, all current ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. hNot applicable for one of the following reasons: (a) STAAR tests are not administered in Grades K-2, and STAAR end-of-course tests are course-based, rather than grade-level based; (b) TELPAS progress cannot be calculated for kindergarten students because they have only one year of results; (c) former ELLs do not participate in TELPAS; or (d) no students were tested. iBilingual. jEnglish as a second language. kFormer ELLs are those in the first and second years of academic monitoring after exiting ELL status. The group, all former ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. lA dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 53 Table 2.6. Participation and Performance of Current and Former English Language Learners (ELLs) on STAAR Reading and TELPAS,a by Grade and Special Language Program Instructional Model, 2016 (continued) Group Grade 9 All Current ELLsg All Bil.i Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESLj Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services STAAR Reading Achieved (%) Tested Level II Level III Tested TELPAS Proficiency Level Met (%) Prog. At Least Adv. One Prof. Beg.b Int.c Adv.d Highe Level (%)f n/ah n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 38,685 77 0 0 77 0 36,603 19,294 17,309 2,005 6 5 n/a n/a 5 n/a 7 7 6 2 22 19 n/a n/a 19 n/a 22 23 21 13 45 40 n/a n/a 40 n/a 45 45 46 49 26 35 n/a n/a 35 n/a 26 25 27 36 41 50 n/a n/a 50 n/a 41 40 41 39 All Former ELLsk All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Grade 10 All Current ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 27,991 30 0 0 29 1 26,540 13,878 12,662 1,421 4 3 n/a n/a 3 –l 5 5 4 1 19 3 n/a n/a 3 – 20 20 19 12 45 57 n/a n/a 55 – 45 46 45 46 31 37 n/a n/a 38 – 30 29 32 42 47 45 n/a n/a 45 n/a 47 45 48 46 All Former ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Note. STAAR results are based on the primary administrations of STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR Spanish combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). Results reflect the performance of only those students who were tested in the same districts in which they were last identified as ELLs. Only students rated in all four language areas receive TELPAS composite ratings. Of those, proficiency progress is calculated for those with composite ratings in both 2015 and 2016. aTexas English Language Proficiency Assessment System. bBeginning. cIntermediate. dAdvanced. eAdvanced High. fProgressed at least one proficiency level. gCurrent ELLs were identified as ELLs in 2015-16. The group, all current ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. hNot applicable for one of the following reasons: (a) STAAR tests are not administered in Grades K-2, and STAAR end-of-course tests are course-based, rather than grade-level based; (b) TELPAS progress cannot be calculated for kindergarten students because they have only one year of results; (c) former ELLs do not participate in TELPAS; or (d) no students were tested. iBilingual. jEnglish as a second language. kFormer ELLs are those in the first and second years of academic monitoring after exiting ELL status. The group, all former ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. lA dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. continues 54 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 2.6. Participation and Performance of Current and Former English Language Learners (ELLs) on STAAR Reading and TELPAS,a by Grade and Special Language Program Instructional Model, 2016 (continued) Group Grade 11 All Current ELLsg All Bil.i Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESLj Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services All Former ELLsk All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Grade 12 All Current ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services STAAR Reading Achieved (%) Tested Level II Level III Tested TELPAS Proficiency Level Met (%) Prog. At Least Adv. One Prof. Beg.b Int.c Adv.d Highe Level (%)f n/ah n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 19,262 16 0 0 16 0 18,224 9,308 8,916 1,022 2 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 2 2 2 1 16 25 n/a n/a 25 n/a 17 17 16 9 45 44 n/a n/a 44 n/a 45 46 45 39 37 31 n/a n/a 31 n/a 36 35 37 51 50 47 n/a n/a 47 n/a 50 49 51 55 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/ah n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 15,205 9 0 0 9 0 14,438 7,729 6,709 758 1 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 1 2 1 1 13 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 14 14 13 9 45 33 n/a n/a 33 n/a 46 47 45 37 40 67 n/a n/a 67 n/a 39 37 41 53 50 75 n/a n/a 75 n/a 50 48 51 56 Note. STAAR results are based on the primary administrations of STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR Spanish combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). Results reflect the performance of only those students who were tested in the same districts in which they were last identified as ELLs. Only students rated in all four language areas receive TELPAS composite ratings. Of those, proficiency progress is calculated for those with composite ratings in both 2015 and 2016. aTexas English Language Proficiency Assessment System. bBeginning. cIntermediate. dAdvanced. eAdvanced High. fProgressed at least one proficiency level. gCurrent ELLs were identified as ELLs in 2015-16. The group, all current ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. hNot applicable for one of the following reasons: (a) STAAR tests are not administered in Grades K-2, and STAAR end-of-course tests are course-based, rather than grade-level based; (b) TELPAS progress cannot be calculated for kindergarten students because they have only one year of results; (c) former ELLs do not participate in TELPAS; or (d) no students were tested. iBilingual. jEnglish as a second language. kFormer ELLs are those in the first and second years of academic monitoring after exiting ELL status. The group, all former ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. lA dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 55 A Study of the Correlation Between STAAR U.S. History Performance and U.S. History Course Performance Overall Performance Overall, 90 percent of students in the study sample who took U.S. History passed the STAAR U.S. History test (Table 2.7). Eighty-five percent of students passed both the STAAR U.S. History test and the U.S. History course. The percentage of students who passed the course (93%) was higher than the percentage who passed the test (90%). Five percent passed the STAAR U.S. History test only, 8 percent passed the U.S. History course only, and 2 percent did not pass either. Overview Texas Education Code §39.322(b)(6) requires an evaluation of the correlation between student grades and student performance on state-mandated assessments. The most recent study examined the association between passing the spring 2015 STAAR U.S. History assessment (i.e., meeting the Level II Phase-in 1 standard) and passing the U.S. History course (i.e., receiving course credit). The passing rates for the 2015 STAAR U.S. History assessment were compared with the passing rates for the U.S. History course using course completion information submitted to TEA by districts for the 2014-15 school year. All students in the state for whom both STAAR U.S. History data and U.S. History course data were available were included in the comparison. As in previous grade correlation studies, if the credit results (pass/fail) varied for any student who enrolled in the same course multiple times in the 2014-15 school year, the observation including a passing result was used for comparison. Otherwise, the result from the most recent course enrollment was used for comparison. Performance by Race/Ethnicity Regardless of race/ethnicity, students passed the U.S. History course at higher rates than they passed the STAAR U.S. History test (Table 2.7). The percentages passing the test, the course, and both the test and course were higher for White students than for African American or Hispanic students. Across racial/ethnic groups, the passing rates for the STAAR U.S. History test ranged from 85 percent to 95 percent, the passing rates for the U.S. History course ranged from 90 percent to 97 percent, and the passing rates for both the test and the course ranged from 80 percent to 92 percent. Among African American students, the passing rate for the U.S. History course (92%) was higher than the passing rate for STAAR U.S. History test (85%). Eighty percent of African American students passed both the test and the course. Five percent passed the STAAR U.S. History test only, 12 percent passed the U.S. History course only, and 3 percent did not pass either. Because results for small groups tend to be less stable over time, comparisons of results either across groups or within groups over time can be misleading when one group is small compared to other groups. Therefore, this section presents results only for student groups that accounted for 5 percent or more of the total number of students in the study (Table 2.7). Among Hispanic students, the passing rate for the U.S. History course (90%) was higher than the passing rate for the STAAR U.S. History test (87%). Eighty-one Table 2.7. Passing Rates, U.S. History Course, 2014-15, and STAAR U.S. History Test, 2015, by Student Group Group All Students African American Hispanic White Econ. Disad.a Not Econ. Disad. Female Male Course Enrollment Number Percent 319,164 100 40,882 13 155,712 49 102,648 32 159,865 50 159,218 50 157,673 49 161,491 51 Passed STAAR (%) 90 85 87 95 85 95 89 91 Passed Course (%) 93 92 90 97 90 96 94 92 Passed Both (%) 85 80 81 92 79 91 85 85 Passed STAAR Only (%) 5 5 7 3 7 3 4 6 Passed Course Only (%) 8 12 10 4 11 5 9 7 Did Not Pass Either (%) 2 3 3 1 3 1 2 2 Note. Only students for whom both course and STAAR data were available are included. aEconomically disadvantaged. 56 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools percent of Hispanic students passed both the test and the course. Seven percent passed the STAAR U.S. History test only, 10 percent passed the U.S. History course only, and 3 percent did not pass either. Among White students, the passing rate for the U.S. History course (97%) was higher than the passing rate for the STAAR U.S. History test (95%). Ninety-two percent of White students passed both the test and the course. Three percent passed the STAAR U.S. History test only, 4 percent passed the U.S. History course only, and 1 percent did not pass either. Performance by Economic Status The passing rates for the STAAR U.S. History test, the U.S. History course, and both the test and the course were higher for students not identified as economically disadvantaged than for students identified as economically disadvantaged (Table 2.7). Among students identified as economically disadvantaged, the passing rate for the U.S. History course (90%) was higher than the passing rate for the STAAR U.S. History test (85%). Seventy-nine percent of economically disadvantaged students passed both the test and the course. Seven percent of economically disadvantaged students passed the STAAR U.S. History test only, 11 percent passed the U.S. History course only, and 3 percent did not pass either. Among students not identified as economically disadvantaged, the passing rate for the U.S. History course (96%) was higher than the passing rate for the STAAR U.S. History test (95%). Ninety-one percent of non-economically disadvantaged students passed both the test and the course. Three percent of non-economically disadvantaged students passed the STAAR U.S. History test only, 5 percent passed the U.S. History course only, and 1 percent did not pass either. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Performance by Gender The passing rate for the STAAR U.S. History test was higher for male students than for female students. By contrast, the course passing rate was higher for females than for males (Table 2.7). Among female students, the passing rate for the U.S. History course (94%) was higher than the passing rate for the STAAR U.S. History test (89%). Eighty-five percent of female students passed both the test and the course. Four percent of female students passed the STAAR U.S. History test only, 9 percent passed the U.S. History course only, and 2 percent did not pass either. Among male students, the passing rate for the U.S. History course (92%) was higher than the passing rate for the STAAR U.S. History test (91%). Eighty-five percent of male students passed both the test and the course. Six percent of male students passed the STAAR U.S. History test only, 7 percent passed the U.S. History course only, and 2 percent did not pass either. Agency Contact Persons For information about the state assessment system or assessment results, contact Penny Schwinn, Deputy Commissioner of Academics, (512) 463-8934; or Mariana Vassileva, Assessment Division, (512) 463-9536. Other Sources of Information STAAR, STAAR A, STAAR L, STAAR Alternate 2, and TELPAS results, as well as information about all state testing activities, including test development and released tests, are available on the TEA website at http://tea.texas.gov/student.assessment/. 57 Appendix 2-A. STAAR Participation and Performance, Grade 3, by Subject and Student Group, 2015 and 2016 Group Reading All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Mathematics All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Tested 2015 Achieved (%) Level II Level III Tested 2016 Achieved (%) Level II Level III 390,856 48,528 1,375 15,225 206,918 538 109,709 8,448 206,162 243,048 104,722 28,508 74 64 74 89 70 76 85 81 62 67 66 38 20 12 18 44 15 21 30 28 9 12 12 6 403,088 50,035 1,369 16,205 214,004 553 111,528 9,132 203,165 250,032 106,862 28,929 72 60 70 88 67 77 83 80 58 63 62 37 23 14 21 48 18 25 34 31 11 15 15 7 391,135 48,551 1,377 15,214 207,053 538 109,828 8,455 206,323 243,229 104,793 28,534 74 59 75 92 71 78 84 80 64 67 69 40 14 6 14 42 10 14 22 20 7 8 9 5 403,284 50,077 1,371 16,189 214,127 553 111,563 9,135 203,343 250,226 106,963 28,940 74 59 71 92 71 75 84 80 63 67 69 41 18 9 15 49 14 20 27 24 9 11 12 6 Note. Results are based on STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR L combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). 58 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 2-B. STAAR Participation and Performance, Grade 4, by Subject and Student Group, 2015 and 2016 Group Reading All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Writing All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Mathematics All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Tested 2015 Achieved (%) Level II Level III Tested 2016 Achieved (%) Level II Level III 385,221 47,419 1,345 15,461 202,483 489 109,934 8,002 194,104 235,404 92,245 31,976 70 58 69 88 65 72 83 79 53 62 57 32 20 11 18 43 13 18 31 28 6 11 8 5 391,139 48,547 1,335 16,009 206,561 546 109,357 8,646 186,836 240,236 94,211 31,708 74 64 74 89 69 76 84 81 56 66 61 34 19 11 17 40 14 17 28 26 7 12 9 5 384,724 47,308 1,341 15,407 202,293 485 109,841 7,973 193,987 235,242 92,175 31,947 67 56 64 88 63 71 76 73 50 59 58 23 6 3 4 25 4 5 10 10 2 3 3 1 390,510 48,517 1,323 15,962 206,260 543 109,179 8,633 186,630 240,072 94,083 31,391 67 58 65 86 63 69 77 74 49 59 56 25 15 9 13 37 11 17 21 19 6 9 8 3 385,392 47,429 1,345 15,448 202,554 489 110,029 8,011 194,240 235,550 92,323 32,024 70 54 70 91 67 75 81 76 54 62 62 31 16 7 15 48 11 16 25 22 6 9 8 4 391,313 48,580 1,336 15,984 206,653 549 109,418 8,651 186,973 240,361 94,272 31,746 72 56 73 91 69 74 82 77 55 64 64 34 20 9 19 54 15 18 30 27 8 13 12 6 Note. Results are based on STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR L combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 59 Appendix 2-C. STAAR Participation and Performance, Grade 5, by Subject and Student Group, 2015 and 2016 Group Reading: Primary Administration All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Mathematics: Primary Administration All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Science All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Tested 2015 Achieved (%) Level II Level III Tested 2016 Achieved (%) Level II Level III 383,132 47,091 1,189 15,613 200,517 471 110,293 7,853 200,250 231,433 77,608 33,882 75 64 73 90 69 73 86 83 58 66 57 30 22 13 23 48 15 21 35 33 6 13 6 4 387,677 47,815 1,306 16,080 203,761 482 109,738 8,158 204,158 234,502 81,713 33,928 72 61 72 89 67 74 84 80 55 63 54 30 24 15 22 50 17 22 35 32 7 14 7 4 383,149 47,154 1,188 15,618 200,651 471 110,093 7,850 200,349 231,534 77,743 33,892 75 61 75 94 72 79 84 80 61 68 65 35 17 7 16 51 12 19 25 23 5 10 7 3 387,695 47,833 1,306 16,032 203,854 487 109,668 8,168 204,370 234,704 81,780 33,967 76 61 74 93 73 78 85 80 61 69 66 37 19 8 17 55 14 21 28 26 6 11 8 4 383,225 47,151 1,193 15,657 200,650 468 110,120 7,857 200,116 231,281 77,746 33,848 68 53 69 88 62 66 82 78 50 59 48 30 10 4 11 29 6 10 18 16 2 5 2 2 388,095 47,799 1,303 16,168 203,981 488 109,835 8,201 204,175 234,897 81,614 34,180 72 57 73 90 68 72 84 79 56 64 58 35 10 4 9 27 7 9 16 14 3 5 3 2 Note. Results are based on STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR L combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). 60 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 2-D. STAAR Participation and Performance, Grade 6, by Subject and Student Group, 2015 and 2016 Group Reading All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Mathematics All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Tested 2015 Achieved (%) Level II Level III Tested 2016 Achieved (%) Level II Level III 378,002 46,738 1,365 15,289 196,199 472 110,457 7,350 180,711 223,137 60,724 33,536 73 63 71 91 66 75 85 82 52 63 43 26 18 10 16 44 11 15 29 26 3 9 2 3 384,564 47,494 1,242 16,299 200,640 498 110,077 8,047 189,984 227,332 65,541 34,013 68 57 67 89 61 69 81 78 46 58 39 23 18 10 18 46 12 18 30 27 4 9 3 3 372,990 46,548 1,356 14,019 194,830 470 108,457 7,175 180,355 222,157 60,578 33,515 72 59 73 93 67 78 83 80 54 64 54 32 13 6 11 48 8 15 20 19 2 6 3 2 378,151 47,101 1,225 15,111 198,837 491 107,253 7,863 189,317 225,747 65,334 33,922 71 57 72 93 66 73 82 78 52 62 54 32 15 7 16 52 10 19 24 21 3 8 4 2 Note. Results are based on STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR L combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 61 Appendix 2-E. STAAR Participation and Performance, Grade 7, by Subject and Student Group, 2015 and 2016 Group Reading All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Writing All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Mathematics All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Tested 2015 Achieved (%) Level II Level III Tested 2016 Achieved (%) Level II Level III 377,197 47,126 1,333 14,916 194,815 481 111,397 7,012 173,435 219,633 48,176 31,464 72 64 73 89 65 73 84 82 49 62 34 22 18 10 17 42 11 18 30 27 3 9 1 2 382,860 47,269 1,360 15,992 198,967 501 110,918 7,640 185,084 222,292 53,623 32,792 69 59 67 90 63 73 81 78 46 59 34 22 21 12 18 50 14 22 32 30 4 11 2 3 377,141 47,093 1,327 14,908 194,842 479 111,386 7,012 173,489 219,812 48,080 31,460 69 60 69 89 63 75 80 78 45 59 33 18 9 4 8 36 5 10 15 15 1 4 0 1 382,533 47,181 1,364 15,970 198,810 497 110,903 7,624 185,001 222,196 53,450 32,623 67 57 65 89 61 74 80 77 45 57 32 18 12 7 10 40 8 13 19 18 2 6 1 1 348,069 44,940 1,244 12,389 183,005 440 99,627 6,320 169,019 208,551 46,415 31,264 68 54 68 90 63 72 81 77 47 60 42 24 11 5 10 47 7 12 18 17 2 6 2 1 354,546 45,245 1,287 13,241 187,217 465 100,004 6,896 180,187 211,550 51,913 32,514 67 54 65 91 62 72 80 76 47 58 42 24 16 7 15 54 10 19 24 22 3 8 3 2 Note. Results are based on STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR L combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). 62 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 2-F. STAAR Participation and Performance, Grade 8, by Subject and Student Group, 2015 and 2016 Group Reading: Primary Administration All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Mathematics: Primary Administration All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Science All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Social Studies All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Tested 2015 Achieved (%) Level II Level III Tested 2016 Achieved (%) Level II Level III 378,963 47,416 1,328 14,900 195,370 490 112,536 6,821 190,916 217,687 41,754 30,379 76 66 76 90 70 77 87 85 58 67 37 27 22 11 20 49 14 23 34 31 4 12 2 2 375,534 46,764 1,315 15,360 193,635 487 110,684 7,113 185,208 214,314 44,586 30,692 79 72 78 91 74 80 89 87 62 72 43 29 19 10 17 43 12 17 29 27 3 10 1 2 326,706 43,420 1,153 9,729 174,619 436 91,541 5,665 183,967 197,910 41,265 29,920 71 61 71 91 67 75 81 78 56 64 50 26 6 2 5 31 4 8 9 9 1 3 1 1 320,150 42,393 1,149 10,048 170,548 431 89,475 5,883 177,096 192,669 43,288 30,242 69 58 69 90 65 77 80 76 53 62 47 24 8 3 7 38 5 9 13 12 2 4 2 1 382,588 48,036 1,334 14,788 198,031 506 112,904 6,843 191,434 220,061 42,340 30,317 67 54 67 90 61 71 80 77 45 57 33 22 16 7 14 47 10 18 24 23 3 9 2 2 377,881 47,201 1,344 15,322 195,172 498 110,941 7,128 185,206 215,867 44,592 30,513 73 61 74 91 68 79 84 81 53 64 42 26 18 8 17 52 12 18 28 26 3 10 2 2 382,095 47,892 1,340 14,995 197,135 501 113,239 6,851 191,103 219,133 41,822 30,344 61 50 61 87 53 61 75 73 38 49 25 19 11 5 10 36 6 11 18 17 2 5 1 2 377,898 47,074 1,333 15,447 195,214 497 110,959 7,104 184,699 215,664 44,280 30,397 61 50 63 87 54 67 75 72 38 51 27 19 16 8 15 46 10 15 24 23 3 8 2 2 Note. Results are based on STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR L combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 63 Appendix 2-G. STAAR Spanish Participation and Performance, Grade 3, by Subject and Student Group, 2015 and 2016 Group Reading All Students At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged Special Education Mathematics All Students At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged Special Education 64 Tested 2015 Achieved (%) Level II Level III Tested 2016 Achieved (%) Level II Level III 36,721 35,106 33,781 1,353 65 66 65 28 15 15 15 2 36,453 35,579 33,533 1,472 64 64 63 29 19 19 18 4 17,732 17,060 15,887 742 65 65 65 34 6 6 6 1 17,372 16,656 15,532 717 63 63 62 32 8 8 8 1 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 2-H. STAAR Spanish Participation and Performance, Grade 4, by Subject and Student Group, 2015 and 2016 Group Reading All Students At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged Special Education Writing All Students At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged Special Education Mathematics All Students At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged Special Education Tested 2015 Achieved (%) Level II Level III Tested 2016 Achieved (%) Level II Level III 25,325 24,165 23,304 1,049 60 60 60 22 10 9 9 1 24,267 23,642 22,196 1,108 57 57 57 21 13 13 13 2 26,322 25,118 24,205 1,131 64 64 64 21 6 6 6 1 25,191 24,567 23,076 1,153 66 66 66 24 17 17 17 2 9,831 9,385 8,714 499 55 55 55 24 6 6 6 1 9,384 8,914 8,150 478 56 56 56 28 10 9 9 2 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 65 Appendix 2-I. STAAR Spanish Participation and Performance, Grade 5, by Subject and Student Group, 2015 and 2016 Group Reading: Primary Administration All Students At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged Special Education Mathematics: Primary Administration All Students At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged Special Education Science All Students At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged Special Education 66 Tested 2015 Achieved (%) Level II Level III Tested 2016 Achieved (%) Level II Level III 12,518 12,287 11,483 435 69 69 69 34 11 11 11 2 13,006 12,680 11,853 558 63 64 63 23 9 9 9 2 4,652 4,419 3,990 148 47 47 48 32 3 3 3 0 4,613 4,352 3,936 202 47 48 47 28 4 4 4 1 7,446 7,234 6,694 274 40 40 40 15 2 2 2 0 7,288 6,980 6,406 308 50 50 50 23 3 2 3 0 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 2-J. STAAR End-of-Course Participation and Performance, English I, English II, Algebra I, Biology, and U.S. History, by Student Group, 2015 and 2016 Group English I All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education English II All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Algebra I All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Tested 2015 Achieved (%) Level II Level III Tested 2016 Achieved (%) Level II Level III 438,934 59,583 1,627 15,558 231,074 575 123,027 7,258 244,544 252,355 50,024 38,177 61 49 58 83 53 65 78 74 39 49 16 14 8 3 7 32 4 10 14 13 1 3 0 0 459,644 62,909 1,738 16,933 247,543 634 121,799 7,792 265,741 271,843 60,377 43,832 60 49 57 83 53 64 76 73 39 49 19 13 7 3 6 30 4 8 13 14 1 3 0 0 396,183 53,814 1,526 14,630 202,661 580 116,073 6,674 206,312 216,141 36,963 31,251 64 51 66 82 57 65 80 78 41 53 18 17 5 2 4 22 2 5 8 8 1 1 0 0 420,682 57,125 1,574 16,401 219,918 596 117,498 7,215 228,346 234,561 45,812 34,257 64 52 62 82 56 63 80 77 41 52 17 16 7 3 6 29 3 6 12 13 1 2 0 0 422,519 56,791 1,612 15,957 218,859 634 121,120 7,279 223,230 238,984 43,636 34,515 77 66 75 94 73 79 87 84 63 70 52 32 20 9 17 59 14 24 30 27 4 12 4 2 428,055 58,289 1,601 16,406 225,367 616 117,841 7,634 234,759 247,918 49,941 39,119 77 65 72 94 73 77 86 83 63 70 55 32 23 11 20 66 17 25 34 32 6 15 6 2 Note. Results are based on STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR L combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools continues 67 Appendix 2-J. STAAR End-of-Course Participation and Performance, English I, English II, Algebra I, Biology, and U.S. History, by Student Group, 2015 and 2016 (continued) Group Biology All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education U.S. History All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial At-Risk Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Special Education Tested 2015 Achieved (%) Level II Level III Tested 2016 Achieved (%) Level II Level III 377,952 49,275 1,450 15,349 193,427 533 111,040 6,665 189,995 206,894 37,772 28,217 88 83 85 95 85 89 95 94 79 84 62 52 17 8 14 48 10 16 28 26 3 9 2 2 395,285 51,667 1,526 16,193 204,256 597 113,568 7,194 204,503 221,276 43,270 32,614 87 81 83 95 83 86 94 92 76 82 60 46 18 9 17 50 11 19 30 28 4 9 2 2 341,139 44,031 1,376 13,376 167,521 513 108,202 5,912 169,709 173,327 21,918 24,981 88 83 89 94 86 92 94 94 80 83 59 52 27 16 28 49 20 27 40 38 12 17 4 5 360,027 47,200 1,355 14,239 179,688 520 110,163 6,491 170,764 185,458 25,605 25,369 91 86 90 95 89 93 95 94 83 87 66 54 28 18 27 53 21 27 41 38 11 18 4 5 Note. Results are based on STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR L combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). 68 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 2-K. STAAR Alternate 2 End-of-Course Participation and Performance, English I, English II, Algebra I, Biology, and U.S. History, by Student Group, 2015 and 2016 Group English I All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner English II All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Algebra I All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner Biology All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner a Tested 2015 Achieved (%) Level II Level III Tested 2016 Achieved (%) Level II Level III 3,575 627 15 129 1,717 2 1,010 56 2,320 228 86 86 93 78 86 –a 87 84 87 92 26 28 20 18 26 – 26 38 28 29 4,261 758 18 144 2,104 9 1,148 64 2,866 247 89 89 100 77 89 89 90 92 90 90 31 33 33 16 31 11 31 39 33 33 3,329 619 19 119 1,594 3 904 53 2,154 182 85 87 84 78 85 – 85 87 86 91 27 28 26 16 27 – 29 25 29 31 3,636 646 14 133 1,743 3 1,027 56 2,407 200 91 90 100 86 92 – 91 89 92 94 35 34 43 28 35 – 35 41 36 39 3,584 632 15 133 1,717 2 1,013 52 2,330 231 83 83 80 75 83 – 83 87 84 87 25 27 27 19 25 – 24 29 27 28 4,311 767 16 146 2,112 9 1,175 69 2,876 243 86 85 100 81 86 100 87 83 88 88 35 33 44 25 37 22 33 26 37 40 3,454 626 17 129 1,652 2 959 51 2,252 224 89 91 94 85 89 – 89 92 90 92 26 28 24 15 26 – 27 35 28 26 4,097 760 13 147 2,012 5 1,094 55 2,735 224 93 93 85 88 94 100 93 85 94 95 31 31 31 14 33 0 31 29 34 33 A dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools continues 69 Appendix 2-K. STAAR Alternate 2 End-of-Course Participation and Performance, English I, English II, Algebra I, Biology, and U.S. History, by Student Group, 2015 and 2016 (continued) Group U.S. History All Students African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learner a Tested 2015 Achieved (%) Level II Level III 3,009 567 16 100 1,400 2 864 41 1,955 126 85 87 88 81 84 –a 87 88 86 88 26 27 13 14 25 – 27 22 29 24 Tested 3,516 666 17 132 1,649 2 984 52 2,286 153 2016 Achieved (%) Level II Level III 89 88 88 80 91 – 88 94 90 98 28 29 29 19 28 – 29 25 30 30 A dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. 70 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 3. Performance of Students At Risk of Dropping Out of School T he purpose of the State Compensatory Education program is to reduce the dropout rate and increase the academic performance of students identified as being at risk of dropping out of school. In 2001, the 77th Texas Legislature revised the state criteria used to identify students at risk of dropping out of school by amending the Texas Education Code (TEC) §29.081. The revisions broadened the definition of students at risk of dropping out of school, and more students became eligible for services. Districts began using the revised criteria to identify at-risk students in the 2001-02 school year. In the 2015-16 school year, 50.0 percent (2,649,069) of the 5,299,728 public school students in Texas were identified as at risk of dropping out of school, 1.1 percentage points lower than in the previous year. ♦ has been expelled in accordance with TEC §37.007 during the preceding or current school year; ♦ is currently on parole, probation, deferred prosecution, or other conditional release; ♦ was previously reported through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) to have dropped out of school; ♦ is a student of limited English proficiency, as defined by TEC §29.052; ♦ is in the custody or care of the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services or has, during the current school year, been referred to the department by a school official, officer of the juvenile court, or law enforcement official; ♦ is homeless, as defined by Title 42 of the United States Code, §11302, and its subsequent amendments; or ♦ resided in the preceding school year or resides in the current school year in a residential placement facility in the district, including a detention facility, substance abuse treatment facility, emergency shelter, psychiatric hospital, halfway house, or foster group home. Definition of At Risk A student at risk of dropping out of school is a student who is under 26 years of age and who: ♦ was not advanced from one grade level to the next for one or more school years; ♦ is in Grade 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 and did not maintain an average equivalent to at least 70 on a scale of 100 in two or more subjects in the foundation curriculum during a semester in the preceding or current school year or is not maintaining such an average in two or more subjects in the foundation curriculum in the current semester; ♦ did not perform satisfactorily on an assessment instrument administered under TEC Chapter 39, Subchapter B, and has not in the previous or current school year subsequently performed on that instrument or another appropriate instrument at a level equal to at least 110 percent of the level of satisfactory performance on that instrument; ♦ is in prekindergarten, kindergarten, or Grade 1, 2, or 3 and did not perform satisfactorily on a readiness test or assessment instrument administered during the current school year; ♦ is pregnant or is a parent; ♦ has been placed in an alternative education program in accordance with TEC §37.006 during the preceding or current school year; 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Testing Information The State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) are assessments designed to measure the extent to which students have learned and are able to apply the knowledge and skills outlined in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), the statemandated curriculum standards. One important function of STAAR is to gauge how well schools and teachers are preparing students academically. The test is specifically designed to measure individual student progress in relation to content that is directly tied to the TEKS. Every STAAR question is directly aligned to the TEKS currently in effect for the grade and subject area or the course being assessed. Students are tested in mathematics and reading in Grades 3-8, writing in Grades 4 and 7, science in Grades 5 and 8, and social studies in Grade 8. State law also requires students to pass five STAAR end-of-course assessments—Algebra I, English I, English II, biology, and U.S. history—to be 71 eligible to receive a diploma from a Texas public school. Unless otherwise noted, STAAR passing rates presented in this chapter are based on Level II standards. The Level II passing standards for 2016 STAAR examinations increased from the previous year; consequently, results for 2015 and 2016 are not comparable. Level III results for both 2015 and 2016 are presented at the final standard. STAAR Performance for Students At Risk State Compensatory Education Policy on Student Performance School districts are required to use student performance data from STAAR and other achievement tests administered under TEC Chapter 39, Subchapter B, to design and implement appropriate compensatory, intensive, or accelerated instructional services for students that enable them to perform at grade level by the end of the next regular school term (TEC §29.081). Districts must provide accelerated instruction to students who have not performed satisfactorily on the assessment instrument or who are at risk of dropping out of school. A student is considered at risk of dropping out of school from the time he or she fails to perform satisfactorily on a STAAR examination until he or she performs at a level equal to at least 110 percent of the level of satisfactory performance on the same assessment instrument or another appropriate test (TEC §29.081). Each district is required to evaluate its compensatory education program by documenting program success in reducing any disparity in performance, as measured by assessment instruments administered under TEC Chapter 39, Subchapter B, or in the rates of high school completion between students at risk of dropping out of school and all other students. Reading In 2016, passing rates for at-risk students overall on the STAAR reading assessment ranged from 46 percent in Grades 6 and 7 to 62 percent in Grade 8 (Table 3.1). Compared to the previous year, passing rates for at-risk students overall decreased in Grades 3, 5, 6, and 7 and increased in Grades 4 and 8. Grade 6 had the largest decrease (6 percentage points), and Grade 8 had the largest increase (4 percentage points). Across racial/ethnic groups and grade levels, passing rates in 2016 ranged from 39 percent for African American at-risk students in Grade 6 to 76 percent for Asian at-risk students in Grade 3. Passing rates for students identified as economically disadvantaged ranged from 72 42 percent in Grade 6 to 59 percent in Grade 8. Female at-risk students outperformed male at-risk students in all grade levels, with differences in passing rates ranging from 6 percentage points in Grades 5 and 6 to 10 percentage points in Grades 4 and 7. Compared to students not identified as at risk, at-risk students had lower passing rates on the 2016 STAAR reading assessment across all grade levels and student groups. Performance differences between at-risk and not-at-risk students ranged from 21 percentage points for Asian students in Grade 3 to 46 percentage points for male students in Grade 7. Across grade levels, differences in overall passing rates were largest in Grades 6 and 7 (44 percentage points each). Mathematics In 2016, passing rates for at-risk students overall on the STAAR mathematics assessment ranged from 47 percent in Grade 7 to 63 percent in Grade 3 (Table 3.2 on page 74). Compared to the previous year, passing rates for at-risk students overall decreased in Grades 3, 6, and 8, increased in Grade 4, and remained the same in Grades 5 and 7. Grade 8 had the largest decrease (3 percentage points). Across racial/ethnic groups and grade levels, passing rates in 2016 ranged from 35 percent for African American at-risk students in Grade 4 to 84 percent for Asian at-risk students in Grade 3. Passing rates for students identified as economically disadvantaged ranged from 44 percent in Grade 7 to 61 percent in Grade 3. Male at-risk students outperformed female at-risk students in Grades 3, 4, and 6, and female at-risk students outperformed male at-risk students in Grades 5, 7, and 8. The performance difference between genders was largest in Grade 8, at 5 percentage points. Compared to students not identified as at risk, at-risk students had lower passing rates on the 2016 STAAR mathematics assessment across all grade levels and student groups. Performance differences between at-risk and not-at-risk students ranged from 13 percentage points for Asian students in Grade 3 to 43 percentage points for male students in Grade 7. Across grade levels, differences in overall passing rates were largest in Grade 7 (42 percentage points). Writing In 2016, the passing rate on the STAAR writing assessment for Grade 4 at-risk students overall was 49 percent, a decrease of 1 percentage point from the previous year (Table 3.3 on page 75). The passing rate for Grade 7 at-risk students overall was 45 percent, the same as the previous year. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 3.1. STAAR Reading Passing Rates (%), by At-Risk Status, Student Group, and Grade, 2015 and 2016 Group 2015 At-Risk African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged Female Male All Not-At-Risk African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged Female Male All 2016 At-Risk African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged Female Male All Not-At-Risk African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged Female Male All 3 4 5 49 61 79 63 62 66 61 60 66 59 62 39 50 70 54 49 58 55 51 57 49 53 77 88 97 85 88 93 90 81 89 86 88 Grade 6 7 8 49 55 70 58 53 66 64 55 62 55 58 47 52 68 50 52 62 60 49 55 50 52 47 51 60 46 49 58 59 45 53 45 49 51 60 64 55 60 68 66 54 60 55 58 76 84 97 87 89 92 90 82 90 86 88 82 90 98 91 90 95 94 88 94 91 92 81 88 98 90 91 94 93 86 92 90 91 84 89 98 90 90 94 94 87 93 90 91 87 93 99 94 92 96 96 91 95 93 94 43 56 76 58 61 62 60 55 62 55 58 43 57 72 57 57 56 52 54 61 51 56 44 55 66 54 52 61 57 52 58 52 55 39 42 63 44 48 54 52 42 49 43 46 41 49 62 45 47 54 52 43 52 42 46 58 61 67 60 61 71 70 59 67 59 62 72 84 97 83 89 91 89 78 87 84 86 82 89 98 89 87 93 92 86 92 88 90 82 89 98 92 92 95 94 88 93 91 92 78 87 97 88 84 93 92 84 91 88 90 81 86 98 89 90 93 92 86 92 88 90 90 93 99 95 95 97 97 93 97 95 96 Note. Results are based on the primary administrations of STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR Spanish combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 73 Table 3.2. STAAR Mathematics Passing Rates (%), by At-Risk Status, Student Group, and Grade, 2015 and 2016 Group 2015 At-Risk African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged Female Male All Not-At-Risk African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged Female Male All 2016 At-Risk African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged Female Male All Not-At-Risk African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged Female Male All 3 4 5 45 66 85 65 66 66 62 62 64 64 64 35 55 78 56 56 53 49 53 53 54 54 72 85 97 83 88 91 89 78 86 86 86 Grade 6 7 8 45 59 82 62 64 63 60 59 62 59 61 43 58 79 54 61 61 57 51 54 54 54 37 48 70 46 51 56 52 44 47 47 47 49 54 77 56 64 62 61 54 58 55 56 73 84 98 86 90 91 88 81 87 87 87 80 89 99 91 91 94 92 87 92 91 91 76 86 98 87 89 93 91 83 89 89 89 76 85 98 87 88 92 90 84 89 88 89 81 91 98 90 87 93 91 87 91 89 90 44 58 84 64 62 65 60 61 62 63 63 35 59 78 58 58 53 47 54 54 56 55 45 58 80 63 62 64 59 59 62 61 61 40 50 78 53 54 58 54 50 52 53 52 36 48 72 46 53 55 50 44 47 46 47 45 54 74 53 62 59 56 51 56 51 53 70 84 97 83 85 91 88 77 85 85 85 74 85 98 86 83 91 88 81 87 87 87 81 90 99 92 92 95 93 88 93 92 92 77 90 98 89 87 93 91 85 90 90 90 76 83 98 88 87 92 91 84 89 89 89 79 85 98 89 92 92 91 85 90 88 89 Note. Results are based on the primary administrations of STAAR, STAAR A, STAAR L, and STAAR Spanish combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). 74 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Social Studies Table 3.3. STAAR Writing Passing Rates (%), by At-Risk Status, Student Group, and Grade, 2015 and 2016 Group At-Risk African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Econ. Disad.a Female Male All Not-At-Risk African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Econ. Disad. Female Male All 2015 4 Grade 7 In 2016, the passing rate on the STAAR social studies assessment for Grade 8 at-risk students overall was 38 percent, the same as the previous year (Table 3.4). 2016 2015 2016 38 46 71 52 51 46 46 49 58 43 50 38 47 67 51 54 45 45 48 56 43 49 42 45 61 44 51 52 51 42 55 37 45 40 46 61 43 51 52 50 41 54 37 45 74 80 97 82 87 87 86 77 88 80 84 76 81 96 82 79 87 86 78 88 81 84 80 87 98 88 92 91 91 84 93 85 89 79 84 98 87 91 91 90 84 93 85 89 Note. Results are based on STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR Spanish combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). aEconomically disadvantaged. Across racial/ethnic groups in Grade 4, passing rates in 2016 ranged from 38 percent for African American at-risk students to 67 percent for Asian at-risk students. Across racial/ethnic groups in Grade 7, passing rates ranged from 40 percent for African American atrisk students to 61 percent for Asian at-risk students. Among students identified as economically disadvantaged, 48 percent passed the writing assessment in Grade 4, and 41 percent passed in Grade 7. Female at-risk students outperformed male at-risk students by 13 percentage points in Grade 4 and by 17 percentage points in Grade 7. Compared to students not identified as at risk, at-risk students in both Grade 4 and Grade 7 had lower passing rates on the 2016 STAAR writing assessment across all student groups. In Grade 4, performance differences between at-risk and not-at-risk students ranged from 25 percentage points for Pacific Islander students to 42 percentage points for White students. In Grade 7, performance differences between at-risk and not-at-risk students ranged from 37 percentage points for Asian students to 48 percentage points for male students. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 3.4. STAAR Social Studies Passing Rates (%), Grade 8, by At-Risk Status, and Student Group, 2015 and 2016 Group At-Risk African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Econ. Disad.a Female Male All Not-At-Risk African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Econ. Disad. Female Male All 2015 2016 33 39 57 35 39 48 47 34 33 42 38 33 42 57 36 45 46 44 35 34 41 38 74 82 96 80 82 88 87 77 82 87 84 74 81 96 81 85 88 87 77 82 86 84 Note. Results are based on STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR L combined. aEconomically disadvantaged. Across racial/ethnic groups, passing rates in 2016 ranged from 33 percent for African American atrisk students to 57 percent for Asian at-risk students. Among students identified as economically disadvantaged, 35 percent passed the social studies assessment. Male at-risk students outperformed female at-risk students by 7 percentage points. Compared to students not identified as at risk, at-risk students had lower passing rates on the 2016 STAAR social studies assessment across all student groups. Performance differences between at-risk and not-at-risk students ranged from 39 percentage points each for American Indian and Asian students to 48 percentage points for female students. Science In 2016, the passing rate on the STAAR science assessment for Grade 5 at-risk students overall was 56 percent, an increase of 6 percentage points from the 75 previous year (Table 3.5). The passing rate for Grade 8 at-risk students overall was 53 percent, an increase of 8 percentage points from the previous year. Table 3.5. STAAR Science Passing Rates (%), by At-Risk Status, Student Group, and Grade, 2015 and 2016 Group At-Risk African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Econ. Disad.a Female Male All Not-At-Risk African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Econ. Disad. Female Male All 2015 5 Grade 8 STAAR Performance of Students Identified as English Language Learners 2016 2015 2016 37 50 67 49 43 60 55 47 47 53 50 41 56 70 57 52 63 58 54 53 59 56 38 47 66 43 51 55 53 42 42 48 45 44 56 69 52 62 61 58 50 52 53 53 73 86 97 86 85 93 91 82 88 89 88 77 89 97 89 88 93 92 85 89 91 90 78 86 98 87 88 92 91 85 88 90 89 83 89 98 91 92 94 94 88 92 92 92 Note. Results are based on STAAR, STAAR A, STAAR L, and STAAR Spanish combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). aEconomically disadvantaged. Across racial/ethnic groups in Grade 5, passing rates in 2016 ranged from 41 percent for African American at-risk students to 70 percent for Asian at-risk students. Across racial/ethnic groups in Grade 8, passing rates ranged from 44 percent for African American atrisk students to 69 percent for Asian at-risk students. Among students identified as economically disadvantaged, 54 percent passed the science assessment in Grade 5, and 50 percent passed in Grade 8. Male atrisk students outperformed female at-risk students by 6 percentage points in Grade 5 and by 1 percentage point in Grade 8. Compared to students not identified as at risk, at-risk students in both Grade 5 and Grade 8 had lower passing rates on the 2016 STAAR science assessment across all student groups. In Grade 5, performance differences between at-risk and not-at-risk students ranged from 27 percentage points for Asian students to 36 percentage points for African American, Pacific Islander, and female students. In Grade 8, performance differences 76 between at-risk and not-at-risk students ranged from 29 percentage points for Asian students to 40 percentage points for female students. An English language learner (ELL) is a student whose primary language is not English and whose English language skills are such that the student has difficulty performing ordinary classwork in English (TEC §29.052). In 2007, the 80th Texas Legislature required that TEA, beginning with the 2008-09 school year, report performance data for students currently identified as ELLs and students previously identified as ELLs, disaggregated by bilingual education or special language program instructional model (TEC §39.332, 2009). During the time they are attaining proficiency in English, students are classified as current ELLs. Current ELLs generally participate in bilingual or English as a second language (ESL) programs, although in rare instances, parents decline program services. Within bilingual and ESL programs, districts may choose from among several instructional models for implementation. The ELL status and program assignments of current ELLs are reported on assessment answer documents. TEA began collecting data on instructional model assignments in spring 2009. Students exit the current ELL classification when their language proficiency assessment committees determine, based on a combination of performance measures, that they are able to participate equally in regular, all-English, instructional programs (TEC §29.056). At that point, they are reclassified as former ELLs and monitored academically for the next two years. This section presents STAAR results by bilingual education or special language program instructional model for ELLs who were also identified as at risk on statewide assessments in 2015-16. As noted earlier, all current ELLs are statutorily defined as at risk (TEC §29.081). The assessment results alone are not sufficient for evaluating the quality of different types of ELL program services within a grade or at different grades, nor can they be used in isolation to make valid comparisons with students not identified as ELLs. See Chapter 2 of this report for assessment results for all ELLs, including those not identified as at risk, and for more information about limitations of the data. Among all current ELLs identified as at risk, passing rates at the Level II passing standard for all tests taken generally declined from the elementary to the secondary grade levels, ranging from a high of 63 percent in 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Grade 3 to a low of 35 percent in Grade 7 (Table 3.6 on page 78). The same pattern was true among all former ELLs identified as at risk, with passing rates ranging from a high of 89 percent in Grade 4 to a low of 69 percent in Grade 7. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Agency Contact Persons For more information about the performance of students in at-risk situations, contact Monica Martinez, Associate Commissioner for Standards and Support Services, (512) 463-9087. 77 Table 3.6. Participation and Performance of At-Risk Students Currently Identified as English Language Learners (ELLs) and At-Risk Students Previously Identified as ELLs on STAAR Reading, by Grade and Special Language Program Instructional Model, 2016 Group Grade 3 All Current ELLsa All Bil.b Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESLc Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Tested Achieved (%) Level II Level III 102,628 70,764 27,624 8,890 6,854 27,396 26,544 18,038 8,506 5,297 63 63 60 64 67 65 62 64 59 60 15 15 11 16 18 18 14 16 11 13 Achieved (%) Level II Level III Group Grade 4 All Current ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Tested 90,189 61,957 23,591 8,175 5,396 24,795 23,503 15,627 7,876 4,633 61 62 62 62 65 61 60 62 57 59 9 10 8 10 13 12 7 7 5 7 3,571 1,453 976 155 96 226 1,711 1,153 558 407 89 87 84 95 97 90 91 92 87 89 24 21 18 23 33 26 26 28 24 23 62,420 6,901 2,622 1,393 1,492 1,394 52,160 22,554 29,606 3,302 40 41 35 38 54 43 40 42 39 39 3 3 1 2 6 3 3 4 3 3 9,575 5,373 2,598 838 318 1,619 3,215 1,861 1,354 985 70 68 63 70 81 73 74 75 72 64 7 7 5 5 8 12 8 9 7 6 All Former ELLsd All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Grade 5 All Current ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services 2,053 1,070 917 8 100 45 842 449 393 141 88 86 85 88 97 78 91 93 89 88 29 27 25 50 39 31 33 42 23 28 79,050 53,001 19,925 7,285 4,144 21,647 21,954 13,722 8,232 4,038 54 56 54 53 66 58 50 51 50 49 7 8 6 7 11 9 6 7 5 6 All Former ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Grade 6 All Current ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services All Former ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services 6,771 3,330 1,981 356 210 783 2,564 1,559 1,005 872 85 83 80 87 93 88 87 88 85 83 19 18 16 17 25 20 21 22 18 19 All Former ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Note. Results are based on the primary administrations of STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR Spanish combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). Results reflect the performance of only those students who were tested in the same districts in which they were last identified as ELLs. aCurrent ELLs were identified as ELLs in 2015-16. The group, all current ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. bBilingual. cEnglish as a second language. dFormer ELLs are those in the first and second years of academic monitoring after exiting ELL status. The group, all former ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. eA dash (–)indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. continues 78 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 3.6. Participation and Performance of At-Risk Students Currently Identified as English Language Learners (ELLs) and At-Risk Students Previously Identified as ELLs on STAAR Reading, by Grade and Special Language Program Instructional Model, 2016 (continued) Achieved (%) Level II Level III Group Grade 7 All Current ELLsa All Bil.b Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESLc Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Tested 50,650 935 43 34 779 79 46,680 18,465 28,215 3,009 35 41 28 35 42 39 34 37 33 36 All Former ELLsd All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services 10,441 3,794 1,728 745 347 974 5,811 2,399 3,412 835 69 67 60 66 76 78 71 71 71 64 Achieved (%) Level II Level III Tested 2 2 0 0 3 3 2 3 2 4 Group Grade 8 All Current ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services 42,298 455 4 8 372 71 39,227 15,569 23,658 2,599 44 54 –e 38 55 49 44 46 43 49 2 2 – 0 2 0 1 2 1 2 7 7 3 6 10 14 7 8 7 5 All Former ELLs All Bil. Education Programs Transitional Bil./Early Exit Transitional Bil./Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services 6,815 575 280 134 89 72 5,678 2,210 3,468 538 81 75 76 63 87 83 82 81 83 77 5 3 2 1 11 3 5 4 5 5 Note. Results are based on the primary administrations of STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR Spanish combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). Results reflect the performance of only those students who were tested in the same districts in which they were last identified as ELLs. aCurrent ELLs were identified as ELLs in 2015-16. The group, all current ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. bBilingual. cEnglish as a second language. dFormer ELLs are those in the first and second years of academic monitoring after exiting ELL status. The group, all former ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. eA dash (–)indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 79 80 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 4. Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs I n 1995, the 74th Texas Legislature required school districts to establish disciplinary alternative education programs (DAEPs) to serve students who commit specific disciplinary or criminal offenses (Texas Education Code [TEC] Chapter 37). Statute specifies that the academic mission of a DAEP is to enable students to perform at grade level. Each DAEP must provide for the educational and behavioral needs of students, focusing on English language arts, mathematics, science, history, and self-discipline. A student removed to a DAEP must be afforded an opportunity to complete coursework before the beginning of the next school year. Since the 2005-06 school year, teachers in DAEPs must have met all certification requirements established under TEC Chapter 21, Subchapter B. DAEP assignments may be mandatory or discretionary. TEC Chapter 37 specifies the offenses that result in mandatory assignment to a DAEP. School administrators also may assign students to DAEPs for violations of local student codes of conduct (discretionary offenses). For some student behavior, the type of disciplinary action applicable depends on the circumstances involved. A student may be assigned to a DAEP or expelled more than once in a school year. In addition, a student may be assigned to a DAEP and expelled in the same school year. Each school district code of conduct must: (a) specify that consideration will be given to self-defense, intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in the conduct, a student's disciplinary history, or a disability that substantially impairs the student's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the student's conduct as factors in a decision to order suspension, removal to a DAEP, expulsion, or placement in a juvenile justice alternative education program (JJAEP); (b) provide guidelines for setting the length of a term of removal to a DAEP under TEC §37.006 or expulsion under TEC §37.007; and (c) address the notification of a student's parent or guardian of a violation of the student code of conduct by the student that results in suspension, removal to a DAEP, or expulsion. The code of conduct must also prohibit bullying, harassment, and making hit lists and ensure that district employees enforce those prohibitions. The code of conduct will provide, as appropriate for students at each grade level, methods and options for: (a) managing students in the classroom and on 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools school grounds; (b) disciplining students; and (c) preventing and intervening in student discipline problems, including bullying, harassment, and making hit lists. Program Characteristics Districts have implemented a variety of DAEP programs with different instructional arrangements and behavior management approaches. Some programs provide direct, teacher-oriented classroom instruction; others combine direct instruction with self-paced, computer-assisted programs. Behavior management approaches include "boot camp" systems, as well as "point" systems that reward positive behavior. Most DAEPs are highly structured. For example, many DAEPs use metal detectors, require students to wear uniforms, maintain small student-to-teacher ratios, and escort students from one area of campus to another. DAEPs may be housed on home campuses or in separate, dedicated facilities. Several small, rural districts have entered into cooperative arrangements with other districts to provide DAEPs. DAEPs differ from other alternative education programs, such as dropout recovery programs and other alternative school settings. Students assigned to DAEPs are required to attend because of disciplinary reasons. Students who enroll in other alternative education programs generally do so by choice, often for academic reasons or interest in a less traditional school setting. DAEPs also differ from JJAEPs, which are programs shared by agreement between school district boards of trustees and county juvenile boards that are made available for students who are expelled from public school. Data Sources and Methods Data on discipline, gender, ethnicity, economic status, and dropout status were drawn from the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS). All summary DAEP data presented are based on analyses of student-level data. Participation and performance data on State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), accommodated assessments (STAAR A; available beginning in 2015), linguistically accommodated assessments (STAAR L), and modified 81 assessments (STAAR Modified; available prior to 2015) were provided to the Texas Education Agency (TEA) by a state contractor, Pearson. STAAR L is available for Grades 3-8 and end-of-course mathematics, science, and social studies assessments. STAAR L is not offered for reading or writing assessments. All STAAR passing rates presented in this chapter are based on Phase-in 1 Level II standards. Test performance results for students assigned to DAEPs include scores for students assigned at any time during the year. Frequency and Length of DAEP Assignment DAEP Assignment Approximately 1.4 percent (75,150) of the more than 5.2 million students in Texas public schools in 2014-15 received DAEP assignments (Table 4.1). Compared to the previous year, the percentage of students assigned to DAEPs decreased by 0.1 percentage points. The total number of DAEP assignments, including multiple assignments for students, decreased by 4.0 percent. Table 4.1. Assignment to DAEPs,a 2013-14 and 2014-15 DAEP Assignments Individual Student Count Totalb 2013-14 77,306 97,468 2014-15 75,150 93,601 Disciplinary alternative education programs. bIncludes multiple assignments for individual students. a In 2014-15, disparities were evident between the demographic makeup of students assigned to DAEPs and that of the student population as a whole. In each of Grades 1-12, African American and economically disadvantaged students accounted for larger percentages of students assigned to DAEPs than of the total student population (Table 4.2). This was more pronounced in the early grade levels. Conversely, White students at each grade level accounted for a smaller percentage of students assigned to DAEPs than of the total student population. Hispanic students accounted for smaller percentages of students assigned to DAEPs than of the total student population in Grades 1-5 and 10-12, and larger percentages in Grades 6-9. From Grade 1 to Grade 12, the percentage of students assigned to DAEPs in 2014-15 increased markedly at Grade 6, continued rising to a maximum of 4.2 percent of all students in Grade 9, then steadily declined through the high school grades (Table 4.2). Of all students in Grades 1-12 who were assigned to DAEPs, 24.1 percent were ninth graders (Table 4.1 and Table 4.2). Males made up 72.9 percent of students assigned to DAEPs in 2014-15 compared to 51.3 percent of the 82 total student population (Table 4.3 on page 84). Some 16.7 percent of students assigned to DAEPs were receiving special education services, compared to 9.4 percent of students statewide. The overrepresentation of students receiving special education services in the DAEP population may be related to the overrepresentation of male students in the DAEP population, as males were also overrepresented in the special education population statewide. For all students assigned to DAEPs in 2014-15, the average number of discretionary assignments (1.21) exceeded the average number of mandatory assignments (1.10) (Table 4.4 on page 84). About one out of five students assigned to DAEPs in 2014-15 received more than one assignment that year. On average, female students (15.3%) were less likely to have received more than one assignment than male students (20.3%), and White students (16.0%) were less likely to have received more than one assignment than African American (20.7%) and Hispanic students (19.4%). For each student who attended a DAEP in 2014-15, the total length of assignment was calculated by adding the number of days, across multiple assignments, the student actually spent in a DAEP. A student who attended a DAEP for one assignment of 10 days, for example, would have the same total length of assignment as a student who attended a DAEP twice in the same year for 5 days each assignment. White students assigned to DAEPs spent an average of about 31.3 days in actual attendance, whereas African American and Hispanic students spent an average of about 32.9 days and 33.0 days, respectively (Table 4.4 on page 84). State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness and State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness Modified Participation and Performance STAAR is the primary statewide assessment. This chapter provides STAAR reading and mathematics assessment results for students assigned to DAEPs in Grades 3-8. For students assigned to DAEPs in secondary grades, this chapter provides performance results on STAAR end-of-course assessments in English I, English II, and Algebra I. Results for students taking STAAR Modified are also provided. STAAR Modified assessments were administered for the last time in 2014. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 4.2. Enrollment and Assignment to DAEPs,a by Grade and Student Group, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Grade 2013-14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2014-15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Grade 2013-14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 All Students African American (%) State DAEP American Indian (%) State DAEP Asian (%) State DAEP 420,310 404,301 398,858 392,102 390,889 384,368 394,010 389,399 419,937 370,985 331,534 330,122 519 592 695 988 1,759 5,924 10,042 12,377 18,434 12,053 7,759 6,055 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.5 2.5 3.2 4.4 3.2 2.3 1.8 12.4 12.5 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.6 12.7 12.8 13.2 13.2 12.9 12.9 39.1 39.5 40.3 37.1 30.5 25.4 23.3 21.3 22.8 24.0 24.2 23.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.4 3.7 4.1 4.0 0.4 0.2 0.6 . 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.1 1.1 423,500 418,124 405,606 399,314 396,502 391,682 391,317 397,350 430,301 382,470 342,299 336,467 463 535 670 961 1,774 5,669 8,997 11,834 18,117 11,927 7,904 6,216 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.4 2.3 3.0 4.2 3.1 2.3 1.8 12.3 12.5 12.6 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.6 12.6 13.1 13.0 12.9 12.9 38.4 37.8 39.4 39.2 32.0 26.7 23.3 21.7 22.0 24.2 23.8 22.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 4.0 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.7 4.1 4.1 0.4 . 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.4 Hispanic (%) State DAEP 53.0 52.7 52.3 52.0 51.7 51.2 51.3 50.6 51.3 49.3 47.5 47.5 DAEP Number Percent 32.6 33.8 35.8 38.7 45.6 56.6 58.3 57.2 55.8 50.5 45.7 44.3 Pacific Islander (%) State DAEP 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 . 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 White (%) State DAEP 28.2 28.5 28.9 29.2 29.5 30.0 30.0 30.7 29.9 31.5 33.2 33.4 23.5 20.8 19.7 21.1 21.4 15.4 16.1 18.8 18.7 22.5 26.5 28.9 Multiracial (%) State DAEP 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 Note. A dot (.) indicates there were no students from the student group assigned to disciplinary alternative education programs. aDisciplinary alternative education programs. bEconomically disadvantaged. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 3.9 5.2 3.0 2.5 1.8 1.9 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 Econ. Disad.b (%) State DAEP 65.7 65.2 64.2 63.2 62.6 61.7 60.9 59.2 58.2 54.9 51.3 50.1 82.1 87.2 84.0 85.4 86.8 88.1 86.4 82.0 78.3 73.0 65.5 61.0 continues 83 Table 4.2. Enrollment and Assignment to DAEPs,a by Grade and Student Group, 2013-14 and 2014-15 (continued) Grade 2014-15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Hispanic (%) State DAEP 52.9 52.9 52.5 52.2 52.0 51.6 51.4 51.4 51.6 49.8 48.4 48.1 33.0 33.6 33.3 38.3 44.6 55.6 57.8 58.0 56.0 49.6 46.7 43.5 Pacific Islander (%) State DAEP 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 . 0.2 0.3 . 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 White (%) State DAEP 28.0 28.0 28.3 28.8 29.0 29.4 29.7 29.8 29.4 31.1 32.3 32.6 22.7 23.0 21.6 20.3 20.2 14.9 16.6 17.8 19.4 23.1 25.8 29.9 Multiracial (%) State DAEP 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7 5.2 5.0 4.8 1.2 2.5 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.2 2.1 Econ. Disad.b (%) State DAEP 64.4 63.9 63.4 62.2 61.4 60.3 59.4 58.6 57.2 53.7 50.8 49.5 83.4 82.4 83.0 84.4 85.7 86.8 83.8 82.4 77.1 70.9 63.2 56.6 Note. A dot (.) indicates there were no students from the student group assigned to disciplinary alternative education programs. aDisciplinary alternative education programs. bEconomically disadvantaged. Table 4.3. Assignment to DAEPsa (%), by Gender and Special Education Services, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Group 2013-14 Female Male Receiving Spec. Ed.b Services Not Receiving Spec. Ed. Services 2014-15 Female Male Receiving Spec. Ed. Services Not Receiving Spec. Ed. Services a State DAEP 48.6 51.4 9.4 90.6 26.1 73.9 16.8 83.2 48.7 51.3 9.4 90.6 27.1 72.9 16.7 83.3 Disciplinary alternative education programs. bSpecial education. Caution should be exercised when interpreting STAAR Modified results for students assigned to DAEPs. The number of students assigned to DAEPs who took STAAR Modified assessments in 2013-14 was small. For the majority of school districts, fewer than five of the students assigned to DAEPs took STAAR Modified assessments. This likely contributed to greater than average variability in student performance. Statewide, 90.1 percent of students in Grades 3-8 who were assigned to DAEPs took the 2014 STAAR reading test, and 7.5 percent took the 2014 STAAR Modified reading test (Table 4.5). Of those not tested, 1.8 percent were absent. In the 2013-14 school year, 16.8 percent of students assigned to DAEPs were receiving special education services (Table 4.3), and many of those students took Table 4.4. Frequency and Length of DAEPa Assignment, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Group African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged Special Education Female Male All a Average Number of Assignmentsb Discretionary Mandatory 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 1.26 1.23 1.09 1.10 1.23 1.24 1.07 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.09 1.09 1.22 1.21 1.11 1.12 1.17 1.06 1.09 1.10 1.21 1.19 1.08 1.07 1.25 1.22 1.08 1.07 1.24 1.22 1.11 1.11 1.26 1.23 1.12 1.11 1.19 1.18 1.07 1.07 1.24 1.22 1.11 1.12 1.23 1.21 1.10 1.10 Single Assignment (%) 2013-14 2014-15 78.3 79.3 79.7 80.3 86.9 85.6 80.3 80.6 81.7 84.6 83.3 84.0 80.2 81.9 79.7 80.2 77.8 78.7 83.9 84.7 79.2 79.7 80.5 81.1 Average Length of Assignment (Days) 2013-14 2014-15 32.3 32.9 31.5 31.8 29.2 31.4 33.2 33.0 37.3 31.5 31.0 31.3 32.2 31.0 33.0 33.0 33.6 33.3 29.8 30.2 33.4 33.5 32.5 32.6 Disciplinary alternative education program. bAverage per student. 84 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 4.5. Reading STAAR and STAAR Modified Participation (%), Students Assigned to DAEPs,a Grades 3-8, by Student Group, 2014 and 2015 Group African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged Special Education All Tested on STAAR 2014 2015 88.5 98.0 86.6 99.0 97.6 99.0 90.4 98.0 90.0 100 91.2 98.5 94.4 96.8 89.7 98.0 53.6 97.9 90.1 98.1 Absent 2014 2015 1.6 1.7 3.6 0.0 0.8 1.0 2.0 1.8 3.3 0.0 1.4 1.2 1.0 3.0 1.9 1.8 2.2 1.7 1.8 1.7 Tested on STAAR M 2014 2015 9.3 n/ab 9.8 n/a 1.6 n/a 7.0 n/a 6.7 n/a 6.9 n/a 4.4 n/a 7.8 n/a 42.2 n/a 7.5 n/a Other 2014 2015 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 2.0 0.4 0.6 0.2 Note. STAAR results are based on STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR Spanish combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. aDisciplinary alternative education programs. bNot applicable. STAAR Modified assessments were administered for the final time during the 2013-14 testing cycle. STAAR Modified assessments. Generally, passing rates on the 2014 STAAR Modified reading and mathematics tests were lower for students assigned to DAEPs than students statewide (Table 4.6). The overall passing rate for students in special education programs assigned to DAEPs was 8 percentage points lower than the rate for students in special education programs statewide on the STAAR Modified reading test (67% vs. 75%) and 11 percentage points lower on the STAAR Modified mathematics test (58% vs. 69%). Among students in special education programs assigned to DAEPs, STAAR Modified passing rates in reading and mathematics were higher for White students than for African American and Hispanic students. Passing rates on the 2014 STAAR Modified end-ofcourse tests for English I, English II, and Algebra I were lower for students assigned to DAEPs than students statewide (Table 4.7 on page 86). The overall passing rate for students in special education programs assigned to DAEPs was 11 percentage points lower than the overall rate for students in special education programs statewide on the English I test (57% vs. 68%), 8 percentage points lower on the English II test (68% vs. 76%), and 14 percentage points lower on the Algebra I test (34% vs. 48%). Among students assigned to DAEPs, as well as students statewide, passing rates on the STAAR Modified end-of-course tests for English I, English II, and Algebra I were higher for White students than African American and Hispanic students. In 2015, passing rates on the STAAR reading and mathematics tests in Grades 3-8 were lower for students assigned to DAEPs than students statewide (Table 4.8 on page 86). The overall passing rate for students assigned to DAEPs was 29 percentage points lower than the overall rate for students statewide on the reading test (48% vs. 77%) and 38 percentage points lower 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 4.6. STAAR Modified Passing Rates (%), Grades 3-8, by Subject and Student Group, 2014 Group Reading African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged Female Male All Mathematics African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged Female Male All DAEPa State 67 –b – 64 – 74 – 66 75 65 67 74 77 73 74 66 80 79 74 78 73 75 56 – – 57 – 69 – 57 58 59 58 65 69 72 70 63 70 72 69 70 69 69 Disciplinary alternative education program. To be included in DAEP results, a student must have both received special education services and been assigned to a DAEP in 2013-14. bA dash (–) indicates results are not presented because: (a) no students in the group were tested; or (b) the number of students in the group was small compared to other groups. Comparisons of results across groups can be misleading when one group is small compared to other groups. a on the mathematics test (34% vs. 72%). Among students assigned to DAEPs, as well as students statewide, STAAR passing rates in reading and mathematics were 85 Table 4.7. STAAR Modified End-of-Course Passing Rates (%), by Subject and Student Group, 2014 Group English I African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged Female Male All English II African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged Female Male All Algebra I African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged Female Male All Table 4.8. STAAR Passing Rates (%), Grades 3-8, by Subject and Student Group, 2014 and 2015 DAEPa State 60 –b – 52 .c 64 – 55 69 54 57 66 77 66 64 – 74 72 65 75 64 68 62 – – 65 – 80 – 66 83 65 68 73 84 66 74 – 83 85 74 83 73 76 36 – – 31 – 41 – 33 34 35 34 42 53 61 48 – 52 54 45 49 47 48 Disciplinary alternative education program. To be included in DAEP results, a student must have both received special education services and been assigned to a DAEP in 2013-14. bA dash (–) indicates results are not presented because the number of students in the group was small compared to other groups. Comparisons of results across groups can be misleading when one group is small compared to other groups. cA dot (.) indicates there were no students in the group. a higher for White students than African American and Hispanic students. Passing rates on the 2015 STAAR end-of-course tests for English I, English II, and Algebra I were lower for students assigned to DAEPs than students statewide (Table 4.9). The overall passing rate for students assigned to DAEPs was 38 percentage points lower than the overall rate for students statewide on the English I test (28% vs. 66%), 33 percentage points lower on the English II test (36% vs. 69%), and 36 percentage points 86 Group Reading African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Econ. Disad.c Special Education Female Male All Mathematics African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Econ. Disad. Special Education Female Male All 2014 DAEPa State 2015 DAEP State 48 59 71 50 –b 67 60 50 32 57 52 53 72 80 91 75 81 90 87 73 53 82 78 80 44 60 66 45 45 62 58 45 20 53 46 48 68 76 91 72 78 87 85 69 36 80 74 77 39 46 60 45 – 60 53 44 29 46 47 46 65 77 93 73 79 86 82 70 53 77 77 77 29 34 58 33 45 46 44 32 13 34 34 34 58 72 92 68 75 82 78 64 33 73 71 72 Note. Results are based on STAAR, STAAR L, and STAAR Spanish combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). Results for 2015 also include STAAR A. aDisciplinary alternative education program. bA dash (–) indicates results are not presented because the number of students in the group was small compared to other groups. Comparisons of results across groups can be misleading when one group is small compared to other groups. cEconomically disadvantaged. lower on the Algebra I test (44% vs. 80%). Among students assigned to DAEPs, as well as students statewide, passing rates on the STAAR end-of-course tests for English I, English II, and Algebra I were higher for White students than African American and Hispanic students. Dropout Rates Out of the 64,995 students in Grades 7-12 assigned to DAEPs in the 2014-15 school year (Table 4.2 on page 84), 2,912 students dropped out. The annual Grade 7-12 dropout rate for students assigned to DAEPs was 4.5 percent, three times the rate for students statewide (1.5%) (Table 4.10). Among students assigned to DAEPs, as well as students statewide, African American and Hispanic students had higher dropout rates than White students. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 4.9. STAAR End-of-Course Passing Rates (%), by Subject and Student Group, 2014 and 2015 Group English I African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Econ. Disad.c Special Education Female Male All English II African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Econ. Disad. Special Education Female Male All Algebra I African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Econ. Disad. Special Education Female Male All 2014 DAEPa State Table 4.10. Annual Dropout Rate (%), Grades 7-12, by Student Group, 2013-14 and 2014-15 2015 DAEP State 31 48 53 32 –b 48 46 32 14 45 31 35 61 71 85 63 74 83 82 61 33 76 64 70 21 45 47 25 – 44 37 25 6 40 24 28 54 64 85 58 69 81 78 55 18 73 59 66 31 52 71 34 – 52 51 33 14 47 35 38 61 72 86 64 69 84 83 61 29 76 66 71 27 42 53 33 – 51 52 30 9 46 32 36 57 71 84 63 70 84 81 58 21 75 64 69 44 62 65 45 – 61 54 46 26 54 46 48 75 82 94 79 84 91 89 77 51 85 80 83 38 49 60 42 – 55 50 41 18 50 41 44 70 78 94 77 79 88 86 74 37 83 77 80 Group African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Econ. Disad.b Special Education Female Male All a 2013-14 DAEPa State 5.2 2.2 3.9 1.8 2.3 0.5 4.9 2.0 4.8 2.3 3.2 0.8 4.2 1.0 4.6 1.9 5.5 2.1 3.6 1.3 5.0 1.9 4.6 1.6 2014-15 DAEP State 5.1 2.2 5.1 2.0 2.8 0.6 4.7 1.8 5.0 1.5 3.3 0.8 3.9 1.1 4.5 1.7 5.1 2.0 3.2 1.2 5.0 1.7 4.5 1.5 Disciplinary alternative education program. bEconomically disadvantaged. Agency Contact Persons For additional information on DAEPs, contact Candace Stoltz, School Improvement Division, (512) 463-9286. Other Sources of Information Discipline data are available on the TEA website at http://tea.texas.gov/Reports_and_Data/Student_Data/ Discipline_Data_Products/Discipline_Data_Products_ Overview/. Annual data on enrollment in discipline settings and on disciplinary incidents and resulting actions are available at the state, region, and district levels, and annual data on assessment of students in disciplinary settings are available at the state level. Note. Results are based on STAAR and STAAR L combined, as applicable (see Table 2.1 on page 43). Results for 2015 also include STAAR A. aDisciplinary alternative education program. bA dash (–) indicates results are not presented because the number of students in the group was small compared to other groups. Comparisons of results across groups can be misleading when one group is small compared to other groups. cEconomically disadvantaged. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 87 88 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 5. Graduates and Dropouts T he Grade 9 four-year longitudinal graduation rate for the 339,626 students in the class of 2015 was 89.0 percent, an increase of 0.7 percentage points from the class of 2014 (Table 5.1 on page 90 and Table 5.2 on page 91). The Grade 9 four-year longitudinal dropout rate for the class of 2015 was 6.3 percent, a decrease of 0.3 percentage points. Of the 2,284,109 students who attended Grades 7-12 in Texas public schools in the 2014-15 school year, 1.5 percent were reported to have dropped out, a decrease of 0.1 percentage points from 2013-14 (Table 5.5 on page 94). The target set in law was to reduce the annual and longitudinal dropout rates to 5 percent or less (Texas Education Code [TEC] §39.332). Dropout Definition The U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the federal entity with primary responsibility for collecting and analyzing data related to education in the United States. In 2003, the 78th Texas Legislature passed legislation requiring that dropout rates be computed according to the NCES dropout definition (TEC §39.051, 2004). Districts began collecting data consistent with the NCES definition in the 2005-06 school year. A dropout is a student who is enrolled in public school in Grades 7-12, does not return to public school the following fall, is not expelled, and does not: graduate, receive a General Educational Development (GED) certificate, continue school outside the public school system, begin college, or die. Longitudinal Graduation and Dropout Rates Calculation and Methods A four-year longitudinal graduation rate is the percentage of students from a class of first-time ninth graders who graduate within four years; that is, by the end of the fourth school year after they begin ninth grade. An extended longitudinal graduation rate is the percentage of students from a class of first-time ninth graders who graduate within five, six, or seven years. A longitudinal dropout rate is the percentage of students from a class of first-time ninth graders who drop out before completing high school. Students who enter the Texas public school system over the years are added to the original 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools class as it progresses through the grade levels; students who leave the system are subtracted from the class (Figure 5.1). Figure 5.1. Cohort for the Class of 2015 Longitudinal Graduation and Dropout Rates First-Time 9th Graders 2011-12 Students Entering TPSa on Grade Level 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 22,688 370,255 Cohort 392,943 100% Final Status Class of 2015 No Final Statusb Other Leavers 48,906 – 12.4% Data Errors 4,411 – 1.1% 339,626 86.4% Note. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. aTexas public schools. bStudents who left the Texas public school system without graduating, receiving General Educational Development certificates, or dropping out and students who could not be followed from year to year because of student identification problems. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) calculates four longitudinal rates that add to 100 percent: graduation, continuation, GED certification, and dropout. Dropouts are counted according to the dropout definition in place the year they drop out. Students assigned no final status were those who left the Texas public school system for reasons other than graduating, receiving a GED, or dropping out or those who could not be followed from year to year because of student identification problems. Longitudinal Rates in the Accountability System The Texas public school accountability system consists of four indices: student achievement, student progress, 89 Table 5.1. Common Methods of Measuring Student Progress Through School Annual Dropout Rate Longitudinal Rates: Graduation and Dropout Attrition Rate Description The percentage of students who drop The percentage of students from a class of beginning ninth graders who out of school during one school year. graduate (graduation rate) or drop out before completing high school (dropout rate). The percentage change in fall enrollment between Grade 9 and Grade 12 across years. Calculation Divide the number of students who drop out during a school year by the total number of students enrolled that year. Divide the number of students who graduate or drop out by the end of Grade 12 by the total number of students in the original ninth-grade class. Students who enter the Texas public school system over the years are added to the class; students who leave the system are subtracted. For example, the graduation rate is calculated as follows: Subtract Grade 12 enrollment from Grade 9 enrollment three years earlier, then divide by the Grade 9 enrollment. The rate may be adjusted for estimated population change over the three years. The graduation rate is a positive indicator, measuring school success rather than failure. More stable measures over time. The longitudinal dropout rate is more consistent with the public's understanding of what a dropout rate reflects. Districts have more time to encourage dropouts to return to school before being held accountable. Can be extended to five or six years to account for students who take more than four years to complete high school. Provides an estimate of school leavers when aggregate enrollment numbers are the only data available. graduates graduates + continuers + GEDa recipients + dropouts Advantages ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Disadvantages ♦ ♦ Measure of annual performance for program improvements. Program improvements can be ascertained within one year. Requires only one year of data. Can be calculated for any school or district with students in any of the grades covered. Can be disaggregated by grade level. ♦ Produces the lowest rate of any method. May not correspond to the public's understanding of a dropout rate. ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Requires multiple years of data; one year of inaccurate student iden- ♦ tification data can remove a student from the measure. Can only be calculated for schools that have all the grades in the ♦ calculation and that have had all those grades for the number of years necessary to calculate the rate. Since few high schools have Grades 7 and 8, longitudinal graduation and dropout rates are often calculated for Grades 9-12. Program improvements may not be reflected for several years, and districts are not held accountable for some dropouts until years after they drop out. ♦ Does not produce a dropout rate by grade. ♦ Produces the highest rate of any method. Does not distinguish attrition that results from dropping out from attrition resulting from students being retained, moving to other schools, graduating early, etc. Does not always correctly reflect the status of dropouts; adjustments for growth can further distort the rate. Cannot be used in accountability systems because it is an estimate. Remarks A Grade 7-12 annual dropout rate has been calculated by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) since 1987-88. In 2003, the Texas Legislature required districts and TEA to adopt the national dropout definition beginning with students who left Texas public schools in 2005-06. Longitudinal rates are calculated such that the graduation rate, continuation rate, GED certification rate, and dropout rate add to 100 percent. Dropouts are counted according to the dropout definition in place the year they drop out. The national dropout definition, which was adopted in 2005-06, was fully incorporated in the graduation and dropout rates for the class of 2009. The attrition rate reported by TEA is not adjusted for growth. 2014-15 TEA Reporting Annual dropout rates Grades 7-12: 1.5% Grades 9-12: 2.1% Grades 7-8: 0.3% Class of 2015 Grade 9 four-year longitudinal rates Graduation: 89.0% Graduation, continuation, or GED: 93.7% Dropout: 6.3% Class of 2014 Grade 9 five-year extended longitudinal rates Graduation: 90.4% Graduation, continuation, or GED: 92.8% Dropout: 7.2% Class of 2013 Grade 9 six-year extended longitudinal rates Graduation: 90.9% Graduation, continuation, or GED: 92.8% Dropout: 7.2% Unadjusted attrition rates Grades 7-12: 10.7% Grades 9-12: 20.3% a General Educational Development certificate. 90 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 5.2. Grade 9 Four-Year Longitudinal Graduation and Dropout Rates, by Race/Ethnicity, Economic Status, and Gender, Classes of 2014 and 2015 Class Year Class African American Class of 2014 43,707 Class of 2015 44,533 American Indian Class of 2014 <1,450 Class of 2015 1,486 Asian Class of 2014 12,969 Class of 2015 13,444 Hispanic Class of 2014 159,708 Class of 2015 164,646 Pacific Islander Class of 2014 <450 Class of 2015 541 White Class of 2014 109,354 Class of 2015 109,200 Multiracial Class of 2014 5,691 Class of 2015 5,776 Economically Disadvantaged Class of 2014 167,545 Class of 2015 169,386 Female Class of 2014 163,308 Class of 2015 166,669 Male Class of 2014 169,978 Class of 2015 172,957 State Class of 2014 333,286 Class of 2015 339,626 Graduated Rate Number (%) Continued Rate Number (%) Received GEDa Rate Number (%) Dropped Out Rate Number (%) Graduated, Continued, or Received GED Rate Number (%) 36,807 37,951 84.2 85.2 2,323 2,153 5.3 4.8 280 209 0.6 0.5 4,297 4,220 9.8 9.5 39,410 40,313 90.2 90.5 –b 1,283 87.1 86.3 – 62 4.0 4.2 – 11 1.1 0.7 – 130 7.9 8.7 – 1,356 92.1 91.3 12,292 12,822 94.8 95.4 345 298 2.7 2.2 15 24 0.1 0.2 317 300 2.4 2.2 12,652 13,144 97.6 97.8 136,586 142,404 85.5 86.5 8,869 8,686 5.6 5.3 1,203 864 0.8 0.5 13,050 12,692 8.2 7.7 146,658 151,954 91.8 92.3 – 480 88.9 88.7 – 21 3.7 3.9 – 5 0.5 0.9 – 35 7.0 6.5 – 506 93.0 93.5 101,737 102,000 93.0 93.4 2,694 2,622 2.5 2.4 1,026 848 0.9 0.8 3,897 3,730 3.6 3.4 105,457 105,470 96.4 96.6 5,193 5,322 91.2 92.1 183 171 3.2 3.0 41 33 0.7 0.6 274 250 4.8 4.3 5,417 5,526 95.2 95.7 142,669 144,957 85.2 85.6 8,322 8,510 5.0 5.0 1,485 1,151 0.9 0.7 15,069 14,768 9.0 8.7 152,476 154,618 91.0 91.3 147,598 152,120 90.4 91.3 5,806 5,345 3.6 3.2 920 639 0.6 0.4 8,984 8,565 5.5 5.1 154,324 158,104 94.5 94.9 146,642 150,142 86.3 86.8 8,681 8,668 5.1 5.0 1,662 1,355 1.0 0.8 12,993 12,792 7.6 7.4 156,985 160,165 92.4 92.6 294,240 302,262 88.3 89.0 14,487 14,013 4.3 4.1 2,582 1,994 0.8 0.6 21,977 21,357 6.6 6.3 311,309 318,269 93.4 93.7 Note. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Racial groups (African American, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, White, and multiracial) do not include students of Hispanic ethnicity. aGeneral Educational Development certificate. bA dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. When the number of students represented by a final status is not reported, the corresponding class size is presented in such a manner as to provide a general idea of the number of students in the class while maintaining student anonymity. closing performance gaps, and postsecondary readiness. Longitudinal graduation rates are components of the postsecondary readiness index. The rates used for 2016 accountability procedures include the class of 2015 four-year graduation rate and the class of 2014 five-year graduation rate (TEC §39.053). For alternative education campuses and districts, the class of 2015 four-year, class of 2014 five-year extended, and class of 2013 six-year extended graduation, continuation, or GED certification rates were used (TEC §39.0545). 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools The four-year graduation rate is also used in the postsecondary readiness distinction awarded to campuses and districts. State statute requires that certain groups of students be excluded from campus and district longitudinal rate calculations used for state accountability purposes (TEC §39.053(g-1)(2), §39.054(f), and §39.055). In 2015, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 149, which revised the state's assessment graduation requirements (TEC §28.0258). Under the new requirements, 91 a student who failed an end-of-course assessment for no more than two courses could still receive a Texas high school diploma if he or she was determined to be qualified to graduate by an individual graduation committee (IGC) (Title 19 of the Texas Administrative Code [TAC] §101.3022, 2016, amended to be effective September 6, 2015). The longitudinal graduation rates for the class of 2015 presented in this report include those students graduating by means of an IGC decision. Grade 9 Four-Year Longitudinal Graduation and Dropout Rates State Summary The four-year longitudinal rates for the class of 2015 tracked students who began Grade 9 for the first time in 2011-12. Out of 339,626 students in the class of 2015, 89.0 percent graduated by the fall of 2015 (Table 5.2 on page 91). The graduation rate for the class of 2015 was 0.7 percentage points higher than for the class of 2014. An additional 4.1 percent of students in the class of 2015 continued in high school in the fall of 2015, 0.6 percent received GED certificates, and 6.3 percent dropped out. The graduation, continuation, and GED recipient rate for the class of 2015 was 93.7 percent. Rates by Race/Ethnicity, Economic Status, and Gender Across the five largest racial/ethnic groups in the class of 2015, the four-year graduation rate was highest among Asian students (95.4%), followed by White (93.4%), multiracial (92.1%), Hispanic (86.5%), and African American (85.2%) students (Table 5.2 on page 91). The four-year graduation rate for students identified as economically disadvantaged was 85.6 percent. The four-year graduation rate was higher for females (91.3%) than males (86.8%). Longitudinal dropout rates were lowest among Asian students (2.2%), followed by White (3.4%), multiracial (4.3%), Hispanic (7.7%), and African American (9.5%) students. Economically disadvantaged students dropped out at a rate of 8.7 percent. Female students dropped out at a lower rate (5.1%) than male students (7.4%). Rates by Program Participation and Student Characteristic Students in the class of 2015 who participated in special education programs had a four-year graduation rate of 78.2 percent (Table 5.3). Students identified as English language learners in Grades 9-12 had a 92 Table 5.3. Grade 9 Four-Year Longitudinal Graduation and Dropout Rates, by Program Participation and Student Characteristic, Classes of 2014 and 2015 Group Class of 2014 At-Risk CTEb ELLc In K-12d In 9-12e In Last Yearf Bilingual/ESLg Special Education Title I State Class of 2015 At-Risk CTE ELL In K-12 In 9-12 In Last Year Bilingual/ESL Special Education Title I State Graduated, Continued, or Received Class Graduated (%) GEDa (%) 136,889 146,696 81.5 95.2 89.9 96.9 97,030 25,382 12,515 10,748 29,875 143,169 333,286 84.9 71.5 60.3 62.4 77.5 85.7 88.3 91.7 84.1 74.3 77.7 88.8 90.9 93.4 161,179 150,997 85.0 95.6 91.9 97.3 99,592 24,513 18,037 15,794 29,045 147,966 339,626 85.9 73.3 71.5 73.9 78.2 86.6 89.0 92.2 84.9 82.0 85.2 89.6 91.2 93.7 Note. Students may be counted in more than one category. With the exception of two groups of students identified as English language learners (ELLs) (ever ELL in K-12 and ever ELL in 9-12), student characteristics and program participation were assigned based on the year of a student's final status in the cohort. aGeneral Educational Development certificate. bCareer and technical education. cEnglish language learner. dStudents identified as ELLs at any time while attending Texas public schools. eStudents identified as ELLs at any time while attending Grades 9-12 in Texas public schools. fStudents identified as ELLs in their last year in Texas public schools. gEnglish as a second language. graduation rate of 73.3 percent. The graduation rate for students identified as at risk of dropping out of school was 85.0 percent. All three rates were lower than the state average (89.0%). Grade 9 Five-Year Extended Longitudinal Graduation and Dropout Rates Many students took longer than four years to graduate. Students who began Grade 9 for the first time in 2010-11 or who later joined the cohort were tracked into the fall one year following their anticipated graduation date of spring 2014. By the fall of 2014, 88.3 percent of the class of 2014 had graduated, 4.3 percent 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools were still in high school, 0.8 percent had received GED certificates, and 6.6 percent had dropped out (Appendix 5-A on page 101). By the fall of 2015, 90.4 percent of the class of 2014 had graduated, 1.3 percent were still in high school, 1.0 percent had received GED certificates, and 7.2 percent had dropped out. 91.2 percent of the class of 2012 had graduated, 0.3 percent were still in high school, 1.7 percent had received GED certificates, and 6.8 percent had dropped out. Annual Dropout Rates Grade 9 Six-Year Extended Longitudinal Graduation and Dropout Rates Calculation Students who began Grade 9 for the first time in 2009-10 or who later joined the cohort were tracked into the fall semester two years following their anticipated graduation date of spring 2013. By the fall of 2013, 88.0 percent of the class of 2013 had graduated, 4.6 percent were still in high school, 0.8 percent had received GED certificates, and 6.6 percent had dropped out (Appendix 5-B on page 104). By the fall of 2015, 90.9 percent of the class of 2013 had graduated, 0.6 percent were still in high school, 1.4 percent had received GED certificates, and 7.2 percent had dropped out. Annual Dropout Rates in the Accountability System An annual dropout rate is calculated by dividing the number of students who drop out during a single school year by the cumulative number of students who enrolled during the same year. For campuses and districts that did not meet the grade span criteria needed for calculation of the longitudinal graduation rate component of the postsecondary readiness index, the Grade 9-12 annual dropout rate was used. Grade 9 Seven-Year Extended Longitudinal Graduation and Dropout Rates Students who began Grade 9 in Texas public schools for the first time in 2008-09 or who later joined the cohort were tracked into the fall semester three years following their anticipated graduation date of spring 2012. By the fall of 2012, 87.7 percent of the class of 2012 had graduated, 5.0 percent were still in high school, 1.0 percent had received GED certificates, and 6.3 percent had dropped out (Table 5.4). By the fall of 2015, State Summary Out of 2,284,109 students who attended Grades 7-12 in Texas public schools during the 2014-15 school year, 1.5 percent were reported to have dropped out, a decrease of 0.1 percentage points from 2013-14 (Table 5.5 on page 94). The number of Grade 7-12 dropouts in 2014-15 was 33,437, a 5.4 percent decrease from the 35,358 students who dropped out in 2013-14. Table 5.4. Grade 9 Four-Year, Five-Year Extended, Six-Year Extended, and Seven-Year Extended Longitudinal Graduation and Dropout Rates, Class of 2011 and Class of 2012 Status Date Class of 2011 As of fall 2011 As of fall 2012 As of fall 2013 As of fall 2014 Class of 2012 As of fall 2012 As of fall 2013 As of fall 2014 As of fall 2015 Classb Graduated Number Rate (%) Continued Number Rate (%) Received GEDa Number Rate (%) Dropped Out Number Rate (%) 319,588 318,027 317,789 317,854 274,562 283,316 285,217 286,117 85.9 89.1 89.8 90.0 19,757 5,008 2,008 800 6.2 1.6 0.6 0.3 3,456 4,471 4,833 5,787 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.8 21,813 25,232 25,731 25,150 6.8 7.9 8.1 7.9 316,758 315,501 315,457 315,510 277,778 285,296 286,842 287,761 87.7 90.4 90.9 91.2 15,750 4,140 1,909 795 5.0 1.3 0.6 0.3 3,198 3,729 4,728 5,386 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.7 20,032 22,336 21,978 21,568 6.3 7.1 7.0 6.8 Note. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. aGeneral Educational Development certificate. bFor each class, the total number of students with final statuses changed across years because: (a) some students who continued high school in one fall left Texas public schools by the fall three years later for reasons other than graduating, receiving GED certificates, or dropping out; and (b) some students who left Texas public schools by one fall without graduating returned to Texas public schools and graduated, received GED certificates, continued high school, or dropped out by the fall three years later. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 93 Table 5.5. Annual Dropout Rates, Grades 7-12, by Race/Ethnicity, Economic Status, and Gender, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Group 2013-14 African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged Female Male State 2014-15 African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged Female Male State Students Number Percent Dropouts Number Percent Annual Dropout Rate (%) 289,121 9,172 84,184 1,113,637 3,099 700,503 38,684 1,253,914 1,089,514 1,148,886 2,238,400 12.9 0.4 3.8 49.8 0.1 31.3 1.7 56.0 48.7 51.3 100 6,315 162 441 22,342 71 5,621 406 23,906 13,902 21,456 35,358 17.9 0.5 1.2 63.2 0.2 15.9 1.1 67.6 39.3 60.7 100 2.2 1.8 0.5 2.0 2.3 0.8 1.0 1.9 1.3 1.9 1.6 293,435 9,267 88,688 1,147,632 3,224 701,243 40,620 1,258,827 1,113,225 1,170,884 2,284,109 12.8 0.4 3.9 50.2 0.1 30.7 1.8 55.1 48.7 51.3 100 6,365 187 511 20,197 49 5,696 432 22,015 13,910 19,527 33,437 19.0 0.6 1.5 60.4 0.1 17.0 1.3 65.8 41.6 58.4 100 2.2 2.0 0.6 1.8 1.5 0.8 1.1 1.7 1.2 1.7 1.5 Note. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Racial groups (African American, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, White, and multiracial) do not include students of Hispanic ethnicity. There were 2,584 students who dropped out of Grades 7-8, and 30,853 students who dropped out of Grades 9-12 in the 2014-15 school year (Table 5.6). The Grade 7-8 and Grade 9-12 dropout rates were 0.3 percent and 2.1 percent, respectively. Rates by Race/Ethnicity, Economic Status, and Gender Across the five largest racial/ethnic groups in 2014-15, the Grade 7-12 dropout rate was highest among African American students (2.2%), followed by Hispanic (1.8%), multiracial (1.1%), White (0.8%), and Asian (0.6%) students (Table 5.5). The dropout rate for students identified as economically disadvantaged was 1.7 percent. Male students had a higher dropout rate (1.7%) than female students (1.2%). Some racial/ethnic groups make up larger proportions of the dropout population than of the student population. In 2014-15, for example, Hispanic students made up 50.2 percent of students in Grades 7-12, but 60.4 percent of dropouts, a difference of 10.2 percentage points. African American students made up 94 Table 5.6. Students and Dropouts, by Grade, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Grade 2013-14 7 8 9 10 11 12 7-12 2014-15 7 8 9 10 11 12 7-12 Students Number Percent Dropouts Number Percent 394,063 389,495 419,282 370,799 331,518 333,243 2,238,400 17.6 17.4 18.7 16.6 14.8 14.9 100 1,122 2,852 8,407 6,929 6,945 9,103 35,358 3.2 8.1 23.8 19.6 19.6 25.7 100 391,394 397,421 430,349 382,621 342,461 339,863 2,284,109 17.1 17.4 18.8 16.8 15.0 14.9 100 993 1,591 8,229 7,279 7,190 8,155 33,437 3.0 4.8 24.6 21.8 21.5 24.4 100 Note. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 12.8 percent of students in Grades 7-12, but 19.0 percent of dropouts, a difference of 6.2 percentage points. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Similar patterns were seen for students identified as economically disadvantaged and for males. Students identified as economically disadvantaged made up 55.1 percent of students in Grades 7-12 in 2014-15, but 65.8 percent of dropouts, a difference of 10.7 percentage points. Males made up 51.3 percent of students in Grades 7-12, but 58.4 percent of dropouts, a difference of 7.1 percentage points. Grades 7-8 and 9-12 by special language program instructional model. To fully evaluate the quality of educational services provided to ELLs, multiple factors must be examined. In addition to considering differences in instructional models, it is also important to consider the following: the policies that guide the placement of students in various instructional programs; the consistency with which districts follow guidelines for identifying ELLs and determining when they should be reclassified as English proficient; the length of time required for students to become English proficient and academically successful in core content areas; and the rate of immigrant influx. Over time, it may be possible to use current and former ELL performance data, along with other analyses, to evaluate the effectiveness of various instructional models in helping students attain long-term academic success in Texas public schools. Rates by Grade In 2014-15, students who dropped out of Grade 9 accounted for 24.6 percent of all dropouts, the highest proportion of any grade (Table 5.6). Grade 7 had the lowest dropout rate (0.3%) and the smallest number of dropouts (993) (Table 5.7). Grade 12 had the highest dropout rate (2.4%), and Grade 9 had the largest number of dropouts (8,229). Across the five largest racial/ethnic groups in Grades 7-12, African American students in Grade 12 had the highest annual dropout rate (3.4%), followed by African American students in Grade 11 (3.2%) and Hispanic students in Grade 12 (3.0%) (Table 5.7). Asian, White, and multiracial students in Grade 7 and Asian and White students in Grade 8 had the lowest annual dropout rates (0.2% each). Projected Dropout Rates Rates for Students Identified as English Language Learners Table 5.8 on page 96 presents annual dropout rates for current and former English language learners (ELLs) in As required by TEC §39.332, the five-year projected dropout rates for Grades 9 through 12 are based on the assumption that no change in policy will be made. The projected rates in Table 5.9 on page 98 were calculated by analyzing historical trends in actual dropout rates from 2005-06, the first year Texas used the National Center for Education Statistics dropout definition, to 2014-15. In 2014-15, the four-year longitudinal dropout rate was 6.3 percent, and the annual dropout rate was 1.9 percent for both Grades 9 and 10, 2.1 percent for Grade 11, and 2.4 percent for Grade 12 (Table 5.2 on page 91 and Table 5.7). The four-year longitudinal Table 5.7. Annual Dropout Rates, by Race/Ethnicity and Grade, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Group 2013-14 African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial State 2014-15 African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial State a Grade 7 Rate Number (%) Grade 8 Rate Number (%) Grade 9 Rate Number (%) Grade 10 Rate Number (%) Grade 11 Rate Number (%) Grade 12 Rate Number (%) 190 –a – 728 – 170 14 1,122 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.3 257 – – 2,308 – 233 19 2,852 0.5 0.8 0.1 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 1,476 40 63 5,700 12 1,035 81 8,407 2.7 2.3 0.4 2.7 2.1 0.8 1.1 2.0 1,340 31 62 4,182 10 1,216 88 6,929 2.7 1.9 0.4 2.3 2.0 1.0 1.4 1.9 1,324 38 76 3,952 13 1,442 100 6,945 3.1 2.6 0.6 2.5 2.4 1.3 1.8 2.1 1,728 38 210 5,472 26 1,525 104 9,103 4.0 2.7 1.6 3.4 5.6 1.4 1.8 2.7 223 –a 27 533 – 190 13 993 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.3 314 – 27 940 – 278 22 1,591 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 1,515 40 71 5,366 8 1,132 97 8,229 2.7 2.3 0.4 2.4 1.4 0.9 1.3 1.9 1,393 43 72 4,375 11 1,292 93 7,279 2.8 2.7 0.5 2.3 1.9 1.1 1.4 1.9 1,407 41 82 4,038 11 1,493 118 7,190 3.2 2.8 0.6 2.4 2.3 1.3 1.9 2.1 1,513 50 232 4,945 15 1,311 89 8,155 3.4 3.4 1.7 3.0 2.8 1.2 1.5 2.4 A dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 95 Table 5.8. Annual Dropout Rates, Grades 7-8 and Grades 9-12, Current and Former English Language Learners, by Special Language Program Instructional Model, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Students Percent Dropouts Number Percent Annual Dropout Rate (%) Group 2013-14 Grades 7-8 All Current ELLsa All Bilingual Education Programs Transitional Bilingual/Early Exit Transitional Bilingual/Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESLb Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Number 83,953 1,411 66 33 1,100 212 67,573 30,021 37,552 14,969 100 1.7 0.1 <0.1 1.3 0.3 80.5 35.8 44.7 17.8 1,822 0 0 0 0 0 364 248 116 1,458 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 13.6 6.4 80.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.3 9.7 All Former ELLsc All Bilingual Education Programs Transitional Bilingual/Early Exit Transitional Bilingual/Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Grades 9-12 All Current ELLs All Bilingual Education Programs Transitional Bilingual/Early Exit Transitional Bilingual/Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services 22,905 8,084 <3,050 <1,750 <650 <2,750 12,463 6,618 5,845 2,358 100 35.3 13.1 7.5 2.8 11.8 54.4 28.9 25.5 10.3 31 8 –d – – – 18 9 9 5 100 25.8 – – – – 58.1 29.0 29.0 16.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 97,418 <150 0 4 <150 0 77,415 46,856 30,559 19,873 100 0.1 0.0 <0.1 0.1 0.0 79.5 48.1 31.4 20.4 4,710 – 0 0 – 0 3,163 2,024 1,139 1,546 100 – 0.0 0.0 – 0.0 67.2 43.0 24.2 32.8 4.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 4.1 4.3 3.7 7.8 All Former ELLs All Bilingual Education Programs Transitional Bilingual/Early Exit Transitional Bilingual/Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services 21,836 265 23 9 167 66 18,994 10,245 8,749 2,577 100 1.2 0.1 <0.1 0.8 0.3 87.0 46.9 40.1 11.8 349 – 0 0 – 0 302 175 127 45 100 – 0.0 0.0 – 0.0 86.5 50.1 36.4 12.9 1.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.7 Note. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. aCurrent English language learners (ELLs) were identified as limited English proficient in the school year presented. The group, all current ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. bEnglish as a second language. cFormer ELLs are those in the first and second years of academic monitoring after exiting ELL status. The group, all former ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. dA dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. When the number of dropouts is not reported, the total number of students is presented in such a manner as to provide a general idea of the number of students in the group while maintaining student anonymity. continues 96 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 5.8. Annual Dropout Rates, Grades 7-8 and Grades 9-12, Current and Former English Language Learners, by Special Language Program Instructional Model, 2013-14 and 2014-15 (continued) Students Percent Dropouts Number Percent Annual Dropout Rate (%) Group 2014-15 Grades 7-8 All Current ELLsa All Bilingual Education Programs Transitional Bilingual/Early Exit Transitional Bilingual/Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESLb Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Number 94,305 <1,100 22 29 885 <150 78,634 32,100 46,534 <14,600 100 1.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.9 0.2 83.4 34.0 49.3 15.5 519 –d 0 0 0 – 312 128 184 – 100 – 0.0 0.0 0.0 – 60.1 24.7 35.5 – 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.4 All Former ELLsc All Bilingual Education Programs Transitional Bilingual/Early Exit Transitional Bilingual/Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services Grades 9-12 All Current ELLs All Bilingual Education Programs Transitional Bilingual/Early Exit Transitional Bilingual/Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services 24,717 8,180 <3,900 <1,850 <700 <1,850 13,986 6,445 7,541 <2,600 100 33.1 15.7 7.3 2.7 7.3 56.6 26.1 30.5 10.3 36 8 – – – – 25 10 15 – 100 22.2 – – – – 69.4 27.8 41.7 – 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 111,538 <200 1 5 <200 2 90,808 50,684 40,124 <20,600 100 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 81.4 45.4 36.0 18.4 5,040 – 0 0 – 0 3,431 1,910 1,521 – 100 – 0.0 0.0 – 0.0 68.1 37.9 30.2 – 4.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 7.8 All Former ELLs All Bilingual Education Programs Transitional Bilingual/Early Exit Transitional Bilingual/Late Exit Dual Immersion/Two-Way Dual Immersion/One-Way All ESL Programs ESL/Content-Based ESL/Pull-Out No Services 19,392 <300 8 6 <250 33 16,685 8,741 7,944 <2,500 100 1.3 <0.1 <0.1 1.1 0.2 86.0 45.1 41.0 12.6 191 – 0 0 – 0 161 86 75 – 100 – 0.0 0.0 – 0.0 84.3 45.0 39.3 – 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.1 Note. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. aCurrent English language learners (ELLs) were identified as limited English proficient in the school year presented. The group, all current ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. bEnglish as a second language. cFormer ELLs are those in the first and second years of academic monitoring after exiting ELL status. The group, all former ELLs, includes students for whom information about services received may be incomplete. dA dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. When the number of dropouts is not reported, the total number of students is presented in such a manner as to provide a general idea of the number of students in the group while maintaining student anonymity. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 97 Table 5.9. Projected Dropout Rates (%) Based on Dropout Trends Grade 2015-16 2016-17 Annual Dropout Rates 9 1.9 1.8 10 1.8 1.7 11 1.9 1.8 12 2.4 2.2 Longitudinal Dropout Rates 9-12 6.3 6.1 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 1.8 1.6 1.8 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.9 5.9 5.8 5.7 dropout rate is projected to decrease 0.6 percentage points between 2014-15 and 2019-20, and annual dropout rates are projected to decrease 0.2 percentage points for Grade 9, 0.4 percentage points for Grades 10 and 11, and 0.5 percentage points for Grade 12. State Efforts to Reduce the Dropout Rate and Increase the Graduation Rate Overview Since 2001, TEA has taken aggressive steps to implement best practices designed to address dropout issues, and as a result, Texas is in the forefront of the nation's campaign to tackle the dropout problem. From holding districts and campuses accountable for graduation rates to endorsing a rigorous but relevant pathway to high school graduation, Texas is committed to developing and implementing policies and programs that ensure high school completion. Additionally, TEA's dropout prevention efforts are designed to close the academic performance gaps between student groups and prepare all students to be college, career, and service ready. College Readiness Programs In 2006, the 79th Texas Legislature (3rd Called Session) passed House Bill (HB) 1, which required that TEA and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board work collaboratively to create college readiness standards. Since the standards were developed, college and career readiness has become a statewide focus, and the Texas Legislature has continued to fund related initiatives. One such initiative, the Online College and Career Readiness Technical Assistance Program, created online resources for counselors, teachers, and students to help prepare students for life after high school. In fall of 2014, TEA released the latest of these resources: the Texas Online College and Career Readiness Resource Center at http://txccrsc.esc13.net/occrrc/. The center houses over 250 free resources, including videos and 98 interactive activities, along with the most current research and best practices available for furthering college and career readiness in Texas. Another initiative, the High School Allotment, continues to provide each Texas school district and openenrollment charter with $275 for every student in Grades 9-12 (TEC §§39.234 and 42.160). The additional funding, in the amount of approximately $300 million annually, can be used at the middle and high school levels for the following purposes: ♦ college readiness programs to prepare underachieving students for college; ♦ programs that encourage students to pursue advanced academic opportunities, such as dual credit and Advanced Placement classes; ♦ programs that give students opportunities to take academically rigorous coursework, including four years of mathematics and science; ♦ alignment of the curriculum for Grades 6-12 with postsecondary curriculum; and ♦ other high school completion and success initiatives in Grades 6-12, as approved by the commissioner of education. The Texas Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) project is a seven-year, $33 million dollar federal grant awarded to Texas and designed to increase early college awareness and readiness among historically underrepresented student groups. Texas GEAR UP is divided into two major strands: (1) a district intervention initiative that supports four targeted, persistently low-achieving school districts in building a multifaceted college readiness and success initiative; and (2) a statewide collaborative initiative that provides guidance, information, and resources related to college access, readiness, preparation, and success for all Texas students, parents, educators and communities. The GEAR UP project hosts the TexasGEARUP.com website. This site contains a large number of online resources, including: interactive lessons, videos, facilitation guides, college-planning toolkits, support service toolkits, and grade-level "roadmap" guides. Early College High Schools (ECHS) are small, restructured secondary schools located on, or in close proximity to, a college campus. They provide intensive academic support systems that allow students an opportunity to earn up to 60 college credit hours while earning a high school diploma. As of the 2015-16 school year, 154 ECHS campuses were in operation around the state. State funding is allocated to support ECHS through the General Appropriations Act, Article III, 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Rider 52 (84th Texas Legislature). Under TEC §29.908 and 19 TAC §102.1091, TEA developed a designation process for ECHS. The designation process ensures that districts and colleges operating ECHS campuses maintain the integrity of the model, which was researched and designed to target and serve students who might not otherwise attend college. Authorized under TEC §39.235 and 19 TAC §102.1093, Texas Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (T-STEM) Academies provide rigorous and applied science and mathematics instruction, preparing students for college and careers relevant to today's job market. Funding to support T-STEM programs is made available under the General Appropriations Act, Article III, Rider 51 (84th Texas Legislature). School districts and open-enrollment charter schools may apply for a campus to be awarded T-STEM designation if certain criteria are met. One requirement is that T-STEM Academies target and enroll students identified as at-risk of dropping out of school. During the 2015-16 school year, 104 designated T-STEM Academies around the state served more than 56,000 students in Grades 6-12. Subchapter EE; and the General Appropriations Act, Article III, Rider 23 (84th Texas Legislature). TEA administers the CIS program in Texas through grants to eligible nonprofit agencies. CIS is a school-based dropout prevention program that includes collaborations among educators, parents, and students to provide one-to-one case-managed services to students at risk of dropping out of school. CIS partners with educators, students, and parents to identify needs of at-risk students. Once the needs are identified, CIS customizes supports for students and families and provides individual case management services, engaging the community as part of this process. CIS monitors studentlevel data and tracks education outcomes for the students served. In the 2014-15 school year, CIS programs served 87,990 students. To administer the program, TEA manages a set of policies and requirements and a CIS student-level database. The agency provides technical support to, and coordination of, the 27 CIS programs throughout Texas. ♦ Texas Academic Innovation and Mentoring. This dropout prevention program is funded under the General Appropriations Act, Article III, Rider 54 (84th Texas Legislature). The purpose of Academic Innovation and Mentoring (TX AIM) is to expand statewide an after-school and summer program designed to close the achievement gaps between minority students, low-income students, and English Language Learners who are at risk of dropping out of school and their counterparts. The program enables targeted students in low-performing schools at 45 sites across Texas to enroll in after-school and summer recreational programs that address student achievement gaps through a combination of skills gap remediation and dropout prevention services. Almost half (45%) of the service sites are along the Texas-Mexico border. While traditional Boys & Girls Clubs (BGC) programming addresses comprehensive dropout prevention needs, the TX AIM partner, Sylvan Learning Center, provides instruction in evidence-based curriculum using certified teachers assisted by BGC staff. Through joint delivery of the program, children receive seamless services from the two partners. Additionally, the staff development that BGC receives from the Sylvan partnership enables growth- and capacity-building for the Boys & Girls Clubs. In the 2014-15 school year, 2,286 students were served by the program. ♦ Amachi Texas. Amachi Texas is authorized under the General Appropriations Act, Article III, Rider 53 (84th Texas Legislature). The purpose of Amachi Texas is to provide one-to-one mentoring for youth between the ages of 6 and 18 whose Dropout Prevention and Retention Programs In 2007, the 80th Texas Legislature amended statute to allow students through age 25 to attend public high schools (TEC §25.001). This statute and other dropoutrelated legislation have enabled TEA to develop a variety of dropout prevention and recovery strategies, tools, and resources to assist school districts and campuses in efforts to reengage students who have dropped out and successfully reconnect these students to the education system. TEA investments in dropout recovery, prevention, and reengagement include the following initiatives. ♦ ♦ State Compensatory Education Services. The compensatory education allotment is authorized under TEC §42.152 to fund programs specifically designed to serve students at risk of dropping out of school as defined in TEC §29.081. The funds are designated for school districts and charter schools to provide compensatory, intensive, or accelerated instructional services that are supplemental to the regular education program and that prepare at-risk students to perform satisfactorily on state assessment instruments. Schools may also use compensatory education funds to contract with private or public community-based dropout recovery education programs to provide alternative education programs for at-risk students. Communities in Schools (CIS). CIS is authorized under TEC §§33.151-33.159; 19 TAC Chapter 89, 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 99 parents or family members are incarcerated, on probation, or recently released from the prison system. The goal is to break the cycle of incarceration in Texas and, thereby, positively impact school districts across the state. The youth are referred through agreements with partners such as Texas Department of Criminal Justice Prison Fellowship and Re-entry programs across Texas. The youth are engaged in both school-based and communitybased mentoring relationships with trained volunteers. Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) Lone Star implements the program and subcontracts with seven BBBS agencies to provide services. In the 2014-15 school year, 1,451 students were served in the program. ♦ 100 Dropout Prevention and Recovery Resources. TEA makes information on research-based strategies and best practices for dropout prevention and recovery available to school districts and open-enrollment charters through the agency website. The website includes results of evaluations, data, and links to dropout prevention resources, such as a dropout recovery resource guide. Another example of a dropout prevention resource is the Early Warning Data System (EWDS). The Texas Comprehensive Center at American Institutes for Research (AIR) developed this tool while working with TEA on the Texas Ninth Grade Transition and Intervention Program in 2008. AIR continues to maintain the EWDS and make it freely available to school districts and open-enrollment charter schools. The EWDS is a database designed to track researchbased ninth-grade indicators related to high school dropout, such as attendance and academic performance. The EWDS automatically flags students who are below the specified benchmarks leading to graduation. School staff can quickly review data and plan interventions as early as 20 to 30 days after the beginning of the school year. Additional data points are incorporated at each grading period and at the end of the year to enable intervention planning for summer or the beginning of the following year. AIR also maintains an online help system to support schools with implementing this resource. Agency Contact Persons For information on student dropout data, contact Penny Schwinn, Deputy Commissioner of Academics, (512) 463-8934; or Linda Roska, Research and Analysis Division, (512) 475-3523. For information about college and career readiness initiatives, contact Penny Schwinn, Deputy Commissioner of Academics, (512) 463-8934; or Quentin Suffren, College, Career, and Military Preparation Division, (512) 463-6060. For information about dropout prevention, contact Penny Schwinn, Deputy Commissioner of Academics, (512) 463-8934; or Monica Martinez, Associate Commissioner for Standards and Support Services, (512) 463-9087. Other Sources of Information The report Secondary School Completion and Dropouts in Texas Public Schools, 2014-15, is available on the TEA website at http://tea.texas.gov/acctres/dropcomp_ index.html. For information on dropout prevention and recovery programs, see the Dropout Information website at http://tea.texas.gov/index4.aspx?id=3505&menu_ id=2147483659. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 5-A. Grade 9 Four-Year and Five-Year Extended Longitudinal Graduation and Dropout Rates, by Race/Ethnicity, Economic Status, English Language Learner Status, and Special Education Program Participation, Class of 2013 and Class of 2014 Status date Classb Class of 2013 African American As of fall 2013 44,189 As of fall 2014 43,978 American Indian As of fall 2013 <1,500 As of fall 2014 <1,500 Asian As of fall 2013 12,058 As of fall 2014 12,040 Hispanic As of fall 2013 155,160 As of fall 2014 154,480 Pacific Islander As of fall 2013 <450 As of fall 2014 <450 White As of fall 2013 109,915 As of fall 2014 109,816 Multiracial As of fall 2013 5,345 As of fall 2014 5,341 Economically Disadvantaged As of fall 2013 162,779 As of fall 2014 161,878 Ever ELLd in K-12e As of fall 2013 94,064 As of fall 2014 93,549 Ever ELL in 9-12f As of fall 2013 24,044 As of fall 2014 23,707 ELL in Last Yearg As of fall 2013 11,922 As of fall 2014 11,730 Special Education As of fall 2013 31,014 As of fall 2014 31,066 Graduated Rate Number (%) Continued Rate Number (%) Received GEDa Rate Number (%) Dropped Out Rate Number (%) Graduated, Continued, or Received GED Rate Number (%) 37,162 38,145 84.1 86.7 2,352 586 5.3 1.3 298 438 0.7 1.0 4,377 4,809 9.9 10.9 39,812 39,169 90.1 89.1 –c – 85.8 87.6 – – 4.4 1.3 – – 1.3 2.1 – – 8.5 9.0 – – 91.5 91.0 11,312 11,472 93.8 95.3 360 121 3.0 1.0 21 31 0.2 0.3 365 416 3.0 3.5 11,693 11,624 97.0 96.5 132,051 136,228 85.1 88.2 9,153 2,532 5.9 1.6 1,307 1,783 0.8 1.2 12,649 13,937 8.2 9.0 142,511 140,543 91.8 91.0 – – 89.5 91.4 – – 4.7 1.2 – – 0.5 0.5 – – 5.3 7.0 – – 94.7 93.0 102,213 103,635 93.0 94.4 2,845 882 2.6 0.8 996 1,361 0.9 1.2 3,861 3,938 3.5 3.6 106,054 105,878 96.5 96.4 4,899 4,990 91.7 93.4 165 41 3.1 0.8 48 60 0.9 1.1 233 250 4.4 4.7 5,112 5,091 95.6 95.3 138,630 142,831 85.2 88.2 8,868 2,288 5.4 1.4 1,493 2,041 0.9 1.3 13,788 14,718 8.5 9.1 148,991 147,160 91.5 90.9 79,354 82,197 84.4 87.9 6,328 1,740 6.7 1.9 583 784 0.6 0.8 7,799 8,828 8.3 9.4 86,265 84,721 91.7 90.6 17,133 18,363 71.3 77.5 3,218 921 13.4 3.9 101 136 0.4 0.6 3,592 4,287 14.9 18.1 20,452 19,420 85.1 81.9 7,352 7,959 61.7 67.9 1,677 442 14.1 3.8 69 91 0.6 0.8 2,824 3,238 23.7 27.6 9,098 8,492 76.3 72.4 24,114 25,509 77.8 82.1 3,306 1,748 10.7 5.6 154 237 0.5 0.8 3,440 3,572 11.1 11.5 27,574 27,494 88.9 88.5 Note. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Racial groups (African American, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, White, and multiracial) do not include students of Hispanic ethnicity. With the exception of two groups of students identified as English language learners (ELLs) (ever ELL in K-12 and ever ELL in 9-12), student characteristics and program participation were assigned based on the year of a student's final status in the cohort. Students may be counted in more than one of the following categories: economically disadvantaged, ELL in K-12, ELL in 9-12, ELL in last year, and special education. aGeneral Educational Development certificate. bFor each class, the total number of students with final statuses changed across years because: (a) some students who continued high school in one fall left Texas public schools by the following fall for reasons other than graduating, receiving GED certificates, or dropping out; and (b) some students who left Texas public schools by one fall without graduating returned to Texas public schools and graduated, received GED certificates, continued high school, or dropped out by the following fall. In addition, students with changes in year of final status were added to, or removed from, relevant student groups. cA dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. When the number of students represented by a final status is not reported, the corresponding class size is presented in such a manner as to provide a general idea of the number of students in the class while maintaining student anonymity. dEnglish language learner. eStudents identified as ELLs at any time while attending Texas public schools. fStudents identified as ELLs at any time while attending Grades 9-12 in Texas public schools. gStudents identified as ELLs in their last year in Texas public schools. continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 101 Appendix 5-A. Grade 9 Four-Year and Five-Year Extended Longitudinal Graduation and Dropout Rates, by Race/Ethnicity, Economic Status, English Language Learner Status, and Special Education Program Participation, Class of 2013 and Class of 2014 (continued) Status date Classb State As of fall 2013 328,584 As of fall 2014 327,568 Class of 2014 African American As of fall 2014 43,707 As of fall 2015 43,491 American Indian As of fall 2014 <1,450 As of fall 2015 1,423 Asian As of fall 2014 12,969 As of fall 2015 12,950 Hispanic As of fall 2014 159,708 As of fall 2015 158,985 Pacific Islander As of fall 2014 <450 As of fall 2015 433 White As of fall 2014 109,354 As of fall 2015 109,224 Multiracial As of fall 2014 5,691 As of fall 2015 5,681 Economically Disadvantaged As of fall 2014 167,545 As of fall 2015 166,757 Ever ELLd in K-12e As of fall 2014 97,030 As of fall 2015 96,504 Ever ELL in 9-12f As of fall 2014 25,382 As of fall 2015 25,066 ELL in Last Yearg As of fall 2014 12,515 As of fall 2015 12,341 Graduated Rate Number (%) Continued Rate Number (%) Received GEDa Rate Number (%) Dropped Out Rate Number (%) Graduated, Continued, or Received GED Rate Number (%) 289,298 296,162 88.0 90.4 14,960 4,187 4.6 1.3 2,692 3,706 0.8 1.1 21,634 23,513 6.6 7.2 306,950 304,055 93.4 92.8 36,807 37,760 84.2 86.8 2,323 588 5.3 1.4 280 391 0.6 0.9 4,297 4,752 9.8 10.9 39,410 38,739 90.2 89.1 –c 1,271 87.1 89.3 – 11 4.0 0.8 – 15 1.1 1.1 – 126 7.9 8.9 – 1,297 92.1 91.1 12,292 12,425 94.8 95.9 345 109 2.7 0.8 15 23 0.1 0.2 317 393 2.4 3.0 12,652 12,557 97.6 97.0 136,586 140,341 85.5 88.3 8,869 2,639 5.6 1.7 1,203 1,565 0.8 1.0 13,050 14,440 8.2 9.1 146,658 144,545 91.8 90.9 – 388 88.9 89.6 – 5 3.7 1.2 – 5 0.5 1.2 – 35 7.0 8.1 – 398 93.0 91.9 101,737 102,992 93.0 94.3 2,694 893 2.5 0.8 1,026 1,376 0.9 1.3 3,897 3,963 3.6 3.6 105,457 105,261 96.4 96.4 5,193 5,277 91.2 92.9 183 60 3.2 1.1 41 57 0.7 1.0 274 287 4.8 5.1 5,417 5,394 95.2 94.9 142,669 146,424 85.2 87.8 8,322 2,345 5.0 1.4 1,485 1,906 0.9 1.1 15,069 16,082 9.0 9.6 152,476 150,675 91.0 90.4 82,367 84,836 84.9 87.9 6,076 1,782 6.3 1.8 490 673 0.5 0.7 8,097 9,213 8.3 9.5 88,933 87,291 91.7 90.5 18,142 19,225 71.5 76.7 3,131 973 12.3 3.9 78 123 0.3 0.5 4,031 4,745 15.9 18.9 21,351 20,321 84.1 81.1 7,549 8,132 60.3 65.9 1,697 478 13.6 3.9 56 84 0.4 0.7 3,213 3,647 25.7 29.6 9,302 8,694 74.3 70.4 Note. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Racial groups (African American, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, White, and multiracial) do not include students of Hispanic ethnicity. With the exception of two groups of students identified as English language learners (ELLs) (ever ELL in K-12 and ever ELL in 9-12), student characteristics and program participation were assigned based on the year of a student's final status in the cohort. Students may be counted in more than one of the following categories: economically disadvantaged, ELL in K-12, ELL in 9-12, ELL in last year, and special education. aGeneral Educational Development certificate. bFor each class, the total number of students with final statuses changed across years because: (a) some students who continued high school in one fall left Texas public schools by the following fall for reasons other than graduating, receiving GED certificates, or dropping out; and (b) some students who left Texas public schools by one fall without graduating returned to Texas public schools and graduated, received GED certificates, continued high school, or dropped out by the following fall. In addition, students with changes in year of final status were added to, or removed from, relevant student groups. cA dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. When the number of students represented by a final status is not reported, the corresponding class size is presented in such a manner as to provide a general idea of the number of students in the class while maintaining student anonymity. dEnglish language learner. eStudents identified as ELLs at any time while attending Texas public schools. fStudents identified as ELLs at any time while attending Grades 9-12 in Texas public schools. gStudents identified as ELLs in their last year in Texas public schools. continues 102 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 5-A. Grade 9 Four-Year and Five-Year Extended Longitudinal Graduation and Dropout Rates, by Race/Ethnicity, Economic Status, English Language Learner Status, and Special Education Program Participation, Class of 2013 and Class of 2014 (continued) Status date Special Education As of fall 2014 As of fall 2015 State As of fall 2014 As of fall 2015 Classb Graduated Rate Number (%) Continued Rate Number (%) Received GEDa Rate Number (%) Dropped Out Rate Number (%) Graduated, Continued, or Received GED Rate Number (%) 29,875 29,988 23,149 24,462 77.5 81.6 3,240 1,827 10.8 6.1 141 176 0.5 0.6 3,345 3,523 11.2 11.7 26,530 26,465 88.8 88.3 333,286 332,187 294,240 300,454 88.3 90.4 14,487 4,305 4.3 1.3 2,582 3,432 0.8 1.0 21,977 23,996 6.6 7.2 311,309 308,191 93.4 92.8 Note. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Racial groups (African American, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, White, and multiracial) do not include students of Hispanic ethnicity. With the exception of two groups of students identified as English language learners (ELLs) (ever ELL in K-12 and ever ELL in 9-12), student characteristics and program participation were assigned based on the year of a student's final status in the cohort. Students may be counted in more than one of the following categories: economically disadvantaged, ELL in K-12, ELL in 9-12, ELL in last year, and special education. aGeneral Educational Development certificate. bFor each class, the total number of students with final statuses changed across years because: (a) some students who continued high school in one fall left Texas public schools by the following fall for reasons other than graduating, receiving GED certificates, or dropping out; and (b) some students who left Texas public schools by one fall without graduating returned to Texas public schools and graduated, received GED certificates, continued high school, or dropped out by the following fall. In addition, students with changes in year of final status were added to, or removed from, relevant student groups. cA dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. When the number of students represented by a final status is not reported, the corresponding class size is presented in such a manner as to provide a general idea of the number of students in the class while maintaining student anonymity. dEnglish language learner. eStudents identified as ELLs at any time while attending Texas public schools. fStudents identified as ELLs at any time while attending Grades 9-12 in Texas public schools. gStudents identified as ELLs in their last year in Texas public schools. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 103 Appendix 5-B. Grade 9 Four-Year, Five-Year Extended, and Six-Year Extended Longitudinal Graduation and Dropout Rates, by Race/Ethnicity, Economic Status, English Language Learner Status, and Special Education Program Participation, Class of 2012 and Class of 2013 Status date Classb Class of 2012 African American As of fall 2012 43,141 As of fall 2013 42,872 As of fall 2014 42,866 American Indian As of fall 2012 <1,600 As of fall 2013 <1,600 As of fall 2014 <1,600 Asian As of fall 2012 11,232 As of fall 2013 11,189 As of fall 2014 11,185 Hispanic As of fall 2012 145,230 As of fall 2013 144,452 As of fall 2014 144,386 Pacific Islander As of fall 2012 <450 As of fall 2013 <450 As of fall 2014 <450 White As of fall 2012 110,034 As of fall 2013 109,883 As of fall 2014 109,917 Multiracial As of fall 2012 5,074 As of fall 2013 5,063 As of fall 2014 5,064 Economically Disadvantaged As of fall 2012 152,731 As of fall 2013 151,679 As of fall 2014 151,530 Ever ELLd in K-12e As of fall 2012 87,462 As of fall 2013 86,904 As of fall 2014 86,828 Graduated Rate Number (%) Continued Rate Number (%) Received GEDa Rate Number (%) Dropped Out Rate Number (%) Graduated, Continued, or Received GED Rate Number (%) 36,036 37,077 37,268 83.5 86.5 86.9 2,393 580 240 5.5 1.4 0.6 360 443 622 0.8 1.0 1.5 4,352 4,772 4,736 10.1 11.1 11.0 38,789 38,100 38,130 89.9 88.9 89.0 –c – – 86.7 88.6 89.2 – – – 4.2 1.2 0.5 – – – 2.0 2.3 2.6 – – – 7.1 7.8 7.7 – – – 92.9 92.2 92.3 10,607 10,769 10,807 94.4 96.2 96.6 370 113 55 3.3 1.0 0.5 24 26 38 0.2 0.2 0.3 231 281 285 2.1 2.5 2.5 11,001 10,908 10,900 97.9 97.5 97.5 122,378 127,054 127,988 84.3 88.0 88.6 9,782 2,497 1,131 6.7 1.7 0.8 1,486 1,757 2,221 1.0 1.2 1.5 11,584 13,144 13,046 8.0 9.1 9.0 133,646 131,308 131,340 92.0 90.9 91.0 – – – 89.0 92.0 93.2 – – – 6.5 1.7 0.2 – – – 0.5 0.5 0.5 – – – 4.1 5.8 6.1 – – – 95.9 94.2 93.9 102,338 103,867 104,226 93.0 94.5 94.8 2,967 890 460 2.7 0.8 0.4 1,241 1,402 1,718 1.1 1.3 1.6 3,488 3,724 3,513 3.2 3.4 3.2 106,546 106,159 106,404 96.8 96.6 96.8 4,687 4,758 4,771 92.4 94.0 94.2 145 34 14 2.9 0.7 0.3 52 62 84 1.0 1.2 1.7 190 209 195 3.7 4.1 3.9 4,884 4,854 4,869 96.3 95.9 96.1 129,965 134,549 135,409 85.1 88.7 89.4 9,250 2,248 979 6.1 1.5 0.6 1,548 1,830 2,366 1.0 1.2 1.6 11,968 13,052 12,776 7.8 8.6 8.4 140,763 138,627 138,754 92.2 91.4 91.6 72,823 76,053 76,708 83.3 87.5 88.3 6,774 1,730 718 7.7 2.0 0.8 603 715 934 0.7 0.8 1.1 7,262 8,406 8,468 8.3 9.7 9.8 80,200 78,498 78,360 91.7 90.3 90.2 Note. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Numbers in class for race/ethnicity may not sum to the state total because some student records did not correspond to any single new racial/ethnic category. Racial groups (African American, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, White, and multiracial) do not include students of Hispanic ethnicity. With the exception of two groups of students identified as English language learners (ELLs) (ever ELL in K-12 and ever ELL in 9-12), student characteristics and program participation were assigned based on the year of a student's final status in the cohort. Students may be counted in more than one of the following categories: economically disadvantaged, ELL in K-12, ELL in 9-12, ELL in last year, and special education. aGeneral Educational Development certificate. bFor each class, the total number of students with final statuses changed across years because: (a) some students who continued high school in one fall left Texas public schools by the following fall for reasons other than graduating, receiving GED certificates, or dropping out; and (b) some students who left Texas public schools by one fall without graduating returned to Texas public schools and graduated, received GED certificates, continued high school, or dropped out by the following fall. In addition, students with changes in year of final status were added to, or removed from, relevant student groups. cA dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. When the number of students represented by a final status is not reported, the corresponding class size is presented in such a manner as to provide a general idea of the number of students in the class while maintaining student anonymity. dEnglish language learner. eStudents identified as ELLs at any time while attending Texas public schools. fStudents identified as ELLs at any time while attending Grades 9-12 in Texas public schools. gStudents identified as ELLs in their last year in Texas public schools. continues 104 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 5-B. Grade 9 Four-Year, Five-Year Extended, and Six-Year Extended Longitudinal Graduation and Dropout Rates, by Race/Ethnicity, Economic Status, English Language Learner Status, and Special Education Program Participation, Class of 2012 and Class of 2013 (continued) Status date Ever ELL in 9-12f As of fall 2012 As of fall 2013 As of fall 2014 ELL in Last Yearg As of fall 2012 As of fall 2013 As of fall 2014 Special Education As of fall 2012 As of fall 2013 As of fall 2014 State As of fall 2012 As of fall 2013 As of fall 2014 Class of 2013 African American As of fall 2013 As of fall 2014 As of fall 2015 American Indian As of fall 2013 As of fall 2014 As of fall 2015 Asian As of fall 2013 As of fall 2014 As of fall 2015 Hispanic As of fall 2013 As of fall 2014 As of fall 2015 Pacific Islander As of fall 2013 As of fall 2014 As of fall 2015 Classb Graduated Rate Number (%) Continued Rate Number (%) Received GEDa Rate Number (%) Dropped Out Rate Number (%) Graduated, Continued, or Received GED Rate Number (%) 23,270 22,952 22,885 16,084 17,563 17,915 69.1 76.5 78.3 3,512 1,000 414 15.1 4.4 1.8 96 119 163 0.4 0.5 0.7 3,578 4,270 4,393 15.4 18.6 19.2 19,692 18,682 18,492 84.6 81.4 80.8 11,329 11,059 11,007 6,699 7,394 7,546 59.1 66.9 68.6 1,740 418 138 15.4 3.8 1.3 63 73 98 0.6 0.7 0.9 2,827 3,174 3,225 25.0 28.7 29.3 8,502 7,885 7,782 75.0 71.3 70.7 31,233 31,307 31,338 24,024 25,558 26,207 76.9 81.6 83.6 3,493 1,818 1,143 11.2 5.8 3.6 208 240 317 0.7 0.8 1.0 3,508 3,691 3,671 11.2 11.8 11.7 27,725 27,616 27,667 88.8 88.2 88.3 316,758 315,501 315,457 277,778 285,296 286,842 87.7 90.4 90.9 15,750 4,140 1,909 5.0 1.3 0.6 3,198 3,729 4,728 1.0 1.2 1.5 20,032 22,336 21,978 6.3 7.1 7.0 296,726 293,165 293,479 93.7 92.9 93.0 44,189 43,978 43,953 37,162 38,145 38,346 84.1 86.7 87.2 2,352 586 248 5.3 1.3 0.6 298 438 563 0.7 1.0 1.3 4,377 4,809 4,769 9.9 10.9 10.9 39,812 39,169 39,157 90.1 89.1 89.1 <1,500 <1,500 <1,500 –c – – 85.8 87.6 87.8 – – – 4.4 1.3 0.7 – – – 1.3 2.1 2.4 – – – 8.5 9.0 9.1 – – – 91.5 91.0 90.9 12,058 12,040 12,032 11,312 11,472 11,505 93.8 95.3 95.6 360 121 64 3.0 1.0 0.5 21 31 42 0.2 0.3 0.3 365 416 421 3.0 3.5 3.5 11,693 11,624 11,611 97.0 96.5 96.5 155,160 154,480 154,385 132,051 136,228 137,121 85.1 88.2 88.8 9,153 2,532 1,092 5.9 1.6 0.7 1,307 1,783 2,142 0.8 1.2 1.4 12,649 13,937 14,030 8.2 9.0 9.1 142,511 140,543 140,355 91.8 91.0 90.9 <450 <450 <450 – – – 89.5 91.4 91.6 – – – 4.7 1.2 0.2 – – – 0.5 0.5 0.5 – – – 5.3 7.0 7.7 – – – 94.7 93.0 92.3 Note. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Numbers in class for race/ethnicity may not sum to the state total because some student records did not correspond to any single new racial/ethnic category. Racial groups (African American, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, White, and multiracial) do not include students of Hispanic ethnicity. With the exception of two groups of students identified as English language learners (ELLs) (ever ELL in K-12 and ever ELL in 9-12), student characteristics and program participation were assigned based on the year of a student's final status in the cohort. Students may be counted in more than one of the following categories: economically disadvantaged, ELL in K-12, ELL in 9-12, ELL in last year, and special education. aGeneral Educational Development certificate. bFor each class, the total number of students with final statuses changed across years because: (a) some students who continued high school in one fall left Texas public schools by the following fall for reasons other than graduating, receiving GED certificates, or dropping out; and (b) some students who left Texas public schools by one fall without graduating returned to Texas public schools and graduated, received GED certificates, continued high school, or dropped out by the following fall. In addition, students with changes in year of final status were added to, or removed from, relevant student groups. cA dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. When the number of students represented by a final status is not reported, the corresponding class size is presented in such a manner as to provide a general idea of the number of students in the class while maintaining student anonymity. dEnglish language learner. eStudents identified as ELLs at any time while attending Texas public schools. fStudents identified as ELLs at any time while attending Grades 9-12 in Texas public schools. gStudents identified as ELLs in their last year in Texas public schools. continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 105 Appendix 5-B. Grade 9 Four-Year, Five-Year Extended, and Six-Year Extended Longitudinal Graduation and Dropout Rates, by Race/Ethnicity, Economic Status, English Language Learner Status, and Special Education Program Participation, Class of 2012 and Class of 2013 (continued) Status date Classb White As of fall 2013 109,915 As of fall 2014 109,816 As of fall 2015 109,841 Multiracial As of fall 2013 5,345 As of fall 2014 5,341 As of fall 2015 5,340 Economically Disadvantaged As of fall 2013 162,779 As of fall 2014 161,878 As of fall 2015 161,770 Ever ELLd in K-12e As of fall 2013 94,064 As of fall 2014 93,549 As of fall 2015 93,462 Ever ELL in 9-12f As of fall 2013 24,044 As of fall 2014 23,707 As of fall 2015 23,658 ELL in Last Yearg As of fall 2013 11,922 As of fall 2014 11,730 As of fall 2015 11,691 Special Education As of fall 2013 31,014 As of fall 2014 31,066 As of fall 2015 31,102 State As of fall 2013 328,584 As of fall 2014 327,568 As of fall 2015 327,470 Graduated Rate Number (%) Continued Rate Number (%) Received GEDa Rate Number (%) Dropped Out Rate Number (%) Graduated, Continued, or Received GED Rate Number (%) 102,213 103,635 103,969 93.0 94.4 94.7 2,845 882 481 2.6 0.8 0.4 996 1,361 1,598 0.9 1.2 1.5 3,861 3,938 3,793 3.5 3.6 3.5 106,054 105,878 106,048 96.5 96.4 96.5 4,899 4,990 5,005 91.7 93.4 93.7 165 41 17 3.1 0.8 0.3 48 60 72 0.9 1.1 1.3 233 250 246 4.4 4.7 4.6 5,112 5,091 5,094 95.6 95.3 95.4 138,630 142,831 143,693 85.2 88.2 88.8 8,868 2,288 1,021 5.4 1.4 0.6 1,493 2,041 2,452 0.9 1.3 1.5 13,788 14,718 14,604 8.5 9.1 9.0 148,991 147,160 147,166 91.5 90.9 91.0 79,354 82,197 82,777 84.4 87.9 88.6 6,328 1,740 701 6.7 1.9 0.8 583 784 977 0.6 0.8 1.0 7,799 8,828 9,007 8.3 9.4 9.6 86,265 84,721 84,455 91.7 90.6 90.4 17,133 18,363 18,635 71.3 77.5 78.8 3,218 921 374 13.4 3.9 1.6 101 136 176 0.4 0.6 0.7 3,592 4,287 4,473 14.9 18.1 18.9 20,452 19,420 19,185 85.1 81.9 81.1 7,352 7,959 8,080 61.7 67.9 69.1 1,677 442 158 14.1 3.8 1.4 69 91 115 0.6 0.8 1.0 2,824 3,238 3,338 23.7 27.6 28.6 9,098 8,492 8,353 76.3 72.4 71.4 24,114 25,509 26,138 77.8 82.1 84.0 3,306 1,748 1,083 10.7 5.6 3.5 154 237 287 0.5 0.8 0.9 3,440 3,572 3,594 11.1 11.5 11.6 27,574 27,494 27,508 88.9 88.5 88.4 289,298 296,162 297,648 88.0 90.4 90.9 14,960 4,187 1,914 4.6 1.3 0.6 2,692 3,706 4,454 0.8 1.1 1.4 21,634 23,513 23,454 6.6 7.2 7.2 306,950 304,055 304,016 93.4 92.8 92.8 Note. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Numbers in class for race/ethnicity may not sum to the state total because some student records did not correspond to any single new racial/ethnic category. Racial groups (African American, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, White, and multiracial) do not include students of Hispanic ethnicity. With the exception of two groups of students identified as English language learners (ELLs) (ever ELL in K-12 and ever ELL in 9-12), student characteristics and program participation were assigned based on the year of a student's final status in the cohort. Students may be counted in more than one of the following categories: economically disadvantaged, ELL in K-12, ELL in 9-12, ELL in last year, and special education. aGeneral Educational Development certificate. bFor each class, the total number of students with final statuses changed across years because: (a) some students who continued high school in one fall left Texas public schools by the following fall for reasons other than graduating, receiving GED certificates, or dropping out; and (b) some students who left Texas public schools by one fall without graduating returned to Texas public schools and graduated, received GED certificates, continued high school, or dropped out by the following fall. In addition, students with changes in year of final status were added to, or removed from, relevant student groups. cA dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. When the number of students represented by a final status is not reported, the corresponding class size is presented in such a manner as to provide a general idea of the number of students in the class while maintaining student anonymity. dEnglish language learner. eStudents identified as ELLs at any time while attending Texas public schools. fStudents identified as ELLs at any time while attending Grades 9-12 in Texas public schools. gStudents identified as ELLs in their last year in Texas public schools. 106 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 6. Grade-Level Retention A n objective of public education in Texas is to encourage and challenge students to meet their full educational potential. Moreover, the state's academic goal is for all students to demonstrate exemplary performance in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Student mastery of academic skills at each grade level is a factor in meeting this goal. Grade retention has been defined as requiring a child to repeat a particular grade or delaying entry to kindergarten or first grade despite the child's age. This definition of retention—repetition of a grade or delayed entry— applies primarily to Grades K-6. The same grade level in successive years in high school does not necessarily represent the repetition of a full year's curriculum, as it does in elementary school. Secondary school programs are structured around individual courses. Because passing and failing are determined at the level of the course and credits are awarded for courses completed successfully, the concept of a "grade level" becomes more fluid. Students who fail to earn credit in a single course or take fewer courses than required in one year may be classified at the same grade level in two consecutive years. Practices in Grades 7 and 8 may be like those in elementary school or like those in high school, depending on local school district policies. In 1999, the 76th Texas Legislature approved implementation of the Student Success Initiative (Texas Education Code [TEC] §28.0211). See "Student Success Initiative STAAR Results" on page 47. Definitions and Calculations Retention rates for the 2014-15 school year were calculated by comparing 2014-15 attendance records to fall 2015 enrollment records. Students who left the Texas public school system for any reason other than graduation were excluded from the total student count. Students new to the Texas public school system in fall 2015 were also excluded. Students who enrolled both years or graduated were included in the total student count. Students found to have been enrolled in the same grade in both years were counted as retained. Students found to have been in a higher grade in fall 2015 than in 2014-15 were counted as promoted. Students reported to have had improbable grade sequences were assigned an "unknown" promotion status. Retention rates were calculated by dividing number of students retained by total student count. Because of the criteria used, student counts in this report differ from those in other agency publications. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Retention rates have been calculated by TEA based on year-to-year progress of individual students since 1994-95. Prior to the 1998-99 school year, the retention calculations included only students who were enrolled on the last Friday in October. Beginning in 1998-99, additional enrollment data for Grades 7-12 were collected by TEA to calculate the secondary school dropout and graduation rates. This collection expanded available Grades 7-12 enrollment data beyond students enrolled the last Friday in October to include students enrolled at any time during the fall. The change in the retention calculation allowed more secondary school students to be included and made the calculation of the retention rate more like that of the secondary school dropout and graduation rates. Expanded enrollment data were not collected for Grades K-6, so the method of calculating enrollment counts for Grades K-6 was unchanged. The Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) includes data on the grade levels of all students in the Texas public school system (TEC §29.083). Data on student characteristics and program participation are also available in PEIMS. Data on State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) performance were provided to TEA by state contractors: Pearson, in 2014 and 2015, and Educational Testing Service, in 2016. For those years, STAAR L was an online, linguistically accommodated test for English language learners taking mathematics, science, or social studies assessments. STAAR L was not offered for reading or writing assessments. STAAR A, an accommodated version of STAAR, was offered beginning in 2015 as an online assessment in the same grades and subjects as STAAR. STAAR A provided embedded supports (e.g., visual aids, graphic organizers, and text-to-speech functionality) designed to help students with disabilities access the content being assessed. The 2014 mathematics results presented in this chapter are based on STAAR and STAAR L combined. The 2015 and 2016 mathematics results are based on STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR L combined. The 2014 reading results are based on STAAR only, and the 2015 and 2016 reading results are based on STAAR and STAAR A combined. Because rates for smaller groups tend to be less stable over time, comparisons of rates across racial/ethnic groups can be misleading when one group is small compared to other groups. The non-Hispanic American Indian and Pacific Islander student populations are small in number, compared to other racial/ethnic populations. Therefore, discussions of results in this chapter, 107 including comparisons across racial/ethnic groups, do not include these populations. had a higher retention rate (3.6%) than female students (2.3%). State Summary Grade-Level Retention by Grade In the 2014-15 school year, 3.0 percent (144,945) of Texas public school students in Grades K-12 were retained (Table 6.1). The retention rate decreased by 0.1 percentage points from the previous school year. In 2014-15, the retention rate for Grades K-6 was 2.0 percent, a decrease of 0.2 percentage points from the previous year (Table 6.2). Across the elementary grades, retention rates were highest in Grades 1 and 2 (4.3% and 2.8%, respectively) and lowest in Grades 5 and 6 (0.9% and 0.6%, respectively). The retention rate for Grades 7-12 was 4.1 percent, a decrease of 0.2 percentage points from the previous year (Table 6.3 on page 110). Across secondary grades, retention rates were highest in Grades 9 and 10 (8.6% and 5.6%, respectively) and lowest in Grades 7 and 8 (0.8% each). Table 6.1. Grade-Level Retention, by Student Group, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Group 2013-14 African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Econ. Disad.a Not Econ. Disad. Female Male Grades K-6 Grades 7-12 State 2014-15 African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multiracial Econ. Disad. Not Econ. Disad. Female Male Grades K-6 Grades 7-12 State Students Retained Number Rate (%) 600,633 18,220 181,644 2,468,437 6,179 1,431,604 89,869 2,904,391 1,892,195 2,337,643 2,458,943 2,679,569 2,117,017 4,796,586 24,143 646 2,034 92,814 167 29,210 1,959 117,258 33,715 58,465 92,508 59,294 91,679 150,973 4.0 3.5 1.1 3.8 2.7 2.0 2.2 4.0 1.8 2.5 3.8 2.2 4.3 3.1 611,378 18,790 191,561 2,532,336 6,486 1,433,060 95,566 2,907,119 1,982,058 2,384,165 2,505,012 2,721,733 2,167,444 4,889,177 23,400 668 1,904 88,826 188 27,831 2,128 110,047 34,898 55,970 88,975 55,339 89,606 144,945 3.8 3.6 1.0 3.5 2.9 1.9 2.2 3.8 1.8 2.3 3.6 2.0 4.1 3.0 Note. Racial groups (African American, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, White, and multiracial) do not include students of Hispanic ethnicity. aEconomically disadvantaged. Across the five largest racial/ethnic groups in 2014-15, the retention rate was highest among African American students (3.8%), followed by Hispanic (3.5%), multiracial (2.2%), White (1.9%), and Asian (1.0%) students. The retention rate for students identified as economically disadvantaged was 3.8 percent. Male students 108 Grade-Level Retention by Race/Ethnicity Across elementary grades and the five largest racial/ ethnic groups in 2014-15, Hispanic students in Grade 1 had the highest retention rate (5.2%), followed by African American students in Grades 1 and 2 (4.9% and 3.5%, respectively) (Table 6.2). Asian students in Grades 6 and 4 had the lowest retention rates (0.1% and 0.2%, respectively). Across secondary grades and the five largest racial/ ethnic groups, African American and Hispanic students in Grade 9 had the highest retention rates (11.9% and 10.5%, respectively), followed by African American students in Grade 10 (7.8%) (Table 6.3 on page 110). Asian students in Grades 7 and 8 and White students in Grade 7 had the lowest retention rates (0.2%, 0.3%, and 0.5%, respectively). Grade-Level Retention by Gender In 2014-15, the retention rate for males was higher than that for females in every grade (Tables 6.4 and 6.5 on page 111). Across elementary grades, retention rates for both males and females were highest in Grade 1 (5.1% and 3.5%, respectively) and lowest in Grade 6 (0.9% and 0.4%, respectively). Across secondary grades, retention rates for both males and females were highest in Grade 9 (10.6% and 6.5%, respectively). The rate for males was lowest in Grade 8 (1.0%), and the rate for females was lowest in Grade 7 (0.6%). 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 6.2. Grade-Level Retention, Grades K-6, by Grade and Race/Ethnicity, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Grade 2013-14 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Total K-6 2014-15 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Total K-6 Grade 2013-14 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Total K-6 2014-15 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Total K-6 African American Retained Rate (%) American Indian Retained Rate (%) Retained Asian Rate (%) Hispanic Retained Rate (%) 957 2,652 1,855 1,479 745 776 510 8,974 2.1 5.4 3.9 3.1 1.6 1.7 1.1 2.7 44 89 43 39 10 – – 257 2.7 5.8 2.9 2.8 0.8 1.7 0.8 2.6 153 193 122 83 57 68 19 695 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.7 4,751 11,547 7,481 5,243 2,660 3,022 1,596 36,300 2.3 5.3 3.6 2.6 1.3 1.5 0.8 2.6 931 2,435 1,717 1,280 690 553 439 8,045 2.0 4.9 3.5 2.6 1.5 1.2 0.9 2.4 57 92 57 27 24 – – 276 3.1 5.7 3.8 1.9 1.7 0.9 0.6 2.7 148 186 138 79 38 58 21 668 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.6 4,576 11,214 7,379 4,898 2,422 2,149 1,426 34,064 2.2 5.2 3.4 2.4 1.2 1.1 0.7 2.4 Pacific Islander Retained Rate (%) Retained Multiracial Retained Rate (%) Retained White Rate (%) State Rate (%) 16 15 17 11 6 – – 71 3.1 2.7 3.3 2.3 1.3 0.7 0.7 2.1 3,509 3,621 1,803 1,201 691 822 505 12,152 3.2 3.2 1.7 1.1 0.6 0.8 0.5 1.6 180 261 150 94 57 60 43 845 2.2 3.1 1.9 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.6 1.6 9,610 18,378 11,471 8,150 4,226 4,773 2,686 59,294 2.5 4.6 3.0 2.1 1.1 1.3 0.7 2.2 10 26 11 11 7 – – 71 1.9 4.8 2.0 2.0 1.5 0.9 0.4 2.0 3,315 3,358 1,722 1,169 635 659 479 11,337 3.1 3.0 1.6 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.4 1.5 228 251 139 106 68 52 34 878 2.6 2.8 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.5 1.5 9,265 17,562 11,163 7,570 3,884 3,486 2,409 55,339 2.4 4.3 2.8 1.9 1.0 0.9 0.6 2.0 Note. A dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. Racial groups (African American, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, White, and multiracial) do not include students of Hispanic ethnicity. Grade-Level Retention by English Language Learner Status Texas students with limited English proficiency learn English at the same time they learn reading and other language arts skills. Depending on grade level and program availability, most students identified as English language learners (ELLs) are enrolled in bilingual or English as a second language (ESL) programs (TEC §29.053). ELLs participating in special education receive bilingual or ESL services as part of their special education programs. Although parents can request that a child not receive special language services, in 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 2014-15, almost 95 percent of all ELLs in the elementary grades participated in bilingual or ESL programs. In Grades K-6 overall in 2014-15, the retention rate for ELLs was 2.8 percent, compared to 1.8 percent for nonELLs (Table 6.6 on page 111). Among ELLs, the retention rate for students served in bilingual programs was 2.7 percent, and the rate for students served in ESL programs was 2.1 percent. In Grades 7-12 overall in 2014-15, the retention rate for ELLs was 8.1 percent, compared to 3.8 percent for non-ELLs (Table 6.7 on page 111). Over 93 percent of ELLs in Grades 7-12 were served in ESL programs, and the retention rate for these students was 6.7 percent. 109 Table 6.3. Grade-Level Retention, Grades 7-12, by Grade and Race/Ethnicity, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Grade 2013-14 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total 7-12 2014-15 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total 7-12 Grade 2013-14 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total 7-12 2014-15 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total 7-12 African American Retained Rate (%) American Indian Retained Rate (%) Retained Asian Rate (%) Hispanic Retained Rate (%) 684 486 5,797 3,439 2,321 2,442 15,169 1.4 1.0 11.4 7.7 5.9 6.1 5.6 – – 129 88 63 76 389 1.1 1.3 8.3 6.1 4.7 5.7 4.6 25 60 432 200 167 455 1,339 0.2 0.4 3.1 1.5 1.3 3.6 1.7 2,388 2,367 21,678 12,293 8,318 9,470 56,514 1.2 1.2 11.0 7.2 5.6 6.3 5.4 541 421 6,216 3,594 2,499 2,084 15,355 1.1 0.9 11.9 7.8 6.1 5.0 5.6 – – 176 82 53 54 392 1.3 0.7 11.4 5.8 4.0 4.0 4.7 29 46 387 206 151 417 1,236 0.2 0.3 2.5 1.5 1.1 3.1 1.4 1,919 1,996 21,676 12,257 8,212 8,702 54,762 1.0 1.0 10.5 6.9 5.3 5.6 5.0 Pacific Islander Retained Rate (%) Retained Multiracial Retained Rate (%) Retained White Rate (%) State Rate (%) – – 38 23 11 19 96 0.2 0.9 7.3 5.3 2.4 4.5 3.4 686 743 5,991 3,666 2,430 3,542 17,058 0.6 0.6 5.1 3.3 2.4 3.3 2.6 55 40 433 250 152 184 1,114 0.8 0.6 6.5 4.2 2.9 3.4 3.1 3,854 3,718 34,498 19,959 13,462 16,188 91,679 1.0 1.0 8.9 5.8 4.3 5.1 4.3 – – 43 27 19 20 117 1.3 0.4 8.3 5.3 4.5 4.0 4.0 592 691 5,680 3,713 2,434 3,384 16,494 0.5 0.6 4.8 3.3 2.4 3.2 2.5 58 39 466 321 178 188 1,250 0.8 0.6 6.7 5.1 3.2 3.4 3.3 3,162 3,205 34,644 20,200 13,546 14,849 89,606 0.8 0.8 8.6 5.6 4.2 4.6 4.1 Note. A dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. Racial groups (African American, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, White, and multiracial) do not include students of Hispanic ethnicity. Grade-Level Retention of Students Receiving Special Education Services by Primary Disability Each student receiving special education services has an individualized education program that is developed by a local admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee and that specifies goals and objectives for the year (Title 19 of the Texas Administrative Code §89.1055). The student progresses to the next grade level whenever the goals and objectives are met. Retention and promotion policies and practices for students with disabilities vary across Texas districts. ARDs assign each special education student a primary disability from 1 of 13 categories of disability. Among 110 elementary special education students in 2014-15 for whom primary disability information was available, 91.5 percent were assigned a primary disability from 1 of 5 categories: learning disability; speech impairment; other health impairment, such as attention deficit disorder; autism; or intellectual disability (Table 6.8 on page 112). The same five categories accounted for 92.9 percent of retained elementary special education students for whom primary disability information was available. Across these five categories, retention rates in Grades K-6 overall were highest for students with speech impairments (5.8%), followed by students with other health impairments (3.0%), intellectual disabilities (2.0%), autism (1.8%), and learning disabilities (1.5%). 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 6.4. Grade-Level Retention, Grades K-6, by Grade and Gender, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Grade 2013-14 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 2014-15 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Female Retained Rate (%) Male Retained Rate (%) 3,242 7,083 4,863 3,548 1,708 2,117 819 1.7 3.6 2.6 1.9 0.9 1.2 0.5 6,368 11,295 6,608 4,602 2,518 2,656 1,867 3.2 5.4 3.3 2.3 1.3 1.4 1.0 3,263 6,938 4,821 3,259 1,584 1,387 732 1.7 3.5 2.5 1.7 0.8 0.7 0.4 6,002 10,624 6,342 4,311 2,300 2,099 1,677 3.0 5.1 3.1 2.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 Table 6.5. Grade-Level Retention, Grades 7-12, by Grade and Gender, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Grade 2013-14 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 2014-15 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Female Retained Rate (%) Male Retained Rate (%) 1,260 1,562 12,605 7,490 5,264 6,904 0.7 0.9 6.7 4.4 3.4 4.4 2,594 2,156 21,893 12,469 8,198 9,284 1.3 1.1 10.9 7.0 5.3 5.8 1,035 1,284 12,613 7,504 5,249 6,301 0.6 0.7 6.5 4.3 3.3 3.9 2,127 1,921 22,031 12,696 8,297 8,548 1.1 1.0 10.6 7.0 5.1 5.2 Across elementary grades in 2014-15, retention rates for the five most common primary disabilities were highest in kindergarten or first grade. Rates for students with learning disabilities, other health impairments, intellectual disabilities, and autism were highest in kindergarten (12.9%, 10.2%, 10.0%, and 6.2%, respectively). Rates for students with speech impairments were highest in Grade 1 (9.8%). Among secondary special education students in 2014-15 for whom primary disability information was available, 95.0 percent were assigned a primary disability from 1 of 5 categories: learning disability; other health impairment, such as attention deficit disorder; intellectual disability; autism; or emotional disturbance (Table 6.9 on page 113). The same five categories accounted for 96.0 percent of retained 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 6.6. Grade-Level Retention, Grades K-6, by English Language Learner Status and Service Received, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Service Received or English Language Learner Status 2013-14 English Language Learners: Bilingual English as a Second Language Special Education No Servicesa Total Non-English Language Learners 2014-15 English Language Learners: Bilingual English as a Second Language Special Education No Services Total Non-English Language Learners Retained Rate (%) 11,142 4,032 331 799 19,307 39,987 2.8 2.4 3.9 3.0 3.0 2.0 10,980 3,898 289 599 18,465 36,874 2.7 2.1 3.4 2.3 2.8 1.8 Note. Counts of English language learners (ELLs) receiving special language program services and of ELLs not receiving such services exclude students for whom information about parental permission for participation in special language programs was missing and, therefore, may not sum to the total number of ELLs. aIncludes English language learners whose parents did not give permission for participation in special language programs and those whose services received are unknown. Table 6.7. Grade-Level Retention, Grades 7-12, by English Language Learner Status and Service Received, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Service Received or English Language Learner Status 2013-14 English Language Learners: Bilingual English as a Second Language Special Education No Servicesa Total Non-English Language Learners 2014-15 English Language Learners: Bilingual English as a Second Language Special Education No Services Total Non-English Language Learners Retained Rate (%) 22 10,354 527 393 15,233 76,446 1.5 7.8 12.8 6.1 9.5 3.9 22 10,549 506 450 15,102 74,504 1.8 6.7 12.1 6.0 8.1 3.8 Note. Counts of English language learners (ELLs) receiving special language program services and of ELLs not receiving such services exclude students for whom information about parental permission for participation in special language programs was missing and, therefore, may not sum to the total number of ELLs. aIncludes English language learners whose parents did not give permission for participation in special language programs and those whose services received are unknown. 111 Table 6.8. Grade-Level Retention of Students Receiving Special Education Services, Grades K-6, by Grade and Primary Disability, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Grade 2013-14 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Total K-6 2014-15 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Total K-6 Grade 2013-14 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Total K-6 2014-15 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Total K-6 Learning Disability Retained Students Rate (%) Speech Impairment Retained Students Rate (%) Other Health Impairment Retained Students Rate (%) 54 267 266 150 119 118 117 1,091 573 2,942 6,848 11,353 15,225 17,851 18,083 72,875 9.4 9.1 3.9 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.6 1.5 1,401 1,660 574 212 68 46 15 3,976 16,790 15,760 11,663 8,600 5,936 3,694 1,979 64,422 8.3 10.5 4.9 2.5 1.1 1.2 0.8 6.2 296 284 180 84 56 70 48 1,018 2,362 3,470 4,228 5,118 5,475 5,790 5,284 31,727 12.5 8.2 4.3 1.6 1.0 1.2 0.9 3.2 62 230 236 174 90 128 124 1,044 481 2,788 6,507 11,024 14,645 17,638 18,342 71,425 12.9 8.2 3.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.5 1,380 1,577 534 206 65 33 7 3,802 17,077 16,058 12,139 8,692 6,265 3,766 2,055 66,052 8.1 9.8 4.4 2.4 1.0 0.9 0.3 5.8 248 301 176 100 61 71 60 1,017 2,441 3,550 4,570 5,229 6,030 6,051 5,897 33,768 10.2 8.5 3.9 1.9 1.0 1.2 1.0 3.0 Retained Autism Students Rate (%) 253 117 83 36 26 45 21 581 3,562 3,924 3,961 4,057 4,176 4,024 3,600 27,304 7.1 3.0 2.1 0.9 0.6 1.1 0.6 2.1 163 85 77 21 22 27 56 451 1,781 2,411 3,043 3,293 3,568 3,565 3,619 21,280 9.2 3.5 2.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.5 2.1 2,471 2,632 1,333 601 346 378 313 8,074 28,888 32,652 34,476 37,513 39,551 40,631 37,904 251,615 8.6 8.1 3.9 1.6 0.9 0.9 0.8 3.2 241 84 74 25 22 57 36 539 3,879 4,111 4,289 4,287 4,256 4,365 4,133 29,320 6.2 2.0 1.7 0.6 0.5 1.3 0.9 1.8 193 79 56 27 26 37 42 460 1,939 2,637 3,221 3,699 3,778 3,884 3,833 22,991 10.0 3.0 1.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.1 2.0 2,417 2,454 1,225 598 315 401 325 7,735 29,599 33,140 35,683 38,076 40,246 41,404 39,612 257,760 8.2 7.4 3.4 1.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 3.0 Intellectual disability Retained Students Rate (%) All Special Education Retained Students Rate (%) Note. Primary disabilities are listed in order of prevalence among all Grade K-6 students in the 2014-15 school year. secondary special education students for whom primary disability information was available. Across these five categories, retention rates in Grades 7-12 overall were highest for students with intellectual disabilities (16.6%), followed by students with emotional disturbance (12.0%), autism (10.1%), other health impairments (8.7%), and learning disabilities (6.3%). Across secondary grades, retention rates for students with emotional disturbance or learning disabilities were highest in Grade 9 (25.5% and 15.3%, respectively). Rates for students with intellectual disabilities, autism, or other health impairments were highest in Grade 12 (56.2%, 45.7%, and 16.7%, respectively). 112 Retention and Student Performance TEA is required to report the performance of retained students (TEC §39.332). Passing rates and average scores were calculated separately, by grade level, for English- and Spanish-language versions of the 2015 State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) reading and mathematics tests for Grades 3-8. For students repeating a grade in the 2015-16 school year, 2015 STAAR results were compared to 2016 STAAR results. For comparison purposes, the 2015 STAAR results for promoted students also were calculated. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 6.9. Grade-Level Retention of Students Receiving Special Education Services, Grades 7-12, by Grade and Primary Disability, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Grade 2013-14 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total 7-12 2014-15 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total 7-12 Grade 2013-14 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total 7-12 2014-15 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total 7-12 Learning Disability Retained Students Rate (%) Other Health Impairment Retained Students Rate (%) Intellectual disability Retained Students Rate (%) 174 149 2,897 1,586 1,000 526 6,332 18,260 17,789 18,897 16,343 13,942 15,069 100,300 1.0 0.8 15.3 9.7 7.2 3.5 6.3 62 89 762 407 246 639 2,205 5,088 4,766 4,821 4,129 3,544 4,186 26,534 1.2 1.9 15.8 9.9 6.9 15.3 8.3 29 83 205 123 109 3,067 3,616 3,613 3,151 3,264 2,783 2,595 5,334 20,740 0.8 2.6 6.3 4.4 4.2 57.5 17.4 157 148 2,905 1,568 1,048 476 6,302 18,265 18,119 18,973 15,582 13,842 14,637 99,418 0.9 0.8 15.3 10.1 7.6 3.3 6.3 60 93 804 434 272 690 2,353 5,314 5,034 5,138 4,018 3,532 4,130 27,166 1.1 1.8 15.6 10.8 7.7 16.7 8.7 24 72 227 176 90 3,092 3,681 3,788 3,730 3,361 3,157 2,629 5,506 22,171 0.6 1.9 6.8 5.6 3.4 56.2 16.6 Retained Autism Students Rate (%) 21 53 118 79 44 1,507 1,822 3,409 3,033 2,783 2,365 2,016 3,168 16,774 0.6 1.7 4.2 3.3 2.2 47.6 10.9 56 58 853 420 249 174 1,810 2,782 2,694 3,247 2,464 1,740 1,903 14,830 2.0 2.2 26.3 17.0 14.3 9.1 12.2 391 471 5,032 2,734 1,719 6,512 16,859 36,781 34,226 35,211 29,864 25,370 32,035 193,487 1.1 1.4 14.3 9.2 6.8 20.3 8.7 10 54 116 75 73 1,570 1,898 3,701 3,500 3,121 2,684 2,309 3,435 18,750 0.3 1.5 3.7 2.8 3.2 45.7 10.1 61 45 822 444 253 179 1,804 2,825 2,857 3,227 2,461 1,837 1,831 15,038 2.2 1.6 25.5 18.0 13.8 9.8 12.0 332 453 5,086 2,803 1,808 6,580 17,062 37,334 36,141 36,009 29,802 25,706 31,731 196,723 0.9 1.3 14.1 9.4 7.0 20.7 8.7 Emotional Disturbance Retained Students Rate (%) All Special Education Retained Students Rate (%) Note. Primary disabilities are listed in order of prevalence among all Grade 7-12 students in the 2014-15 school year. The 2015 STAAR passing rates presented in this chapter were calculated based on Phase-in 1 Level II performance standards. In 2015-16, a standard progression approach was applied to the performance standards to allow for annual, consistent, incremental improvements toward the final recommended Level II performance in 2021-22. The new 2015-16 standard was used for 2016 tests. Passing standards for the STAAR test are set by the commissioner of education (TEC §39.0241). The change in passing standards between the 2015 and 2016 tests should be kept in mind when interpreting results in this chapter. Among students in Grades 3-8 who took the Englishversion STAAR reading and mathematics tests in spring 2015, passing rates were higher for students who were promoted than for students who were 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools retained (Table 6.10 and Figure 6.1 on page 114). After a year in the same grade, the passing rates for retained students improved but did not reach the passing rates for students who had been promoted the year before. For example, 87.9 percent of promoted Grade 5 students passed the English-version STAAR reading test in spring 2015, whereas 14.5 percent of retained fifth graders passed the test. In 2016, after repeating the grade, 52.1 percent of retained students passed the test. Similarly, 68.6 percent of promoted eighth graders passed the English-version STAAR mathematics test in spring 2015, whereas 20.3 percent of retained students passed. The following year, 55.3 percent of the retained Grade 8 students passed the test. For 2013-14 results, see Appendices 6-A and 6-B on page 118. 113 Table 6.10. STAAR Percentage Passing 2015 and 2016, Grades 3-8, by Grade and Promotion Status 2014-15 Status Grade 3 Promoted Retained Grade 4 Promoted Retained Grade 5 Promoted Retained Grade 6 Promoted Retained Grade 7 Promoted Retained Grade 8 Promoted Retained STAAR English-Version Reading Mathematics 2015 2016 2015 2016 STAAR Spanish-Version Reading Mathematics 2015 2016 2015 2016 76.3 18.0 –a 53.9 75.7 20.9 – 62.0 67.4 14.3 – 55.7 68.1 18.8 – 62.0 71.8 13.2 – 54.7 71.4 16.5 – 56.1 61.6 6.4 – 37.3 57.2 9.2 – 49.7 87.9 14.5 – 52.1 76.2 22.6 – 72.6 87.3 15.3 – 54.1 49.7 7.6 – 47.0 73.1 20.7 – 36.4 72.4 23.1 – 44.8 n/ab n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 72.4 21.3 – 36.3 68.4 19.9 – 36.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 88.5 34.9 – 60.9 68.6 20.3 – 55.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Note. Reading results are based on STAAR and STAAR A combined. Mathematics results are based on STAAR, STAAR A, and STAAR L combined. Passing rates for retained students in both years are based on the same groups of students. Students taking advanced-level tests are excluded from these analyses. aStudents promoted in 2015 did not repeat the same grade-level test in 2016. bNot applicable. Spanish-version STAAR tests were available in Grades 3-5 only. Figure 6.1. Grade-Level Retention 2014-15 and Reading Passing Rates on the English-Version STAAR 2015 and 2016, Grades 3-8 100 90 80 Passing Rate (%) 88.5 87.9 76.3 70 60 52.1 40 30 20 18.0 10 0 3 14.5 13.2 4 2014-15 Promoted Students  2015 STAAR Administration 72.4 60.9 54.7 53.9 50 73.1 71.8 5 6 36.4 36.3 20.7 21.3 7 34.9 2014-15 Retained Students  2016 STAAR Administration  2015 STAAR Administration 8 Grade Level 114 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools The Student Success Initiative (SSI) stipulates that students in Grades 5 and 8 can advance to the next grade level only by passing the state reading and mathematics assessments or by unanimous decision of a grade placement committee (TEC §28.0211). For the 2014-15 school year, the commissioner of education suspended the SSI requirement that students in these grades pass the mathematics assessment. In the 2014-15 school year, 320,591 fifth graders and 325,260 eighth graders met SSI criteria (Figure 6.2 on page 116 and Figure 6.3 on page 117). Of these, 99.9 percent and 99.8 percent, respectively, were promoted to the next grade. Of the 48,999 fifth graders and 46,756 eighth graders who did not meet SSI criteria, 2,637 fifth graders (5.4%) were retained after the 2014-15 school year, and 1,857 eighth graders (4.0%) were retained. For 2013-14 results, see Appendix 6-C on page 119 and Appendix 6-D on page 120. Spanish-version STAAR reading and mathematics results were similar to English-version results in that the passing rates for students who were later retained were considerably lower than the passing rates for students who were subsequently promoted. Also, passing rates for retained students showed gains in the second year. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Agency Contact Persons For information on student grade-level retention data, contact Penny Schwinn, Deputy Commissioner for Office of Academics, (512) 463-8934; or Linda Roska, Research and Analysis Division, (512) 475-3523. For information on retention reduction programs, contact Penny Schwinn, Deputy Commissioner of Academics, (512) 463-8934; or Monica Martinez, Associate Commissioner for Standards and Support Services, (512) 463-9087. Other Sources of Information For a detailed presentation of the results of grade-level retention in Texas, see the reports Grade-Level Retention in Texas Public Schools and Grade-Level Retention and Student Performance in Texas Public Schools at http://tea.texas.gov/acctres/retention_index.html. 115 Figure 6.2. STAAR Reading Test 2015 Performance and Promotion Status 2014-15, Grade 5 Grade 5 students 380,453 Grade 5 students who could be categorized based on SSI criteriaa 369,590 97.1% Met SSI criteria 320,591 86.7% Promoted 320,207 99.9% Grade 5 students who could not be categorized based on SSI criteriab 10,863 2.9% Did not meet SSI criteria 48,999 13.3% Promoted c 19,351 39.5% Promoted 8,871 81.7% GPC Promotedd 27,010 55.1% GPC Promoted 1,525 14.0 Retained 384 0.1% Retained 2,637 5.4% Retained 465 4.3% Unknowne 0 0.0% Unknown 1 <0.1% Unknown 2 <0.1% Note. Results are based on STAAR and STAAR A combined. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. aUnder Texas Education Code §28.0211 (2016), students in Grades 5 and 8 were subject to Student Success Initiative (SSI) grade advancement criteria. Students who passed a grade-level reading test or took an advanced-level reading test were categorized as meeting criteria. Students who failed a grade-level reading test were categorized as not meeting criteria. bStudents who were missing a reading test could not be categorized based on SSI criteria. Students may be missing STAAR results because Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) records could not be matched to STAAR records. cThese students may have had passing STAAR records that could not be matched to PEIMS records because of incorrect student identification information or may not have been correctly reported in PEIMS when grade placement committee (GPC) promotions were collected. dPromoted by GPC decision. ePromotion status could not be determined because of a grade-level reporting error. 116 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Figure 6.3. STAAR Reading Test 2015 Performance and Promotion Status 2014-15, Grade 8 Grade 8 students 383,102 Grade 8 students who could be categorized based on SSI criteriaa 372,016 97.1% Met SSI criteria 325,260 87.4% Grade 8 students who could not be categorized based on SSI criteriab 11,086 2.9% Did not meet SSI criteria 46,756 12.6% Promoted c 18,785 40.2% Promoted 9,149 82.5% GPC Promotedd 26,114 55.9% GPC Promoted 1,229 11.1% Retained 646 0.2% Retained 1,857 4.0% Retained 702 6.3% Unknowne 3 <0.1% Unknown 0 0.0% Unknown 6 <0.1% Promoted 324,611 99.8% Note. Results are based on STAAR and STAAR A combined. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. aUnder Texas Education Code §28.0211 (2016), students in Grades 5 and 8 were subject to Student Success Initiative (SSI) grade advancement criteria. Students who passed a grade-level reading test or took an advanced-level reading test were categorized as meeting criteria. Students who failed a grade-level reading test were categorized as not meeting criteria. bStudents who were missing a reading test could not be categorized based on SSI criteria. Students may be missing STAAR results because Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) records could not be matched to STAAR records. cThese students may have had passing STAAR records that could not be matched to PEIMS records because of incorrect student identification information or may not have been correctly reported in PEIMS when grade placement committee (GPC) promotions were collected. dPromoted by GPC decision. ePromotion status could not be determined because of a grade-level reporting error. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 117 Appendix 6-A. STAAR Reading Test Percentage Passing 2014 and 2015, Grades 3-8, by Grade and Promotion Status 2013-14 English-Version STAAR Reading 2014 2015 Status Grade 3 Promoted Retained Grade 4 Promoted Retained Grade 5 Promoted Retained Grade 6 Promoted Retained Grade 7 Promoted Retained Grade 8 Promoted Retained Spanish-Version STAAR Reading 2014 2015 77.3 14.3 –a 59.7 67.1 15.9 – 60.4 74.6 14.0 – 47.4 61.9 6.1 – 46.2 90.7 19.7 – 65.8 86.8 29.5 – 70.5 77.4 21.3 – 45.9 n/ab n/a n/a n/a 75.2 22.5 – 42.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 92.1 41.3 – 63.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a Note. Reading results are based on STAAR for 2014 and on STAAR and STAAR A combined for 2015. Passing rates for retained students in both years are based on the same groups of students. Students taking advanced-level tests are excluded from these analyses. aStudents promoted in 2014 did not repeat the same grade-level test in 2015. bNot applicable. Spanish-version STAAR tests were available in Grades 3-5 only. Appendix 6-B. Grade-Level Retention 2013-14 and Reading Passing Rates on the English-Version STAAR 2014 and 2015, Grades 3-8 100 90 80 Passing Rate (%) 92.1 90.7 77.3 70 60 77.4 74.6 75.2 65.8 59.7 50 63.4 47.4 40 45.9 42.0 30 20 14.3 10 0 3 4 5 6 2013-14 Retained Students  2015 STAAR Administration  2014 STAAR Administration 22.5 21.3 19.7 14.0 41.3 2013-14 Promoted Students  2014 STAAR Administration 7 8 Grade Level 118 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 6-C. STAAR 2014 Performance and Promotion Status 2013-14, Test Results Combined, Grade 5 Grade 5 students 374,481 Grade 5 students who could be categorized based on SSI criteriaa 350,183 93.5% Met SSI criteria 298,473 85.2% Grade 5 students who could not be categorized based on SSI criteriab 24,298 6.5% Did not meet SSI criteria 51,710 14.8% Promoted 298,320 99.9% Promoted c 19,056 36.9% Promoted 21,542 88.7% GPC Promotedd 28,640 55.4% GPC Promoted 2,144 8.8% Retained 153 0.1% Retained 4,013 7.8% Retained 607 2.5% Unknowne 0 0.0% Unknown 1 <0.1% Unknown 5 <0.1% Note. Mathematics results are based on STAAR and STAAR L combined. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. aUnder Texas Education Code §28.0211 (2013), students in Grades 5 and 8 were subject to Student Success Initiative (SSI) grade advancement criteria. Students who (a) passed grade-level tests in both reading and mathematics, (b) passed a grade-level test in one subject and took an advanced-level test in the other subject, and (c) took advanced-level tests in both subjects were categorized as meeting criteria. Students who failed one or both grade-level tests were categorized as not meeting criteria. bStudents who (a) were missing results for both tests, (b) passed one test but were missing results for the other, or (c) were missing one test and took an advanced-level test for the other could not be categorized based on SSI criteria. Students may be missing STAAR results because Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) records could not be matched to STAAR records. Students not tested with STAAR or STAAR L may have been administered another version of STAAR, such as STAAR Modified. cThese students may have had passing STAAR records that could not be matched to PEIMS records because of incorrect student identification information or may not have been correctly reported in PEIMS when grade placement committee (GPC) promotions were collected. dPromoted by GPC decision. ePromotion status could not be determined because of a grade-level reporting error. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 119 Appendix 6-D. STAAR 2014 Performance and Promotion Status 2013-14, Test Results Combined, Grade 8 Grade 8 students 373,878 Grade 8 students who could be categorized based on SSI criteriaa 352,289 94.2% Met SSI criteria 302,827 86.0% Promoted 302,435 99.9% Grade 8 students who could not be categorized based on SSI criteriab 21,589 5.8% Did not meet SSI criteria 49,462 14.0% Promoted c 19,471 39.4% Promoted 18,938 87.7% GPC Promotedd 27,438 55.5% GPC Promoted 1,868 8.7% Retained 391 0.1% Retained 2,551 5.2% Retained 776 3.6% Unknowne 1 <0.1% Unknown 2 <0.1% Unknown 7 <0.1% Note. Mathematics results are based on STAAR and STAAR L combined. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. aUnder Texas Education Code §28.0211 (2013), students in Grades 5 and 8 were subject to Student Success Initiative (SSI) grade advancement criteria. Students who (a) passed grade-level tests in both reading and mathematics, (b) passed a grade-level test in one subject and took an advanced-level test in the other subject, and (c) took advanced-level tests in both subjects were categorized as meeting criteria. Students who failed one or both grade-level tests were categorized as not meeting criteria. bStudents who (a) were missing results for both tests, (b) passed one test but were missing results for the other, or (c) were missing one test and took an advanced-level test for the other could not be categorized based on SSI criteria. Students may be missing STAAR results because Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) records could not be matched to STAAR records. Students not tested with STAAR or STAAR L may have been administered another version of STAAR, such as STAAR Modified. cThese students may have had passing STAAR records that could not be matched to PEIMS records because of incorrect student identification information or may not have been correctly reported in PEIMS when grade placement committee (GPC) promotions were collected. dPromoted by GPC decision. ePromotion status could not be determined because of a grade-level reporting error. 120 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 7. District and Campus Performance O ne of the primary objectives of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) is to promote educational excellence for all students. Public school districts and campuses are held accountable for student performance through a system of ratings, distinctions, interventions, and sanctions. Academic accountability is ensured through an accountability rating system and a performance-based monitoring system. Accountability Rating System Overview In 1993, the Texas Legislature mandated creation of the first Texas public school accountability system. Under the accountability system in place from 1994 through 2002, district and campus ratings were based largely on Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) results and annual dropout rates. Texas implemented a new assessment, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), in 2003 and introduced a new accountability system in 2004. Under this system, in place from 2004 through 2011, district and campus ratings were based on 25 separate TAKS measures and 10 longitudinal completion and annual dropout rate measures. In 2009, the Texas Legislature mandated creation of a new assessment program and accountability system focused on postsecondary readiness. The goals were to improve student achievement at all levels in the core subject areas, ensure the progress of all students toward advanced academic performance, and close performance gaps among student groups. The new assessment program, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), was administered for the first time in 2012. As a transition to this new program, state accountability ratings were not issued in 2012. During that year, TEA worked with three advisory committees—the Accountability Technical Advisory Committee, the Accountability Policy Advisory Committee, and the Academic Achievement Distinction Designation Committee—to develop a new rating and distinction designations system. The advisory groups, made up of educators, accountability experts, professionals, and business and community leaders, made recommendations for criteria and standards to the commissioner of education, who made final decisions regarding the accountability and distinction designation systems. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools The 2012-13 school year was the first year that ratings and distinction designations were based on STAAR results. This accountability system evaluates a large number of measures in a performance index framework, eliminating the limitations of ratings that are determined by a single indicator. When ratings were first issued in August of 2013, three distinction designations could be earned by campuses for outstanding achievement in specified academic areas. In 2014, an additional four campus-level distinction designations were created along with a district-level distinction designation based on postsecondary readiness. The 2014 ratings also included a new postsecondary readiness measure: college-ready graduates. In 2015, ratings included additional measures of postsecondary readiness, including credit for advanced/dual-credit course completion and enrollment in a coherent sequence of two or more career and technical education courses as part of a fouryear plan of study. In 2016, the Texas Success Initiative assessment replaced the TAKS exit-level test as a measure of postsecondary readiness. Also in 2016, the graduation plan score in Index 4 was updated to include students who graduate under the Foundation High School Program (FHSP). To meet statutory requirements and goals, the accountability system for 2016 included a comprehensive evaluation of student performance based on four performance indices. ♦ Index 1: Student Achievement measures campus and district performance based on satisfactory student achievement across all subjects for all students. ♦ Index 2: Student Progress measures progress by subject and by student demographics: race/ ethnicity, special education program participation, and English language learner status. ♦ Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps emphasizes academic achievement of students identified as economically disadvantaged and of the lowest performing racial/ethnic groups based on prior-year assessment results. ♦ Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness emphasizes the role of elementary and middle schools in preparing students for the rigors of high school as well as the importance of earning a high school diploma that provides students the foundation necessary for success in college, the workforce, job training 121 programs, or the military. Index 4 includes four components: results at the STAAR postsecondary readiness standard; graduation rates or annual dropout rates; FHSP, Recommended High School Program, and Distinguished Achievement Program graduation rates; and college and career readiness. Districts and campuses are each assigned a rating of Met Standard, Met Alternative Standard, or Improvement Required. To receive a Met Standard or Met Alternative Standard rating in 2016, a district or campus must meet the targets on three of four indices, as follows: Index 1 or Index 2; Index 3; and Index 4 (assuming they have performance data for each). Districts and campuses that earn a Met Standard rating are eligible to earn distinction designations in recognition of outstanding achievement on specific indicators. Alternative education campuses (AECs) and charter districts evaluated under alternative education accountability (AEA) provisions are not eligible for distinctions. Campuses can earn any or all of the following seven distinction designations by scoring in the top quartile of their campus comparison groups: ♦ academic achievement in English language arts/ reading; ♦ academic achievement in mathematics; ♦ academic achievement in science; ♦ academic achievement in social studies; ♦ top 25 percent: student progress; ♦ top 25 percent: closing performance gaps; and ♦ postsecondary readiness. A district can earn the postsecondary readiness distinction if at least 70 percent of its campus-level indicators of postsecondary readiness are in the top quartile of the campus comparison groups. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) reauthorized and amended federal programs established under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Under NCLB, accountability provisions that had previously applied only to districts and campuses receiving Title I, Part A, funds were expanded to all districts and campuses. All public school districts, campuses, and the state were evaluated annually for adequate yearly progress (AYP) from the 2002-03 through the 2011-12 school years. On September 29, 2015, the U.S. Department of Education approved Texas's request for renewal of a waiver from specific provisions of the ESEA, including AYP ratings, through the end of the 2015-16 school year. This waiver allowed the state's existing system of interventions to guide the support and improvement of 122 schools. The state accountability system safeguard information was used to meet federal accountability requirements to identify Priority and Focus schools that were eligible for additional federal funding and subject to a series of federally prescribed interventions. On December 10, 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) reauthorized the ESEA. The ESSA provides states with greater latitude to develop state accountability systems to meet federal accountability requirements. The disaggregated performance results of the state accountability system serve as the basis of safeguards for the accountability rating system and ensure that poor performance in one area or for one student group is not disguised by better performance in another area or by another student group. The state accountability system safeguard data are released in conjunction with the state accountability ratings. Alternative Education Accountability Provisions Beginning with the 1995-96 school year, TEA implemented AEA provisions for campuses dedicated to serving students at risk of dropping out of school. In 2005, new AEA provisions were implemented for eligible charter districts and AECs primarily serving at-risk students. The indicators under the new provisions were designed for schools serving highly mobile student populations in settings smaller than traditional school districts. From 2005 through 2011, eligible AECs had the option to register for evaluation under AEA provisions. The performance results of students at registered AECs were still included in the district's performance and used in determining the district's accountability rating. Beginning with the 2013 accountability rating system, AEA provisions were developed for eligible charter districts and AECs. To be eligible for evaluation under AEA provisions, charter districts and AECs must primarily serve students at risk of dropping out of school as defined in Texas Education Code (TEC), §29.081(d), provide accelerated instructional services to those students, and meet additional specified criteria. AECs of choice, dropout recovery schools, and residential facilities have the option to register for AEA, but disciplinary alternative education programs, juvenile justice alternative education programs, and stand-alone general educational development (GED) programs are not eligible to register because they are not rated. Since 2014, residential facilities and charter districts that operate only residential facilities have not been assigned state accountability ratings. In 2016, a total of 39 charter districts were evaluated under AEA provisions. Of the 388 campuses evaluated under AEA, there were 88 residential facilities, 226 dropout recovery schools, and 74 AECs of choice. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 2015 and 2016 Accountability In 2016, of the 1,207 public school districts and charters in Texas, 1,137 (94.2%) were rated Met Standard or Met Alternative Standard, 57 (4.7%) were rated Improvement Required, and 13 (1.1%) were Not Rated or Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues (Table 7.1). In 2015, of the 1,219 public school districts and charters, 1,152 (94.5%) were rated Met Standard or Met Alternative Standard, 55 (4.5%) were rated Improvement Required, and 12 (1.0%) were Not Rated. Statewide, 99.1 percent of students were enrolled in Met Standard or Met Alternative Standard districts or charters in 2016, and 0.8 percent of students were enrolled in Improvement Required districts or charters. In 2016, of the 8,673 public school campuses and charter campuses in Texas, 7,684 (88.6%) were rated Met Standard or Met Alternative Standard, 445 (5.1%) were rated Improvement Required, and 544 (6.3%) were Not Rated or Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues (Table 7.2 on page 124). In 2015, of the 8,646 public school campuses and charter campuses, 7,476 (86.5%) were rated Met Standard or Met Alternative Standard, 603 (7.0%) were rated Improvement Required, and 567 (6.6%) were Not Rated. Statewide, 95.2 percent of students were enrolled in campuses rated Met Standard/Met Alternative Standard, and 4.4 percent of students were enrolled in Improvement Required campuses. In 2016, of the 8,673 campuses in Texas, 7,435 (85.7%) were evaluated for distinction designations. Of all campuses, 2,043 (27.5%) received distinction designations for academic achievement in English language arts/reading; 1,880 (25.3%) for academic achievement in mathematics; 1,964 (26.4%) for academic achievement in science; 930 (12.5%) for academic achievement in social studies; 2,082 (28.0%) for top 25 percent: student progress; 2,059 (27.7%) for top 25 percent: closing performance gaps; and 2,192 (29.5%) for postsecondary readiness. In 2015, of the 8,646 campuses, 7,206 (83.3%) were evaluated for distinction designations. Of all campuses, 1,997 (27.7%) received distinction designations for academic achievement in English language arts/reading; 1,021 (14.2%) for academic achievement in mathematics; 1,949 (27.0%) for academic achievement in science; 928 (12.9%) for academic achievement in social studies; 2,015 (28.0%) for top 25 percent: student progress; 2,047 (28.4%) for top 25 percent: closing performance gaps; and 2,137 (29.7%) for postsecondary readiness. Of all campuses, 4,435 (51.1%) received one or more distinction designations in 2016, compared to 4,391 (50.8%) in 2015. A total of 423 (4.9%) campuses received every distinction designation for which they were eligible in 2016. Of the 1,207 districts evaluated Table 7.1. School District Accountability Ratings, by Rating Category, Standard and Alternative Education Accountability Provisions, 2015 and 2016 Rating School Districts, Including Charter Districts Met Standard/Alternative Standard Met Standard Met Alternative Standard Improvement Required Not Rated Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues Total School Districts, Excluding Charter Districts Met Standard/Alternative Standard Met Standard Met Alternative Standard Improvement Required Not Rated Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues Total Charter Districts Met Standard/Alternative Standard Met Standard Met Alternative Standard Improvement Required Not Rated Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues Total Number 2015 2016 Percent Number Percent 1,152 1,120 32 55 12 0 1,219 94.5 91.9 2.6 4.5 1.0 0.0 100 1,137 1,107 30 57 12 1 1,207 94.2 91.7 2.5 4.7 1.0 0.1 100 983 983 0 39 2 0 1,024 96.0 96.0 0.0 3.8 0.2 0.0 100 983 983 0 39 1 1 1,024 96.0 96.0 0.0 3.8 0.1 0.1 100 169 137 32 16 10 0 195 86.7 70.3 16.4 8.2 5.1 0.0 100 154 124 30 18 11 0 183 84.2 67.8 16.4 9.8 6.0 0.0 100 Note. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 123 Table 7.2. Campus Accountability Ratings, by Rating Category, Standard and Alternative Education Accountability Provisions, 2015 and 2016 Rating Campuses, Including Charter Campuses Met Standard/Alternative Standard Met Standard Met Alternative Standard Improvement Required Not Rated Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues Total Campuses, Excluding Charter Campuses Met Standard/Alternative Standard Met Standard Met Alternative Standard Improvement Required Not Rated Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues Total Charter Campuses Met Standard/Alternative Standard Met Standard Met Alternative Standard Improvement Required Not Rated Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues Total Number 2015 2016 Percent Number Percent 7,476 7,206 270 603 567 0 8,646 86.5 83.3 3.1 7.0 6.6 0.0 100 7,684 7,435 249 445 542 2 8,673 88.6 85.7 2.9 5.1 6.2 <0.1 100 7,004 6,836 168 537 492 0 8,033 87.2 85.1 2.1 6.7 6.1 0.0 100 7,199 7,048 151 382 461 2 8,044 89.5 87.6 1.9 4.7 5.7 <0.1 100 472 370 102 66 75 0 613 77.0 60.4 16.6 10.8 12.2 0.0 100 485 387 98 63 81 0 629 77.1 61.5 15.6 10.0 12.9 0.0 100 Note. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. this year, 24 (2.0%) received the distinction designation for postsecondary readiness. Standard, 18 were rated Improvement Required, and 11 were Not Rated (Table 7.1 on page 123). Charters and Accountability Of the 629 charter campuses, 387 (61.5%) were rated Met Standard in 2016, 98 (15.6%) were rated Met Alternative Standard, 63 (10.0%) were rated Improvement Required, and 81 (12.9%) were Not Rated (Table 7.2). The Texas Legislature authorized the establishment of charter schools in 1995 to promote local initiative and innovation in education. Some of the first charters have been in operation since fall of 1996. Depending on the student population served, charters may choose to be rated under the standard accountability provisions or may register to be rated under AEA provisions. Between 1997 and 2002, only charter campuses received accountability ratings. Beginning in 2004, charter districts were rated along with the campuses they operated. Beginning in 2005, some charter districts, including those that operated only registered AECs, were eligible to be evaluated under AEA provisions. Charter districts that operated both standard campuses and registered AECs were given the option to be evaluated under AEA provisions if at least 50 percent of the charter district's students were enrolled at registered AECs. In 2016, a total of 144 charter districts were rated under the standard accountability system, and 39 were rated under AEA provisions. Of the 183 charter districts, 124 were rated Met Standard, 30 were rated Met Alternative 124 State Supports for Struggling Schools, 2014-15 and 2015-16 TEA has undertaken, as one of its key initiatives, efforts to prioritize the coordination and delivery of intervention activities and provide assistance to struggling schools and districts. Integral to these efforts is the continued implementation of the Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS), with a focus on conducting data analysis, developing needs assessments, creating targeted improvement plans, and designing a process for monitoring the implementation of improvement plans. The TAIS is designed to specify the foundational systems, actions, and processes required to transform Texas schools. The TAIS distinguishes levels of assistance for schools by incorporating the state and federal accountability labels into an aligned system of support. This conceptual approach moves beyond the classification of schools by providing clearly articulated 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools commitments and provisions required for school districts to support schools identified as low performing. The TAIS is one component of a system of coordinated support for districts and campuses that includes the Texas Center for District and School Support, the Texas Comprehensive Center at American Institutes for Research (AIR), and the network of regional education service centers (ESCs). The Texas Center for District and School Support is designed to improve district and campus turnaround capacity by coordinating, to the extent possible, interventions for state and federal accountability and by creating a network of turnaround teams at each of the ESCs. The center coordinates with TEA, Texas stakeholders, and national entities in the pursuit of this mission. In 2014-15 and 2015-16, these initiatives continued to expand in response to the identified needs of struggling schools and districts. An emphasis on the role of the district drives the TAIS and additional specific interventions, including the District Turnaround Leadership Initiative and Creating Turnaround Educator Pipelines. These interventions are designed to: ♦ serve the lowest performing campuses in the state, including Priority and Focus campuses; ♦ establish and expand the pipeline of principals uniquely skilled to turn around chronically underperforming schools; ♦ expand district knowledge and skills related to the role of the district coordinator for school improvement and strategies for supporting campus improvement efforts; and ♦ strengthen the knowledge and skills of ESCs to better support the lowest performing schools in their regions. It is expected that this focus on district and campus improvement also will be reflected in district performance in the Performance-Based Monitoring System, under which targeted interventions are implemented based on specific performance indicators. Interventions for Improvement Required Performance, 2014-15 and 2015-16 The current accountability system incorporates four indexes, along with system safeguards. Districts, campuses, and/or charter schools are rated Met Standard, Met Alternative Standard, Improvement Required (IR), or Not Rated. 1 Campuses rated IR in 2014-15 or 1 Because a new accountability system was being developed, no state accountability ratings were assigned in 2012. Ratings assigned to districts and campuses in 2011 carried over to 2012. For purposes of interventions, the rating of Academically Unacceptable (AU) under the 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 2015-16 were required to engage in one or more intervention activities specified under TEC Chapter 39, Subchapter E. These included the assignment of a campus intervention team (CIT) by TEA and engagement in the TAIS. Other required campus interventions included the development of a reconstitution plan or turnaround plan under the oversight of the CIT and participation in a hearing conducted by the commissioner of education or the commissioner's designee, if determined necessary. Campus Interventions, 2014-15 A campus undergoing interventions in the 2014-15 school year for being rated IR for the first time in consecutive years (i.e., rated IR in 2014 but not in 2013) was required to engage in the TAIS process and select a professional service provider (PSP) from a list of TEAapproved providers, and the district was required to recommend a district coordinator for school improvement (DCSI) to the agency for approval. Together, the PSP and DCSI comprised the CIT, which was required to work with the campus to engage in the TAIS process. The targeted improvement plan developed from the TAIS process, along with quarterly progress reports, were submitted to TEA on specified dates. A campus undergoing interventions in the 2014-15 school year for being rated IR for a second consecutive year (i.e., rated IR in 2013 and 2014) engaged in the TAIS process and retained the CIT. The CIT was required to work with the campus to review current student performance data, revise the targeted improvement plan as necessary, and submit the plan and quarterly progress reports to TEA on specified dates. The CIT also assisted the campus in planning for the required reconstitution of the campus, which included determining which educators would be retained at the campus when the reconstitution was implemented the following school year. The campus and CIT were required to submit the revised targeted improvement plan and reconstitution plan to TEA and engage in ongoing communication with the agency regarding implementation of the plan. A campus undergoing interventions in the 2014-15 school year for being rated Academically Unacceptable (AU) or IR for a third consecutive year (i.e., rated AU or IR in 2011, 2013, and 2014) retained the CIT, engaged in the TAIS process, implemented the reconstitution plan, submitted the revised targeted improvement plan and quarterly progress reports, engaged in ongoing communication with TEA regarding implementation of the plan, and participated in a hearing before the old accountability system is equivalent to the rating of Improvement Required (IR) under the current accountability system. 125 commissioner of education or the commissioner's designee, if determined necessary. A campus undergoing interventions in the 2014-15 school year for being rated AU or IR for a fourth consecutive year (i.e., rated AU or IR in 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2014) retained the CIT, engaged in the TAIS process, reviewed current student performance data, revised the targeted improvement plan as needed, engaged in ongoing communication with TEA regarding implementation of the plan through quarterly progress reports, participated in a hearing before the commissioner of education or the commissioner's designee, if determined necessary, and continued to implement the reconstitution plan. A campus undergoing interventions in the 2014-15 school year for being rated AU or IR for a fifth consecutive year (i.e., rated AU or IR in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2014) retained the CIT, engaged in the TAIS process, continued to implement the reconstitution plan, and engaged in ongoing communication with TEA regarding implementation of the targeted improvement plan through quarterly progress reports. No campuses were undergoing interventions in the 2014-15 school year for being rated AU or IR for a sixth consecutive year (i.e., rated AU or IR in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2014). One campus undergoing interventions in the 2014-15 school year for being rated AU or IR for a seventh consecutive year (i.e., rated AU or IR in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2014) retained the CIT, engaged in the TAIS process, reviewed current student performance data, and engaged in ongoing communication with TEA regarding implementation of the plan through quarterly progress reports. In addition, the campus continued to implement the reconstitution plan, and the CIT was required to submit quarterly progress reports to TEA and engage in ongoing communication with the agency regarding student performance data and the status of the implementation of the targeted improvement plan. Campus Interventions, 2015-16 A campus undergoing interventions in the 2015-16 school year for being rated IR for the first time in consecutive years (i.e., rated IR in 2015 but not in 2014) was assigned a CIT team and was required to engage in the TAIS process. The CIT worked with the campus to conduct a data analysis, a needs assessment, and improvement planning, and to develop, implement, and monitor a targeted improvement plan. The targeted improvement plan had to be approved by the board of trustees of the district or charter. In addition, the campus established a campus leadership team (CLT), the campus principal and DCSI were required to attend TAIS training hosted by the local education service 126 center (ESC), and the targeted improvement plan, PSP progress reports, and quarterly campus progress reports were submitted to TEA on specified dates. A campus undergoing interventions in the 2015-16 school year for being rated IR for a second consecutive year (i.e., rated IR in 2014 and 2015) retained the CIT team and continued to engage in the TAIS process. The CIT worked with the campus to update the data analysis and needs assessment and to revise the targeted improvement plan, if needed. The targeted improvement plan had to be approved by the board of trustees of the district or charter. The campus continued with the established CLT, the campus principal and DCSI were required to attend TAIS training hosted by the local ESC, and the revised targeted improvement plan, PSP progress reports, and quarterly campus progress reports were submitted to TEA on specified dates. In addition, the CIT, assisted by the CLT, developed a turnaround plan to be implemented the following school year as required by House Bill (HB) 1842. The turnaround plan had to be approved by the board of trustees. A campus undergoing interventions in the 2015-16 school year for being rated IR for a third consecutive year (i.e., rated IR in 2013, 2014, and 2015) retained the CIT team and continued to engage in the TAIS process. The CIT worked with the campus to update the data analysis and needs assessment and to revise the targeted improvement plan, if needed. The targeted improvement plan had to be approved by the board of trustees of the district or charter. The campus continued with the established CLT, the campus principal and DCSI were required to attend TAIS training hosted by the local ESC, and the revised targeted improvement plan, PSP progress reports, and quarterly campus progress reports were submitted to TEA on specified dates. In addition, the CIT, assisted by the CLT, developed a turnaround plan to be implemented the following school year as required by HB 1842. The turnaround plan had to be approved by the board of trustees. A campus undergoing interventions in the 2015-16 school year for being rated AU or IR for a fourth consecutive year (i.e., rated AU or IR in 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2015) retained the CIT team and continued to engage in the TAIS process. The CIT worked with the campus to update the data analysis and needs assessment and to revise the targeted improvement plan, if needed. The targeted improvement plan had to be approved by the board of trustees of the district or charter. The campus continued with the established CLT, the campus principal and DCSI were required to attend TAIS training hosted by the local ESC, and the revised targeted improvement plan, PSP progress reports, and quarterly campus progress reports were submitted to TEA on specified dates. In addition, the CIT, assisted by the CLT, developed a turnaround plan to be implemented the following school year as required by 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools HB 1842. The turnaround plan had to be approved by the board of trustees. In addition, 13 campuses attended hearings before the commissioner of education or the commissioner's designee as required by TEC Chapter 39. approval of a DCSI by TEA, engagement in the TAIS process, and establishment of a district leadership team (DLT). Additional requirements based on years of IR performance were implemented by multi-year AU or IR districts. Three campuses undergoing interventions in the 2015-16 school year for being rated AU or IR for a fifth consecutive year (i.e., rated AU or IR in 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2015) retained the CIT team and continued to engage in the TAIS process. The CIT worked with the campus to update the data analysis and needs assessment and to revise the targeted improvement plan, if needed. The targeted improvement plan had to be approved by the board of trustees of the district or charter. The campus continued with the established CLT, the campus principal and DCSI were required to attend TAIS training hosted by the local ESC, and the revised targeted improvement plan, PSP progress reports, and quarterly campus progress reports were submitted to TEA on specified dates. In addition, the CIT, assisted by the CLT, developed a turnaround plan to be implemented the following school year as required by HB 1842. The turnaround plan had to be approved by the board of trustees. A single-campus district undergoing interventions in the 2014-15 school year for being rated IR for the first time in consecutive years (i.e., rated IR in 2014 but not in 2013) engaged in the required campus-level interventions. A multi-campus district in the same situation proposed a DCSI for TEA approval, established a DLT, and engaged in the TAIS process, which resulted in a targeted improvement plan. The targeted improvement plan and quarterly progress reports were submitted to TEA via the Intervention Stage Activity Manager (ISAM). One campus undergoing interventions in the 2015-16 school year for being rated AU or IR for a sixth consecutive year (i.e., rated AU or IR in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2015) retained the CIT team and continued to engage in the TAIS process. The CIT worked with the campus to update the data analysis and needs assessment and to revise the targeted improvement plan, if needed. The targeted improvement plan had to be approved by the board of trustees of the district or charter. The campus continued with the established CLT, the campus principal and DCSI were required to attend TAIS training hosted by the local ESC, and the revised targeted improvement plan, PSP progress reports, and quarterly campus progress reports were submitted to TEA on specified dates. In addition, the CIT, assisted by the CLT, developed a turnaround plan to be implemented the following school year as required by HB 1842. The turnaround plan had to be approved by the board of trustees. No campuses were undergoing interventions in the 2015-16 school year for being rated AU or IR for a seventh consecutive year (i.e., rated AU or IR in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2015). District Interventions, 2014-15 Districts rated IR in 2014 or 2015 were required to engage in one or more intervention activities specified under TEC Chapter 39, Subchapter E. These included 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools A district undergoing interventions in the 2014-15 school year for being rated AU or IR for multiple years (i.e., rated AU or IR for a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th consecutive year) proposed a DCSI for TEA approval, established a DLT, and engaged in the TAIS process, which resulted in a targeted improvement plan. The targeted improvement plan and quarterly progress reports were submitted to TEA via ISAM. Based on the number of years of low district performance, additional requirements included the following: lowered accreditation status; assignment of a TEA monitor, conservator, or management team; acquisition of professional services; and/or possible special accreditation investigation. District Interventions, 2015-16 A single-campus district undergoing interventions in the 2015-16 school year for being rated IR for the first time in consecutive years (i.e., rated IR in 2015 but not in 2014) proposed a DCSI for TEA approval, established a DLT, and engaged in the TAIS process, which resulted in a targeted improvement plan. The targeted improvement plan and quarterly progress reports were submitted to TEA via ISAM. A district undergoing interventions in the 2015-16 school year for being rated AU or IR for multiple years (i.e., rated AU or IR for a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th consecutive year) proposed a DCSI for TEA approval, established a DLT, and engaged in the TAIS process, which resulted in a targeted improvement plan. The targeted improvement plan and quarterly progress reports were submitted to TEA via ISAM. Based on the number of years of low district performance, additional requirements included the following: lowered accreditation status; assignment of a TEA monitor, conservator, or management team; acquisition of professional services; and/or possible special accreditation investigation. 127 Performance-Based Monitoring System Overview Statutory Justification State and federal statute guide TEA monitoring activities. TEA has developed and implemented a Performance-Based Monitoring (PBM) System that is data-driven and results-based, includes targeted interventions, and is coordinated and aligned with other TEA evaluation systems. Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System School districts receive annual performance information through the Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System (PBMAS), which includes a set of performance and program effectiveness indicators for the various special programs that TEA is required by state or federal statute to monitor. PBMAS is made up of the following programs: ♦ special education; ♦ bilingual education/English as a second language; ♦ career and technical education; and ♦ No Child Left Behind (economically disadvantaged students and migrant students). PBM Data Validation As part of an overall TEA effort to ensure data integrity, PBM data validation analyses are conducted annually to evaluate district leaver and dropout data, student assessment data, and discipline data. Additional data analyses, including random audits, are conducted as necessary to ensure the integrity of data submitted to TEA. Data validation interventions are coordinated with performance interventions and tailored to specific data quality concerns. Additional TEA Oversight Other criteria that are considered in TEA's PBM System include school district governance issues, results of the dispute resolution process (complaints and due process hearings), and findings of local independent financial audits. An additional required federal monitoring activity—Office for Civil Rights (OCR) career and technical education monitoring—is also integrated into the system. 2 2 The OCR monitoring requirements establish procedures and minimum requirements for states to ensure civil rights compliance of 128 Because districts may occasionally demonstrate egregious performance or compliance problems, the PBM System incorporates an imminent-risk component that allows for a coordinated TEA response to occur when necessary and appropriate. The response is immediate and involves a comprehensive review that may include an on-site investigation. As appropriate, interventions and/or sanctions are implemented to address findings from the review. PBM Interventions A primary goal of the PBM System is alignment of interventions with program needs and requirements and across program and monitoring areas. PBM interventions emphasize a continuous improvement process. Districts are required to implement activities that promote improved student performance and program effectiveness, and TEA monitors progress toward these goals. Improvement planning occurs in a team environment, with required and recommended participants, including community stakeholders. The framework for interventions and required district monitoring activities is targeted to address unique program needs and/or performance problems and to meet state and federal statutory requirements for performance interventions and compliance review. For the 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years, intervention activities centered on the TAIS. Districts were required to: engage in data analysis; conduct needs assessments; develop a targeted improvement plan, which was submitted to TEA for review; implement and monitor the targeted improvement plan; submit quarterly progress reports; and, in some cases, participate in on-site reviews. (See "PBM Special Education Monitoring and Interventions" on page 129 for more detailed information on interventions.) Other Interventions TEC §39.057 authorizes the commissioner of education to conduct special accreditation investigations related to data integrity, district testing practices, civil rights complaints, financial accounting practices, student disciplinary placements, and governance problems between local board members and/or the superintendent, and as the commissioner otherwise deems necessary. Additionally, statute authorizes the commissioner to take specific actions based on findings of a special accreditation investigation (TEC §§39.051 and 39.052 and Chapter 39, Subchapter E). The commissioner may: districts that receive federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education and operate career and technical education programs. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools ♦ assign a lowered accreditation status to the district; ♦ appoint a TEA monitor to participate in the activities of the board of trustees or superintendent of the district and report on the activities to TEA; ♦ appoint a conservator to oversee the operations of the district; ♦ appoint a management team to direct the operations of the district in areas of unacceptable performance; ♦ appoint a board of managers to exercise the powers and duties of the board of trustees of the district; ♦ annex the district to one or more adjoining districts; ♦ order closure of a campus or all programs operated by a home-rule school district or open-enrollment charter school; or ♦ impose sanctions on the district designed to improve high school completion rates. Appendix 7-B on page 160 present lists of school districts and charters that were assigned monitors, conservators, and other interventions between September 1, 2014, and August 31, 2015, and between September 1, 2015, and August 31, 2016. Appendix 7-C on page 167 presents a list of school districts that were assigned a lowered accreditation status in 2014-15 and 2015-16 and the reasons for the lowered status. PBM Special Education Monitoring and Compliance Overview A major charge of the PBM System is to ensure district compliance with state and federal law related to special education, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Title 20 of the United States Code §§1400 et seq., and its implementing regulations, Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations §§300.1 et seq. Reviews of special education programs and of plans for program improvement are essential components of the PBM process. The scope and schedule of program review and intervention activities are determined based on regular analyses of district and charter school special education data and of complaints filed with TEA about special education services. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools PBM Special Education Monitoring and Interventions Overview TEA special education monitoring activities are based on the data-driven PBM System, which: (a) reduces the burden of monitoring on school districts and charters by accurately identifying for further review only those with clear indicators of poor program quality or noncompliance; (b) encourages alignment with the state accountability system; and (c) enables TEA to monitor district and charter school performance on an ongoing, rather than cyclical, basis. TEA's intervention activities include district self-evaluation, on-site review, and the use of data to inform improvement planning. Interventions are based, in part, on indicators of school district and charter school performance and program effectiveness that are part of the PBMAS (Table 7.3 on page 130). Districts' overall performance on PBMAS indicators, as well as instances of low performance on individual PBMAS indicators, are taken into account in determining required levels of intervention. Interventions for 2014-15 2014-15 was the second year of a more integrated process for continuous, sustained improvement. Districts and campuses that were rated IR in the accountability system and/or were assigned interventions in the PBM System engaged in the TAIS. The level of support a district or campus received was determined by: (a) the district or campus's current and longitudinal accountability ratings; (b) the district or campus's current and longitudinal history of PBM intervention; and (c) the highest level of intervention required by the accountability or PBM system. For districts assigned interventions for special education programs only or for multiple programs, including special education, the 2014-15 interventions were defined as follows. Stage 1 Intervention: TAIS Activities. At this level of intervention, the district was required to conduct a data analysis of certain PBMAS indicators revealing higher levels of performance concern, conduct a needs assessment, develop a targeted improvement plan, and implement and monitor the plan. The purpose of the data analysis was to work with a district leadership team to gather, disaggregate, and review data to identify factors contributing to areas of low performance and program ineffectiveness. The needs assessment was designed to determine the root causes contributing to the low performance and program effectiveness concerns. 129 Table 7.3. Special Education Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System Indicators, 2014 and 2015 Number Indicator 2014 1(i-v) District-level percentage of students served in special education who passed each designated State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) 3-8 subject test (mathematics, reading, science, social studies, and writing). 2(i-v) District-level percentage of students who, one year after no longer receiving special education services, passed each designated STAAR 3-8 subject test (mathematics, reading, science, social studies, and writing). 3(i-iv) District-level percentage of students served in special education who passed each designated STAAR end-of-course subject test (mathematics, science, social studies, and English language arts). (The social studies and English language arts indicators were report-only indicators.) 4 District-level percentage of students served in special education who were tested on STAAR in all designated grades and subjects (mathematics, reading, science, social studies, and writing). 5 District-level percentage of students served in special education who were tested on STAAR Modified in all designated grades and subjects (mathematics, reading, science, social studies, and writing). 6 District-level percentage of students served in special education who were tested on STAAR Alternate in all designated grades and subjects (mathematics, reading, science, social studies, and writing). 7 District-level percentage of students (ages 3-5) served in special education and placed in less restrictive environments. 8 District-level percentage of students (ages 3-5) served in special education and placed in a regular early childhood program (report-only indicator). 9 District-level percentage of students (ages 6-11) served in special education in the regular class 80% or more of the day. 10 District-level percentage of students (ages 6-11) served in special education in the regular class <40% of the day. 11 District-level percentage of students (ages 12-21) served in special education in the regular class 80% or more of the day. 12 District-level percentage of students (ages 12-21) served in special education in the regular class <40% of the day. 13 District-level percentage of students (Grades 7-12) served in special education who dropped out of school. 14 District-level percentage of students served in special education who graduated with Recommended High School Program or Distinguished Achievement High School Program diplomas. 15 District-level percentage of students served in special education who graduated with high school diplomas in four years. 16 District-level percentage of students served in special education. 17 District-level percentage of African American (Not Hispanic/Latino) students served in special education, compared to percentage of all African American (Not Hispanic/Latino) students enrolled in the district. 18 District-level percentage of Hispanic students served in special education, compared to percentage of all Hispanic students enrolled in the district. 19 District-level percentage of limited English proficient (LEP) students served in special education, compared to percentage of all LEP students enrolled in the district. 20 District-level percentage of students served in special education who were placed in disciplinary alternative education programs (DAEPs) at the district's discretion, compared to percentage of all students in the district placed in DAEPs at the district's discretion. 21 District-level percentage of students served in special education who were placed in in-school suspension (ISS) at the district's discretion, compared to percentage of all students in the district who were placed in ISS at the district's discretion. 22 District-level percentage of students served in special education who were placed in out-of-school suspension (OSS) at the district's discretion, compared to percentage of all students in the district who were placed in OSS at the district's discretion. 2015 1(i-v) District-level percentage of students served in special education who passed each designated STAAR 3-8 subject test (mathematics, reading, science, social studies, and writing). 2(i-v) District-level percentage of students who, one year after no longer receiving special education services, passed each designated STAAR 3-8 subject test (mathematics, reading, science, social studies, and writing). 3(i-iv) District-level percentage of students served in special education who passed each designated STAAR end-of-course subject test (mathematics, science, social studies, and English language arts). (The English language arts indicator was a report-only indicator.) 4 District-level percentage of students served in special education who were tested on STAAR Alternate 2 in all designated grades and subjects (mathematics, reading, science, social studies, and writing). 5 District-level percentage of students (ages 3-5) served in special education and placed in a regular early childhood program. 6 District-level percentage of students (ages 6-11) served in special education in the regular class 80% or more of the day. continues 130 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Number 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Table 7.3. Special Education Performance-Based Monitoring (continued) Analysis System Indicators, 2014 and 2015 Indicator District-level percentage of students (ages 6-11) served in special education in the regular class <40% of the day. District-level percentage of students (ages 12-21) served in special education in the regular class 80% or more of the day. District-level percentage of students (ages 12-21) served in special education in the regular class <40% of the day. District-level percentage of students (Grades 7-12) served in special education who dropped out of school. District-level percentage of students served in special education who graduated with Recommended High School Program or Distinguished Achievement High School Program diplomas. District-level percentage of students served in special education who graduated with high school diplomas in four years. District-level percentage of students served in special education. District-level percentage of African American (Not Hispanic/Latino) students served in special education, compared to percentage of all African American (Not Hispanic/Latino) students enrolled in the district. District-level percentage of Hispanic students served in special education, compared to percentage of all Hispanic students enrolled in the district. District-level percentage of LEP students served in special education, compared to percentage of all LEP students enrolled in the district. District-level percentage of students served in special education who were placed in DAEPs at the district's discretion, compared to percentage of all students in the district placed in DAEPs at the district's discretion. District-level percentage of students served in special education who were placed in ISS at the district's discretion, compared to percentage of all students in the district who were placed in ISS at the district's discretion. District-level percentage of students served in special education who were placed in OSS at the district's discretion, compared to percentage of all students in the district who were placed in OSS at the district's discretion. Findings from the needs assessment were addressed in the targeted improvement plan. The district was required to complete all reviews and develop the targeted improvement plan by a specified date and retain all materials at the district. Based on a random and/or stratified selection process, the district also may have been required to submit the materials to TEA for review and verification. Stage 2 Intervention: TAIS Activities. A district identified at this level of intervention was required to complete the same activities as in Stage 1 Intervention, complete all review materials by a specified date, and retain all materials at the district. Based on a random and/or stratified selection process, the district also may have been required to submit the materials to TEA for review and verification. Stage 3 Intervention: TAIS Activities. A district identified at this level of intervention was required to complete the same activities as in Stage 2 Intervention and a compliance review to identify areas of performance concern. The purpose of the compliance review was to ensure the district was implementing the program as required by federal or state statute or regulation. The district was required to submit the targeted improvement plan to TEA by a specified date and report progress on the targeted improvement plan quarterly. Stage 4 Intervention: TAIS Activities. A district identified at this level of intervention was required to complete the same activities as in Stage 3 Intervention. In 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools addition, TEA conducted a targeted review of the district to address program effectiveness concerns related to documented substantial, imminent, or ongoing risks reflected in the district's data. Subsequent to the review, the district was required to revise or develop a targeted improvement plan to address findings related to the review or any other required activities. The district may have received an on-site review designed to examine the origins of the district's continuing low performance and/or program effectiveness concerns. Findings of an on-site review resulted in either continued implementation of the district's current improvement plans, revision of the district's improvement plan, additional district intervention activities, escalated TEA oversight, and/or sanctions under the provisions of 19 TAC §89.1076 or §97.1071 or TEC Chapter 39, Subchapter E. A district that served students with disabilities who reside in residential facilities (RFs) was assigned an additional intervention stage. As part of TEA's ongoing efforts to align its monitoring systems to the greatest extent possible, the agency began integrating these two separate staging components, and they were fully integrated beginning in 2015-16. Interventions for 2015-16 For districts assigned interventions for special education programs only or for multiple programs, including special education, the 2015-16 interventions were the same as those indicated in the section "Interventions for 2014-15" on page 129, with a few differences. A district assigned a Stage 3 or Stage 4 Intervention for the 131 special education program conducted a compliance review based on indicators identified in the PBMAS. Resources were made available to assist the district with what was required for review based on areas of identified performance concern. The district completed and submitted to TEA a Summary of Compliance Review Findings. The district retained the full compliance review and only submitted it if requested by TEA. If noncompliance was identified, the district addressed the findings in the corrective action plan tab of the targeted improvement plan workbook. A district that served students with disabilities who reside in RFs was no longer assigned a separate intervention stage. Instead, the district's integrated special education intervention stage included activities specific to students who reside in RFs. These activities were designed to improve district performance and comply with federal and state special education requirements for this unique and vulnerable population of students who often have limited access to family members who can advocate for their educational needs. PBM Special Education Monitoring Statuses, 2014-15 and 2015-16 Monitoring Statuses for 2014-15 For 2014-15, the special education monitoring status for a district and the required level of interaction with TEA generally were determined based on results of the initial review of the district's improvement plan (Appendices 7-D through 7-H, starting on page 169). For some districts, the 2014-15 special education monitoring status was based on: (a) ongoing and/or escalated interventions resulting from prior actions implemented in the PBM system; (b) coordinated TEA interventions related to compliance, performance, fiscal, and/or governance concerns; and (c) ongoing and/or escalated interventions resulting from identification of ongoing compliance concerns. In 2014-15, the special education monitoring status categories were defined as follows. Local Interventions Implemented. The district completed a local review process by a specified date, as required or applicable in Stage 1 and Stage 2 Interventions, and retained materials and templates at the district. Completed: Routine Follow-up. The district data and documentation met TEA requirements for completion of the process. TEA monitored implementation of the improvement plan. Completed: Noncompliance Follow-up. The district data and documentation met TEA requirements for completion of the process. TEA monitored implementation of the improvement plan and systemic correction of areas of noncompliance identified by the review. 132 TEA Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up. TEA completed an on-site integrated review of the district's programs. As a result, the district implemented and/or revised an improvement plan. TEA monitored implementation of the improvement plan. TEA Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Noncompliance Follow-up. TEA completed an on-site integrated review of the district's programs. As a result, the district implemented and/or revised an improvement plan that included actions to address noncompliance with program requirements. TEA monitored implementation of the improvement plan and systemic correction of areas of noncompliance identified by the review. Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up. TEA completed an on-site review of the district's programs in the prior year. As a result, the district implemented and/or revised an improvement plan that continued throughout the subsequent year. TEA continued to monitor implementation of the improvement plan. Oversight/Sanction/Intervention – Progress Monitoring. TEA oversight, sanctions, and interventions were implemented under the following circumstances: (a) the second improvement plan submission of a district at Stage 3 Intervention was not adequate; (b) the improvement plan of a district at Stage 4 Intervention was not adequately developed after an on-site review; (c) ongoing noncompliance for longer than one year was identified; (d) improvement plan implementation was not proceeding as appropriate for a district; (e) the district previously was assigned on-site interventions and remained under escalated oversight during the period of transition after removal of those interventions; or (f) TEA could not verify appropriate implementation of TEA monitoring processes, including submission of accurate data, appropriate implementation of intervention requirements, and/or appropriate implementation of an improvement plan. Closure. The district was closed as a result of TEA sanction. Monitoring Statuses for 2015-16 In 2015-16, TEA integrated federally required determinations into the overall PBM System. The four federal indicators that contribute to a district's special education determination status (State Performance Plan Compliance Indicators 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13; data integrity; uncorrected noncompliance; and audit findings) were evaluated along with the PBMAS indicators to determine a district's integrated stage of intervention/determination status for special education. For the 2015-16 school year, districts received one of the following special education intervention stages/determination statuses, which were also reported on the Texas Academic Performance Report: 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Not Staged or Stage 1: Meets Requirements; Stage 2: Needs Assistance; Stage 3: Needs Intervention; or Stage 4: Needs Substantial Intervention. Agency Contact Persons For information on accountability ratings, contact Penny Schwinn, Deputy Commissioner of Academics, (512) 463-8934; or Shannon Housson or Jamie Crowe, Performance Reporting Division, (512) 463-9704. For information on accreditation and school improvement, contact A.J. Crabill, Deputy Commissioner of Governance, (512) 936-1533; Ron Rowell, Governance and Investigations Division, (512) 463-5899; or Lizette Ridgeway, School Improvement Division, (512) 936-0475. For information on the Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System, contact Penny Schwinn, Deputy Commissioner of Academics, (512) 463-8934; or Rachel Harrington, Performance Reporting Division, (512) 936-6426. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools For information on interventions and special education accountability requirements, contact A.J. Crabill, Deputy Commissioner of Governance, (512) 936-1533; or Lizette Ridgeway, School Improvement Division, (512) 936-0475. For information on agency enforcement, contact A.J. Crabill, Deputy Commissioner of Governance, (512) 936-1533; or Chris Cowan, Enforcement and Support Division, (512) 936-1646. Other Sources of Information The 2016 Accountability Manual is available at http://tea.texas.gov/2016accountabilitymanual.aspx. State accountability ratings and additional performance reports are available at http://tea.texas.gov/ accountability/. Additional information on performance-based monitoring, residential facility monitoring, and program monitoring and interventions is available at http://tea.texas.gov/Student_Testing_and_ Accountability/Monitoring_and_Interventions/ Monitoring_and_Interventions/. 133 Appendix 7-A 2016 Ratings The tables that begin on page 135 provide information about the school districts and campuses rated Improvement Required in 2015 and 2016 under either alternative education accountability (AEA) or standard accountability provisions. Of the 57 districts rated Improvement Required: 2015 Ratings Of the 55 districts rated Improvement Required: ♦ none received the rating because of Index 1 (Student Achievement) only; ♦ none received the rating because of Index 2 (Student Progress) only; ♦ 6 (10.5%) received the rating because of Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps) only; and ♦ 6 (10.5%) received the rating because of Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness) only. ♦ none received the rating because of Index 1 (Student Achievement) only; ♦ none received the rating because of Index 2 (Student Progress) only; ♦ 16 (29.0%) received the rating because of Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps) only; and 9 (2.0%) received the rating because of Index 1 (Student Achievement) only; ♦ 7 (12.7%) received the rating because of Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness) only. none received the rating because of Index 2 (Student Progress) only; ♦ 15 (3.4%) received the rating because of Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps) only; and ♦ 10 (2.2%) received the rating because of Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness) only. ♦ ♦ Of the 603 campuses rated Improvement Required: ♦ 5 (0.8%) received the rating because of Index 1 (Student Achievement) only; ♦ none received the rating because of Index 2 (Student Progress) only; ♦ 48 (8.0%) received the rating because of Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps) only; and ♦ 52 (8.6%) received the rating because of Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness) only. 134 Of the 445 campuses rated Improvement Required: 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 7-A1. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2015 District ABILENE ISD ACADEMY OF DALLAS ALDINE ISD ALICE ISD ALIEF ISD ALTO ISD AMARILLO ISD AMHERST ISD ARLINGTON ISD ARROW ACADEMY AUSTIN ISD BARTLETT ISD BASTROP ISD BAY AREA CHARTER INC BEAUMONT ISD Campus ORTIZ EL ACADEMY OF DALLAS BETHUNE ACADEMY CARAWAY INT DAVIS H S JOHNSON EL MENDEL EL NIMITZ H S SMITH ACADEMY STOVALL ACADEMY SALAZAR EL BEST EL HORN EL LANDIS EL ALTO EL ROGERS EL AMHERST SCHOOL ADAMS EL BERRY EL WIMBISH EL ARROW ACADEMY - LAS AMERICAS LEARN ARROW ACADEMY - MCCORMACK HONORS A ARROW ACADEMY - ODYSSEY PREPARATOR BROOKE EL DOBIE M S MARTIN M S MENDEZ M S NORMAN EL RODRIGUEZ EL WIDEN EL BARTLETT SCHOOLS CEDAR CREEK EL RED ROCK EL CALDWOOD EL CENTRAL SENIOR H S CHARLTON-POLLARD EL DR MAE E JONES-CLARK EL FEHL-PRICE EL M L KING MIDDLE MARTIN EL PIETZSCH/MAC ARTHUR EL SMITH MIDDLE SOUTH PARK MIDDLE Consecutive Years IR 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 Alt. Ed. Accountability 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Indexa Not Met 2 3 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 ● 3 ● 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● The Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. a continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 135 Appendix 7-A1. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2015 (continued) District Campus BEN BOLT-PALITO BLANCO ISD BEN BOLT MIDDLE BIG SPRING ISD BIG SPRING INT GOLIAD EL KENTWOOD EL MARCY EL MOSS EL WASHINGTON EL BLOOMINGTON ISD BLOOMINGTON J H BORGER ISD CROCKETT EL GATEWAY EL PAUL BELTON EL BRAZOS SCHOOL FOR INQUIRY BRAZOS SCHOOL FOR INQUIRY AND & CREATI CREA BRAZOSPORT ISD JANE LONG EL O A FLEMING EL O'HARA LANIER MIDDLE VELASCO EL BRENHAM ISD ALTON EL BROADDUS ISD BROADDUS EL BROOKS ACADEMY OF BROOKS ESTRELLA ACADEMY SCIENCE AND ENGI BROOKS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES ACADE BROOKS COUNTY ISD FALFURRIAS J H BRYAN ISD ANSON JONES EL BEN MILAM EL FANNIN EL BUCKHOLTS ISD BUCKHOLTS SCHOOL BURKEVILLE ISD BURKEVILLE EL C O R E ACADEMY C O R E ACADEMY CALVERT ISD CALVERT SCHOOL CEDAR HILL ISD HIGH POINTE EL CENTERVILLE ISD CENTERVILLE EL CHARLOTTE ISD CHARLOTTE MIDDLE CHEROKEE ISD CHEROKEE SCHOOL CHESTER ISD CHESTER H S CITY CENTER HEALTH CAREERS CITY CENTER HEALTH CAREERS CLEBURNE ISD COOKE EL COLDSPRING-OAKHURST CISD COLDSPRING INTERMEDIATE STREET ELEMENTARY COLUMBUS ISD COLUMBUS ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL CONNALLY ISD CONNALLY EL CONNALLY PRI CONROE ISD AUSTIN EL CORPUS CHRISTI ISD CROCKETT EL Consecutive Years IR 1 1 4 4 4 1 4 3 1 1 1 1 Alt. Ed. Accountability 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 ● ● ● Pb ● ● ● ● ● P P Indexa Not Met 2 3 ● ● ● ● P P ● ● ● ● ● ● P P P P P ● ● P P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 ● ● 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 4 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 ● ● ● P ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● 4 P ● ● ● ● P P ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● P ● The Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. a continues 136 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 7-A1. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2015 (continued) District CORRIGAN-CAMDEN ISD CORSICANA ISD COTULLA ISD COVINGTON ISD CROSBYTON CISD CROWLEY ISD CRYSTAL CITY ISD CUERO ISD DALHART ISD DALLAS ISD Campus DRISCOLL MIDDLE GARCIA EL GIBSON EL KOSTORYZ EL MARTIN MIDDLE OAK PARK SPECIAL EMPHASIS SCHOOL SOUTH PARK MIDDLE TRAVIS EL ZAVALA EL CORRIGAN-CAMDEN J H CARROLL EL JOSE ANTONIO NAVARRO EL RAMIREZ-BURKS EL COVINGTON SCHOOL CROSBYTON EL MEADOWCREEK EL PARKWAY EL SIDNEY H POYNTER BENITO JUAREZ MIDDLE DR TOMAS RIVERA-ZAVALA EL STERLING H FLY JR H S CUERO INT DALHART INT SCHOOL ALBERT SIDNEY JOHNSTON EL ANNIE WEBB BLANTON EL BILLY EARL DADE MIDDLE BOUDE STOREY MIDDLE C F CARR EL DANIEL WEBSTER EL EDUARDO MATA EL EDWARD H CARY MIDDLE EDWARD TITCHE EL ELISHA M PEASE EL GABE P ALLEN CHARTER SCHOOL GEORGE W CARVER CREATIVE ARTS LEAR GEORGE W TRUETT EL HAROLD WENDELL LANG SR MIDDLE J W RAY LEARNING CENTER JOHN F PEELER EL JOHN NEELY BRYAN EL JOHN W CARPENTER EL LEONIDES GONZALEZ CIGARROA MD EL MARIA MORENO EL MARK TWAIN LEADERSHIP VANGUARD MOUNT AUBURN EL NANCY J COCHRAN EL OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES HUMANITIES/C Consecutive Years IR 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 5 3 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 Alt. Ed. Accountability Indexa Not Met 1 2 3 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● aThe Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 137 Appendix 7-A1. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2015 (continued) District DAMON ISD DAYTON ISD DEL VALLE ISD DENTON ISD DILLEY ISD DIMMITT ISD DONNA ISD DUMAS ISD EAST FORT WORTH MONTESSORI ACADEMY ECTOR COUNTY ISD EDGEWOOD ISD EDNA ISD EHRHART SCHOOL Campus ORAN M ROBERTS EL PAUL L DUNBAR LEARNING CENTER ROGER Q MILLS EL RONALD E MCNAIR EL RUFUS C BURLESON EL SAN JACINTO EL SARAH ZUMWALT MIDDLE SOUTH OAK CLIFF H S T W BROWNE MIDDLE THOMAS A EDISON MIDDLE LEARNING CE UMPHREY LEE EL WILLIAM B MILLER EL WILMER-HUTCHINS EL DAMON ISD KIMMIE M BROWN EL BATY EL HORNSBY-DUNLAP EL JOSEPH GILBERT EL BORMAN EL DILLEY EL DIMMITT MIDDLE EXCEL ACADEMY CAMPUS M RIVAS EL MARIA ALICIA P MUNOZ EL PATRICIA S GARZA EL T PRICE EL MORNINGSIDE EL THE OLIVE TREE MONTESSORI ACADEMY BLANTON EL BURLESON EL CAMERON DUAL LANGUAGE MAGNET DOWLING EL ECTOR J H EL MAGNET AT BLACKSHEAR EL MAGNET AT TRAVIS EL MAGNET AT ZAVALA GOLIAD EL JOHN B HOOD NOEL EL ODESSA H S PEASE EL ROSS EL SAN JACINTO EL BRENTWOOD MIDDLE GUS GARCIA MIDDLE H B GONZALEZ EL EDNA ALTERNATIVE Consecutive Years IR 2 1 5 2 2 1 3 2 4 3 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 4 3 2 1 3 3 1 4 1 1 1 Alt. Ed. Accountability ● ● 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Indexa Not Met 2 3 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● The Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. a continues 138 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 7-A1. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2015 (continued) District EL PASO ISD ELGIN ISD EVERMAN ISD EVOLUTION ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL FAITH FAMILY ACADEMY OF OAK CLIFF FALLBROOK COLLEGE PREPARATORY ACAD FLORENCE ISD FLOYDADA ISD FOCUS LEARNING ACADEMY FORT BEND ISD FORT STOCKTON ISD FORT WORTH ISD FREER ISD FROST ISD FT HANCOCK ISD GALVESTON ISD Campus EHRHART SCHOOL BURNET EL GUILLEN MIDDLE RUSK EL SCHUSTER EL STANTON EL TERRACE HILLS MIDDLE ELGIN EL JOHN AND POLLY TOWNLEY EL EVOLUTION ACADEMY HOUSTON Consecutive Years IR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Alt. Ed. Accountability ● 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Indexa Not Met 2 3 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 3 ● ● FAITH FAMILY ACADEMY OF OAK CLIFF 3 3 ● ● ● ● ● FALLBROOK COLLEGE PREPARATORY ACAD FLORENCE EL A B DUNCAN EL 3 ● ● FOCUS LEARNING ACADEMY BRIARGATE EL CHRISTA MCAULIFFE MIDDLE RIDGEMONT EL INT A M PATE EL CHRISTENE C MOSS EL CLIFFORD DAVIS EL COMO EL DE ZAVALA EL EASTERN HILLS EL FOREST OAK MIDDLE HARLEAN BEAL EL HAZEL HARVEY PEACE EL I M TERRELL EL INT'L NEWCOMER ACAD JOHN T WHITE EL MAUDE I LOGAN EL MAUDRIE WALTON EL MITCHELL BOULEVARD EL O D WYATT H S S S DILLOW EL SUNRISE - MCMILLAN EL T A SIMS EL WEST HANDLEY EL WESTCREEK EL NORMAN M THOMAS EL FROST EL BENITO MARTINEZ EL BURNET/ECU 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● The Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. a continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 139 Appendix 7-A1. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2015 (continued) District Campus CENTRAL MIDDLE COASTAL VILLAGE MIDDLE WEIS MIDDLE GARLAND ISD HANDLEY EL PARK CREST EL GATEWAY CHARTER ACADEMY GATEWAY CHARTER ACADEMY EL GEORGE GERVIN ACADEMY THE EDUCATION AND TRAINING CENTER GIDDINGS ISD GIDDINGS INT GILMER ISD GILMER EL GIRLS & BOYS PREPARATORY ACADEMY GIRLS & BOYS PREP ACADEMY EL GIRLS & BOYS PREP ACADEMY MIDDLE GLADEWATER ISD WELDON INT GOLDEN RULE CHARTER GOLDEN RULE SOUTHWEST SCHOOL GOODRICH ISD GOODRICH EL GRAND PRAIRIE ISD BARBARA BUSH EL WILLIAM B TRAVIS EL GRAPELAND ISD GRAPELAND J H GREENVILLE ISD CARVER EL TRAVIS EL HARLANDALE ISD BELLAIRE EL VESTAL EL HARLINGEN CISD HARLINGEN H S HARLINGEN H S - SOUTH HARMONY SCIENCE ACADEMY HARMONY SCHOOL OF INNOVATION (AUSTIN) AUS HART ISD HART JR-SR H S HEARNE ISD HEARNE EL HEARNE H S HEARNE J H HEMPSTEAD ISD HEMPSTEAD EARLY CHILDHOOD HEMPSTEAD EL HEMPSTEAD H S HEMPSTEAD MIDDLE HEREFORD ISD HEREFORD H S HIGGS CARTER KING GIFTED & TALENTE HIGGS CARTER KING GIFTED & TALENTE HITCHCOCK ISD CROSBY MIDDLE HOUSTON ISD ADVANCED VIRTUAL ACADEMY ALCOTT EL BASTIAN EL BELLFORT EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER Consecutive Years IR 4 1 4 1 1 1 Alt. Ed. Accountability 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● Indexa Not Met 2 3 ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 ● 1 1 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● 4 1 1 2 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 ● ● ● ● ● ● Pb ● ● ● ● 3 ● ● 1 1 1 3 3 2 ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● P ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● P ● The Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. a continues 140 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 7-A1. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2015 (continued) District Campus BERRY EL BLACKSHEAR EL BRUCE EL BURRUS EL CODWELL EL COOK JR EL CULLEN MIDDLE DEADY MIDDLE DOGAN EL DOWLING MIDDLE EDISON MIDDLE ELMORE EL FONDREN MIDDLE FONVILLE MIDDLE FOREST BROOK MIDDLE FOSTER EL GARCIA EL HALPIN EARLY CHILDHOOD CTR HARTSFIELD EL HELMS EL HENDERSON N EL HENRY MIDDLE HIGHLAND HTS EL HILIARD EL JEFFERSON EL KANDY STRIPE ACADEMY KASHMERE GARDENS EL KASHMERE H S KEY MIDDLE LEWIS EL MADING EL MARTINEZ C EL MARTINEZ R EL MCREYNOLDS MIDDLE MILNE EL MONTGOMERY EL NORTH FOREST H S PETERSEN EL ROSS EL SCARBOROUGH H S STERLING H S STEVENS EL SUGAR GROVE ACADEMY TEXAS CONNECTIONS ACADEMY AT HOUST THOMAS MIDDLE THOMPSON EL TINSLEY EL WAINWRIGHT EL WESLEY EL WHEATLEY H S Consecutive Years IR 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 3 6 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 4 Alt. Ed. Accountability 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Pb ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Indexa Not Met 2 3 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P P P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● aThe Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 141 Appendix 7-A1. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2015 (continued) District HUMBLE ISD HUNTSVILLE ISD INSPIRED VISION ACADEMY IRVING ISD JACKSBORO ISD JONESBORO ISD JOSHUA ISD JUBILEE ACADEMIC CENTER KARNACK ISD KERMIT ISD KILGORE ISD KILLEEN ISD KINGSVILLE ISD KIPP INC CHARTER KLEIN ISD LA JOYA ISD LA MARQUE ISD LA PRYOR ISD LAKE WORTH ISD LAMESA ISD LAREDO ISD LEGACY PREPARATORY LEGGETT ISD LEWISVILLE ISD LIPAN ISD Campus WOODSON SCHOOL WORTHING H S YATES H S YOUNG EL PARK LAKES EL HUNTSVILLE INT INSPIRED VISION ACADEMY MIDDLE KEYES EL JACKSBORO EL JONESBORO SCHOOL CADDO GROVE EL KINGSWAY LEADERSHIP ACADEMY KARNACK H S KERMIT EL KERMIT J H KILGORE INT WEST WARD EL WILLOW SPRINGS EL H M KING H S KLEBERG EL MEMORIAL MIDDLE POGUE OPTIONS ALTERNATIVE ACADEMY KIPP NORTH FOREST LOWER GIRLS SCHO KIPP NORTH FOREST LOWER SCHOOL NITSCH EL TABASCO EL EARLY CHILDHOOD LEARNING CENTER LA MARQUE EL LA MARQUE INT LA MARQUE J H SCHOOL LA PRYOR EL MARILYN MILLER ELEMENTARY LAMESA MIDDLE BRUNI EL JOAQUIN CIGARROA MIDDLE LEYENDECKER EL SANTA MARIA EL LEGACY PREPARATORY CHARTER ACADEMY LEGACY PREPARATORY CHARTER ACADEMY LEGGETT EL LEGGETT H S CENTRAL ELEMENTARY LAKELAND ELEMENTARY LEWISVILLE EL LIPAN EL Consecutive Years IR 3 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 Alt. Ed. Accountability 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Indexa Not Met 2 3 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 ● 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 4 1 2 1 1 3 ● ● ● Pb ● ● ● ● ● ● 3 ● 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● aThe Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. continues 142 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 7-A1. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2015 (continued) District LOHN ISD LONGVIEW ISD LUBBOCK ISD LUFKIN ISD LULING ISD LYTLE ISD MANOR ISD MARFA ISD MARLIN ISD MARSHALL ISD MATHIS ISD MCCAMEY ISD MCLEOD ISD MEXIA ISD MEYERPARK ELEMENTARY MIDLAND ISD Campus LOHN SCHOOL WARE EL ALDERSON EL BAYLESS EL BEAN EL BROWN EL DUNBAR COLLEGE PREPARATORY ACADEMY DUPRE EL ERVIN EL HODGES EL SLATON MIDDLE COSTON EL HERTY PRI LULING EL LULING PRI LYTLE EL LYTLE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LYTLE PRIMARY SCHOOL BLAKE MANOR EL DECKER EL OAK MEADOWS EL MARFA SCHOOLS MARLIN EL MARLIN MIDDLE CROCKETT EL G W CARVER EL J H MOORE EL WM B TRAVIS EL MATHIS EL MATHIS INT MATHIS MIDDLE MCCAMEY MIDDLE MCLEOD MIDDLE R Q SIMS INT MEYERPARK EL ALAMO J H BONHAM EL BURNET EL CROCKETT EL DE ZAVALA EL LAMAR EL LONG EL MILAM EL RUSK EL SOUTH EL TRAVIS EL Consecutive Years IR 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 4 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 4 8 4 1 1 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 2 5 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 Alt. Ed. Accountability 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Pb ● P ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Indexa Not Met 2 3 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P P P ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● P ● P ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P P P ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● aThe Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 143 Appendix 7-A1. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2015 (continued) District MINERAL WELLS ISD MISSION CISD MONAHANS-WICKETT-PYOTE ISD MOODY ISD MORGAN ISD MOTLEY COUNTY ISD MOUNT CALM ISD NACOGDOCHES ISD NAVASOTA ISD NEW CANEY ISD NEW FRONTIERS CHARTER SCHOOL NORTH EAST ISD NORTH HOPKINS ISD NORTHWEST PREPARATORY O'DONNELL ISD OGLESBY ISD OLFEN ISD PAMPA ISD PASADENA ISD PEARSALL ISD PERRYTON ISD PETERSBURG ISD PLAINVIEW ISD POR VIDA ACADEMY PORT ARTHUR ISD Consecutive Years IR 1 1 2 1 Campus HOUSTON EL LAMAR EL MISSION OPTIONS ACADEMY WALKER J H MOODY EL MOODY PRE-K MORGAN SCHOOL MOTLEY COUNTY SCHOOL MOUNT CALM H S EMELINE CARPENTER ACADEMY OF TECHN FREDONIA EL THOMAS J RUSK ACADEMY OF FINE ARTS NAVASOTA INT A M AIKIN EL NEW CANEY MIDDLE NEW FRONTIERS CHARTER SCHOOL CAMELOT EL EAST TERRELL HILLS EL MONTGOMERY EL WEST AVENUE EL NORTH HOPKINS H S NORTHWEST PREPARATORY O'DONNELL EL O'DONNELL H S OGLESBY SCHOOL OLFEN EL WILSON EL GARDENS EL PEARSALL INT PEARSALL J H TED FLORES EL PERRYTON J H PETERSBURG SCHOOL THUNDERBIRD EL POR VIDA ACADEMY CHARTER H S DEQUEEN EL HOUSTON EL MEMORIAL H S Alt. Ed. Accountability ● Indexa Not Met 1 2 3 4 ● ● Pb P P P ● ● ● 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 ● P ● ● 3 4 ● ● 4 1 1 3 ● ● ● ● 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 4 4 4 4 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 ● P ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● aThe Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. continues 144 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 7-A1. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2015 (continued) District PREMIER LEARNING ACADEMY PREMONT ISD PRIME PREP ACADEMY PRIORITY CHARTER SCHOOLS PROGRESO ISD PROMISE COMMUNITY SCHOOL RADIANCE ACADEMY OF LEARNING RALLS ISD RANGER ISD RANKIN ISD RAPOPORT ACADEMY PUBLIC SCHOOL RAYMONDVILLE ISD REAGAN COUNTY ISD RICE CISD RICHARD MILBURN ALTER HIGH SCHOOL RICHARDSON ISD RIO VISTA ISD ROYAL ISD RUNGE ISD SABINAL ISD SAN ANGELO ISD SAN ANTONIO ISD DALLAS PRIME PREP KILLEEN CHARTER ACADEMY NORTH EL RIPLEY HOUSE CHARTER SCHOOL Consecutive Years IR 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 RADIANCE ACADEMY OF LEARNING 2 RADIANCE ACADEMY OF LEARNING (DAYS RALLS EL 3 Campus WASHINGTON EL PREMIER LEARNING ACADEMY PREMONT CENTRAL EL PREMONT H S RANGER EL RANGER H S RANGER MIDDLE RANKIN SCHOOL AUDRE AND BERNARD RAPOPORT ACADEMY MYRA GREEN MIDDLE REAGAN COUNTY EL REAGAN COUNTY MIDDLE EAGLE LAKE INT EAGLE LAKE PRI RICHARD MILBURN ACADEMY HOUSTON (S CAROLYN G BUKHAIR EL DOBIE PRI RISD ACAD THURGOOD MARSHALL EL RIO VISTA EL ROYAL EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER ROYAL EL RUNGE EL RUNGE H S SABINAL EL SABINAL MIDDLE BRADFORD EL BREWER EL CHARLES C BALL EL CONNELL MIDDLE DAVID CROCKETT EL DAVIS MIDDLE DORIE MILLER EL Alt. Ed. Accountability 1 Pb ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 ● ● ● ● ● 1 3 2 1 2 1 ● 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 4 3 4 2 Indexa Not Met 2 3 4 P P P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● P P ● ● P ● P ● ● ● P ● ● ● P P P ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● aThe Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 145 Appendix 7-A1. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2015 (continued) District SAN AUGUSTINE ISD SAN DIEGO ISD SANTA MARIA ISD SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION SEGUIN ISD SHEKINAH RADIANCE ACADEMY SHELDON ISD SHEPHERD ISD SIERRA BLANCA ISD SMITHVILLE ISD SNOOK ISD SNYDER ISD SOMERVILLE ISD SOUTHSIDE ISD SOUTHWEST ISD SOUTHWEST PREPARATORY SCHOOL Consecutive Years IR 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Campus GATES EL HIGHLAND PARK EL IRVING MIDDLE LOWELL MIDDLE OGDEN EL P F STEWART EL RODRIGUEZ EL STEELE EL STORM EL TAFOLLA MIDDLE TWAIN MIDDLE W W WHITE EL WHEATLEY MIDDLE SAN AUGUSTINE EL SAN AUGUSTINE H S BERNARDA JAIME J H SANTA MARIA MIDDLE DR JAMES L BURCH INT DR PAUL S SAENZ J H MCQUEENEY EL VOGEL EL SHEKINAH RADIANCE ACADEMY (GARLAND SHEKINAH WALZEM WEST COLUMBIA CHARTER SCH GARRETT EL L E MONAHAN EL STEPHANIE CRAVENS EARLY CHILDHOOD SHEPHERD INT SHEPHERD PRI Alt. Ed. Accountability Indexa Not Met 1 2 3 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Pb P P P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 1 1 1 ● ● ● 4 1 1 1 1 ● ● ● ● P ● P ● ● P JULIAN C GALLARDO EL INDIAN CREEK EL SOUTHWEST PREP NORTHWEST EL 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 3 1 1 3 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 SOUTHWEST PREPARATORY SCHOOL 1 SIERRA BLANCA SCHOOL BROWN PRI SMITHVILLE EL SNOOK EL SNOOK SECONDARY SNYDER INT SNYDER J H SNYDER PRI STANFIELD EL ● P ● P ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● P ● ● ● P P P P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● P ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P P P ● P ● P P ● ● ● The Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. a continues 146 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 7-A1. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2015 (continued) District SPRING BRANCH ISD SPRING ISD STANTON ISD STRAWN ISD TEKOA ACADEMY OF ACCELERATED STUDI TEMPLE ISD TEXARKANA ISD TEXAS COLLEGE PREPARATORY ACADEMIE TEXAS EDUCATION CENTERS TEXAS LEADERSHIP TEXAS PREPARATORY SCHOOL THE EAST AUSTIN COLLEGE PREP ACADE THE PRO-VISION ACADEMY THREE RIVERS ISD THREE WAY ISD TIMPSON ISD TOM BEAN ISD TORNILLO ISD TRINITY ISD TYLER ISD UNITED ISD UPLIFT EDUCATION HAMPTON PREPARA Campus HOLLIBROOK EL SPRING BRANCH EL TERRACE EL TREASURE FOREST EL WOODVIEW EL BAMMEL EL HELEN MAJOR EL STANTON MIDDLE STRAWN SCHOOL TEKOA ACADEMY OF ACCELERATED STUDI RAYE-ALLEN EL WESTERN HILLS EL PAUL LAURENCE DUNBAR EARLY EDUCATI THERON JONES EARLY LITERACY CENTER WESTLAWN EL VISTA ACADEMY OF DALLAS THE EDUCATION CENTER AT DENTON THE EDUCATION CENTER IN LEWISVILLE TEXAS LEADERSHIP OF MIDLAND TEXAS PREPARATORY SCHOOL AUSTIN THE EAST AUSTIN COLLEGE PREP AT ML PRO-VISION MIDDLE THREE RIVERS EL THREE WAY EL TIMPSON EL TOM BEAN EL TORNILLO INT TRINITY J H BONNER EL DOGAN MIDDLE DOUGLAS EL GRIFFIN EL JONES EL ORR EL PEETE EL RAMEY EL T J AUSTIN EL ANTONIO GONZALEZ MIDDLE UPLIFT EDUCATION-HAMPTON PREP PRI Consecutive Years IR 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 Alt. Ed. Accountability 1 ● ● ● ● ● 1 1 3 ● ● Pb 3 P 3 2 Indexa Not Met 2 3 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 4 ● ● ● ● P ● ● P P P P P ● ● ● ● 3 1 ● ● ● ● 2 1 ● ● 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● The Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. a continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 147 Appendix 7-A1. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2015 (continued) District UPLIFT EDUCATION - PEAK PREPARATOR UPLIFT EDUCATION - WILLIAMS PREPAR UPLIFT EDUCATION-SUMMIT INTERNATIO UVALDE CISD VICTORIA ISD VICTORY PREP WACO ISD WAELDER ISD WAXAHACHIE FAITH FAMILY ACADEMY WELLMAN-UNION CISD WELLS ISD WESLACO ISD WICHITA FALLS ISD WINFIELD ISD WINTERS ISD YORKTOWN ISD ZAPATA COUNTY ISD ZOE LEARNING ACADEMY Consecutive Years IR 2 Campus UPLIFT EDUCATION - PINNACLE PREP P UPLIFT EDUCATION - HEIGHTS PREP MI UPLIFT EDUCATION - UPLIFT MERIDIAN UPLIFT MIGHTY PREP ANTHON EL BATESVILLE SCHOOL DALTON EL ROBB EL CRAIN EL F W GROSS EL GUADALUPE EL HOPKINS EL PATTI WELDER MIDDLE ROWLAND EL SHIELDS EL VICTORY PREP VICTORY PREP VICTORY PREPARATORY ACADEMY ALTA VISTA EL BROOK AVENUE EL CRESTVIEW EL G W CARVER MIDDLE INDIAN SPRING MIDDLE J H HINES EL SOUTH WACO EL WACO H S WAELDER SCHOOL WAXAHACHIE FAMILY FAITH ACADEMY WELLMAN-UNION SCHOOL WELLS EL WELLS H S PFC MARIO YBARRA EL BURGESS EL WASHINGTON-JACKSON EL MAGNET WINFIELD EL WINTERS EL YORKTOWN EL YORKTOWN J H FIDEL AND ANDREA R VILLARREAL EL ZOE LEARNING ACADEMY ZOE LEARNING ACADEMY / KOINONIA CA Alt. Ed. Accountability Indexa Not Met 1 2 3 4 ● ● ● 2 ● 1 ● ● Pb ● P ● ● ● ● P ● P ● 1 2 2 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 1 3 3 4 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 ● P ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● aThe Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. 148 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 7-A2. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2016 District ADRIAN ISD ADVANTAGE ACADEMY AGUA DULCE ISD ALDINE ISD ALICE ISD ALIEF ISD ALPHA CHARTER SCHOOL AMARILLO ISD ARLINGTON ISD ARROW ACADEMY AUSTIN ISD BAIRD ISD BEAUMONT ISD BEEVILLE ISD BIG SPRING ISD BLOOMINGTON ISD Campus ADRIAN SCHOOL ADVANTAGE ACADEMY AGUA DULCE H S CARAWAY INT DAVIS H S ALDINE EISENHOWER H S GOODMAN EL SALAZAR EL BEST EL CHAMBERS EL SMITH EL SNEED EL ALPHA CHARTER SCHOOL JOHNNY N ALLEN-6TH GRADE CAMPUS ROQUEMORE EL WIMBISH EL ARROW ACADEMY - HARVEST PREPARATOR ARROW ACADEMY - SAVE OUR STREETS C BURNET M S DOBIE MIDDLE GARCIA YMLA GRADUATION PREP ACADEMY LANIER MENDEZ M S NORMAN EL PICKLE EL BAIRD EL CALDWOOD EL CHARLTON-POLLARD EL DR MAE E JONES-CLARK EL FEHL-PRICE EL M L KING MIDDLE SMITH MIDDLE THOMAS JEFFERSON INT BIG SPRING INT BIG SPRING J H GOLIAD EL WASHINGTON EL BLOOMINGTON EL BLOOMINGTON J H BOVINA ISD BOVINA MIDDLE BRAZOS SCHOOL FOR INQUIRY BRAZOS SCHOOL FOR INQUIRY AND & CREATI CREA BRAZOSPORT ISD JANE LONG EL O A FLEMING EL O'HARA LANIER MIDDLE Consecutive Years IR 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 Alt. Ed. Accountability 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Indexa Not Met 2 3 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 ● ● 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 3 4 2 3 1 2 1 5 5 1 1 4 1 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Pb ● ● P P 4 4 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● aThe Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 149 Appendix 7-A2. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2016 (continued) District BRENHAM ISD BROADDUS ISD BROWNFIELD ISD BRUCEVILLE-EDDY ISD BRYAN ISD BUCKHOLTS ISD BUNA ISD BURKEVILLE ISD BURNET CISD BURTON ISD C O R E ACADEMY CAMPBELL ISD CARPE DIEM SCHOOLS CARRIZO SPRINGS CISD CHILDREN FIRST ACADEMY OF DALLAS CLEBURNE ISD CLEVELAND ISD COAHOMA ISD COLDSPRING-OAKHURST CISD CONROE ISD CORPUS CHRISTI ISD CORRIGAN-CAMDEN ISD CORSICANA ISD CRANFILLS GAP ISD CROWLEY ISD CRYSTAL CITY ISD Campus ALTON EL BROADDUS EL BRIGHT BEGINNINGS ACADEMIC CENTER COLONIAL HEIGHTS EL OAK GROVE EL BRUCEVILLE-EDDY EL JAMES EARL RUDDER H S MARY BRANCH EL BUCKHOLTS SCHOOL BUNA J H BURKEVILLE EL BURKEVILLE H S QUEST BURTON H S C O R E ACADEMY CAMPBELL H S CARPE DIEM SCHOOLS ASHERTON EL CARRIZO SPRINGS EL CARRIZO SPRINGS INT THE CHILDREN FIRST ACADEMY HOUST IRVING EL SANTA FE EL COAHOMA EL LINCOLN JUNIOR HIGH HOUSTON EL DRISCOLL MIDDLE MARTIN MIDDLE SOUTH PARK MIDDLE ZAVALA EL CORRIGAN-CAMDEN EL CORRIGAN-CAMDEN H S CORRIGAN-CAMDEN PRI CARROLL EL JOSE ANTONIO NAVARRO EL CRANFILLS GAP SCHOOL BESS RACE EL J A HARGRAVE EL DR TOMAS RIVERA EL ZAVALA EL Consecutive Years IR 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Alt. Ed. Accountability 1 ● ● Pb P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Indexa Not Met 2 3 4 ● ● ● P P P P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● P ● ● 1 ● ● 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 5 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● P ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● P P ● P ● ● aThe Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. continues 150 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 7-A2. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2016 (continued) District CUERO ISD CULBERSON COUNTYALLAMOORE ISD DALLAS ISD DEKALB ISD DELL CITY ISD DESOTO ISD DETROIT ISD DILLEY ISD DIME BOX ISD DRAW ACADEMY EAST CENTRAL ISD ECTOR COUNTY ISD Campus CUERO INT VAN HORN SCHOOL BARBARA M MANNS EDUCATION CENTER C F CARR EL DANIEL WEBSTER EL EDWARD H CARY MIDDLE EDWARD TITCHE EL GEORGE W CARVER CREATIVE ARTS LEAR GEORGE W TRUETT EL HAROLD WENDELL LANG SR MIDDLE J N ERVIN EL J W RAY LEARNING CENTER JAMES MADISON H S KENNEDY-CURRY MIDDLE L V STOCKARD MIDDLE OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES HUMANITIES/C ONESIMO HERNANDEZ EL PAUL L DUNBAR LEARNING CENTER T W BROWNE MIDDLE THOMAS A EDISON MIDDLE LEARNING CE THOMAS C MARSH MIDDLE THOMAS J RUSK MIDDLE THOMAS JEFFERSON H S DEKALB EL DELL CITY SCHOOL THE MEADOWS EL DETROIT EL DETROIT J H DILLEY EL MARY HARPER MIDDLE DIME BOX SCHOOL DRAW ACADEMY HIGHLAND FOREST EL PECAN VALLEY EL BONHAM MIDDLE BOWIE MIDDLE BURLESON EL ECTOR MIDDLE EL MAGNET AT BLACKSHEAR EL MAGNET AT ZAVALA G E 'BUDDY' WEST EL GOLIAD EL Consecutive Years IR 2 1 1 1 Alt. Ed. Accountability Indexa Not Met 1 2 3 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 4 2 3 4 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 2 5 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 4 1 2 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● aThe Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 151 Appendix 7-A2. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2016 (continued) District EDCOUCH-ELSA ISD EDGEWOOD ISD EL PASO ISD EL PASO LEADERSHIP ACADEMY EVANT ISD FALLBROOK COLLEGE PREPARATORY ACAD FANNINDEL ISD FOCUS LEARNING ACADEMY Consecutive Years IR 1 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 Campus IRELAND EL NOEL EL ODESSA H S PEASE EL DAVID YBARRA MIDDLE GARDENDALE EL BOWIE H S COLLEGE CAREER TECHNOLOGY ACADEMY Alt. Ed. Accountability ● 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Indexa Not Met 2 3 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 ● ● EL PASO LEADERSHIP ACADEMY EVANT EL 1 1 4 ● ● ● ● FALLBROOK COLLEGE PREPARATORY ACAD FANNINDEL H S 4 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 5 1 2 5 1 1 FOCUS LEARNING ACADEMY FORT BEND ISD BRIARGATE EL RIDGEMONT EL FORT WORTH ISD BILL J ELLIOTT EL COMO EL DAGGETT EL DAGGETT MIDDLE DE ZAVALA EL EASTERN HILLS H S FOREST OAK MIDDLE GLENCREST 6TH GRADE SCH HANDLEY MIDDLE I M TERRELL EL J MARTIN JACQUET MIDDLE JEAN MCCLUNG MIDDLE JOHN T WHITE EL LEONARD MIDDLE MAUDE I LOGAN EL MAUDRIE WALTON EL MITCHELL BOULEVARD EL MORNINGSIDE MIDDLE RIVERSIDE MIDDLE ROSEMONT 6TH GRADE WEDGWOOD 6TH GR SCH WEST HANDLEY EL FREER ISD NORMAN M THOMAS EL GALVESTON ISD CENTRAL MIDDLE COASTAL VILLAGE EL COASTAL VILLAGE MIDDLE WEIS MIDDLE GARLAND ISD FREEMAN EL GATEWAY CHARTER ACADEMY GATEWAY CHARTER ACADEMY -EL ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● aThe Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. continues 152 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 7-A2. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2016 (continued) District Campus GEORGE I SANCHEZ CHARTER GEORGE I SANCHEZ NORTH GLOBAL LEARNING VILLAGE GLOBAL LEARNING VILLAGE GOLD BURG ISD GOLD BURG SCHOOL GORDON ISD GORDON SCHOOL GRAPELAND ISD GRAPELAND J H GREENVILLE ISD TRAVIS EL GROESBECK ISD ENGE-WASHINGTON INT H O WHITEHURST EL HARLANDALE ISD STONEWALL/FLANDERS EL HART ISD HART ISD HAYS CISD HEMPHILL EL HEARNE ISD HEARNE EL HEARNE H S HEARNE J H HEMPSTEAD ISD HEMPSTEAD MIDDLE HIGH ISLAND ISD HIGH ISLAND EL HIGH ISLAND H S HIGH ISLAND MIDDLE HIGH POINT ACADEMY HIGH POINT ACADEMY HITCHCOCK ISD CROSBY MIDDLE HITCHCOCK H S HOUSTON ISD ADVANCED VIRTUAL ACADEMY BELLFORT EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER BLACKSHEAR EL BONHAM EL BRUCE EL COOK JR EL CULLEN MIDDLE DOGAN EL DOWLING MIDDLE EDISON MIDDLE ENERGIZED FOR STEM ACADEMY CENTRAL FOERSTER EL FOREST BROOK MIDDLE GALLEGOS EL GREGORY-LINCOLN ED CTR H S AHEAD ACADEMY HARPER ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL HENRY MIDDLE HIGHLAND HTS EL HILLIARD EL KASHMERE GARDENS EL Consecutive Years IR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 4 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 2 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 4 2 4 Alt. Ed. Accountability 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Pb ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Indexa Not Met 2 3 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 4 ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● aThe Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 153 Appendix 7-A2. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2016 (continued) District HUMBLE ISD HUNTSVILLE ISD JUBILEE ACADEMIC CENTER JUDSON ISD KERMIT ISD KINGSVILLE ISD KIPP DALLAS-FORT WORTH KIPP SAN ANTONIO LA JOYA ISD LA MARQUE ISD LA PRYOR ISD LA VEGA ISD LA VILLA ISD LAMESA ISD LEGACY PREPARATORY LEWISVILLE ISD LIFE SCHOOL Campus KASHMERE H S KEY MIDDLE LEWIS EL LIBERTY H S MADING EL MADISON H S MARTINEZ C EL MILBY H S NORTH FOREST H S TEXAS CONNECTIONS ACADEMY AT HOUST WASHINGTON B T H S WESLEY EL WESTBURY H S WHEATLEY H S WOODSON SCHOOL WORTHING H S YOUNG EL RIVER PINES EL SAMUEL HOUSTON EL SCOTT JOHNSON EL ALAMO LEADERSHIP ACADEMY ATHLOS LEADERSHIP ACADEMY PARK VILLAGE EL KERMIT EL KERMIT J H GILLETT INT H M KING H S KLEBERG EL MEMORIAL MIDDLE POGUE OPTIONS ALTERNATIVE ACADEMY KIPP DESTINY EL KIPP ASPIRE ACADEMY KIPP UN MUNDO DUAL LANGUAGE ACADEM JUAREZ-LINCOLN H S EARLY CHILDHOOD LEARNING CENTER LA MARQUE EL LA MARQUE H S LA MARQUE INT LA MARQUE J H SCHOOL LA PRYOR H S LA VEGA H S LA VILLA MIDDLE LAMESA MIDDLE LEGACY PREPARATORY CHARTER ACADEMY CENTRAL ELEMENTARY LIFE SCHOOL LANCASTER Consecutive Years IR 7 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 5 4 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 3 2 2 2 Alt. Ed. Accountability ● Indexa Not Met 1 2 3 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 1 1 ● ● ● ● ● 1 1 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 5 4 ● ● Pb ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 3 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● aThe Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. continues 154 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 7-A2. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2016 (continued) District LIVINGSTON ISD LOCKHART ISD LOMETA ISD LORAINE ISD LORENZO ISD LUBBOCK ISD LUEDERS-AVOCA ISD LULING ISD MANOR ISD MARLIN ISD MARSHALL ISD MATHIS ISD MCCAMEY ISD MERCEDES ISD MIDLAND ISD MONAHANS-WICKETT-PYOTE ISD MONTE ALTO ISD MONTESSORI FOR ALL MORGAN ISD NACOGDOCHES ISD Campus LIVINGSTON H S ACADEMY LOCKHART H S NAVARRO EL LOMETA SCHOOL LORAINE SCHOOL LORENZO EL ALDERSON EL BEAN EL BROWN EL DUNBAR COLLEGE PREPARATORY ACADEMY ESTACADO H S JACKSON EL SLATON MIDDLE SMYLIE WILSON MIDDLE LUEDERS-AVOCA EL/J H LULING EL LULING PRI MANOR EXCEL ACADEMY MARLIN JUNIOR ACADEMY MARLIN PRI ACADEMY CROCKETT EL G W CARVER EL J H MOORE EL MARSHALL J H R E LEE EL WM B TRAVIS EL MATHIS MIDDLE MCCAMEY PRI SGT WILLIAM G HARRELL MIDDLE CROCKETT EL DE ZAVALA EL HOUSTON EL LAMAR EL MILAM EL RALPH BUNCHE EL SAN JACINTO J H SOUTH EL TRAVIS EL WALKER J H JOSE BORREGO MIDDLE MAGNOLIA MONTESSORI FOR ALL MORGAN SCHOOL Consecutive Years IR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 4 Alt. Ed. Accountability ● Indexa Not Met 1 2 3 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 2 1 5 1 1 2 2 4 1 1 3 2 1 1 6 3 1 2 4 1 1 4 2 2 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Pb ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 1 1 3 3 1 ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● aThe Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 155 Appendix 7-A2. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2016 (continued) District NATALIA ISD NAVASOTA ISD NEW FRONTIERS CHARTER SCHOOL NEWTON ISD NORTHSIDE ISD Campus EMELINE CARPENTER EL EMELINE CARPENTER INT FREDONIA EL THOMAS J RUSK ACADEMY OF FINE ARTS BRULE EL JOHN C WEBB EL NAVASOTA J H NEW FRONTIERS CHARTER SCHOOL NEWTON MIDDLE NORTHSIDE SCHOOL NOVA ACADEMY (SOUTHEAST) NOVA ACADEMY (SOUTHEAST) ODYSSEY ACADEMY INC ODYSSEY ACADEMY - BAY AREA PADUCAH ISD PADUCAH SCHOOL PAINT ROCK ISD PAINT ROCK SCHOOL PANOLA CHARTER SCHOOL TEXAS EARLY COLLEGE H S PETTUS ISD PETTUS SECONDARY PHARR-SAN JUAN-ALAMO ISD COLLEGE CAREER & TECHNOLOGY ACAD ELVIS J BALLEW H S PINEYWOODS COMMUNITY PINEYWOODS COMMUNITY ACADEMY ACADEMY HS PORT ARTHUR ISD MEMORIAL H S STAFF SERGEANT LUCIAN ADAMS EL POST ISD POST EL PREMIER LEARNING ACADEMY PREMIER LEARNING ACADEMY PREMONT ISD PREMONT H S PRIORITY CHARTER SCHOOLS COVE CHARTER ACADEMY GEORGETOWN CHARTER ACADEMY KILLEEN CHARTER ACADEMY RALLS ISD RALLS MIDDLE RAMIREZ CSD RAMIREZ EL RANGER ISD RANGER EL RAPOPORT ACADEMY PUBLIC AUDRE AND BERNARD RAPOPORT SCHOOL ACADEMY REAGAN COUNTY ISD REAGAN COUNTY MIDDLE RICHARD MILBURN ALTER RICHARD MILBURN ACADEMY FORT HIGH SCHOOL WORTH RIVIERA ISD KAUFER H S ROBSTOWN ISD SALAZAR CROSSROADS ACADEMY SEALE J H ROCHELLE ISD ROCHELLE SCHOOL Consecutive Years IR 1 5 4 5 Alt. Ed. Accountability 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ● ● ● ● ● 1 1 1 1 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 3 1 1 4 4 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 Pb ● ● ● Indexa Not Met 2 3 4 P P P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● aThe Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. continues 156 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 7-A2. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2016 (continued) District ROSEBUD-LOTT ISD ROYAL ISD RUNGE ISD SAN ANTONIO ISD SAN ANTONIO SCHOOL FOR INQUIRY & C SAN AUGUSTINE ISD SAN FELIPE-DEL RIO CISD SANGER ISD SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION SHAMROCK ISD SHEKINAH RADIANCE ACADEMY SHEPHERD ISD SIERRA BLANCA ISD SNYDER ISD SOMERSET ISD Campus ROSEBUD PRI ROYAL EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER ROYAL EL ROYAL J H RUNGE EL RUNGE H S AGNES COTTON EL CHARLES C BALL EL CONNELL MIDDLE DORIE MILLER EL FOSTER EL HIGHLANDS H S IRVING MIDDLE LOWELL MIDDLE OGDEN EL P F STEWART EL PAGE MIDDLE POE MIDDLE RHODES MIDDLE RODRIGUEZ EL ROGERS MIDDLE STORM EL TAFOLLA MIDDLE WHEATLEY MIDDLE WOODLAWN ACADEMY MONTICELLO Consecutive Years IR 1 2 2 1 2 4 2 1 2 5 3 1 1 4 2 3 4 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 1 1 Alt. Ed. Accountability Indexa Not Met 1 2 3 4 ● ● Pb P P P ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● SAN AUGUSTINE H S BLENDED ACADEMY DEL RIO H S LINDA TUTT H S DR HARMON W KELLEY EL 2 1 1 1 1 DR JAMES L BURCH INT SHAMROCK MIDDLE 3 1 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● SHEKINAH RADIANCE ACADEMY (DALLAS SHEKINAH RADIANCE ACADEMY (GARLAND SHEKINAH WALZEM SHEPHERD INT SHEPHERD PRI 1 ● ● ● SIERRA BLANCA SCHOOL SNYDER J H SOMERSET ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT CENT ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 2 5 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● aThe Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 157 Appendix 7-A2. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2016 (continued) District SOMERVILLE ISD SOUTHSIDE ISD SOUTHWEST PREPARATORY SCHOOL SPRING BRANCH ISD SPRING ISD SPURGER ISD STRAWN ISD TAFT ISD TEKOA ACADEMY OF ACCELERATED STUDI TEMPLE ISD TERRELL ISD TEXARKANA ISD TEXAS COLLEGE PREPARATORY ACADEMIE TEXAS LEADERSHIP TEXHOMA ISD THE LAWSON ACADEMY TRINITY ENVIRONMENTAL ACADEMY TRINITY ISD TYLER ISD Campus SOMERSET J H SOMERVILLE EL SOMERVILLE H S JULIAN C GALLARDO EL LOSOYA INT SOUTHWEST PREP NORTHWEST EL SOUTHWEST PREPARATORY SCHOOL HOLLIBROOK EL SPRING OAKS MIDDLE TREASURE FOREST EL WOODVIEW EL RALPH EICKENROHT EL SPURGER H S STRAWN SCHOOL TAFT J H TEKOA ACADEMY OF ACCELERATED STUDI JEFFERSON EL RAYE-ALLEN EL TERRELL ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION CENT PAUL LAURENCE DUNBAR EARLY EDUCATI THERON JONES EARLY LITERACY CENTER WESTLAWN EL FOUNDERS CLASSICAL ACADEMY OF DALL FOUNDERS CLASSICAL ACADEMY OF MESQ RESPONSIVE EDUCATION VIRTUAL LEARN VISTA ACADEMY OF ELGIN TEXAS LEADERSHIP OF ABILENE TEXAS LEADERSHIP OF ARLINGTON TEXAS LEADERSHIP OF MIDLAND TEXHOMA EL THE LAWSON ACADEMY TRINITY ENVIRONMENTAL ACADEMY LANSBERRY EL DOGAN MIDDLE GRIFFIN EL JONES EL Consecutive Years IR 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 Alt. Ed. Accountability 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 2 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● Indexa Not Met 2 3 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 4 Pb P P P 4 P P P P 4 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 ● ● ● ● 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 3 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● The Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. a continues 158 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 7-A2. Improvement Required (IR) School Districts and Campuses, 2016 (continued) District UNION HILL ISD UPLIFT EDUCATION UVALDE CISD VICTORIA ISD VICTORY PREP WACO CHARTER SCHOOL WACO ISD WAXAHACHIE FAITH FAMILY ACADEMY WAYSIDE SCHOOLS WEBB CISD WESLACO ISD WICHITA FALLS ISD WILLIS ISD WINFIELD ISD WINFREE ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOLS WINTERS ISD WOODVILLE ISD YES PREP PUBLIC SCHOOLS INC ZOE LEARNING ACADEMY Campus SHARON A RICHARDSON EL UPLIFT MERIDIAN SCHOOL FLORES MIDDLE CRAIN EL PATTI WELDER MIDDLE VICTORY PREP VICTORY PREPARATORY ACADEMY WACO CHARTER SCHOOL ALTA VISTA EL BRAZOS H S BROOK AVENUE EL CRESTVIEW EL G W CARVER MIDDLE INDIAN SPRING MIDDLE J H HINES EL WAXAHACHIE FAMILY FAITH ACADEMY WAXAHACHIE FAMILY FAITH ACADEMY SCI-TECH PREPARATORY OILTON EL WESLACO 21ST CENTURY CTE EARLY COL BURGESS EL KIRBY MIDDLE WASHINGTON-JACKSON ACADEMY LYNN LUCAS MIDDLE WINFIELD EL WINFREE ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL DAL WINTERS J H WOODVILLE EL WOODVILLE INT YES PREP - SOUTHSIDE ZOE LEARNING ACADEMY / KOINONIA CA Consecutive Years IR 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 4 1 5 2 4 4 5 1 Alt. Ed. Accountability 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 4 1 1 1 1 ● 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Indexa Not Met 2 3 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 1 1 1 ● Pb ● P ● ● 2 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● P ● ● P ● ● aThe Texas public school accountability system includes the following performance indexes: Index 1 (Student Achievement); Index 2 (Student Progress); Index 3 (Closing Performance Gaps); and Index 4 (Postsecondary Readiness). bA "P" indicates the campus was paired with another campus that was rated Improvement Required. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 159 Appendix 7-B1. Monitors, Conservators, and Other Interventions, September 1, 2014, Through August 31, 2015 Region District/Charter School 20 Academy of Careers and Technologies Charter School Intervention Type Conservator Board of Managers Reason(s) for Intervention SBa 2 charter school closeout SB 2 charter school closeout Intervention Date 3/18/2015 7/23/2015 6 Arrow Academy Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 4 Bay Area Charter Conservator SB 2 charter school closeout 3/18/2015 5 Beaumont ISDb Monitor Conservator Board of Managers Monitor Special education Finances/governance/special education Finances/governance/special education Special education 2/14/2014 4/14/2014 7/14/2014 5/21/2015 18 Big Spring ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 9 Bright Ideas Charter Conservator SB 2 charter school closeout 3/18/2015 18 Brookesmith ISD Conservator Academic and financial accountability 2/3/2015 17 Brownfield ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 6 Buckholts ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 20 Charlotte ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 10 Children First Academy of Dallas Management Team Revocation pursuant to TECc §12.115(a) 9/5/2013 4 Cleveland ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 20 Crystal City ISD Monitor Academic accountability 2/27/2015 20 Dilley ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 13 Dime Box Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 2 Dr. M.L. Garza-Gonzalez Charter School Monitor Conservator Academic accountability Academic accountability 5/7/2015 6/25/2015 19 El Paso ISD Monitor Conservator Board of Managers Monitor State and federal accountability data manipulation State and federal accountability data manipulation DOJd-approved commissioner appointment Oversight for return to board of trustees 8/13/2012 12/6/2012 5/7/2013 5/18/2015 1 Excellence in Leadership Academy Monitor Academic and financial accountability 5/7/2015 10 Faith Family Academy of Oak Cliff Conservator SB 2 charter school closeout 3/18/2015 4 Fallbrook College Preparatory Academy Monitor Academic and financial accountability 5/7/2015 a Senate Bill. bIndependent school district. cTexas Education Code. dDepartment of Justice. eCommon school district. 160 continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 7-B1. Monitors, Conservators, and Other Interventions, September 1, 2014, Through August 31, 2015 (continued) Region District/Charter School 20 George Gervin Academy Intervention Type Monitor Reason(s) for Intervention Academic and financial accountability Intervention Date 5/7/2015 4 Girls & Boys Preparatory Academy Conservator SBa 2 charter school closeout 3/18/2015 4 Hempstead ISDb Monitor Academic and financial accountability 5/7/2015 16 Higgins ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 20 Higgs Carter King Gifted & Talented Charter Academy Conservator SB 2 charter school closeout 3/18/2015 10 Honors Academy Conservator Board of Managers Financial management/academics/revocation pending Close down charter school operations 12/18/2013 10/10/2014 1 IGNITE Public Schools & Community Service Centers Conservator SB 2 charter school closeout 3/18/2015 4 La Amistad Love and Learning Academy Conservator Surrender charter 3/18/2015 10 Legacy Preparatory Monitor Academic and financial accountability 5/7/2015 14 Loraine ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 12 Marlin ISD Monitor Management Team Monitor Monitor Special education Special education/district operations and academics Special education/academics Academic accountability 9/24/2010 2/24/2011 3/1/2014 5/7/2015 4 Medical Center Charter School Conservator SB 2 charter school closeout 3/28/2015 20 Pearsall ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 10 Phoenix Charter School Conservator Non-renewal charter school closeout 3/2/2015 4 Premier Learning Academy Monitor Academic and financial accountability 2/27/2015 2 Premont ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 11 Prime Prep Academy Board of Managers Revocation pursuant to TECc §12.115(a) 1/13/2015 1 Progreso ISD Management Team Finances and governance 1/16/2014 20 Radiance Academy of Learning Monitor Academic and financial accountability 5/7/2015 11 Rio Vista ISD Monitor Financial—Not Accredited-Revoked 2/18/2014 2 Robstown ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 a Senate Bill. bIndependent school district. cTexas Education Code. dDepartment of Justice. eCommon school district. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools continues 161 Appendix 7-B1. Monitors, Conservators, and Other Interventions, September 1, 2014, Through August 31, 2015 (continued) Region District/Charter School 20 San Antonio Technology Academy Intervention Type Conservator Reason(s) for Intervention SBa 2 and non-renewal charter school closeout Intervention Date 12/8/2014 16 Sanford-Fritch ISDb Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 11 Santo ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 20 Shekinah Radiance Academy Monitor Academic and financial accountability 5/7/2015 19 Sierra Blanca ISD Monitor Academic and financial accountability 5/7/2015 6 Snook ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 18 Terlingua CSDe Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 4 Texas Serenity Academy Charter School Monitor Monitor Monitor Financial management Academic and financial accountability Academic and financial accountability 12/14/2012 5/1/2014 5/7/2015 12 Transformative Charter Academy Conservator SB 2 charter school closeout 3/18/2015 7 UT Tyler Innovation Academy Monitor Academic and financial accountability 5/7/2015 4 The Varnett Public School Conservator Finances and governance 9/30/2013 4 Victory Prep Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 a Senate Bill. bIndependent school district. cTexas Education Code. dDepartment of Justice. eCommon school district. 162 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 7-B2. Monitors, Conservators, and Other Interventions, September 1, 2015, Through August 31, 2016 Region District/Charter School 20 Academy of Careers and Technologies Charter School Intervention Type Conservator Board of Managers Reason(s) for Intervention SBa 2 charter school closeout SB 2 charter school closeout Intervention Date 3/18/2015 7/23/2015 10 Academy of Dallas Monitor Academic accountability 3/23/2016 6 Arrow Academy Monitor Monitor Academic accountability Accreditation status of Accredited-Warned for 2014-15/non-renewal 5/7/2015 12/18/2015 13 Bartlett ISDb Monitor Academic accountability 3/23/2016 4 Bay Area Charter Conservator SB 2 charter school closeout 3/18/2015 5 Beaumont ISD Monitor Conservator Board of Managers Monitor Monitor Special education Finances/Governance/Special education Finances/Governance/Special education Special education Financial accountability 2/14/2014 4/14/2014 7/14/2014 5/21/2015 3/23/2016 18 Big Spring ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 18 Brookesmith ISD Conservator Academic and financial accountability 2/3/2015 6 Buckholts ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 20 Charlotte ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 10 Children First Academy of Dallas Management Team Board of Managers Revocation pursuant to TECc §12.115(a) Revocation pursuant to TEC §12.115(a) 9/5/2013 8/16/2016 4 Cleveland ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 4 Comquest Academy Monitor Financial accountability 3/23/2016 4 CORE Academy Monitor Academic accountability 3/23/2016 20 Crystal City ISD Monitor Academic accountability 2/27/2015 4 Damon ISD Monitor Academic accountability 3/23/2016 20 Dilley ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 13 Dime Box ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 2 Dr. M.L. Garza-Gonzalez Charter School Monitor Conservator Academic accountability Academic accountability 5/7/2015 6/25/2015 20 Edgewood ISD Conservator Board of Managers School governance School governance 3/7/2016 5/23/2016 a Senate Bill. bIndependent school district. cTexas Education Code. dConsolidated independent school district. eCommon school district. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools continues 163 Appendix 7-B2. Monitors, Conservators, and Other Interventions, September 1, 2015, Through August 31, 2016 (continued) Region District/Charter School 1 Excellence in Leadership Academy Intervention Type Monitor Reason(s) for Intervention Academic and financial accountability Intervention Date 5/7/2015 10 Faith Family Academy of Oak Cliff Conservator SBa 2 charter school closeout 3/18/2015 4 Fallbrook College Preparatory Academy Monitor Conservator Academic and financial accountability SB 2 charter school closeout 5/7/2015 12/18/2015 10 Focus Learning Academy Monitor Academic accountability 3/23/2016 20 George Gervin Academy Monitor Academic and financial accountability 5/7/2015 4 Girls & Boys Preparatory Academy Conservator SB 2 charter school closeout 3/18/2015 4 Hempstead ISDb Monitor Monitor Academic and financial accountability Academic and financial accountability 5/7/2015 3/23/2016 16 Higgins ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 20 Higgs Carter King Gifted & Talented Charter Academy Conservator SB 2 charter school closeout 3/18/2015 10 Honors Academy Conservator Board of Managers Financial management/academics/revocation pending Close down charter school operations 12/18/2013 10/10/2014 1 IGNITE Public Schools & Community Service Centers Conservator SB 2 charter school closeout 3/18/2015 4 La Amistad Love and Learning Academy Conservator Surrender charter 3/18/2015 4 La Marque ISD Conservator Board of Managers Conservator Appoint board of managers/annexation Annexation to Texas City ISD Appointment to assist with annexation 12/1/2015 12/15/2015 12/15/2015 10 Legacy Preparatory Monitor Academic and financial accountability 5/7/2015 6 Leggett ISD Monitor Academic accountability 3/23/2016 14 Loraine ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 12 Marlin ISD Monitor Management Team Monitor Monitor Special education Special education/district operations and academics Special education/academics Academic accountability 9/24/2010 2/24/2011 3/1/2014 5/7/2015 4 Medical Center Charter School Conservator SB 2 charter school closeout 3/28/2015 12 Morgan ISD Monitor Academic accountability 3/23/2016 a Senate Bill. bIndependent school district. cTexas Education Code. dConsolidated independent school district. eCommon school district. 164 continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 7-B2. Monitors, Conservators, and Other Interventions, September 1, 2015, Through August 31, 2016 (continued) Region District/Charter School 15 Olfen ISDb Intervention Type Monitor Reason(s) for Intervention Academic accountability Intervention Date 3/23/2016 20 Pearsall ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 17 Petersburg ISD Monitor Academic accountability 3/23/2016 10 Phoenix Charter School Conservator Non-renewal charter school closeout 3/2/2015 4 Premier Learning Academy Monitor Conservator Academic and financial accountability SBa 2 and non-renewal charter school closeout 2/27/2015 12/18/2015 2 Premont ISD Monitor Management Team Academic accountability Not Accredited-Revoked abatement agreement 5/7/2015 12/30/2015 11 Prime Prep Academy Board of Managers Revocation pursuant to TECc §12.115(a) 1/13/2015 1 Progreso ISD Management Team Board of Managers Finances and governance Finances and governance 1/16/2014 12/30/2015 20 Radiance Academy of Learning Monitor Academic and financial accountability 5/7/2015 18 Rankin ISD Monitor Academic accountability 3/23/2016 1 Rio Grande City CISDd Monitor Noncompliance migrant education program 12/21/2015 2 Robstown ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 16 Sanford-Fritch ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 11 Santo ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 20 Shekinah Radiance Academy Monitor Conservator Academic and financial accountability SB 2 charter school closeout 5/7/2015 12/18/2015 14 Sidney ISD Conservator TEC and Texas Election Code violations related to board elections 7/28/2016 19 Sierra Blanca ISD Monitor Academic and financial accountability 5/7/2015 6 Snook ISD Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 6 Somerville ISD Monitor Academic accountability 3/23/2016 20 South San Antonio ISD Conservator Finances and governance 2/5/2016 18 Terlingua CSDe Monitor Academic accountability 5/7/2015 18 Terrell County ISD Monitor Financial accountability 3/23/2016 a Senate Bill. bIndependent school district. cTexas Education Code. dConsolidated independent school district. eCommon school district. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools continues 165 Appendix 7-B2. Monitors, Conservators, and Other Interventions, September 1, 2015, Through August 31, 2016 (continued) Region District/Charter School 4 Texas Serenity Academy Charter School Intervention Type Monitor Monitor Monitor Reason(s) for Intervention Financial management Academic and financial accountability Academic and financial accountability Intervention Date 12/14/2012 5/1/2014 5/7/2015 12 Transformative Charter Academy Conservator SBa 2 charter school closeout 3/18/2015 7 UT Tyler Innovation Academy Monitor Academic and financial accountability 5/7/2015 4 The Varnett Public School Conservator Finances and governance 9/30/2013 4 Victory Prep Monitor Conservator Academic accountability SB 2 charter school closeout 5/7/2015 12/18/1015 13 Waelder ISDb Monitor Academic accountability 3/23/2016 16 Walcott ISD Monitor Financial accountability 3/23/2016 8 Winfield ISD Monitor Academic accountability 3/23/2016 a Senate Bill. bIndependent school district. cTexas Education Code. dConsolidated independent school district. eCommon school district. 166 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Appendix 7-C1. Districts With Lowered Accreditation Status, 2014-15 District Arrow Academy Bloomington ISDa Brownfield ISD Buckholts ISD Cleveland ISD Crystal City ISD Dilley ISD Dime Box ISD Dr. M L Garza-Gonzales Charter School Excellence in Leadership Academy Fallbrook College Preparatory Academy George Gevin Academy Gold Burg ISD Hempstead ISD Higgins ISD Legacy Preparatory Leveretts Chapel ISD Moran ISD Premier Learning Academy Prime Prep Academy Progreso ISD Radiance Academy of Learning Ramirez CSDc Robstown ISD Sanford-Fritch ISD Santos ISD Shekinah Radiance Academy Sierra Blanca ISD Star ISD Terlingua CSD Texas Serenity Academy UT Tyler Innovation Academy Victory Prep Walnut Springs ISD Zoe Learning Academy Big Spring ISD Charlotte ISD City Center Health Careers Loraine ISD Mainland Preparatory Academy Marlin ISD Pearsall ISD Premont ISD Snook ISD Brooksmith ISD Jonesboro ISD La Marque ISD a Status Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Reason for Lowered Status 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned 2014 FIRSTb Rating, 2014 Accountability Rating 2014 FIRST Rating, 2013 & 2014 Accountability Ratings Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Probation Accredited-Probation Accredited-Probation Accredited-Probation Accredited-Probation Accredited-Probation Accredited-Probation Accredited-Probation Accredited-Probation Accredited-Probation (note: was Not Accredited-Revoked, updated following abatement agreement) Accredited-Probation (note: was Not Accredited-Revoked, updated following abatement agreement) Not Accredited-Revoked (note: following abatement agreement, revocation effective 7/1/2016) 2013 FIRST Rating, 2014 Accountability Rating 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2014 FIRST Rating, 2014 Accountability Rating 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2014 FIRST Rating, 2013 & 2014 Accountability Ratings 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2014 FIRST Rating, 2013 & 2014 Accountability Ratings Special Acceditation Investigation 2014 FIRST Rating, 2014 Accountability Rating 2013 FIRST Rating, 2013 & 2014 Accountability Rating 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2014 FIRST Rating, 2013 & 2014 Accountability Ratings 2014 FIRST Rating, 2014 Accountability Rating 2014 FIRST Rating, 2014 Accountability Rating 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2013 & 2014 FIRST Rating, 2013 Accountability Rating 2014 FIRST Rating, 2013 Accountability Rating 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2014 FIRST Rating, 2013 Accountability Rating 2011, 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2011, 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2014 FIRST Rating, 2011, 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2011, 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2011, 2013 and 2014 FIRST Ratings 2011, 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2011, 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2011, 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2011, 2013 and 2014 Accountability Ratings 2011, 2012, & 2013 FIRST Ratings, 2014 Accountability Rating 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, & 2014 FIRST Ratings 2012 FIRST Rating, 2011, 2013, & 2014 Accountability Ratings Independent school district. bFinancial Integrity Rating System of Texas. cCommon school district. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 167 Appendix 7-C2. Districts With Lowered Accreditation Status, 2015-16 District Academy of Dallas Bartlett ISDa Beaumont ISD C O R E Academy Comquest Academy Damon ISD Edgewood ISD Focus Learning Academy Leggett ISD Morgan ISD Olfen ISD Petersburg ISD Radiance Academy of Learning Rankin ISD Somerville ISD Terrell County ISD Waelder ISD Walcott ISD Winfield ISD Buckholts ISD Crystal City ISD Hempstead ISD Sierra Blanca ISD La Marque ISD Status Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Warned Accredited-Probation Accredited-Probation Accredited-Probation Accredited-Probation Not Accredited-Revoked Jonesboro ISD Not Accredited-Revoked (Abated Pending Final Review Determination) Not Accredited-Revoked (Abated Pending Final Review Determination) Not Accredited-Revoked (Abated Pending Final Review Determination) Not Accredited-Revoked (Abated Pending Final Review Determination) Not Accredited-Revoked (Abated Pending Final Review Determination) Marlin ISD Pearsall ISD Premont ISD Snook ISD a Reason for Lowered Status 2014 and 2015 Accountability Ratings 2014 and 2015 Accountability Ratings 2014 and 2015 FIRSTb Ratings 2014 and 2015 Accountability Ratings 2014 and 2015 FIRST Ratings 2014 and 2015 Accountability Ratings Investigation Results [19 TACc §97.1055(b)(2)] 2014 and 2015 Accountability Ratings 2014 and 2015 Accountability Ratings 2014 and 2015 Accountability Ratings 2014 and 2015 Accountability Ratings 2014 and 2015 Accountability Ratings 2014 & 2015 FIRST Ratings, 2014 Accountability Rating 2014 and 2015 Accountability Ratings 2014 and 2015 Accountability Ratings 2014 and 2015 FIRST Ratings 2014 and 2015 Accountability Ratings 2014 and 2015 FIRST Ratings 2014 and 2015 Accountability Ratings 2013, 2014 and 2015 Accountability Ratings 2013, 2014 and 2015 Accountability Ratings 2014 & 2015 FIRST Ratings, 2014 & 2015 Accountability Ratings 2014 & 2015 FIRST Ratings, 2014 & 2015 Accountability Ratings 2012 & 2015 FIRST Ratings, 2011, 2013, & 2014 Accountability Ratings 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, & 2014 FIRST Ratings; 2015 Accountability Rating 2011, 2013, 2014, & 2015 Accountability Ratings 2011, 2013, 2014, & 2015 Accountability Ratings 2011 FIRST Rating, 2011, 2013, 2014, & 2015 Accountability Ratings 2011, 2013, 2014, & 2015 Accountability Ratings Independent school district. bFinancial Integrity Rating System of Texas. cTitle 19 of the Texas Administrative Code. 168 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools District Abbott ISDa Academy for Academic Excellence Academy ISD Academy Of Accelerated Learning Inc Academy Of Careers And Technologies Charter School Accelerated Intermediate Academy Adrian ISD Agua Dulce ISD Alba-Golden ISD Albany ISD Alice ISD Alvord ISD Ambassadors Preparatory Academy Amherst ISD Amigos Por Vida-Friends For Life Pub Chtr Sch Anson ISD Anthony ISD Anton ISD Apple Springs ISD Aquilla ISD Archer City ISD Argyle ISD Aristoi Classical Academy Aspermont ISD Aubrey ISD Austin Discovery School Austwell-Tivoli ISD Avinger ISD Axtell ISD Baird ISD Balmorhea ISD BASIS TEXAS Bay Area Charter Inc Beatrice Mayes Institute Charter School Bellevue ISD Bells ISD Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco ISD Benavides ISD Benjamin ISD Bishop CISDb Blackwell CISD Blanco ISD Bland ISD Bloomburg ISD Bluff Dale ISD a Appendix 7-D. Special Education Determination Status, Districts Met Requirements, Not Staged, 2015-16 Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements District Bob Hope School Boles ISD Borden County ISD Bosqueville ISD Bovina ISD Boyd ISD Boys Ranch ISD Brackett ISD Brazos ISD Brazos River Charter School Broaddus ISD Brookesmith ISD Bryson ISD Buckholts ISD Buena Vista ISD Burkburnett ISD Burkeville ISD Burnet CISD Burnham Wood Charter School District Bushland ISD Bynum ISD Caldwell ISD Callisburg ISD Calvert ISD Calvin Nelms Charter Schools Campbell ISD Carroll ISD Centerville ISD Centerville ISD Channing ISD Chaparral Star Academy Chapel Hill ISD Charlotte ISD Cherokee ISD Chester ISD Chico ISD Children First Academy Of Dallas Chillicothe ISD Chireno ISD Chisum ISD Christoval ISD Cisco ISD Clarendon ISD Claude ISD Coahoma ISD Coleman ISD Collinsville ISD Colmesneil ISD Como-Pickton CISD Compass Academy Charter School Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. cCommon school district. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements continues 169 District Comquest Academy Comstock ISDa Corpus Christi Montessori School Coupland ISD Crane ISD Cranfills Gap ISD Crawford ISD Crockett County Consolidated CSDc Crosbyton CISDb Cross Plains ISD Cross Roads ISD Crosstimbers Academy Cumby ISD Cushing ISD D`Hanis ISD Damon ISD Danbury ISD Darrouzett ISD Dawson ISD Dawson ISD Dell City ISD Denver City ISD Detroit ISD Devers ISD Dew ISD Divide ISD Dodd City ISD Doss Consolidated CSD Douglass ISD Dr M L Garza-Gonzalez Charter School Draw Academy Dripping Springs ISD Driscoll ISD Dublin ISD Eanes ISD East Bernard ISD East Texas Charter Schools Ector ISD Eden CISD Ehrhart School El Paso Leadership Academy Elenor Kolitz Hebrew Language Academy Elkhart ISD Era ISD Etoile ISD Eula ISD Evadale ISD Evant ISD Excel Academy a Appendix 7-D. Special Education Determination Status, Districts Met Requirements, Not Staged, 2015-16 (continued) Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements District Excellence In Leadership Academy Ezzell ISD Fabens ISD Fallbrook College Preparatory Academy Falls City ISD Farmersville ISD Farwell ISD Fayetteville ISD Florence ISD Floydada ISD Follett ISD Forestburg ISD Forsan ISD Fort Elliott CISD Fort Stockton ISD Fort Worth Academy Of Fine Arts Franklin ISD Friendswood ISD Frost ISD Ft Davis ISD Garner ISD Gary ISD Gateway Academy Charter District Gause ISD George I Sanchez Charter Gholson ISD Gladewater ISD Gold Burg ISD Goldthwaite ISD Goodrich ISD Gordon ISD Grady ISD Graford ISD Grandfalls-Royalty ISD Grandview-Hopkins ISD Grape Creek ISD Great Hearts Texas Groom ISD Gunter ISD Gustine ISD Guthrie CSD Hale Center ISD Hallsburg ISD Hamlin ISD Happy ISD Hardin ISD Hardin-Jefferson ISD Harmony School Of Excellence Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. cCommon school district. 170 Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools District Harmony Science Acad (El Paso) Harper ISDa Harrold ISD Hart ISD Hartley ISD Harts Bluff ISD Haskell CISDb Hawkins ISD Hawley ISD Hedley ISD Henry Ford Academy Alameda School For Art + Design Hereford ISD Hermleigh ISD Hico ISD Higgins ISD Higgs Carter King Gifted & Talented Charter Acad High Island ISD Highland ISD Highland Park ISD Holland ISD Houston Heights High School Houston Heights Learning Academy Inc Hubbard ISD Hubbard ISD Huckabay ISD Hull-Daisetta ISD Hunt ISD Imagine International Academy of North Texas Inspired Vision Academy Ira ISD Iraan-Sheffield ISD Iredell ISD Irion County ISD Italy ISD Jayton-Girard ISD Jean Massieu Academy Jonesboro ISD Joshua ISD Katherine Anne Porter School Katy ISD Kaufman ISD Keene ISD Kelton ISD Kenedy County Wide CSDc Kennard ISD Kerens ISD a Appendix 7-D. Special Education Determination Status, Districts Met Requirements, Not Staged, 2015-16 (continued) Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements District Kermit ISD Klondike ISD Knippa ISD Knox City-O`Brien CISD Kopperl ISD Kountze ISD Kress ISD Krum ISD La Fe Preparatory School La Feria ISD La Gloria ISD La Pryor ISD Lake Travis ISD Lake Worth ISD Laneville ISD Lasara ISD Latexo ISD Lazbuddie ISD Leadership Prep School Leakey ISD Leander ISD Leary ISD Lefors ISD Leon ISD Leveretts Chapel ISD Lighthouse Charter School Linden-Kildare CISD Lindsay ISD Lingleville ISD Lipan ISD Little Elm ISD Lockney ISD Lohn ISD Lometa ISD London ISD Loop ISD Loraine ISD Lorena ISD Lovejoy ISD Lovelady ISD Lueders-Avoca ISD Lumin Education Mainland Preparatory Academy Malakoff ISD Malone ISD Malta ISD Manara Academy Marathon ISD Marion ISD Martins Mill ISD Martinsville ISD Mason ISD Matagorda ISD Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. cCommon school district. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements continues 171 District Maud ISDa May ISD McCamey ISD McDade ISD McLean ISD McLeod ISD McMullen County ISD Meadow ISD Meadowland Charter School Melissa ISD Memphis ISD Meridian ISD Meridian World School LLC Merkel ISD Meyerpark Elementary Meyersville ISD Miami ISD Midland Academy Charter School Midvalley Academy Charter District Milano ISD Mildred ISD Miles ISD Milford ISD Miller Grove ISD Montague ISD Montessori For All Morgan Mill ISD Morton ISD Motley County ISD Mount Calm ISD Mount Enterprise ISD Muenster ISD Mumford ISD Nazareth ISD New Deal ISD New Home ISD Newcastle ISD Nocona ISD Nordheim ISD North Hopkins ISD North Zulch ISD Northside ISD Northwest Preparatory Nova Academy Nueces Canyon CISDb Nursery ISD Nyos Charter School Odyssey Academy Inc Oglesby ISD Olfen ISD Olton ISD Orenda Charter School a Appendix 7-D. Special Education Determination Status, Districts Met Requirements, Not Staged, 2015-16 (continued) Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements District Paducah ISD Paint Creek ISD Paint Rock ISD Palacios ISD Palmer ISD Palo Pinto ISD Panhandle ISD Panola Charter School Panther Creek CISD Paradise ISD Paso Del Norte Academy Charter District Patton Springs ISD Pawnee ISD Penelope ISD Perrin-Whitt CISD Petersburg ISD Petrolia ISD Pineywoods Community Academy Ponder ISD Poolville ISD Port Aransas ISD Post ISD Poteet ISD Pottsboro ISD Prairie Lea ISD Prairie Valley ISD Premier High Schools Premier Learning Academy Priddy ISD Prime Prep Academy Pringle-Morse CISD Quanah ISD Quinlan ISD Radiance Academy Of Learning Rains ISD Ralls ISD Ramirez CSDc Ranch Academy Randolph Field ISD Ranger ISD Rankin ISD Raul Yzaguirre School For Success Raven School Reagan County ISD Red Lick ISD Redwater ISD Refugio ISD Ricardo ISD Rice ISD Richards ISD Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. cCommon school district. 172 Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools District Richland Collegiate High School Richland Springs ISDa Riesel ISD Rising Star ISD Riviera ISD Roby CISDb Rochelle ISD Rocksprings ISD Rogers ISD Roosevelt ISD Ropes ISD Roscoe Collegiate ISD Rosebud-Lott ISD Rotan ISD Round Top-Carmine ISD Roxton ISD Royse City ISD Rule ISD Runge ISD Sabine ISD Sabine Pass ISD Saint Jo ISD Salado ISD Saltillo ISD Sam Rayburn ISD San Perlita ISD San Saba ISD San Vicente ISD Sands CISD Santa Anna ISD Santa Fe ISD Santa Gertrudis ISD Santa Maria ISD Santo ISD Savoy ISD Schleicher ISD School Of Excellence In Education School Of Science And Technology Seagraves ISD Seashore Charter Schools Ser-Ninos Charter School Seymour ISD Shamrock ISD Shekinah Radiance Academy Shepherd ISD Sidney ISD Sierra Blanca ISD Silverton ISD Sivells Bend ISD Slidell ISD a Appendix 7-D. Special Education Determination Status, Districts Met Requirements, Not Staged, 2015-16 (continued) Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements District Smyer ISD Sonora ISD Southland ISD Southwest Preparatory School Splendora ISD Spring Creek ISD Spring Hill ISD Springlake-Earth ISD Spur ISD Spurger ISD St Anthony School St Mary`s Academy Charter School Stephen F Austin State University Charter School Stephenville Sterling City ISD Stratford ISD Strawn ISD Sudan ISD Sulphur Springs ISD Sundown ISD Sunnyvale ISD Sunray ISD Sweet Home ISD Taft ISD Tahoka ISD Tekoa Academy Of Accelerated Studies Stem School Terlingua CSDc Terrell County ISD Texas Empowerment Academy Texas Preparatory School Texas School of the Arts Texhoma ISD Texline ISD The Excel Center (For Adults) The Lawson Academy The Varnett Public School Three Way ISD Throckmorton ISD Tidehaven ISD Tioga ISD Tolar ISD Treetops School International Trent ISD Trenton ISD Trinity Charter School Troup ISD Turkey-Quitaque ISD Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. cCommon school district. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements continues 173 District Two Dimensions Preparatory Academy Ume Preparatory Academy Union Hill ISDa University Of Houston Charter School Uplift Education - North Hills Preparatory UT Tyler Innovation Academy Utopia ISD UTPB STEM Academy Valentine ISD Van Alstyne ISD Van Vleck ISD Vega ISD Veribest ISD Village Tech Schools Vista Del Futuro Charter School Vysehrad ISD Waelder ISD Walcott ISD Wall ISD Walnut Bend ISD Walnut Springs ISD Waxahachie Faith Family Academy a Appendix 7-D. Special Education Determination Status, Districts Met Requirements, Not Staged, 2015-16 (continued) Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements District Wellington ISD Wells ISD West Hardin County CISDb West ISD West Rusk ISD Westbrook ISD Westhoff ISD Westphalia ISD White Deer ISD White Oak ISD Whiteface CISD Whitewright ISD Whitharral ISD Wildorado ISD Wilson ISD Wimberley ISD Winfield ISD Wink-Loving ISD Woden ISD Wolfe City ISD Woodson ISD Wortham ISD Yantis ISD Zavalla ISD Zephyr ISD Zoe Learning Academy Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. cCommon school district. 174 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools District Abernathy ISDa Alpha Charter School Alpine ISD Amarillo ISD Ambassadors Preparatory Academy American Youthworks Charter School Amherst ISD Amigos Por Vida-Friends For Life Pub Chtr Sch Andrews ISD Anna ISD Anthony ISD Apple Springs ISD Aransas County ISD Archer City ISD Aristoi Classical Academy Austin ISD Avalon ISD Avery ISD Axtell ISD Azle ISD Ballinger ISD Barbers Hill ISD Bay Area Charter Inc Beatrice Mayes Institute Charter School Benavides ISD Big Sandy ISD Birdville ISD Bishop CISDb Blanco ISD Blanket ISD Bloomburg ISD Blooming Grove ISD Boerne ISD Booker ISD Bosqueville ISD Boys Ranch ISD Brackett ISD Brazos School For Inquiry & Creativity Breckenridge ISD Bremond ISD Brock ISD Bronte ISD Brookeland ISD Brooks Academy Of Science And Engineering Brooks County ISD Brownfield ISD Brownwood ISD Bryson ISD a Appendix 7-E1. Special Education Monitoring Status, Districts in Stage 1 Intervention, 2014-15 Status Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Closure Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Closure Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented District Bullard ISD Buna ISD Burkeville ISD Burleson ISD Burton ISD Caddo Mills ISD Calhoun County ISD Calvin Nelms Charter Schools Campbell ISD Canadian ISD Canutillo ISD Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD Cedars International Academy Celina ISD Center ISD Centerville ISD Central Heights ISD Chapel Hill Academy Chapel Hill ISD Chester ISD Childress ISD Chilton ISD Chisum ISD Cisco ISD City View ISD Clarksville ISD Clyde CISD Coleman ISD College Station ISD Columbia-Brazoria ISD Comanche ISD Commerce ISD Community ISD Copperas Cove ISD Cotulla ISD Covington ISD Crandall ISD Crane ISD Crawford ISD Crockett County Consolidated CSDc Crockett ISD Crosby ISD Crosbyton CISD Cross Roads ISD Crowell ISD Crowley ISD Culberson CountyAllamoore ISD Cypress-Fairbanks ISD Daingerfield-Lone Star ISD Damon ISD De Leon ISD Status Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. cCommon school district. dTexas Education Agency. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools continues 175 District Diboll ISDa Dickinson ISD Dilley ISD Dr M L Garza-Gonzalez Charter School Dripping Springs ISD Dumas ISD Eastland ISD Education Center International Academy El Paso Academy El Paso ISD Ennis ISD Era ISD Evadale ISD Everman ISD Evolution Academy Charter School Excelsior ISD Fabens ISD Fairfield ISD Fannindel ISD Farwell ISD Floresville ISD Flour Bluff ISD Floydada ISD Fort Elliott CISDb Franklin ISD Ft Sam Houston ISD Gatesville ISD Gateway Charter Academy George Gervin Academy George I Sanchez Charter George West ISD Giddings ISD Glasscock County ISD Glen Rose ISD Golden Rule Charter School Goldthwaite ISD Goose Creek CISD Gorman ISD Graford ISD Graham ISD Grand Prairie ISD Grandview ISD Granger ISD Grapeland ISD Gregory-Portland ISD Groesbeck ISD Gruver ISD Hale Center ISD Happy ISD Hardin-Jefferson ISD a Appendix 7-E1. Special Education Monitoring Status, Districts in Stage 1 Intervention, 2014-15 (continued) Status Local Interventions Implemented TEAd Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up TEA Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Noncompliance Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented District Harleton ISD Harmony School Of Excellence Harmony Science Acad (El Paso) Harmony Science Acad (Fort Worth) Harmony Science Acad (Lubbock) Harmony Science Acad (San Antonio) Harmony Science Acad (Waco) Harmony Science Academy Harrold ISD Hearne ISD Hemphill ISD Henderson ISD Henrietta ISD Hermleigh ISD Hico ISD Higgs Carter King Gifted & Talented Charter Acad Honey Grove ISD Honors Academy Houston Gateway Academy Inc Houston Heights High School Howe ISD Hubbard ISD Hudson ISD Hull-Daisetta ISD Humble ISD Huntington ISD Hutto ISD Ignite Public Schools and Community Service Center Iola ISD Iraan-Sheffield ISD Itasca ISD Jamie`s House Charter School Jim Hogg County ISD Jim Ned CISD John H Wood Jr Public Charter District Joshua ISD Jourdanton ISD Jubilee Academic Center Junction ISD Karnes City ISD Katherine Anne Porter School Kemp ISD Status Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Closure Closure Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Closure Local Interventions Implemented Closure Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Closure Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. cCommon school district. dTexas Education Agency. 176 continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools District Kennedale ISDa Kerens ISD Kipp Austin Public Schools Inc Kountze ISD La Academia De Estrellas La Amistad Love & Learning Academy La Feria ISD La Porte ISD La Pryor ISD Lackland ISD Lago Vista ISD Lampasas ISD Lapoynor ISD Latexo ISD Leander ISD Legacy Preparatory Leggett ISD Leon ISD Leonard ISD Lexington ISD Liberty ISD Life School Lighthouse Charter School Lindale ISD Linden-Kildare CISDb Little Elm ISD Lockney ISD Lohn ISD Lometa ISD Lorena ISD Lorenzo ISD Louise ISD Lubbock-Cooper ISD Lumin Education Lyford CISD Manara Academy Marble Falls ISD Marfa ISD Marshall ISD Mart ISD Martinsville ISD Mason ISD Maud ISD McAllen ISD Medina Valley ISD Melissa ISD Memphis ISD Menard ISD Midland Academy Charter School a Appendix 7-E1. Special Education Monitoring Status, Districts in Stage 1 Intervention, 2014-15 (continued) Status Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented District Midway ISD Millsap ISD Moran ISD Morgan ISD Moulton ISD Mount Pleasant ISD Muenster ISD Muleshoe ISD Mullin ISD Mumford ISD Munday CISD Navarro ISD Nederland ISD Needville ISD New Braunfels ISD New Deal ISD New Diana ISD New Frontiers Charter School Newton ISD Nocona ISD Normangee ISD North Hopkins ISD North Lamar ISD North Texas Collegiate Academy Northwest Preparatory Nueces Canyon CISD Nyos Charter School Oakwood ISD Odem-Edroy ISD Odyssey Academy Inc Olton ISD Orangefield ISD Orenda Charter School Paducah ISD Palmer ISD Panhandle ISD Paradise ISD Pecos-Barstow-Toyah ISD Pegasus School Of Liberal Arts And Sciences Pettus ISD Pflugerville ISD Pine Tree ISD Pittsburg ISD Plains ISD Pleasant Grove ISD Point Isabel ISD Por Vida Academy Port Neches-Groves ISD Positive Solutions Charter School Status Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Closure Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. cCommon school district. dTexas Education Agency. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools continues 177 District Post ISDa Poth ISD Radiance Academy Of Learning Ralls ISD Ranch Academy Ranger ISD Raul Yzaguirre School For Success Reagan County ISD Redwater ISD Ricardo ISD Richard Milburn Academy (Amarillo) Richard Milburn Academy (Ector County) Richard Milburn Academy (Fort Worth) Richard Milburn Academy (Suburban Houston) Richard Milburn Alter High School (Corpus Christi) Richard Milburn Alter High School (Killeen) River Road ISD Riviera ISD Rockdale ISD Roosevelt ISD Ropes ISD Rosebud-Lott ISD Royse City ISD S And S CISDb Saltillo ISD Sam Rayburn ISD San Augustine ISD San Benito CISD San Marcos CISD San Perlita ISD Sands CISD Santa Fe ISD Santa Rosa ISD Santo ISD Schertz-Cibolo-U City ISD Schleicher ISD School Of Excellence In Education School Of Science And Technology School Of Science And Technology Discovery Schulenburg ISD Scurry-Rosser ISD Sealy ISD a Appendix 7-E1. Special Education Monitoring Status, Districts in Stage 1 Intervention, 2014-15 (continued) Status TEAd Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Closure Closure Closure Closure Closure Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented District Seminole ISD Ser-Ninos Charter School Seymour ISD Shallowater ISD Shamrock ISD Sharyland ISD Shekinah Radiance Academy Shelbyville ISD Slocum ISD Smyer ISD Somerset ISD South Plains Academy Charter District South Texas ISD Spring Branch ISD Spring Hill ISD Springlake-Earth ISD Spurger ISD St Anthony School Stratford ISD Sudan ISD Sunray ISD Tarkington ISD Tatum ISD Texas College Preparatory Academies Texas Leadership The Lawson Academy The Pro-Vision Academy The Rhodes School The Varnett Public School Tidehaven ISD Timpson ISD Transformative Charter Academy Trenton ISD Trinidad ISD Troup ISD Tulia ISD Tuloso-Midway ISD Union Grove ISD University Of Texas Elementary Charter School University Of Texas University Charter School Uplift Education – Hampton Preparatory Uplift Education – Peak Preparatory UT Tyler Innovation Academy Valley Mills ISD Van ISD Van Vleck ISD Vega ISD Status Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Closure Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. cCommon school district. dTexas Education Agency. 178 continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools District Vernon ISDa Waelder ISD Waller ISD Warren ISD Water Valley ISD Wayside Schools Weatherford ISD Wellington ISD Wellman-Union CISDb West Hardin County CISD West ISD West Rusk ISD West Sabine ISD White Deer ISD a Appendix 7-E1. Special Education Monitoring Status, Districts in Stage 1 Intervention, 2014-15 (continued) Status TEAd Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Noncompliance Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented District White Oak ISD White Settlement ISD Whitesboro ISD Whitewright ISD Wichita Falls ISD Wimberley ISD Winfree Academy Charter Schools Winona ISD Winters ISD Wolfe City ISD Woodville ISD Wortham ISD Zoe Learning Academy Status Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. cCommon school district. dTexas Education Agency. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 179 District A+ Academy Abilene ISDa Aledo ISD Alief Montessori Community School Allen ISD Alpha Charter School Alpine ISD Alvarado ISD Anderson-Shiro CISDb Aransas Pass ISD Arlington Classics Academy Arrow Academy Avalon ISD Avery ISD Ballinger ISD Bangs ISD Banquete ISD Barbers Hill ISD Bartlett ISD Bastrop ISD Beckville ISD Bellville ISD Bexar County Academy Big Sandy ISD Big Sandy ISD Big Spring ISD Blanket ISD Blooming Grove ISD Bloomington ISD Blue Ridge ISD Blum ISD Boerne ISD Boling ISD Booker ISD Brady ISD Brazos School For Inquiry & Creativity Breckenridge ISD Bremond ISD Bridge City ISD Bright Ideas Charter Brock ISD Bronte ISD Brookeland ISD Brooks Academy Of Science And Engineering Brownsboro ISD Bruceville-Eddy ISD Buffalo ISD Bullard ISD Burleson ISD Caddo Mills ISD Calhoun County ISD a Appendix 7-E2. Special Education Determination Status, Districts Met Requirements, Stage 1, 2015-16 Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. 180 District Cameron ISD Canadian ISD Canton ISD Carlisle ISD Castleberry ISD Cayuga ISD Cedars International Academy Celeste ISD Celina ISD Center Point ISD Central Heights ISD Central ISD Chapel Hill Academy Childress ISD Chilton ISD China Spring ISD City Center Health Careers City View ISD Cityscape Schools Clifton ISD Clyde CISD Coldspring-Oakhurst CISD Colorado ISD Columbus ISD Comal ISD Comanche ISD Commerce ISD Community ISD Coolidge ISD Cotton Center ISD Covington ISD Crowell ISD Cuero ISD Culberson County-Allamoore ISD Daingerfield-Lone Star ISD Dalhart ISD De Leon ISD Deer Park ISD Denison ISD Devine ISD Deweyville ISD Dumas ISD Eagle Mt-Saginaw ISD Early ISD East Chambers ISD East Fort Worth Montessori Academy Eastland ISD Edgewood ISD Edgewood ISD Education Center International Academy El Paso Academy Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools District Electra ISDa Erath Excels Academy Inc Eustace ISD Excelsior ISD Faith Family Academy Of Oak Cliff Fannindel ISD Ferris ISD Flatonia ISD Flour Bluff ISD Freer ISD Frenship ISD Friona ISD Frisco ISD Fruitvale ISD Ft Hancock ISD Ft Sam Houston ISD Galveston ISD Ganado ISD Garrison ISD George Gervin Academy George West ISD Georgetown ISD Gilmer ISD Glasscock County ISD Glen Rose ISD Global Learning Village Golden Rule Charter School Goliad ISD Gorman ISD Grand Saline ISD Grandview ISD Granger ISD Grapeland ISD Grapevine-Colleyville ISD Greenwood ISD Gregory-Portland ISD Groveton ISD Gruver ISD Hamilton ISD Hamshire-Fannett ISD Harlandale ISD Harmony ISD Harmony Science Acad (San Antonio) Harmony Science Acad (Waco) Harmony Science Academy (Austin) Hemphill ISD Henrietta ISD Highland Park ISD Holliday ISD Honey Grove ISD a Appendix 7-E2. Special Education Determination Status, Districts Met Requirements, Stage 1, 2015-16 (continued) Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools District Houston Gateway Academy Inc Howe ISD Huffman ISD Humble ISD Huntington ISD Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD Hutto ISD Idalou ISD Idea Public Schools Ignite Public Schools and Community Service Center Iola ISD Iowa Park CISDb Itasca ISD Jacksonville ISD Jefferson ISD Jim Ned CISD Joaquin ISD John H Wood Jr Public Charter District Johnson City ISD Jourdanton ISD Junction ISD Karnack ISD Karnes City ISD Keller ISD Kemp ISD Kenedy ISD Kirbyville CISD La Academia De Estrellas La Amistad Love & Learning Academy La Marque ISD La Porte ISD La Villa ISD Lackland ISD Lago Vista ISD Lapoynor ISD Leggett ISD Leonard ISD Lexington ISD Liberty Hill ISD Lone Oak ISD Lorenzo ISD Louise ISD Lubbock-Cooper ISD Lyford CISD Marfa ISD Mart ISD Maypearl ISD McGregor ISD McKinney ISD Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements continues 181 District Medical Center Charter School Medina ISDa Medina Valley ISD Menard ISD Mexia ISD Midlothian ISD Midway ISD Millsap ISD Mineola ISD Monte Alto ISD Moran ISD Morgan ISD Moulton ISD Mount Vernon ISD Mullin ISD Munday CISDb Murchison ISD Natalia ISD Navarro ISD Neches ISD Nederland ISD New Braunfels ISD New Diana ISD New Summerfield ISD Newman International Academy of Arlington Newton ISD Nixon-Smiley CISD Normangee ISD North East ISD North Texas Collegiate Academy O`Donnell ISD Oakwood ISD Odem-Edroy ISD Olney ISD Orangefield ISD Overton ISD Pearland ISD Pecos-Barstow-Toyah ISD Pegasus School Of Liberal Arts And Sciences Pettus ISD Pewitt CISD Pilot Point ISD Pittsburg ISD Plains ISD Plano ISD Pleasant Grove ISD Plemons-Stinnett-Phillips CISD Por Vida Academy a Appendix 7-E2. Special Education Determination Status, Districts Met Requirements, Stage 1, 2015-16 (continued) Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. 182 District Positive Solutions Charter School Poth ISD Prairiland ISD Premont ISD Promise Community School Prosper ISD Rapoport Academy Public School Rice CISD Rise Academy River Road ISD Rivercrest ISD Robert Lee ISD Rockwall ISD Round Rock ISD S And S CISD Sabinal ISD San Antonio School For Inquiry & Creativity San Antonio Technology Academy San Augustine ISD San Elizario ISD San Isidro ISD Santa Rosa ISD Schertz-Cibolo-U City ISD School Of Science And Technology Discovery Schulenburg ISD Scurry-Rosser ISD Sealy ISD Shallowater ISD Sharyland ISD Shiner ISD Slaton ISD Slocum ISD Snook ISD South Plains Academy Charter District South Texas Educational Technologies, Inc. South Texas ISD Spearman ISD Stamford ISD Step Charter School Stockdale ISD Sulphur Bluff ISD Sweeny ISD Sweetwater ISD Tarkington ISD Teague ISD Texas City ISD Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools District Texas Serenity Academy The Pro-Vision Academy The Rhodes School Thorndale ISDa Three Rivers ISD Timpson ISD Tom Bean ISD Tomball ISD Transformative Charter Academy Trinidad ISD Trinity ISD Tulia ISD Union Grove ISD Universal Academy University Of Texas Elementary Charter School Uplift Education – Hampton Preparatory Uplift Education – Williams Preparatory Valley Mills ISD Valley View ISD Vanguard Academy Venus ISD a Appendix 7-E2. Special Education Determination Status, Districts Met Requirements, Stage 1, 2015-16 (continued) Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements District Victory Prep Waco Charter School Waskom ISD Water Valley ISD Waxahachie ISD Wayside Schools Webb CISDb Weimar ISD Wellman-Union CISD Westlake Academy Charter School Wheeler ISD White Settlement ISD Whitehouse ISD Whitesboro ISD Windthorst ISD Winfree Academy Charter Schools Winnsboro ISD Winona ISD Winters ISD Woodsboro ISD Wylie ISD Wylie ISD Yorktown ISD Status Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Meets Requirements Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 183 District A+ Academy Abilene ISDa Academy Of Dallas Advantage Academy Alamo Heights ISD Anahuac ISD Angleton ISD Arrow Academy Atlanta ISD Aw Brown-Fellowship Leadership Academy Bartlett ISD Beckville ISD Beeville ISD Big Sandy ISD Big Springs Charter School Boling ISD Bonham ISD Bowie ISD Brady ISD Brazosport ISD Brenham ISD Bridgeport ISD Brownsville ISD Bruceville-Eddy ISD Buffalo ISD Burnet CISDb Caldwell ISD Callisburg ISD Cameron ISD Canton ISD Carlisle ISD Castleberry ISD Cedar Hill ISD Celeste ISD Center Point ISD Channelview ISD Charlotte ISD China Spring ISD Cleburne ISD Cleveland ISD Clifton ISD Colorado ISD Columbus ISD Comfort ISD Coolidge ISD Cooper ISD Corpus Christi ISD Corrigan-Camden ISD Crystal City ISD Dalhart ISD Dayton ISD a Appendix 7-F1. Special Education Monitoring Status, Districts in Stage 2 Intervention, 2014-15 Status Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented TEAc Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented TEA Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Noncompliance Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented District Decatur ISD Dekalb ISD Denver City ISD Desoto ISD Devine ISD Dime Box ISD Early ISD East Chambers ISD Edinburg CISD El Campo ISD Electra ISD Elgin ISD Elysian Fields ISD Eustace ISD Ferris ISD Florence ISD Fort Stockton ISD Fort Worth ISD Fredericksburg ISD Freer ISD Friona ISD Fruitvale ISD Ft Hancock ISD Gainesville ISD Garrison ISD Gilmer ISD Girls & Boys Preparatory Academy Godley ISD Grape Creek ISD Greenville ISD Hallettsville ISD Harlingen CISD Status Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Closure Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented TEA Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Noncompliance Follow-up Harmony School Of Science - Local Interventions Implemented Houston Harmony Science Academy Local Interventions Implemented (Austin) Hawkins ISD Local Interventions Implemented Hays CISD Local Interventions Implemented Hereford ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Hidalgo ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Hitchcock ISD Local Interventions Implemented Hooks ISD Local Interventions Implemented Houston ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Hughes Springs ISD Local Interventions Implemented Industrial ISD Local Interventions Implemented Iowa Park CISD Local Interventions Implemented Jacksboro ISD Local Interventions Implemented Jacksonville ISD Local Interventions Implemented Jefferson ISD Local Interventions Implemented Joaquin ISD Local Interventions Implemented Judson ISD Local Interventions Implemented Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. cTexas Education Agency. dMunicipal school district. 184 continues 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools District Kaufman ISDa Kermit ISD Killeen ISD Kipp Inc Charter Kirbyville CISDb Klein ISD La Grange ISD La Joya ISD La Villa ISD Lake Worth ISD Lamesa ISD Lancaster ISD Laredo ISD Liberty Hill ISD Little Cypress-Mauriceville CISD Llano ISD Lone Oak ISD Lubbock ISD Lumberton ISD Lytle ISD Mabank ISD Madisonville CISD Magnolia ISD Malakoff ISD Mansfield ISD Mathis ISD Maypearl ISD McGregor ISD Mercedes ISD Meridian ISD Mesquite ISD Milano ISD Mineral Wells ISD Monahans-Wickett-Pyote ISD Monte Alto ISD Moody ISD New Summerfield ISD New Waverly ISD Nixon-Smiley CISD Nova Academy (Southeast) Olney ISD Onalaska ISD Orange Grove ISD Ore City ISD Palestine ISD Pampa ISD Peaster ISD Perryton ISD Pewitt CISD Pilot Point ISD Plainview ISD a Appendix 7-F1. Special Education Monitoring Status, Districts in Stage 2 Intervention, 2014-15 (continued) Status Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up TEAc Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Noncompliance Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Noncompliance Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Noncompliance Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up District Ponder ISD Port Arthur ISD Poteet ISD Pottsboro ISD Prairiland ISD Premont ISD Princeton ISD Progreso ISD Quanah ISD Quinlan ISD Quitman ISD Red Oak ISD Rice CISD Rio Hondo ISD Rio Vista ISD Rise Academy Robinson ISD Robstown ISD Roma ISD Rusk ISD Sabinal ISD Sabine ISD San Antonio ISD San Diego ISD San Elizario ISD Santa Maria ISD Seagraves ISD Shepherd ISD Sherman ISD Shiner ISD Simms ISD Sinton ISD Skidmore-Tynan ISD Slaton ISD Snook ISD South San Antonio ISD Southwest School Spearman ISD Splendora ISD Stafford MSDd Stamford ISD Step Charter School Stephenville Sulphur Springs ISD Sweeny ISD Sweetwater ISD Taft ISD Taylor ISD Tenaha ISD Texans CAN Academies Texas Serenity Academy Thorndale ISD Thrall ISD Status Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up TEA Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. cTexas Education Agency. dMunicipal school district. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools continues 185 District Tornillo ISDa Trinity ISD Troy ISD Universal Academy Uplift Education – Williams Preparatory Uplift Education-Summit International Preparatory Valley View ISD Venus ISD Victoria ISD Victory Prep Waskom ISD Waxahachie ISD Weimar ISD a Appendix 7-F1. Special Education Monitoring Status, Districts in Stage 2 Intervention, 2014-15 (continued) Status Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented District Weslaco ISD West Oso ISD Westwood ISD Wharton ISD Wheeler ISD Whitney ISD Willis ISD Wills Point ISD Windthorst ISD Winnsboro ISD Woodsboro ISD Yoakum ISD Yorktown ISD Zapata County ISD Status Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented Completed: Routine Follow-up Local Interventions Implemented Local Interventions Implemented TEAc Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. cTexas Education Agency. dMunicipal school district. 186 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools District Abernathy ISDa Academy Of Dallas Advantage Academy Alamo Heights ISD Alief ISD Alto ISD Amarillo ISD Anahuac ISD Anna ISD Aransas County ISD Arp ISD Athens ISD Atlanta ISD Austin Achieve Public Schools Austin ISD Azle ISD Bandera ISD Beeville ISD Belton ISD Big Springs Charter School Birdville ISD Bonham ISD Borger ISD Bowie ISD Brooks County ISD Brownfield ISD Brownsville ISD Brownwood ISD Buna ISD Burton ISD Calallen ISD Canyon ISD Carrizo Springs CISDb Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD Carthage ISD Channelview ISD Clarksville ISD Clear Creek ISD Cleburne ISD Cleveland ISD Comfort ISD Conroe ISD Cooper ISD Coppell ISD Copperas Cove ISD Crandall ISD Cumberland Academy Cypress-Fairbanks ISD Decatur ISD Dekalb ISD Denton ISD Diboll ISD a Appendix 7-F2. Special Education Determination Status, Districts Need Assistance, Stage 2, 2015-16 Status Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance District Dickinson ISD Dilley ISD Dime Box ISD Eagle Pass ISD Edcouch-Elsa ISD Edinburg CISD Edna ISD El Paso ISD Elysian Fields ISD Evolution Academy Charter School Forney ISD Fort Bend ISD Frankston ISD Gatesville ISD Gateway Charter Academy Giddings ISD Girls & Boys Preparatory Academy Godley ISD Goose Creek CISD Granbury ISD Grand Prairie ISD Groesbeck ISD Hallettsville ISD Hallsville ISD Harleton ISD Harmony School Of Science Houston Harmony Science Academy Henderson ISD Hillsboro ISD Hitchcock ISD Hondo ISD Hooks ISD Houston ISD Hudson ISD Hughes Springs ISD Industrial ISD Ingleside ISD Ingram ISD International Leadership Of Texas Jacksboro ISD Jarrell ISD Jim Hogg County ISD Kennedale ISD Kerrville ISD Killeen ISD Kingsville ISD Kipp Austin Public Schools Inc Kipp San Antonio Klein ISD Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. cMunicipal school district. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Status Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance continues 187 District La Grange ISDa La Vernia ISD Lake Dallas ISD Lamar CISDb Lamesa ISD Lampasas ISD Lewisville ISD Liberty ISD Lindale ISD Littlefield ISD Livingston ISD Llano ISD Longview ISD Los Fresnos CISD Lufkin ISD Lumberton ISD Lytle ISD Mabank ISD Madisonville CISD Mansfield ISD Marble Falls ISD Mathis ISD McAllen ISD Mercedes ISD Midway ISD Montgomery ISD Moody ISD Muleshoe ISD Navasota ISD Needville ISD New Boston ISD New Waverly ISD North Lamar ISD Northside ISD Northwest ISD Onalaska ISD Orange Grove ISD Ore City ISD Palestine ISD Paris ISD Pasadena ISD Peaster ISD Phoenix Charter School Pine Tree ISD Plainview ISD Point Isabel ISD Port Neches-Groves ISD Presidio ISD Princeton ISD Priority Charter Schools Progreso ISD Quitman ISD Raymondville ISD Red Oak ISD Richardson ISD a Appendix 7-F2. Special Education Determination Status, Districts Need Assistance, Stage 2, 2015-16 (continued) Status Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance District Rio Hondo ISD Rockdale ISD Roma ISD Rusk ISD San Diego ISD San Felipe-Del Rio CISD Sanford-Fritch ISD Sanger ISD Seguin ISD Seminole ISD Shelbyville ISD Silsbee ISD Sinton ISD Skidmore-Tynan ISD Smithville ISD Socorro ISD Somerset ISD Somerville ISD South San Antonio ISD Southwest School Stafford MSDc Tatum ISD Tenaha ISD Terrell ISD Texas College Preparatory Academies Texas Leadership The East Austin College Prep Academy Thrall ISD Tornillo ISD Troy ISD University Of Texas University Charter School Uplift Education – Peak Preparatory Uplift Education-Summit International Preparatory Valley View ISD Van ISD Vidor ISD Waco ISD Waller ISD Warren ISD Weatherford ISD West Oso ISD West Sabine ISD Westwood ISD Wharton ISD Whitney ISD Willis ISD Wills Point ISD Woodville ISD Ysleta ISD Zapata County ISD Status Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Assistance Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. cMunicipal school district. 188 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools District Alto ISDa Aransas Pass ISD Arlington ISD Athens ISD Bandera ISD Bastrop ISD Bay City ISD Beaumont ISD Bloomington ISD Bryan ISD Carrizo Springs CISDc Carthage ISD Central ISD Chapel Hill ISD Clint ISD Coldspring-Oakhurst CISD Dallas ISD Del Valle ISD Donna ISD Duncanville ISD East Central ISD Edcouch-Elsa ISD Edna ISD Faith Family Academy Of Oak Cliff Focus Learning Academy Fort Bend ISD Frankston ISD Galveston ISD Garland ISD Georgetown ISD Gonzales ISD Grand Saline ISD Hempstead ISD Hillsboro ISD Huffman ISD Idalou ISD Ingleside ISD Kenedy ISD Kerrville ISD Kilgore ISD Kingsville ISD a Appendix 7-G1. Special Education Monitoring Status, Districts in Stage 3 Intervention, 2014-15 Status Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Oversight/ Sanction/ Intervention Completed: Routine Follow-up Year After TEAb On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up Oversight/ Sanction/ Intervention Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up TEA Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up TEA Integrated On-site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up Oversight/ Sanction/ Intervention TEA Integrated On-site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up TEA Integrated On-site Action Completed: Noncompliance Follow-up Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up TEA Integrated On-site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up Oversight/ Sanction/ Intervention Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up District La Marque ISD Status Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up La Vega ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Livingston ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Lockhart ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Longview ISD Oversight/ Sanction/ Intervention Luling ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Manor ISD Oversight/ Sanction/ Intervention Marlin ISD TEA Integrated On-site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Mexia ISD TEA Integrated On-site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Midland ISD Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up Mineola ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Nacogdoches ISD TEA Integrated On-site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Natalia ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Navasota ISD Oversight/ Sanction/ Intervention New Boston ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up New Caney ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Pearsall ISD TEA Integrated On-site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD TEA Integrated On-site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Presidio ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Royal ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up San Angelo ISD Oversight/ Sanction/ Intervention San Felipe-Del Rio CISD TEA Integrated On-site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Sanford-Fritch ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Seguin ISD TEA Integrated On-site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Sheldon ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Silsbee ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Snyder ISD TEA Integrated On-site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Somerville ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Southwest ISD TEA Integrated On-site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Southwest Preparatory TEA Integrated On-site Action School Completed: Routine Follow-up Spring ISD Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up Springtown ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Stockdale ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Teague ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Temple ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Terrell ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up Texas City ISD Completed: Routine Follow-up The East Austin College Prep Completed: Routine Follow-up Academy Independent school district. bTexas Education Agency. cConsolidated independent school district. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools continues 189 District Three Rivers ISDa Trinity Basin Preparatory United ISD a Appendix 7-G1. Special Education Monitoring Status, Districts in Stage 3 Intervention, 2014-15 (continued) Status Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Noncompliance Follow-up Year After TEAb On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up District Uvalde CISDc West Orange-Cove CISD Status Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up Independent school district. bTexas Education Agency. cConsolidated independent school district. 190 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools District Aldine ISDa Alvin ISD Angleton ISD Arlington ISD Aw Brown-Fellowship Leadership Academy Bay City ISD Beaumont ISD Brazosport ISD Brenham ISD Bridgeport ISD Bryan ISD C O R E Academy Canutillo ISD Cedar Hill ISD Center ISD Chapel Hill ISD Clint ISD College Station ISD Columbia-Brazoria ISD Connally ISD Corpus Christi ISD Corrigan-Camden ISD Cotulla ISD Crockett ISD Crosby ISD Crowley ISD Crystal City ISD Dallas ISD Del Valle ISD Desoto ISD Dimmitt ISD Donna ISD Duncanville ISD El Campo ISD Elgin ISD Ennis ISD Everman ISD Fairfield ISD Floresville ISD Focus Learning Academy Fort Worth ISD Fredericksburg ISD Gainesville ISD Galena Park ISD Garland ISD Gonzales ISD Graham ISD Greenville ISD Harlingen CISDb Hays CISD Hearne ISD Hempstead ISD Hidalgo ISD a Appendix 7-G2. Special Education Determination Status, Districts Need Intervention, Stage 3, 2015-16 Status Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools District Irving ISD Jasper ISD Jubilee Academic Center Judson ISD Kilgore ISD Kipp Dallas-Fort Worth Kipp Inc Charter La Joya ISD La Vega ISD Lancaster ISD Laredo ISD Legacy Preparatory Levelland ISD Liberty-Eylau ISD Life School Little Cypress-Mauriceville CISD Lockhart ISD Lubbock ISD Luling ISD Magnolia ISD Marlin ISD Marshall ISD Mesquite ISD Midland ISD Mineral Wells ISD Mission CISD Monahans-Wickett-Pyote ISD Mount Pleasant ISD New Caney ISD New Frontiers Charter School Nova Academy (Southeast) Pampa ISD Pearsall ISD Perryton ISD Pflugerville ISD Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD Pleasanton ISD Queen City ISD Richard Milburn Alter High School (Killeen) Rio Vista ISD Robinson ISD Robstown ISD Royal ISD San Angelo ISD San Antonio ISD San Benito CISD San Marcos CISD Sherman ISD Simms ISD Snyder ISD Southwest ISD Spring Branch ISD Status Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention continues 191 District Spring ISDa Springtown ISD Stanton ISD Taylor ISD Temple ISD Texans CAN Academies Trinity Basin Preparatory Tuloso-Midway ISD United ISD a Appendix 7-G2. Special Education Determination Status, Districts Need Intervention, Stage 3, 2015-16 (continued) Status Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention District Vernon ISD Victoria ISD Weslaco ISD West Orange-Cove CISDb Wichita Falls ISD Yes Prep Public Schools Inc Yoakum ISD Status Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Need Intervention Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. 192 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools District Aldine ISDa Alice ISD Alief ISD Alvarado ISD Big Spring ISD Connally ISD Corsicana ISD Cuero ISD Denison ISD Ector County ISD Edgewood ISD Gladewater ISD Goliad ISD Harlandale ISD a Appendix 7-H1. Special Education Monitoring Status, Districts in Stage 4 Intervention, 2014-15 Status Year After TEAb On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up TEA Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Noncompliance Follow-up TEA Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up Oversight/ Sanction/ Intervention Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up TEA Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up District Huntsville ISD Irving ISD Jasper ISD Liberty-Eylau ISD Lufkin ISD Mission CISDc Raymondville ISD Smithville ISD Southside ISD Texarkana ISD Tyler ISD Vidor ISD Waco ISD Yes Prep Public Schools Inc Status Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Year After TEA On-Site Action: Routine Follow-up TEA Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Oversight/ Sanction/ Intervention Completed: Routine Follow-up TEA Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Noncompliance Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up TEA Integrated On-Site Action Completed: Routine Follow-up Completed: Routine Follow-up Independent school district. bTexas Education Agency. cConsolidated independent school district. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 193 District Andrews ISDa Corsicana ISD Dayton ISD East Central ISD Ector County ISD Huntsville ISD Manor ISD Nacogdoches ISD a Appendix 7-H2. Special Education Determination Status, Districts Need Substantial Intervention, Stage 4, 2015-16 Status Need Substantial Intervention Need Substantial Intervention Need Substantial Intervention Need Substantial Intervention Need Substantial Intervention Need Substantial Intervention Need Substantial Intervention Need Substantial Intervention District Port Arthur ISD Rio Grande City CISDb Southside ISD Sheldon ISD Texarkana ISD Tyler ISD Uvalde CISD Status Need Substantial Intervention Need Substantial Intervention Need Substantial Intervention Need Substantial Intervention Need Substantial Intervention Need Substantial Intervention Need Substantial Intervention Independent school district. bConsolidated independent school district. 194 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 8. Status of the Curriculum T he Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), codified in Title 19 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Chapters 110-118, 126-128, and 130, became effective in all content areas and grade levels on September 1, 1998. The TEKS identify what students are expected to know and be able to do at the end of each course or grade level. Statute originally required that the TEKS be used for instruction in the foundation areas of English language arts and reading, mathematics, science, and social studies. TEKS in the enrichment subjects, including health education, physical education, fine arts, career and technical education, technology applications, languages other than English, and economics, served as guidelines, rather than requirements. In 2003, the 78th Texas Legislature added enrichment subjects to the list of subject areas required to use the TEKS. The state continues to promote rigorous and high standards by: ♦ facilitating review and revision of the TEKS; ♦ providing leadership to the regional education service centers (ESCs) as they help districts and charter schools implement the TEKS; ♦ supporting State Board of Education (SBOE) adoption of instructional materials aligned to the TEKS; ♦ aligning the statewide assessment, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), to the TEKS; and ♦ incorporating college and career readiness standards into the TEKS. The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills and the Texas College and Career Readiness Standards Overview In 2006, the 79th Texas Legislature passed House Bill (HB) 1, which became Texas Education Code (TEC) §28.008, "Advancement of College Readiness in Curriculum." The legislation required that the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) work collaboratively toward the creation of college and career readiness standards (CCRS). The Texas CCRS 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools reflect what students should know and be able to demonstrate in order to be successful in entry-level college courses. The statute required the formation of vertical teams (VTs) composed of secondary and postsecondary faculty from four subject-specific content areas: English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. The work of the VTs was organized in three phases. The first phase entailed a number of team meetings to create the CCRS for all four subject areas. The remaining two phases of the project required the four subject-specific VTs to evaluate the high school curriculum in relation to the CCRS. Phase two required the VTs to recommend how public school curriculum requirements could be aligned with the CCRS, and phase three required the VTs to develop or establish instructional strategies, professional development materials, and online support materials for students who need additional assistance in preparing to successfully perform college-level work. Teams also engaged in a series of gap analyses to ensure alignment between the adopted TEKS and the CCRS. THECB adopted the college readiness standards in January 2008. The commissioner of education approved the college readiness standards, and the SBOE incorporated the Texas CCRS into the TEKS in the following subject areas: English language arts and reading (2008), mathematics (2009), science (2009), social studies (2010), career and technical education (2010), technology applications (2011), fine arts (2013), and languages other than English (2014). In 2013, the 83rd Texas Legislature passed HB 2549, amending TEC §28.008 to require that the VTs periodically review and revise the CCRS. The legislation also required the commissioner of education and the THECB to develop a schedule for the review of the CCRS, giving consideration to the cycle for the review of the TEKS. In 2015, the 84th Texas Legislature amended TEC §28.008 to require that the SBOE adopt by rule a chart indicating the alignment of the CCRS with the TEKS. In January 2016, the SBOE adopted 19 TAC §74.6, which demonstrates the alignment of the TEKS with the mathematics, science, social studies, and crossdisciplinary CCRS. The SBOE is scheduled to adopt a chart demonstrating the alignment of the TEKS with the English language arts CCRS following adoption of revisions to the English and Spanish language arts and reading TEKS. 195 Professional Development and Programs Targeting Student Success Overview One important function the agency performs is providing support for training of classroom teachers. While most districts provide professional development at the local level, the state also contributes by providing teachers extensive support around the TEKS, the state's mandated curriculum standards. The state provides evidence-based instructional strategies in a variety of formats, including face-to-face and online training. The state currently offers professional development opportunities in English language arts and reading, mathematics, science, social studies, career and technical education, fine arts, and the English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS). These professional development opportunities are designed to strengthen participants' content knowledge, as well as to emphasize connections to the CCRS and ELPS and support for students with disabilities and students identified as gifted and talented. The professional development is designed to help participants learn to provide differentiated instruction that meets the needs of a diverse student population. Although the primary focus of professional development is on classroom teachers, administrators are also able to take advantage of professional development opportunities by either participating in the teacher trainings or taking part in administrator overview training. In 2009, TEA launched Project Share, an initiative designed to make professional development and teacher resources available in online formats. The initiative, which began as a small collection of online courses, has continued to grow and now provides an extensive offering of professional development courses, teacher and administrator resources, formative assessment systems, and TEKS-aligned student lessons. Given Project Share's growth and the advancement of online learning systems since the 2009 launch, TEA transitioned to a content management and delivery system during the 2015-16 school year and rebranded the new online environment as the Texas Gateway. This transition eliminated account creation requirements; made teacher and student resources more easily accessible through the use of faceted searches, embedded codes, and sharable links; and enabled integration with districts' local learning management systems. Since 2010, teachers have had online access to the Elementary School Students in Texas: Algebra Ready (ESTAR) and Middle School Students in Texas: Algebra Ready (MSTAR) system. The ESTAR/MSTAR system enables teachers to measure algebra readiness knowledge and skills in students in Grades 2-8 through a series of universal screeners and diagnostic assessments. The information gathered from the 196 ESTAR/MSTAR system allows teachers to identify students who need additional instruction and support in algebra-related knowledge and skills. Teachers are supported in using the ESTAR/MSTAR system through a series of online professional development courses that explain how to administer the screeners and diagnostics properly and how to interpret the results and adjust instruction accordingly. Other online resources include the Texas Achievement Items Repository (TxAIR), a web-based application that enables teachers to create TEKS-aligned formative assessments for mathematics and science in Grades 312, and OnTRACK Lessons, an extensive series of TEKS-aligned student lessons. OnTRACK Lessons can be used to supplement classroom instruction and provide accelerated instruction for students in Grades 7-12. The transition from traditional, face-to-face support to an online environment has enabled TEA to publish online resources for teachers and students more efficiently and to improve those resources on an ongoing basis through updates and enhancements. It has also given TEA the ability to share no-cost teacher and student resources across the various learning management solutions used by Texas public school districts and open-enrollment charters. English and Spanish Language Arts and Reading The TEKS in English and Spanish language arts and reading address such important basic skills as spelling, grammar, language usage, and punctuation. They also include critical CCRS in each of the following organized strands. ♦ Reading. Students read and understand a wide variety of literary and informational texts. ♦ Writing. Students compose a variety of written texts with a clear controlling idea, coherent organization, and sufficient detail. ♦ Research. Students locate a range of relevant sources and evaluate, synthesize, and present ideas and information. ♦ Listening and speaking. Students listen and respond to the ideas of others while contributing their own ideas in conversations and in groups. ♦ Oral and written conventions. Students use the oral and written conventions of the English and Spanish languages in speaking and writing. The SBOE began review and revision of the current English and Spanish language arts and reading TEKS in summer 2015 by appointing individuals to serve on review committees. Committee recommendations for revisions to the current TEKS were shared with the 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools SBOE in summer 2016. The SBOE is expected to approve revised English and Spanish language arts and reading TEKS in 2017 for implementation in a future school year. Professional development courses to support teachers of middle school students experiencing difficulties in reading are provided online through the Texas Gateway. In addition to the various professional development opportunities, online lessons to support student success in English language arts and reading are also provided through the Texas Gateway. OnTRACK Lessons for students in Grades 6-8 and students taking English I, English II, and English III are currently available or will soon be available through the Texas Gateway. Additionally, online diagnostics and lessons were made available through Texas Students Using Curriculum Content to Ensure Sustained Success (SUCCESS) to support students and provide accelerated reading instruction in Grades 3-8 during the 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 school years. English I and II programs have been added for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 school years. These reading programs provide online, interactive reading lessons. Professional development to support educators in writing instruction began in the summer of 2014 and will continue through the 2016-17 school year. The training is part of the Write for Texas initiative and is available through a series of modules posted on the Texas Gateway. Write for Texas also includes online writing evaluation software, which teachers in selected districts use to supplement evaluation of student writing in secondary English language arts classrooms. Write for Texas is a collaborative effort among TEA, the Institute for Public School Initiatives at the University of Texas at Austin, the Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, the regional ESCs, National Writing Project of Texas sites, and Texas public school districts. Professional development focused on reading instruction was implemented in summer 2016. Literacy Achievement Academies provide support for teachers of students in Grades K-3 and focus on effective and systematic instructional practices in reading, including phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. In summer 2016, TEA launched Literacy Achievement Academies for teachers who provide reading instruction to students in kindergarten and Grade 1. Literacy Achievement Academies for teachers who provide reading instruction to students in Grades 2 and 3 will be made available in summer 2017. Additionally, Reading-to-Learn Academies will be made available in summer 2017 for teachers who provide reading comprehension instruction to students in Grades 4 and 5. Reading-to-Learn Academies will include effective instructional practices that promote student development of reading comprehension and inferential and critical thinking. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Mathematics Overview The revised mathematics TEKS for Grades K-12 that were adopted by the SBOE in April 2012 were implemented for Grades K-8 in the 2014-15 school year. In 2015-16, revised TEKS for high school mathematics courses were implemented across the state. Also available in 2015-16 were two new SBOE-approved mathematics courses, Algebraic Reasoning and Statistics, neither of which require Algebra II as a prerequisite. Both courses are comparable to Algebra II in rigor and incorporate the Texas CCRS. TEA developed supporting information documents for the mathematics TEKS for Grades K-8, Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry, Mathematical Models with Applications, Precalculus, Advanced Quantitative Reasoning, Algebraic Reasoning, and Statistics. These documents complement the side-by-side TEKS comparison documents that were created to demonstrate the alignment between the revised TEKS and the previous TEKS and to assist teachers as they transition to the revised TEKS. The ESTAR universal screener and diagnostic assessments were made available statewide in the 2015-16 school year. Additionally, the Interactive Mathematics Glossary for Grades K- 8 was launched in 2015 as a resource for teachers. To support elementary school teachers who provide instruction in mathematics, TEA made available the face-to-face Mathematics Achievement Academies beginning in summer 2016. The Mathematics Achievement Academies are designed for teachers who provide mathematics instruction to students in Grades K- 3 and focus on effective and systematic instructional practices in mathematics, including problem solving, the place value system, whole number operations, and fractions. Mathematics Achievement Academies for teachers of Grades 2 and 3 were made available in summer 2016, and an academy for teachers of kindergarten and Grade 1 is expected to be available in summer 2017. The ESTAR/MSTAR System and Other Resources to Support Students Who Struggle in Mathematics The ESTAR/MSTAR universal screener and the ESTAR/MSTAR diagnostic assessments assist teachers as they work with students to build algebra readiness knowledge and skills. The universal screener is an online formative assessment tool administered to students in Grades 2-8. Screener results help teachers identify students who need additional instructional support in developing knowledge and skills related directly to algebra readiness. A student identified as at risk of not acquiring algebra readiness knowledge and skills completes a diagnostic assessment to help determine 197 the areas in which he or she is having difficulty and to provide information the teacher can use to plan additional instruction. The ESTAR/MSTAR system is available at no cost to all Texas public school districts and open-enrollment charter schools. Enrollment in, and use of, the system occur each school year across three administration windows: beginning of year, middle of year, and end of year. Teachers who use the ESTAR/MSTAR system also have access to online training designed to explain the purpose of the system and how to interpret and use results from the screener and diagnostics. Use of the ESTAR/MSTAR system continues to grow. Over 560,000 ESTAR/MSTAR screeners and diagnostics were completed during the 2015-16 school year, an increase of 7.0 percent from the previous year. Once a struggling student is identified, teachers and students may access other online resources designed to provide additional practice, instruction, and support. Examples of these resources for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years included the following: • OnTRACK lessons—interactive, TEKSaligned lessons available on the Texas Gateway—for Grades 7 and 8 mathematics, Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II • TxAIR—an application used by teachers to create and assign personalized formative assessments—for Grades 3-8 mathematics, Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II Science Overview The science TEKS require that students investigate topics in depth to develop scientific observation, problemsolving, and critical-thinking skills throughout all grade levels. The TEKS also require that 40 percent of time spent on Grades 6-12 science instruction be devoted to laboratory and field investigations. The TEKS for science were last revised in 2009 and were implemented in classrooms beginning with the 2010-11 school year. Streamlining of the science TEKS began in the summer of 2016 and is expected to conclude in 2017. Following the same professional development models for English language arts and reading and mathematics, training on the science TEKS began in the spring of 2010. Science TEKS professional development available through the Texas Gateway includes Science TEKS Overview Grades K-12, Science Academies for Grades 5-8, and science safety training for elementary, middle, and high school. 198 The agency has also deployed professional development for teachers who provide science instruction to students in Grades K-8. The Grades K-4 Science Academies were made available in June 2015 and focused on Earth science. The Grades 5-8 Science Academies were made available in June 2016 and focused on physics. Both Science Academies are available in a face-to-face format through the regional ESCs or online through the Texas Gateway. TEKS-aligned science resources for teachers and students are also available through the Texas Gateway. In addition, the Texas Environmental Education Advisory Committee (TEEAC) continues to offer training for museums, zoos, nature centers, and other informal providers of professional development for educators. TEEAC providers have submitted TEKSaligned resources, such as a Texas-specific aquatic science resource submitted by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, for posting on Texas Education on iTunes U. Programs to Support Learning in Science A number of targeted grant programs support instruction and learning in the area of science. For example, the Texas Regional Collaboratives for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching support a network of K-16 partnerships to provide high-quality, sustained, and intensive teacher mentoring focused on strengthening science and mathematics content and pedagogy. Additionally, professional development opportunities for teachers of six career and technical education courses that may satisfy science credit requirements for graduation were made available through Project Share (now the Texas Gateway) beginning in 2012. The six courses are Advanced Animal Science, Advanced Biotechnology, Advanced Plant and Soil Science, Engineering Design and Problem Solving, Food Science, and Forensic Science. Resources for students are also available through the Texas Gateway and include OnTRACK lessons in the following grade levels and courses: Grade 8 science, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. Kid2Kid videos, a series of videos that explain important science concepts in both English and Spanish, are available on Texas Education on iTunes U. TxAIR provides teachers with online tools to assess science knowledge and skills in Grades 3-8 and in high school Biology, Integrated Physics and Chemistry, Chemistry, and Physics. It also serves as a formative assessment tool for teachers and identifies content and skills that must be addressed to help students succeed on STAAR, including the Biology end-of-course assessment. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Social Studies The social studies TEKS in all grade levels and courses include strands in history; geography; economics; government; citizenship; culture; science, technology, and society; and social studies skills. The eight strands are integrated for instructional purposes across Grades K-12, with the history and geography strands establishing a sense of time and place. The skills strand, in particular, supports deeper understanding of complex content by requiring students to analyze primary and secondary sources and apply critical-thinking and decision-making skills. In addition, the science, technology, and society strand provides students with an opportunity to evaluate the effects of major scientific and technological discoveries and innovations on societies throughout history. In 2013, the 83rd Texas Legislature amended TEC §28.0021 to require that school districts and open-enrollment charter schools offering a high school program provide a half-credit elective course in personal financial literacy. In 2016, the SBOE adopted TEKS for the new Personal Financial Literacy course, which districts and charter schools must offer beginning with the 2016-17 school year. In addition to providing professional development courses through the Texas Gateway (formerly Project Share), TEA provides resources for teachers and students, including OnTRACK lessons in Grade 8 social studies, U.S. History, World Geography, and World History, as well as other TEKS-aligned Texas Gateway resources. Additionally, TEA continues to collaborate with organizations such as the Bullock Texas State History Museum, the Institute of Texan Cultures, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, as well as Texas public schools and institutions of higher education to provide curriculum materials and professional development opportunities for social studies teachers through Texas Education on iTunes U. Career and Technical Education Career and technical education (CTE) is organized into 16 Career Clusters and 81 career pathways endorsed by the U.S. Department of Education. The Career Clusters, groupings of occupations and industries based on skills and knowledge, support the Governor's Industry Cluster Initiative, which targets high-growth, high-paying jobs for the 21st century Texas economy. The Career Clusters provide an organizing framework for programs of study and a recommended sequence of coursework for college and career preparation based on a student's interest or career goal. Strategic goals for CTE support high school redesign to effectively prepare every student for college and career success. More than one million students enroll in CTE courses each year to explore and prepare for careers of personal interest. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools In mid-2014, the SBOE convened committees to review the current CTE TEKS. The SBOE sought input from educators, professional organizations, business and industry professionals, and higher education representatives throughout the review process. In 2015, the SBOE adopted revisions to the CTE TEKS, which are scheduled to be implemented in the 2017-18 school year. The revised TEKS further align CTE courses with rigorous and challenging academic content standards and student academic achievement standards. Additionally, the revised CTE TEKS emphasize the development of students' general employability skills. Online professional development focusing on the changes to the TEKS will be made available for CTE teachers, counselors, and administrators beginning in the spring of 2017. In 2013, the 83rd Texas Legislature added Texas Labor Code §302.014, requiring that TEA and the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) provide quarterly information on current and projected employment opportunities across the state. TEA has partnered with TWC to provide occupational and labor market information concerning employment opportunities around the state. The Help Wanted Online website provides up-to-date information about employment opportunities, projected job openings, and wages in a number of occupational areas by county, ESC, and local workforce development area. TEA and TWC provide districts with information to use in their local planning and implementation of CTE and training programs. The TWC updates the information at least quarterly and disaggregates the data by county and region. Districts will be able to use this information to plan their CTE programs based on state and regional occupational opportunities. Ongoing projects addressed in the state plan for CTE include maintaining updated programs of study, identifying the CCRS in the CTE TEKS, and providing professional development for CTE teachers, administrators, and counselors. The CTE Professional Development Contract funds annual conferences for new CTE teachers and administrators, as well as an annual academy for counselors who wish to learn more about CTE. The academies are nine-month events divided into three parts: a three-day, face-to-face event in the fall, an ongoing project that spans the school year and furthers the participants' goals for the school year, and a final face-to-face event the following summer. Academy participants focus on the development of district CTE programs that are of the highest quality and focus on success of the student, workforce needs, postsecondary alignment options, and employer engagement. In addition to providing support for career and technical instructional programs, TEA developed the State Plan for Career and Technical Education, 2008-2013, as required under TEC §29.182. The agency reviews the plan annually, updating it as needed, and submits a consolidated annual report to the U.S. Department of 199 Education, as required by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006. Fine Arts The disciplines encompassed by the fine arts TEKS are art, dance, music, and theatre. At the high school level, a wide array of courses provides choices for students studying the arts as a lifelong interest or career. Under TEC §28.002, students in Grades 6-8 are required to complete a minimum of one TEKS-based fine arts course during those grade levels as part of a district's fine arts curriculum. High school students must complete one credit in fine arts as part of any graduation program. Revisions to the fine arts TEKS were implemented beginning with the 2015-16 school year. Many new courses are now available for each of the fine arts disciplines, including dance courses at the middle school level. In 2013, the 83rd Texas Legislature amended TEC §28.025 to allow a school district, with the approval of the commissioner of education, to provide the option for a student following the Foundation High School Program to satisfy the required fine arts credit by participating in a community-based fine arts program not provided by the school district. The fine arts program must provide instruction in the TEKS identified for fine arts by the SBOE. Health and Physical Education The TEKS for health education and physical education allow students in Grades K-12 to acquire the information and skills needed to become healthy adults. Instruction in health education is required in Grades K-8. The K-8 health education TEKS are organized around four key strands: health behaviors, health information, influencing factors, and personal/interpersonal skills. The K-8 health TEKS address bullying prevention, including evidence-based practices regarding bullying and harassment awareness, prevention, identification, self-defense, resolution, and intervention. In Grades 4-8, the knowledge and skills related to bullying prevention make up a fifth strand. At the high school level, two health education courses, Health 1 and Advanced Health, are available to students for elective credit. In 2015, the 84th Texas Legislature amended TEC §28.002 to require that the SBOE adopt TEKS for health education that address the dangers, causes, consequences, signs, symptoms, and treatment of nonmedical use of prescription drugs. The SBOE is expected to review and adopt revisions to the health TEKS that align with this requirement in the 2017-18 school year. 200 The physical education TEKS focus on helping students acquire the knowledge and skills for movement that provide the foundation for enjoyment, social development through physical activity, and access to a physically active lifestyle. The physical education TEKS are aligned around three strands: movement, physical activity and health, and social development. Instruction in the physical education TEKS is required in Grades K-8. At the high school level, students are required to earn one credit in physical education or an approved substitute. Languages Other than English In 2014, the SBOE gave final approval to revisions to the languages other than English (LOTE) TEKS. The revised LOTE TEKS incorporate the CCRS; include clearer, more concise student expectations; establish separate TEKS for each proficiency level; eliminate American Sign Language (ASL) Levels V-VII; and add new courses in Seminar in LOTE (Advanced) and ASL (Advanced Independent Study). The revised TEKS are scheduled to be implemented in the 2017-18 school year. Under the high school graduation programs available to students who entered Grade 9 prior to the 2014-15 school year, the Minimum High School Program has no LOTE requirement. Under the Foundation High School Program, established by the 83rd Texas Legislature, all students are required to complete two credits in a single language other than English and may satisfy the requirement with two credits in computer programming languages (TEC §28.025). The SBOE has identified Computer Science I, II, and III as the computer programming language courses that may satisfy the LOTE requirement. A student may substitute credit in an appropriate course for the second credit in LOTE if the student, in completing the first credit, demonstrates that he or she is unlikely to be able to complete the second credit. The SBOE has identified the following courses as appropriate substitutions for the second credit: Special Topics in Language and Culture, World History Studies or World Geography Studies (for a student who is not required to complete both by the local district), another LOTE course, and a computer programming language course. As required under TEC §28.025, the SBOE adopted rules that permit a student who, due to disability, is unable to complete two courses in a single language other than English to substitute a combination of two credits from English language arts, mathematics, science, or social studies; two credits in CTE; or two credits in technology applications. Board rules require that a credit allowed to be substituted may not also be used to satisfy a graduation credit requirement other than credit for completion of a language other than English. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Technology Applications The technology applications curriculum focuses on teaching, learning, and integrating digital technology knowledge and skills across the curriculum to support learning and promote student achievement. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requires that every student be technology literate by the time the student finishes Grade 8. The technology applications TEKS address the technology literacy and integration recommendations in the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020, and the requirements for students and educators specified in NCLB, Title II, Part D. There are technology applications educator standards for all beginning teachers, for teachers who want specialized technology applications certificates, and for those who want to become certified as master technology teachers. In 2011, the SBOE revised the technology applications TEKS to incorporate the CCRS. The revised TEKS were implemented in Texas classrooms beginning with the 2012-13 school year. In April 2014, the SBOE revised the required secondary curriculum in 19 TAC Chapter 74, Subchapter A, to require that districts and charter schools offer Computer Science I and Computer Science II or Advanced Placement (AP) Computer Science, and two additional technology applications courses at the high school level. In 2015, the SBOE approved TEKS for the new AP Computer Science Principles course for use beginning with the 2016-17 school year. English Language Learners Overview Instructional programs in bilingual education and English as a second language (ESL) serve students in prekindergarten through Grade 12 whose primary language is not English and who have been identified as English language learners (ELLs) in accordance with state identification and assessment requirements outlined in 19 TAC §89.1225. While more than 122 languages are spoken in the homes of Texas public school students, Spanish is the language spoken in 91 percent of homes in which English is not the primary language. In the 2015-16 school year, 980,591 students were identified as ELLs, an increase of 3.3 percent from the 949,074 students identified as ELLs in the 2014-15 school year. standards must be integrated with instruction in each subject in the required curriculum. The ELPS Instructional Tool trainings offered by ESCs identify for educators the essential components for supporting ELLs at the beginning and intermediate levels of English language proficiency. Training is also offered on the ELPS Linguistic Instructional Alignment Guide to allow teachers to see the connections among the ELPS, the CCRS, Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) Proficiency Level Descriptors, and linguistic accommodations. SBOE Proclamations 2014, 2015, and 2017 called for instructional materials that incorporate the ELPS in English language arts and reading, mathematics, science, and social studies. Programs Targeting English Language Learners Districts must offer summer school programs in accordance with requirements under TEC §29.060 for ELLs who will be eligible for admission to kindergarten or Grade 1 at the beginning of the following school year. Instruction must focus on language development and essential knowledge and skills appropriate to the level of the student. Self-paced professional development courses for teachers are available on the Texas English Language Learners Portal. Online training and resources on the ELPS are available on the ELPS support center website for both teachers and administrators. The website includes the ELPS Academy courses, which assist teachers in understanding how the ELPS provide cross-curricular, second language acquisition essential knowledge and skills for listening, reading, and writing for each content area. The Texas English Language Learner Instructional Tool (TELLIT) courses help teachers learn how to address the linguistic, cognitive, and affective needs of ELLs in mathematics, science, and social studies. A TELLIT course for campus and district administrators was developed to help campus and district leaders conduct walk-through classroom observations and provide meaningful feedback to classroom teachers regarding ELL instruction. Training resources and video vignettes on the Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC) Framework are also available online. All school districts required to provide bilingual education or ESL programs must establish and operate an LPAC. English Language Proficiency Standards Gifted/Talented Education In November 2007, the SBOE adopted the English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS) as part of the required curriculum. The ELPS include English language proficiency level descriptors and cross-curricular standards for what students should know and be able to do as they acquire the English language. These In September 2009, the SBOE adopted an updated Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students. The updates ensure the state plan continues to align with the Texas Education Code. The state plan addresses the areas of student identification and assessment, service design, curriculum and instruction, 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 201 professional development, and family-community involvement. The Texas Performance Standards Project (TPSP) was originally developed in 2002-03 as a resource for teachers and schools for differentiating instruction to gifted/talented (G/T) students. The goal of TPSP is to provide resources for G/T teachers and students that allow students to create professional quality work in alignment with the state plan. TPSP provides sample tasks and an assessment structure for G/T students in the areas of English language arts and reading, mathematics, science, and social studies. TPSP materials address the following grade-level spans: primary (Grades K-2), intermediate (Grades 3-5), middle school (Grades 6-8), and high school (Grades 9-12). Additionally, state-provided professional development for the TEKS includes strategies for differentiating instruction to meet the needs of all learners, including G/T students. Kindergarten and Prekindergarten Education TEKS for kindergarten were developed for each content area, excluding CTE. The kindergarten TEKS identify concepts and skills that children are expected to know and be able to do by the end of the kindergarten year. The TEKS apply to both full- and half-day kindergarten programs. The state's prekindergarten guidelines were originally adopted by the commissioner of education in 2008. The guidelines provide a means to align prekindergarten programs with the TEKS. Instructional materials for prekindergarten systems were adopted by the SBOE in Proclamation 2011. In fall 2015, TEA established a 13-member review committee consisting of classroom teachers, public school administrators, and higher education faculty and researchers from across the state to participate in the revision of the Texas Prekindergarten Guidelines. The revised prekindergarten guidelines are aligned with the current kindergarten TEKS, sequenced to follow child development, and provide teaching strategies for each of the guidelines. The revised prekindergarten guidelines offer educators the information and support to prepare all children for success in kindergarten. The updated guidelines will be implemented beginning with the 2016-17 school year. For each year of the biennium, the Texas Legislature, TEA, and the Texas Workforce Commission have supported and funded the Texas School Ready! (TSR!) Grant implemented through the Children's Learning Institute (CLI) at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. This state-led effort supports collaboration among all early childhood programs in Texas and provides a high quality early childhood education 202 program based on proven school readiness components. Through this effort, the state launched CLI Engage, a free online learning platform for TSR! components. The platform houses professional development courses; coaching; collaboration, classroom observation, and child progress monitoring tools; and sample activities aligned with the Texas Prekindergarten Guidelines. The platform is available to all Texas public school districts, charter schools, Head Start programs, and licensed child care providers participating in the Texas Rising Star Program. Additionally, the CLI's Professional Development Partnerships for Early Childhood Education Project facilitates increased participation in professional development for early childhood education professionals seeking completion of a child development associate's or general associate's degree. Established in 2014, the Early Childhood Data System (ECDS) is used to collect early childhood data in the Texas Student Data System. ECDS provides valuable data regarding the effectiveness of prekindergarten programs in preparing children for success in kindergarten. In 2015, the 84th Texas Legislature amended TEC Chapter 29 by adding Subchapter E-1, High-Quality Prekindergarten Grant Program. In preparation for the High-Quality Prekindergarten Grant Program, TEA updated the 2008 prekindergarten guidelines, identified family engagement strategies, established a list of commissioner-approved prekindergarten monitoring instruments, determined high-quality prekindergarten teacher qualification requirements, and adopted rules for the implementation of the High-Quality Prekindergarten Grant Program in 19 TAC 102.1003. The 84th Texas Legislature also amended TEC §29.1532 to increase prekindergarten reporting requirements for all Texas school districts and openenrollment charter schools. The additional prekindergarten data reporting requirements will assist the agency in producing annual early childhood education reports that will be made available to the public. The first of those reports was published in July 2016 and focuses on demographic and enrollment data from prekindergarten classrooms across the state. Texas Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Initiative The Texas Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (T-STEM) Initiative is designed to improve instruction and academic performance in scienceand mathematics-related subjects in Texas secondary schools. The initiative was developed in 2006 by TEA in collaboration with the Texas High School Project (now known as Educate Texas). Recognized as one of the most well-developed STEM networks in the country, the T-STEM Initiative builds 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools on state and local efforts to improve mathematics and science achievement among all Texas students and focuses on increasing the number of students who study and enter science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. The initiative offers a strategic approach to empowering Texas educators with the tools needed to transform teaching and learning methods. The T-STEM Initiative promotes education strategies that integrate the teaching of STEM in a way that challenges students to innovate and invent. T-STEM coursework requires students to demonstrate understanding of these disciplines in an environment that models real-world contexts for postsecondary learning and work. The approach used by the T-STEM academies creates learning environments in which students build relationships with educators, are challenged with rigorous lessons, and are excited by subjects made relevant to their lives. Students participating in T-STEM education graduate prepared to pursue postsecondarylevel coursework and careers in STEM. For the 2016-17 school year, 121 T-STEM academies were designated across Texas, including 76 campuses serving Grades 6-12, and 45 campuses serving Grades 9-12. Of the T-STEM academies, 23 campuses were also Early College High School campuses. The T-STEM designation process allows campuses implementing the T-STEM blueprint to apply to be recognized for their innovative practices. The T-STEM blueprint provides benchmarks the academies use as guideposts for implementation. The academies are supported by seven T-STEM centers, representing partnerships among universities, ESCs, local education agencies, and nonprofit organizations that create highquality professional development and STEM instructional materials for Texas teachers and administrators. Additionally, the centers provide technical assistance, support blueprint implementation, disseminate promising practices and research-based strategies, and support academies in creating strategic partnerships. receive professional development and membership in the ECHS Network. TEA, through ESC Region 13, awarded ECHS demonstration site grants to 13 campuses across the state. The purpose of the ECHS Demonstration Site Grant is to provide financial and technical support to highperforming ECHS campuses implementing effective practices, as defined by TEA's ECHS Blueprint. ECHS demonstration site campuses provide mentoring, technical assistance, webinars, and open house opportunities to new and prospective ECHS school leaders. The selected ECHS demonstration sites also share effective practices through the ECHS website and regional and statewide conferences. Campuses eligible for funding were required to have been a TEA-designated ECHS for at least four years (with a graduated class) and be at an exemplar level in at least three domains of the TEA ECHS Blueprint. Recipients of the 2016-17 Demonstration Site Grant include Bryan Collegiate High School (Bryan Independent School District [ISD]), Collegiate High School (Corpus Christi ISD), Early College Academy at Southridge (Spring ISD), Trinidad "Trini" Garza Early College High School (Dallas ISD), Legacy Early College High School (Taylor ISD), Memorial Early College High School with St. Phillip's (Comal ISD), Pasadena Early College High School (Pasadena ISD), PSJA North Early College High School (Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD), PSJA Thomas Jefferson T-STEM Early College High School (Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD), Quest Early College High School (Humble ISD), Valle Verde Early College High School (Ysleta ISD), and Victory Early College High School (Aldine ISD). Table 8.1 ECHSa Campuses and Districts with ECHS Campuses, 2014-15 through 2016-17 ECHS campuses Districts with ECHS campuses a Early College High Schools Early College High Schools (ECHS) are innovative high schools that allow students least likely to attend college or those who wish to accelerate completion of high school opportunities to earn high school diplomas and up to 60 college credit hours. In spring 2009, TEA implemented an annual designation process to identify and recognize schools that demonstrate adherence to the key components of the ECHS model that make it successful. Some of the components include providing dual credit at no cost to students, offering rigorous and accelerated courses, providing academic and social support services, increasing college readiness, and reducing barriers to college access. Designated ECHS campuses 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 2014-15 2015-16 110 153 80 109 2016-17 164 116 Early College High School. High School Graduation Requirements In 2013, the 83rd Texas Legislature amended TEC §28.025 to transition from the three current high school graduation programs—the Minimum, Recommended, and Advanced High School Programs—to one Foundation High School Program (FHSP) with endorsement options to increase flexibility for students. The legislature gave the SBOE authority to identify advanced courses related to the new graduation program, identify the curriculum requirements for the endorsements, and 203 determine the requirements for performance acknowledgments under the new graduation program. The SBOE adopted rules for the FHSP on January 31, 2014 (19 TAC Chapter 74, Subchapter B). The FHSP was established as the graduation program for all students entering high school, beginning with the 2014-15 school year. The legislature also required the commissioner of education to establish a transition plan to allow a student who entered ninth grade prior to the 2014-15 school year to complete the graduation requirements for the Foundation, Minimum, Recommended, or Advanced High School Program. The commissioner adopted rules for the transition plan in December 2013 (19 TAC Chapter 74, Subchapter BB). Students who entered Grade 9 prior to the 2014-15 school year may select one of the four graduation programs and may, at any time prior to graduation and upon request, choose to graduate under a different program. To graduate under the FHSP, a student is required to earn a minimum of 22 credits, including four credits in English language arts; three credits each in mathematics, science, and social studies; two credits in a single language other than English; one credit each in fine arts and physical education; and five elective credits. Each school district must ensure that a student, on entering ninth grade, indicates in writing the endorsement that he or she intends to pursue. A student may earn an endorsement by successfully completing the curriculum requirements for the endorsement, as identified by SBOE rule, and earning a total of 26 credits that include four credits in mathematics, four credits in science, and a total of seven elective credits. The SBOE has identified courses that may satisfy the fourth mathematics and science credit requirements. Additionally, SBOE rules for the FHSP provide students with multiple options for earning each endorsement. The options, to the extent possible, require completion of a coherent sequence of courses. An endorsement may be earned in any of the following areas: ♦ science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (requires that a student complete Algebra II as one of the four mathematics credits and Chemistry and Physics as two of the four science credits); ♦ business and industry; ♦ public services; ♦ arts and humanities; and ♦ multidisciplinary studies. A student may graduate under the FHSP without earning an endorsement if, after the student's sophomore year, his or her parent or guardian files written permission with a school counselor on a form adopted by TEA. 204 Students may earn a distinguished level of achievement by successfully completing four credits in mathematics, which must include Algebra II; four credits in science; the remaining curriculum requirements for the FHSP; and the curriculum requirements for at least one endorsement. A student may earn a performance acknowledgment for outstanding performance in a dual credit course, in bilingualism and biliteracy, on an Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate examination, or on the PSAT, ACT-Plan, ACT-Aspire, SAT, or ACT; or for earning a state-recognized or nationally or internationally recognized business or industry certification or license. Online Learning Opportunities Texas Virtual School Network In 2001, the 77th Texas Legislature authorized a fulltime virtual program, known as the Electronic Course Pilot (eCP), for Texas public school students (TEC §29.909). In 2007, the 80th Texas Legislature established a state virtual network to provide supplemental online courses for Texas students (TEC Chapter 30A). The Texas Virtual School Network (TxVSN) began offering supplemental high school courses through the TxVSN statewide course catalog in January 2009. In 2009, TEC §29.909 was repealed, and the eCP was incorporated into the TxVSN under TEC Chapter 30A. Eligible public school students across the state in Grades 3-12 may choose to participate in the full-time TxVSN Online Schools (OLS) program through any of the participating school districts and charter schools. Before it can be offered, each TxVSN course must meet the definition of an electronic course in TEC §30A.001, have the same instructional rigor and scope as a course provided in a traditional classroom setting, and be reviewed and approved through the course review process administered by TEA. Courses must align with the TEKS, the International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL) National Standards for Quality Online Courses, and accessibility standards. A Texas public school district or charter school may apply for a waiver of the course review process administered by TEA if the school certifies that the course meets all TxVSN standards. Each TxVSN course is led by an instructor who: (a) is Texas-certified in the course subject area and grade level or meets the credentialing requirements of the institution of higher education offering the course; and (b) meets the professional development requirements of the network for effective online instruction. A district may earn Foundation School Program (FSP) funding for a student taking courses offered through the TxVSN in the same manner in which the district is entitled to funding for a student's enrollment in a traditional 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools classroom setting, provided the student successfully completes the TxVSN course or instructional program. Centralized responsibilities provided at the state level for the TxVSN statewide course catalog include leadership, administration, operations, course review, and approval of required professional development for teaching online. The commissioner of education is responsible for the TxVSN, with staff at TEA serving as the administering authority. TEA sets standards for, and approves, TxVSN courses and professional development for online teachers and has fiscal responsibility for the network. TEA currently contracts with ESC Region 10 to manage the day-to-day operation of the TxVSN. Region 10 serves as central operations for the network in collaboration with the Harris County Department of Education. Central operations developed and continues to coordinate the centralized TxVSN catalog registration and student enrollment system and ensures eligibility of all TxVSN course providers. TxVSN central operations also publishes an online catalog of approved courses and coordinates data needed for state reporting requirements. Additionally, Region 10 reviews online courses submitted by potential course providers for alignment with the TEKS and the iNACOL National Standards for Quality Online Courses and for compliance with TxVSN accessibility guidelines. A group of professional development providers offers the required TxVSN-approved professional development for teaching online for the TxVSN, which is based on the iNACOL National Standards for Quality Online Teaching. In addition to offering online courses available through the TxVSN, Texas public schools continue to be able to offer other online opportunities to their students. Texas Virtual School Network Statewide Course Catalog TxVSN catalog course providers (Texas school districts and open-enrollment charter schools that meet eligibility requirements, ESCs, institutions of higher education, and nonprofit and private entities or corporations that meet eligibility requirements) offer courses through the TxVSN catalog and are responsible for instruction. The TxVSN course catalog will continue to expand as additional courses are submitted and approved. Students' home districts approve their students' TxVSN catalog course requests, provide ongoing support to local students enrolled in TxVSN catalog courses, and award credits and diplomas. The TxVSN catalog currently offers more than 90 courses for high school credit, including dual credit and Advanced Placement courses. In 2009, the 81st Texas Legislature created a state virtual allotment of $400 per course. In 2011, the state 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools virtual school allotment was repealed. In the absence of the allotment, a limited number of Virtual Learning Scholarships were made available in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years to districts and schools that enrolled students through the course catalog. In 2013, the Texas Legislature made a number of changes to the TxVSN (TEC §26.0031). The legislation limited the FSP funding districts may earn for student enrollment in the TxVSN to a maximum of three yearlong courses, or the equivalent, during any school year, unless the student is enrolled in a full-time online program that was operating on January 1, 2013. Students are allowed to enroll in additional TxVSN courses at their own expense. Districts may also decline to pay the cost for a student to take more than three yearlong courses, or the equivalent, via the TxVSN during any school year. Districts and charter schools may deny a request to enroll a student in a TxVSN course under certain circumstances, including if the school offers a substantially similar course, as determined by the school. Texas Virtual School Network Online Schools Program The full-time TxVSN OLS program allows eligible school districts and open-enrollment charter schools participating in the program the opportunity to offer full-time virtual instructional programs to eligible public school students in Grades 3-12. Eligible public school students may choose to participate through enrollment in any of the TxVSN online schools that serve students across the state. The seven Texas public school districts and charters that served students through the TxVSN OLS program in the 2014-15 school year were: Grapevine-Colleyville ISD, Hallsville ISD, Houston ISD, Huntsville ISD, Red Oak ISD, Texarkana ISD, and Responsive Education Solutions' (RES) Texas College Preparatory Academies (TCPA). Texarkana ISD ceased and Red Oak ISD suspended operation of their TxVSN online schools at the end of the 2014-15 school year. Beginning in the 2015-16 school year, RES continued serving students in Grades 3-8 through their TCPA charter school and moved service for Grades 9-12 students to their Premier High Schools charter school, bringing the total number of districts and charter schools currently participating in the program to six. TxVSN OLS school districts and open-enrollment charter schools earn FSP funding for eligible students in the same manner in which they earn funding for courses provided in a traditional classroom setting, provided the students successfully complete the courses or programs. Successful course completion is defined as earning credit for a high school course. Successful program completion is defined as completion of the TxVSN 205 education program in Grades 3-8 and demonstrated academic proficiency sufficient for promotion to the next grade level. In 2013, the Texas Legislature limited funding to full-time online schools to no more than three courses per student per year, unless the TxVSN online school was in existence on January 1, 2013 (TEC §26.0031). Agency Contact Person For information on the state curriculum program, contact Penny Schwinn, Deputy Commissioner of Academics, (512) 463-8934; Monica Martinez, Associate Commissioner for Standards and Support Services, (512) 463-9087; Shelly Ramos, Curriculum Standards and Student Support Division, (512) 463-9581; or Quentin Suffren, College, Career, and Military Preparation Division, (512) 463-6060. 206 Other Sources of Information The TEA Curriculum Division website is located at http://tea.texas.gov/index2.aspx?id=2147486096. For additional information on the Texas State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and early learning resources, see http://www.earlylearningtexas.org/. The Labor Market and Career Information website, which provides up-to-date information about employment opportunities, projected job openings, and wages in a number of occupational areas, is located at http://www.lmci.state.tx.us/. The Texas English Language Learners Portal is available at http://www.elltx.org/. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 9. Charter Schools and Waivers I n past years, state lawmakers have taken steps to expand options available to meet students where they are educationally in Texas. They have given local school districts and campuses latitude in tailoring education programs to meet the specific needs of students. Based on this legislative direction, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) has undertaken efforts to deregulate public education in the state. Actions include approval and support of open-enrollment charters and removal of barriers to improved student performance by waiving provisions of federal and state laws. These efforts support the four state academic goals and the strategic plan goal of local excellence and achievement. They do so by fostering local innovation and supporting local authorities in their efforts to ensure that each student demonstrates exemplary academic performance. Open-Enrollment Charter Schools In 1995, the Texas Legislature passed legislation that created open-enrollment charter schools (Texas Education Code [TEC], Chapter 12, Subchapter D). At their inception, charters were designed to be testing zones for innovation and, thus, were subject to fewer state laws than other public schools. They were designed to promote local initiative and to capitalize on creative approaches to educating students. Many charters target students at risk of dropping out or those who have already dropped out and use the flexibility afforded to charters to accommodate the needs of students who have had limited success in traditional schools. In 1996, the State Board of Education (SBOE) awarded the first open-enrollment charter schools. In 2001, the legislature established a separate category of open-enrollment charter schools operated by public senior colleges or universities (TEC, Chapter 12, Subchapter E), and the ability to operate in this separate category was extended to junior colleges in 2009. In 2013, the 83rd Texas Legislature amended charter statute to, among other things, transfer authority to grant charters from the SBOE to the commissioner of education and give the SBOE authority to veto charters the commissioner proposes to grant (TEC §12.101). Prior to the changes, the SBOE had awarded a total of 305 state open-enrollment charters. Since September 2013, the commissioner has proposed 18 openenrollment charters, 3 of which the SBOE subsequently vetoed. The total number of open-enrollment charters awarded as of September 2016 is 320. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Of the total number of charters awarded, 177 are active, and 174 of these are currently serving students. Because of default closures, 53 of the 320 open-enrollment charters are no longer active. Additionally, 89 have voluntarily closed and are no longer active. The 83rd Legislature also provided for a graduated increase in the cap on the number of open-enrollment charters available for award, from 225 beginning September 1, 2014, to 305 beginning September 1, 2019 (TEC §12.101). Previously, the cap on the number of active, open-enrollment charters was 215, and that number was reached for the first time in November 2008. As with the previous cap, the new cap does not include public college and university charters, which may be granted in unlimited numbers. Currently, there are six university charters. Five are active and operating schools. The sixth university charter, after postponing opening, will open in fall 2017. Additionally, the cap does not affect the number of campuses that may be operated by current charter holders. Of the current charter holders, 108 have multiple campuses, and those that are performing well academically and financially and are compliant with state and federal requirements are eligible to request the addition of campuses, grade levels, or geographic areas, and increases in enrollment. Charter schools and campuses are rated under the statewide academic accountability system. Open-enrollment charter schools are evaluated under Charter FIRST, a financial accountability system specific to charters, and are assigned accreditation statuses. Additionally, the 83rd Legislature provided for a charter-specific performance framework to measure the academic, financial, and operational viability of charter schools. The SBOE reviewed and renewed all 18 firstgeneration charter renewal applications in the spring of 2001. Later that year, the legislature transferred responsibility for charter amendments, renewals, and other actions to the commissioner of education (TEC §§12.114-12.1162). Typically, the term of an initial charter contract is five years, and the term of a renewed contract is ten years. Contract renewal is dependent on student, campus, charter, and charter holder performance. Prior to 2013, rules governing renewals allowed a charter to continue to operate and remain in a pending status during the interim decision-making period. In 2013, the legislature amended statute to prescribe timelines for renewals (TEC §12.1141). Charters are evaluated using one of three considerations: expedited, discretionary, or non-renewal/expiration of charter. Expedited and expired considerations mandate a 207 30-day timeline, and discretionary considerations mandate a 90-day timeline. Since September 2013, the commissioner has renewed contracts for 94 of the active open-enrollment and university charters. State Waivers In the 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years, the commissioner of education granted a combined total of 4,338 state waivers (Table 9.1). The type of expedited waiver most frequently requested allows a school district or campus to modify its calendar, making additional time available for staff development. During the 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years, the commissioner approved a combined total of 811 expedited waivers granting a maximum of three days for general staff development, accounting for 18.7 percent of all approved state waivers. To encourage staff development related to reading/ language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies, the commissioner may approve two additional waiver days for staff development. Beyond these, one additional waiver day for staff development was available for districts requesting to participate in eligible conferences appropriate to individual teaching assignments; however, this waiver application was discontinued during the 2015-16 school year. A combined total of 635 waivers were granted for one or more of these additional days for staff development in 2014-15 and 2015-16. Class size exceptions may be granted by the commissioner of education only in cases of undue hardship and for only one year at a time. A class size exception may be granted if a district: (a) is unable to employ qualified teachers; (b) is unable to provide educational facilities; or (c) is budgeted for a class size ratio of 22:1 in kindergarten through Grade 4 but has a campus (or campuses) with enrollment increases or shifts that cause this limit to exceed 22 students in only one section at any grade level on any campus. In the 2015-16 school year, 241 class size exceptions were granted to districts. The previous school year, 253 exceptions were granted. TEC §39.232 automatically exempts any school district or campus that is rated Exemplary from all but a specified list of state laws and rules. The exemption remains in effect until the district or campus rating changes or the commissioner of education determines that achievement levels of the district or campus have declined. No state accountability ratings were assigned in 2012 because the public school accountability system was undergoing a statutorily mandated redesign. Under the new accountability system, introduced in 2013, districts and campuses receive one of five ratings: Met Standard, Met Alternative Standard, Improvement Required, Not Rated, and Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues. Because there is no longer an Exemplary rating in the accountability system, the automatic exemption under TEC §39.232 does not apply. Table 9.1. State Waivers Approved, 2014-15 and 2015-16 Type of Waiver Expedited Waivers Staff Development – General Staff Development for Reading/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies Staff Development Through Eligible Conferencea Modified Schedule State Assessment Testing Days Early Release Days Foreign Exchange Students (5 or more) Timeline for Accelerated Instruction Teacher Data Portal of the Texas Assessment Management System General Waivers Course Requirements Course Requirements – Career and Technical Education Certification Foreign Exchange Students (Less than 5) Pregnancy Related Services On-Campus (CEHIb) Other Miscellaneous Attendance Low Attendance Days Missed School Days Total State Waivers Approved 2014-15 Number Percent 2015-16 Number Percent Total Number Percent 470 364 18.1 14.0 341 234 19.6 13.4 811 598 18.7 13.8 29 147 433 38 136 232 1.1 5.7 16.7 1.5 5.2 8.9 8 113 347 33 86 61 0.5 6.5 19.9 1.9 4.9 3.5 37 260 780 71 222 293 0.9 6.0 18.0 1.6 5.1 6.8 0 1 5 10 17 80 0.0 <0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 3.1 0 0 2 9 16 70 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.9 4.0 0 1 7 19 33 150 0.0 <0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 3.5 269 367 2,598 10.4 14.1 100 232 188 1,740 13.3 10.8 100 501 555 4,338 11.5 12.8 100 Note. Waivers approved from 06/01/2014 through 05/31/2015 and from 6/01/2015 through 05/31/2016. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. aAs of October 2015, new applications for this waiver were no longer accepted. bCompensatory education home instruction. 208 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Education Flexibility Partnership Act (Ed-Flex) Overview Ed-Flex is a federal program that grants a state the authority to waive certain federal education requirements that may impede local efforts to reform and improve education. It is designed to help districts and schools carry out educational reforms and raise the achievement levels of all students by providing increased flexibility in the implementation of certain federal educational programs. In exchange, Ed-Flex requires increased accountability for the performance of students. TEA was given Ed-Flex authority in 1995 for a fiveyear period. In October 2000, the agency reapplied under the Education Partnership Act of 1999 to continue receiving Ed-Flex authority. This was approved by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) in March 2001 for an additional five years. The state's Ed-Flex authority expired in March 2006. In April 2006, President George W. Bush signed legislation that allowed ED to extend the state's authority until the reauthorization of Title I, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In June 2016, ED extended the TEA designation as an Ed-Flex State under the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015. The state's Ed-Flex authority is effective through the 2016-17 school year only. Statewide Administrative Waivers During the 2015-16 school year, the agency used EdFlex authority to continue two statewide administrative waivers to all local education agencies (LEAs). These waivers reduced administrative paperwork for the federal programs covered under Ed-Flex, without the need for individual application. Statewide Programmatic Waivers Title I, Part A, Program—Schoolwide Eligibility This statewide, programmatic waiver eliminates the poverty requirement for Title I, Part A, schoolwide eligibility. It is available to campuses that are eligible for Title I, Part A, services but do not meet the criteria for percentage of students from low-income families. To apply for this waiver on behalf of a campus, a district must include an Ed-Flex waiver schedule in its Application for Federal Funding. For the 2014-15 and 2015-16 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools school years, the poverty threshold for schoolwide eligibility was 40 percent. In 2014-15, a total of 67 campuses in 29 districts received waivers. In 2015-16, a total of 70 campuses in 35 districts received waivers. Title I, Part A, Program—Roll Forward Under the following circumstances, an LEA may apply for an Ed-Flex waiver to roll forward unused funds received under Title I, Part A, from one year to the next: (a) the Title I, Part A, funds received by the LEA increased significantly over the previous year; and (b) within the last three years, the LEA has already used the roll forward waiver separately available under Title I, Part A, legislation. The Ed-Flex roll forward waiver is valid for one year and may be renewed each year that: (a) the Title I, Part A, funds received by the LEA increase significantly over the previous year; and (b) the LEA is not eligible to apply for the separate Title I, Part A, waiver. In 2014-15, a total of 73 LEAs used the Ed-Flex waiver. In 2015-16, a total of 63 LEAs used the Ed-Flex waiver. Individual Programmatic Waivers In addition to statewide programmatic waivers, LEAs can apply for individual programmatic waivers, based on their specific program needs. The state Ed-Flex committee reviews each application and makes a recommendation to the commissioner of education, who makes the final decision regarding approval or denial. Programs for which LEAs receive waivers undergo rigorous evaluation to ensure the waivers do not have negative effects on the students they are intended to benefit. Agency Contact Persons For information on open-enrollment charter schools or general state waivers, contact A.J. Crabill, Deputy Commissioner of Governance, (512) 936-1533; Heather Mauzé, Charter Schools Division, (512) 463-9575; or Leah Martin, Governance and Investigations Division, (512) 463-5899. For information on federal Ed-Flex waivers, contact Monica Martinez, Associate Commissioner for Standards and Support Services, (512) 463-9087; or Anita Villarreal, Enforcement and Support Division, (512) 463-9402. 209 Other Sources of Information For additional information on charter schools, see http://tea.texas.gov/Texas_Schools/Charter_Schools/. For a list of state waivers granted by the commissioner of education, see http://tea4avholly.tea.state.tx.us/ Tea.Waivers.Web/Default.aspx. For additional information on federal Ed-Flex waivers, see http://tea.texas.gov/index2.aspx?id=25769814428. 210 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 10. Expenditures and Staff Hours for Direct Instructional Activities S tate statute requires the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to provide a biennial summary of the percentages of expenditures and staff hours used by school districts and charters for direct instructional activities in the two previous fiscal years (Texas Education Code [TEC] §39.332 and §44.0071). The percentage of expenditures used by a school district or charter for direct instructional activities is calculated as the sum of operating expenditures reported through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) for instruction, instructional resources and media services, curriculum development and instructional staff development, and guidance and counseling services, divided by total operating expenditures. Total operating expenditures comprise actual financial data reported through PEIMS in Function Codes 11-61 and Expenditure Codes 6112-6499; they do not include expenditures reported under shared services arrangement fund codes. (See the Financial Accounting and Reporting Module of the TEA Financial Accountability System Resource Guide for descriptions of financial account codes.) In the 2014-15 school year, 63.8 percent of school district and charter expenditures statewide were used for direct instructional activities, a slight increase from 63.7 percent in 2013-14 (Table 10.1). Table 10.1. Expenditures Used for Direct Instructional Activities, Texas Public School Districts and Charters, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Activity 2013-14 Instruction Instructional Resources and Media Services Curriculum Development and Instructional Staff Development Guidance and Counseling Services Total 2014-15 Instruction Instructional Resources and Media Services Curriculum Development and Instructional Staff Development Guidance and Counseling Services Total Expenditures (%) 56.9 1.3 2.1 3.4 63.7 57.0 1.3 2.1 3.4 63.8 Note. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools The percentage of staff hours used by a school district or charter for direct instructional activities is calculated as the sum of staff hours in instruction, instructional resources and media services, curriculum development and instructional staff development, and guidance and counseling services, divided by total staff hours. For each employee, total hours worked is calculated by multiplying the percentage of the day worked, as reported through PEIMS, times the number of days worked, as reported through PEIMS, times 7 hours. The percentage of an employee's total hours that is used for direct instructional activities is calculated based on the distribution of the employee's salary by fund and function as reported through PEIMS. In the 2015-16 school year, 64.5 percent of school district and charter staff hours statewide were used for direct instructional activities, a slight decrease from 64.6 percent in 2014-15 (Table 10.2). Table 10.2. Staff Hours Used for Direct Instructional Activities, Texas Public School Districts and Charters, 2014-15 and 2015-16 Activity 2014-15 Instruction Instructional Resources and Media Services Curriculum Development and Instructional Staff Development Guidance and Counseling Services Total 2015-16 Instruction Instructional Resources and Media Services Curriculum Development and Instructional Staff Development Guidance and Counseling Services Total Staff Hours (%) 58.6 1.3 1.3 3.4 64.6 58.3 1.3 1.4 3.5 64.5 Note. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Data used to calculate the percentages of expenditures and staff hours used for direct instructional activities undergo routine screening to validate data integrity. A school district or charter identified as potentially having data quality issues is contacted by TEA for clarification. If a school district or charter is determined to have reported erroneous data, TEA requires submission of a quality assurance plan describing data verification activities that will prevent future data errors. 211 Agency Contact Person Other Sources of Information For information on the percentages of expenditures and staff hours used for direct instructional activities, contact Leo Lopez, Chief School Finance Officer, (512) 463-9238; or Al McKenzie, State Funding Division, (512) 463-9186. See the Public Education Information Management System Data Standards at http://tea.texas.gov/ Reports_and_Data/Data_Submission/PEIMS/ PEIMS_Data_Standards/PEIMS_Data_Standards/. 212 See the Financial Accountability System Resource Guide at http://tea.texas.gov/Finance_and_Grants/ Financial_Accountability/Financial__Accountability_ System_Resource_Guide/. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 11. District Reporting Requirements T he Texas Education Agency (TEA) maintains a comprehensive schedule of state- and federallyimposed school district reporting requirements, which is available on the TEA website (Texas Education Code [TEC] §7.037). In 2015-16, TEA required 99 data collections under state law only, 71 under federal law only, and 11 under both state and federal law. In most instances, districts have the option to submit collections electronically. In accordance with statute, the Data Governance Board (DGB) conducts a sunset review each evennumbered year of all school and district data collections required by TEA to determine whether the collections are still needed and to eliminate those that are not (TEC §7.060). Made up of staff from across the agency, the board also reviews all new district data requirements. In addition, DGB reviews any new or amended rules proposed by the commissioner of education, State Board of Education, or State Board for Educator Certification for district data implications. DGB ensures that multiple requests for the same data are not made of schools and districts and that data collected from schools and districts are required by state or federal statute or mandate. The most extensive data collection, the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS), gathers information about public education organizations, school district finances, staff, and students (Table 11.1). In the 2015-16 school year, there were 203 data elements in PEIMS. During the 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years, 24 new PEIMS data elements were implemented. All reporting requirements for the elements are documented annually in the TEA publication Texas Education Data Standards (TEDS). The PEIMS system and its data requirements are reviewed by DGB and two advisory review committees. The Policy Committee on Public Education Information (PCPEI) meets quarterly to provide advice about data collection policies and strategies to the commissioner of education. All major changes to PEIMS requirements are reviewed by PCPEI, which is composed of representatives of school districts, regional education service centers (ESCs), and legislative and executive state government offices. The Information Task Force (ITF) is a technical subcommittee of PCPEI, made up of agency, school district, ESC, and legislative staff and PEIMS software vendors. Both PCPEI and ITF participate in sunset reviews of all PEIMS data elements. The reviews ensure that the data included are only those required for the legislature and the agency to perform their legally authorized functions in overseeing the public education system. TEA uses other collection instruments for information that does not fit into the development cycle or data architecture of the PEIMS data collection. In many cases, data requirements change with more frequency and less Table 11.1. Information Types in the PEIMSa Electronic Data Collection Organizations ♦ District name, assigned number, and community and student engagement indicators ♦ Shared services arrangement types, fiscal agent, and identifying information ♦ Campus name, assigned number, and community and student engagement indicators ♦ Campus course schedules ♦ Campus calendars Finances ♦ Budgeted revenue and expenditures for required funds, functions, objects, organizations, programs, and fiscal years ♦ Actual revenue and expenditures for required funds, functions, objects, organizations, shared services, programs, and fiscal years Students ♦ Identification, including a state unique identification number, a Social Security number or unique state-assigned student number, name, and basic demographic information ♦ Enrollment, including campus, grade, special program participation, Staff and various indicators of student characteristics ♦ Identification information, including Social Security number, state ♦ Attendance information for each six-week period and special prounique identification number, and name gram participation ♦ Demographic information, including gender, ethnicity, date of birth, ♦ Course attempts and completions for Grades 1-12 highest degree level, and years of professional experience ♦ Student graduation information ♦ Employment, including days of service, salary, and experience ♦ School leaver information within the district ♦ Responsibilities, including the types of professional work performed, ♦ Disciplinary actions its location, and in some cases, the amount of time spent on an ♦ Special education restraint and law enforcement restraints activity ♦ Title I, Part A ♦ Classroom teaching assignments for classroom teachers a Public Education Information Management System. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 213 lead time than the PEIMS system supports. In other cases, the information acquired is too variable to fit predetermined coded values or requires a more open reporting format than electronic formats allow. Data collections may be specific to a small number of districts or may be one-time requests for information. The 21st Century Tracking and Reporting System, also known as TX21st, uses data submitted by grantees three times per year to track student participation in out-ofschool time activities under the Texas Afterschool Centers on Education (ACE) program. Texas ACE is federally funded by the 21st Century Community Learning Centers grant program and administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) under the Every Student Succeeds Act, Title IV, Part B. The state's system is designed to meet the annual reporting and program evaluation requirements in federal statute. The Daily Tracker function of TX21st records detailed data in real time at the centers, then calculates all pertinent information for state and federal reporting requirements. The system collects about 325 data elements and offers data downloads and more than 100 reports that are used for administration and operation of the Texas ACE program. TEA also maintains an automated system for requisitioning instructional materials, disbursing payments, and shipping, redistributing, and accounting for instructional materials statewide. The online educational materials ordering system, known as EMAT, is embedded in TEA's financial system and allows school districts and charters to easily acquire instructional materials; adjust student enrollments; update district inventories; and request disbursements for instructional materials, technology equipment, and technology services. In 2015-16, there were over 6,440 data elements in EMAT. Districts and charters had access to 21 reports, vendors had access to 23 reports, and staff in the TEA Instructional Materials and Educational Technology Division had access to 75 reports. The New Generation System (NGS) is an interactive, interstate information network designed to allow for migrant student records exchange and reporting, as required under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Title I, Part C. The NGS is used by a consortium which, for the 2015-16 school year, had six member states, including Texas. AskTED (Texas Education Directory) is an interactive, Web-based application that enables all Texas school districts to update district personnel contact data, as well as district and campus organizational data. All of the data are publicly available for download, and a compilation of the information, known as the Texas 214 School Directory, is published annually on the TEA website. Applications for funding and related documentation for a selected set of grant programs can be completed online. For example, many agency grants are administered through eGrants, a comprehensive Web portal that enables submission, tracking, review, and processing of grant applications, as well as the compliance and progress reports associated with grant programs and other grant-related data collections. Grants that can be produced efficiently in electronic format in the time available are considered candidate grants for eGrants. Automation of grants has reduced agency processing time, which in turn has allowed school districts to receive funding more quickly. The Texas Unified Nutrition Programs Systems (TXUNPS) is an automated data collection designed to meet the administrative data requirements of the National School Lunch Program reimbursement system. The Texas Department of Agriculture has primary responsibility for implementing the system. Since the 2007-08 school year, Fitnessgram has been used to evaluate the physical fitness of Texas public school students in Grades 3-12. See Chapter 15 of this report for more information about the fitness assessment requirement. TEA and educational stakeholders across the state continue to collaborate on an initiative to improve the availability and use of high-quality data to enable educators to make good decisions for Texas students. The initiative, the Texas Student Data System (TSDS), will be a practical and powerful statewide solution that will increase the availability of data to support the state's educational improvement efforts. Recognizing not only the need to improve its underlying architecture to collect and report data, but also to improve the timeliness, relevance, and quality of information available to all stakeholders, TEA has been actively pursuing the TSDS initiative through a number of major projects, both privately and federally funded, to diagnose and address limitations in the current reporting systems. TEA continues to implement a variety of key TSDS components. ♦ State-sponsored student information system has addressed the needs of the state's complex and fragmented data collection approach. ♦ Enhanced data collection and submission tools have eased the data collection burden on school districts and greatly increased data quality. All reporting requirements for the data elements in TSDS are documented annually in the TEA publication Texas Education Data Standards. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools ♦ State-hosted operational data store facilitates the use of operational data by districts for their own reporting, analysis, and local actions, thus addressing the need for timely, actionable student-level data to inform decision making at the classroom, campus, and district levels. ♦ Business intelligence tools will provide new, secure business intelligence and reporting tools to support end-user analysis and reporting across the TSDS system. ♦ Certified PEIMS data store serves as a repository for certified data used for state and federal compliance reporting, funding-program evaluation, and educational research. It has improved how extractions and validations of data are performed, alleviating the burden on districts to perform unduly complex actions and allowing for the more accurate, cost-effective creation of data required by TEA. ♦ Data warehouse has been expanded to link critical prekindergarten, college-readiness, and workforce data into the current data source, enabling P-20 monitoring of individual students, from enrollment in the public education system through matriculation and graduation from Texas colleges and into the labor market. For information on the Educational Materials (EMAT) system, contact Kelly Callaway, Instructional Materials Division, (512) 463-9601. For information on the New Generation System (NGS), contact Susie Coultress, Curriculum Standards and Student Supports Division, (512) 463-9581. For information on the Texas Education Directory, contact Lynne Krajevski, Research and Analysis Division, (512) 475-3523. For information on the eGrants system, contact Cory Green, Grants Administration Division, (512) 463-8525. For information on the Texas Unified Nutrition Programs Systems (TX-UNPS), contact the TX-UNPS help desk at the Texas Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Division, (877) TEX-MEAL. For information on the fitness assessment, contact Mackie Spradley, Curriculum Standards and Student Supports Division, (512) 463-9581. For information on the Texas Student Data System (TSDS), contact Terri Hanson, Information Technology Services/Statewide Education Data Systems, (512) 463-8028. Other Sources of Information Agency Contact Persons For information on the Data Governance Board (DGB), contact Linda Roska, Research and Analysis Division, (512) 475-3523. For information on the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS), the Policy Committee on Public Education Information (PCPEI), and the Information Task Force (ITF), contact Terri Hanson or Bryce Templeton, Information Technology Services/Statewide Education Data Systems Division, (512) 463-9461. For information on the 21st Century Tracking and Reporting System (TX21st), contact Christine McCormick, Instructional Resources and State Programs Division, (512) 463-2334. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools A comprehensive schedule of school district reporting requirements is available at http://tea.texas.gov/ index2.aspx?id=2147499886&menu_id=680. For additional information about PEIMS, see http://tea.texas.gov/Reports_and_Data/Data_ Submission/PEIMS/Public_Education_Information_ Management_System/ and the Texas Education Data Standards at http://www.texasstudentdatasystem.org/ TSDS/TEDS/TEDS_Latest_Release/. School directory information is available at http://tea4avholly.tea.state.tx.us/tea.askted.web/ Forms/Home.aspx. 215 216 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 12. Agency Funds and Expenditures O ne of the primary functions of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) is to finance public education with funds authorized by the Texas Legislature. The majority of funds administered by TEA are passed from the agency directly to school districts. The agency was appropriated $26.9 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2015 and $27.7 billion in FY 2016. In FY 2016, as in the previous fiscal year, general revenue-related funds were the primary method of financing, accounting for the largest portion (70.2%) of total agency funds (Table 12.1). Federal funds made up 18.1 percent of agency funds in FY 2016, and other funds made up the remaining 11.7 percent. General revenue-related funds made up the largest percentage of the TEA administrative budget in FY 2016 (49.2%) (Table 12.2 on page 218). TEA retained very little of the state and federal funds received at the agency in FY 2015 and FY 2016 (Table 12.3 on page 218). In FY 2016, 99.6 percent of state funds and 99.3 percent of federal funds passed through the agency to school districts, charter schools, and regional education service centers. Appropriated amounts for 2014-15 and 2015-16 were linked to the goals and strategies outlined in the agency's strategic plan, with specific amounts reflected at the strategy level (Table 12.4 on page 219). Final TEA expenditures are included as part of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the State of Texas, to be published by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Table 12.1. Texas Education Agency, Method of Financing, 2014-15 and 2015-16 Method of Financing General Revenue-Related Funds General Revenue Funds: General Revenue Fund Available School Fund Instructional Materials Fund Foundation School Fund Certification and Assessment Fees General Revenue MOEa for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Lottery Proceeds Educator Excellence Fund Tax Rate Conversion Account Subtotal, General Revenue Fund General Revenue Dedicated: Specialty License Plates Subtotal, General Revenue Dedicated Subtotal, General Revenue-Related Funds Federal Funds Health, Education, and Welfare Fund School Lunch Fund Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Other Federal Funds Subtotal, Federal Funds Other Funds Permanent School Fund Property Tax Relief Appropriated Receipts – Attendance Credits, Estimated Interagency Contracts License Plate Trust Fund Account No. 0802 Subtotal, Other Funds Total, All Methods of Financing Total Full-Time Equivalents 2014-15 Amount Percent $ 2015-16 Amount Percent 150,429,321 1,242,150,048 421,552,316 14,626,844,553 22,426,688 0 1,039,775,000 16,000,000 0 17,519,177,926 0.6 4.6 1.6 54.4 0.1 0.0 3.9 0.1 0.0 65.1 $ 245,468,694 854,365,337 1,057,119,447 15,969,294,944 25,336,590 0 1,207,000,000 0 100,000,000 19,458,585,012 0.9 3.1 3.8 57.6 0.1 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.4 70.2 0 0 $ 17,519,177,926 0.0 0.0 65.1 0 0 $ 19,458,585,012 0.0 0.0 70.2 $ 3,098,383,684 2,135,828,696 0 9,721,704 5,243,934,084 11.5 7.9 0.0 <0.1 19.5 $ 3,010,470,717 2,008,828,370 0 9,282,055 5,028,581,142 10.9 7.2 0.0 <0.1 18.1 $ 30,016,592 2,868,075,000 1,218,173,844 12,372,713 358,496 4,128,996,645 0.1 10.7 4.5 <0.1 <0.1 15.4 $ 30,162,203 1,427,700,000 1,775,100,000 12,372,713 357,701 3,245,692,617 0.1 5.1 6.4 <0.1 <0.1 11.7 $ 26,892,108,655 804.0 100 n/ab $ 27,732,858,771 875.0 100 n/ab Note. Parts may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. aMaintenance of effort. bNot applicable. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 217 Agency Contact Persons Other Sources of Information For information on TEA funds and expenditures, contact Kara Belew, Deputy Commissioner of Finance Administration, (512) 463-7038. General Appropriations Acts (83rd and 84th Texas Legislatures), as published, including Article IX. For additional information on legislative appropriations, visit the Legislative Budget Board website at http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/. Table 12.2. Texas Education Agency, Administrative Budget, 2014-15 and 2015-16 2014-15 Amount Percent Method of Financing General Revenue-Related Funds General Revenue Fund Instructional Materials Fund Foundation School Fund Certification and Assessment Fees Subtotal, General Revenue-Related Funds Federal Funds Health, Education, and Welfare Fund Other Federal Fund Subtotal, Federal Funds Other Funds Permanent School Fund Interagency Contracts Subtotal, Other Funds $ 39,276,864 2,217,108 0 22,426,688 $ 63,920,660 29.8 1.7 0.0 17.0 48.5 35,084,106 2,598,726 37,682,832 26.6 2.0 28.6 30,016,592 172,713 $ 30,189,305 $ 131,792,797 $ Total, All Methods of Financing 2015-16 Amount Percent $ $ 38,215,703 2,250,121 0 25,336,590 65,802,414 28.6 1.7 0.0 19.0 49.2 $ 35,097,733 2,437,001 37,534,734 26.3 1.8 28.1 22.8 0.1 22.9 $ 30,162,203 172,713 30,334,916 22.6 0.1 22.7 100 $ 133,672,064 100 Note. Amounts do not include fringe benefits. Table 12.3. State and Federal Funds Appropriated to the Texas Education Agency and Passed Through to School Districts, Education Service Centers, and Education Providers, 2014-15 and 2015-16 Source of Funds State Funds Administrative Budget State Funds Passed Through Total State Funds Federal Funds Administrative Budget Federal Funds Passed Through Total Federal Funds 218 2014-15 Amount $ 2015-16 Amount Percent 94,109,965 21,554,064,606 $ 21,648,174,571 0.4 99.6 100 96,137,330 22,608,140,299 $ 22,704,277,629 0.4 99.6 100 37,682,832 5,206,251,252 5,243,934,084 0.7 99.3 100 37,534,734 4,991,046,408 5,028,581,142 0.7 99.3 100 $ $ Percent $ 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 12.4. Expenditures Under Texas Education Agency (TEA) Goals and Strategies, 2014-15 and 2015-16 Goals and Strategies 1. Goal: Provide Education System Leadership, Guidance, and Resources TEA will provide leadership, guidance, and resources to create a public education system that continuously improves student performance and supports public schools as the choice of Texas citizens. The agency will satisfy its customers and stakeholders by promoting supportive school environments and by providing resources, challenging academic standards, high-quality data, and timely and clear reports on results. 1.1.1. Strategy: Foundation School Program – Equalized Operations Fund the Texas public education system efficiently and equitably; ensure that formula allocations support the state's public education goals and objectives and are accounted for in an accurate and appropriate manner. Amount, 2014-15 $ 20,193,365,884 Amount, 2015-16 $ 20,428,400,000 1.1.2. Strategy: Foundation School Program – Equalized Facilities Continue to operate an equalized school facilities program by ensuring the allocation of a guaranteed yield of existing debt and disbursing facilities funds. 610,450,674 713,100,000 1.2.1. Strategy: Statewide Educational Programs Support schools so that all Texas students have the knowledge and skills, as well as the instructional programs, they need to succeed; that all third-, fifth-, and eighth-grade students read at least at grade level and continue to read at grade level; and that all secondary students have sufficient credit to advance and ultimately graduate on time with their class. 164,566,548 247,435,703 1.2.2. Strategy: Achievement of Students At Risk Develop and implement instructional support programs that take full advantage of flexibility to support student achievement and ensure that all students in at-risk situations receive a quality education. 1,603,213,069 1,530,024,937 1.2.3. Strategy: Students with Disabilities Develop and implement programs that help to ensure all students with disabilities receive a quality education. 1,027,951,442 1,042,228,004 154,103,022 149,674,252 1.2.4. Strategy: School Improvement and Support Programs Encourage educators, parents, community members, and university faculty to improve student learning and develop and implement programs that meet student needs. Subtotal, Goal 1 2. Goal: Provide System Oversight and Support TEA will sustain a system of accountability for student performance that is supported by challenging assessments, high-quality data, highly qualified and effective educators, and high standards of student, campus, district, and agency performance. 2.1.1. Strategy: Assessment and Accountability System Continue to provide a preeminent state and federal assessment system that will drive and recognize improvement in student achievement by providing a basis for evaluating and reporting student performance in a clear and understandable format. The state's accountability system, which is interdependent with the assessment system, will continue to drive and recognize improvement by campuses and districts in education system performance. 2.2.1. Strategy: Technology and Instructional Materials Implement educational technologies that increase the effectiveness of student learning, instructional management, professional development, and administration. Source. General Appropriations Act (83rd and 84th Texas Legislatures), including Article IX. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools $ 23,753,650,639 $ 24,110,862,896 85,054,852 85,029,462 423,335,208 1,058,869,326 continues 219 Table 12.4. Expenditures Under Texas Education Agency (TEA) Goals and Strategies, 2014-15 and 2015-16 (continued) Goals and Strategies 2.2.2. Strategy: Health and Safety Enhance school safety and support schools in maintaining a disciplined environment that promotes student learning. Reduce the number of criminal incidents on school campuses, enhance school safety, and ensure that students in the Texas Youth Commission and disciplinary and juvenile justice alternative education programs are provided the instructional and support services needed to succeed. Amount, 2014-15 $ 14,154,802 Amount, 2015-16 $ 11,363,195 2,150,447,037 2,023,446,711 2.2.4. Strategy: Windham School District Work with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to lead students to achieve the basic education skills they need to contribute to their families, communities, and the world. 50,500,000 52,500,000 2.3.1. Strategy: Improving Educator Quality and Leadership Support educators through access to quality training tied to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills; develop and implement professional development initiatives that encourage P-16 partnerships. Support regional education service centers to facilitate effective instruction and efficient school operations by providing core services, technical assistance, and program support based on the needs and objectives of the school districts they serve. 283,173,320 257,293,389 2.3.2. Strategy: Agency Operations Continuously improve a customer-driven, results-based, high-performing public education system through a strategic commitment to efficient and effective business processes and operations. 65,252,483 66,510,646 2.3.3. Strategy: State Board for Educator Certification Administer services related to the certification, continuing education, and standards and conduct of public school educators. 3,812,552 4,579,667 2.3.4. Strategy: Central Administration The commissioner of education shall serve as the educational leader of the state. 12,760,154 13,605,388 2.3.5. Strategy: Information Systems – Technology Continue to plan, manage, and implement information systems that support students, educators, and stakeholders. 35,967,608 32,613,503 2.3.6. Strategy: Certification Exam Administration Ensure that candidates for educator certification or renewal of certification demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary to improve academic performance of all students in the state. Estimated and nontransferable. 14,000,000 16,184,588 2.2.3. Strategy: Child Nutrition Programs Implement and support efficient state child nutrition programs. Subtotal, Goal 2 $ 3,138,458,016 Total, All Goals and Strategies $ 26,892,108,655 $ 3,621,995,875 $ 27,732,858,771 Source. General Appropriations Act (83rd and 84th Texas Legislatures), including Article IX. 220 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 13. Performance of Open-Enrollment Charters T he first open-enrollment charters were awarded by the State Board of Education (SBOE) in 1996 and opened in 1997. Some charters were established to serve predominantly students at risk of dropping out of school. To promote local initiative, charters are subject to fewer regulations than other public school districts (Texas Education Code [TEC] §12.103). Generally, charters are subject to laws and rules that ensure fiscal and academic accountability but do not unduly regulate instructional methods or pedagogical innovation. Overall enrollment in open-enrollment charters is relatively small, compared to overall enrollment in traditional school districts. Nevertheless, the percentage of Texas public school students enrolled in openenrollment charters has increased over the past years. In 2015-16, a total of 247,389 students, or approximately 4.7 percent of students enrolled in public schools statewide, were enrolled in charters. This compares to 4.4 percent of Texas public school students in 2014-15. Although most charters have only one campus, some operate several campuses. As of the last Friday in October 2015, there were 183 open-enrollment charters with 629 approved charter campuses. Through the charter amendment process, open-enrollment charters continue to expand with commissioner of education approval. The commissioner approved 92 new sites during the 2016 expansion period, and several waivers have been approved to allow the charter expansion process to be waived for certain high-performing charter holders. The goal for these waivers and amendments is to expand the number of quality educational options for students across the state. Charters are held accountable under the state testing and accountability systems. Between 1997 and 2002, only charter campuses received accountability ratings. Beginning in 2004, open-enrollment charters were rated at the district level as well. Open-enrollment charters are rated using the same rating criteria and thresholds as traditional school districts, based on aggregate performance of the campuses operated by each charter. Both charter campuses and traditional school district campuses that serve predominantly students identified as at risk of dropping out of school may request to be evaluated under alternative education accountability (AEA) provisions. In the 2015-16 school year, 22.6 percent of charter campuses were registered under AEA 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools provisions. By comparison, 3.1 percent of school district campuses were registered under AEA provisions. Charter campuses registered as alternative education campuses received ratings in 2016 of Met Alternative Standard, Improvement Required, or Not Rated. In 2001, the 77th Texas Legislature required that the performance of charters be reported in comparison to the performance of school districts on student achievement indicators (TEC §39.332). In the analyses that follow, charter campuses that are evaluated under AEA provisions are referred to as "AEA charters." Conversely, charter campuses that are evaluated under standard accountability provisions are referred to as "standard charters." Non-charter districts are referred to as "traditional districts," and the data reported for these districts include both campuses that are evaluated under standard accountability provisions and campuses that are evaluated under AEA provisions. State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) passing rates are based on Level II standards. STAAR Performance State Summary The SBOE adopted revised mathematics curriculum standards in April 2012. For students in kindergarten through Grade 8, the new standards were implemented in the 2014-15 school year. Because of changes to the mathematics curriculum standards and to assessment instruments, the commissioner of education announced that results for STAAR mathematics assessments in Grades 3-8, as well as results for all STAAR A and STAAR Alternate 2 assessments, would be excluded from 2015 state accountability. Because of these exclusions and changes to the Level II passing standards, data for 2015 and 2016 are not comparable. In 2016, overall STAAR passing rates varied by subject and educational setting (Table 13.1 on page 222). On the reading test, passing rates were higher in standard charters than traditional districts. On the writing test, passing rates were the same in standard charters and traditional districts. On the mathematics, science, and social studies tests, passing rates were higher in Note. Please refer to Chapters 1 and 2 of this report for definitions and descriptions of indicators used. In addition, Chapter 9 contains information on the inception and growth of charters. 221 Table 13.1. STAAR Passing Rates (%), by Subject, Charters Evaluated Under Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Provisions, Charters Evaluated Under Standard Accountability Provisions, and Traditional Districts, 2015 and 2016 Subject Reading/ELAb Mathematics Writing Science Social Studies All Tests Taken 2015 53 50 50 64 69 57 AEA Charters 2016 44 48 41 64 72 53 Standard Charters 2015 2016 81 76 86 75 74 70 76 77 75 73 79 75 Traditional Districtsa 2015 2016 77 73 82 77 72 70 79 79 78 78 77 75 Note. Results for 2016 are based on STAAR, STAAR A, STAAR L, and STAAR Alternate 2 combined and are summed across all grades tested for each subject. Results for 2015 do not include STAAR mathematics assessments in Grades 3-8, STAAR A assessments, or STAAR Alternate 2 assessments. Because of these exclusions, as well as changes to the Level II passing standards, data for 2015 and 2016 data are not comparable. aExcludes charters. bEnglish language arts. Across subjects, the passing rate for AEA charters was highest on the social studies test, and the passing rates for standard charters and traditional districts were highest on the science test. Passing rates for all three educational settings were lowest on the writing test. STAAR Performance by Student Group In 2016, passing rates for Hispanic students and students identified as economically disadvantaged were higher in standard charters than in traditional districts on all tests, except social studies, where the passing rate for Hispanic students was 1 point higher in traditional districts, and the passing rates for economically disadvantaged students were the same in both educational settings (Table 13.2). Passing rates for African American students were higher in standard charters on the reading and writing tests, higher in traditional districts on the science and social studies tests, and the same in standard charters and traditional districts on the mathematics tests. Passing rates for White students were higher in traditional districts on all tests except reading, where the passing rate was 2 points higher in standard charters. Passing rates in AEA charters were lower than those in standard charters and traditional districts for all student groups and tests except social studies, where the passing rate for White students was 3 points higher in AEA charters than in standard charters. Across subjects, passing rates for all groups in AEA charters were highest on the Social Studies test, followed by the Science test. State Assessment Participation In the 2015-16 school year, 97 percent of students in AEA charters took state assessments, compared to 99 percent of students in traditional districts and 100 percent of students in standard charters (Figure 13.1). Figure 13.1. State Assessment Participation (%), Charters Rated Under Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Procedures, Charters Rated Under Standard Accountability Procedures, and Traditional Districts, 2016 100 80 64.0 Students (%) traditional districts than standard charters. Overall, passing rates for standard charters and traditional districts varied by 5 or fewer percentage points in each subject area. 60 93.0 5.0 0.0 6.0 1.0 40 33.0 20 0 3.0 AEA Charters Standard Charters Traditional Districts Educational Setting Not Tested 222 94.0 Non-Account. System Account. System 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 13.2. STAAR Passing Rates (%), by Subject and Student Group, Charters Evaluated Under Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Provisions, Charters Evaluated Under Standard Accountability Provisions, and Traditional Districts, 2015 and 2016 Group Reading/ELAb African American Hispanic White Economically Disadvantaged Mathematics African American Hispanic White Economically Disadvantaged Writing African American Hispanic White Economically Disadvantaged Science African American Hispanic White Economically Disadvantaged Social Studies African American Hispanic White Economically Disadvantaged AEA Charters 2015 2016 Standard Charters 2015 2016 Traditional Districtsa 2015 2016 43 54 64 52 37 44 55 42 75 78 89 77 69 75 86 72 69 72 88 70 63 68 84 65 42 50 59 49 42 50 51 47 80 86 88 85 64 75 81 72 72 78 90 76 64 73 86 70 33 56 38 50 38 42 29 39 70 72 79 70 65 67 77 65 62 67 82 63 60 64 80 60 58 63 74 63 55 64 76 62 67 75 82 72 66 77 83 74 69 74 89 71 69 75 88 72 55 69 83 66 64 71 83 69 69 73 83 71 67 72 80 70 71 72 88 69 70 73 86 70 Note. Results for 2016 are based on STAAR, STAAR A, STAAR L, and STAAR Alternate 2 combined and are summed across all grades tested for each subject. Results for 2015 do not include STAAR mathematics assessments in Grades 3-8, STAAR A assessments, or STAAR Alternate 2 assessments. Because of these exclusions, as well as changes to the Level II passing standards, data for 2015 and 2016 data are not comparable. aExcludes charters. bEnglish language arts. Test inclusion in accountability depends on a student's specific circumstances. In 2016, results for students who met the following criteria were used in determining accountability ratings: (a) the students were tested on STAAR, STAAR A, STAAR L, STAAR Alternate 2, or the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) and also had a valid scale score on an English-language version of a STAAR test; and (b) the students were enrolled in the same districts or charters on the date of testing as they were on the last Friday in October. Results for students who met one or more of the following criteria were not used in determining accountability ratings: (a) the students were mobile—they moved from one district or charter to another between the last Friday in October and the date of testing; or (b) the students were tested exclusively on TELPAS or identified as English language learners in their first year of enrollment in U.S. schools. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools In addition, the performance of students served at certain campuses was not used in evaluating the districts where the campuses are located. For example, under TEC §§39.054 and 39.055, students ordered by juvenile courts into residential programs or facilities operated by the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, a juvenile board, or any other governmental entity and students receiving treatment in residential facilities were excluded when determining campus and district accountability ratings. Because students attending charters tend to be a more mobile population, the percentage of students whose test results are excluded when determining accountability ratings is generally higher for charters than for traditional districts. In 2016, test results for 33 percent of students in AEA charters, 5 percent of students in standard charters, and 6 percent of students in traditional districts were excluded for accountability purposes. 223 Grade 9-12 Annual Dropout Rates In 2014-15, Grade 9-12 annual dropout rates for all student groups were considerably higher in AEA charters than in standard charters and traditional districts (Table 13.3). The annual dropout rate for students overall was lower in standard charters (1.3%) than traditional districts (1.4%). In addition, annual dropout rates for African American, Hispanic, and economically disadvantaged students were lower in standard charters than traditional districts. Table 13.3. Annual Dropout Rates (%), Grades 9-12, by Student Group, Charters Evaluated Under Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Provisions, Charters Evaluated Under Standard Accountability Provisions, and Traditional Districts, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Group 2013-14 African American Hispanic White Econ. Disad.b State 2014-15 African American Hispanic White Econ. Disad. State a AEA Charters Standard Charters Traditional Districtsa 11.4 7.7 7.0 8.2 8.2 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.9 1.8 0.8 1.8 1.4 12.2 7.8 6.7 8.6 8.5 1.3 1.1 2.1 1.4 1.3 1.8 1.7 0.8 1.7 1.4 Excludes charters. bEconomically disadvantaged. Grade 9-12 Longitudinal Graduation Rates The class of 2015 longitudinal graduation rates for standard charters (95.3%) and traditional districts (92.0%) were much higher than the rate for AEA charters (49.5%) (Table 13.4). Across settings, standard charters had the highest longitudinal graduation rates for all student groups. Recommended High School Program In standard charters, 88.0 percent of graduates in the class of 2015 met the requirements for the Recommended High School Program (RHSP) or the Distinguished Achievement Program (DAP) (Table 13.5). In traditional districts, the rate was 77.5 percent, and in AEA charters, the rate was 33.4 percent. 224 Table 13.4. Four-Year Longitudinal Graduation Rates (%), by Student Group, Charters Evaluated Under Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Provisions, Charters Evaluated Under Standard Accountability Provisions, and Traditional Districts, Classes of 2014 and 2015 Group Class of 2014 African American Hispanic White Econ. Disad.b State Class of 2015 African American Hispanic White Econ. Disad. State a AEA Charters Standard Charters Traditional Districtsa 40.6 51.4 54.6 50.9 50.0 93.1 93.8 96.3 93.7 94.6 88.9 89.2 94.9 88.9 91.5 37.1 48.2 61.6 47.4 49.5 90.6 95.8 96.3 94.8 95.3 89.6 89.9 95.2 89.3 92.0 Excludes charters. bEconomically disadvantaged. Table 13.5. Four-Year Longitudinal RHSPa/DAPb Graduation Rates (%), by Student Group, Charters Evaluated Under Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Provisions, Charters Evaluated Under Standard Accountability Provisions, and Traditional Districts, Classes of 2014 and 2015 Group Class of 2014 African American Hispanic White State Class of 2015 African American Hispanic White State AEA Charters Standard Charters Traditional Districtsc 22.4 37.3 31.0 33.0 85.6 89.6 92.6 90.3 70.0 75.5 81.3 77.5 17.5 35.8 38.3 33.4 77.7 88.7 90.8 88.0 70.3 75.5 81.3 77.5 Recommended High School Program. bDistinguished Achievement Program. cExcludes charters. a College Admissions Tests In standard charters, the percentage of graduates who took either the SAT or the ACT was 90.2 percent for the class of 2015. In traditional districts, the participation rate was 68.9 percent. In AEA charters, only 14.5 percent of graduates participated. The percentage of examinees in the class of 2015 who scored at or above criterion on either test was 24.6 percent for standard charters, 24.2 percent for traditional districts, and 9.3 percent for AEA charters. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Criterion on the SAT is a combined score of 1110, and criterion on the ACT is a composite score of 24. Agency Contact Persons For information on charters, contact A.J. Crabill, Deputy Commissioner of Governance, (512) 936-1533; or Heather Mauzé, Charter Schools Division, (512) 463-9575. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Other Sources of Information Accountability ratings, Texas Academic Performance Reports, and profiles for each charter operator and charter campus are available from each charter and on the Texas Education Agency website at http://tea.texas.gov/ perfreport/. Other evaluation reports pertaining to Texas charter schools may be found at http://tea.texas.gov/ index2.aspx?id=2147485609. 225 226 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 14. Character Education T exas Education Code (TEC) §29.906 permits, but does not require, school districts to offer character education programs. It also requires the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to maintain a list of the programs and to designate Character Plus Schools. To be designated a Character Plus School, a school's program must: Districts and charters that reported implementing character education programs were asked whether the programs had effects on academic achievement and student discipline. Over 61 percent reported improved standardized tests scores, and some 45 percent reported improved local grades. Over 80 percent reported fewer discipline referrals, and almost 48 percent reported improved attendance. ♦ stress positive character traits; ♦ use integrated teaching strategies; ♦ be age-appropriate; and Agency Contact Persons ♦ be approved by a district committee. For information about Character Plus Schools or character education programs, contact Monica Martinez, Associate Commissioner for Standards and Support Services, (512) 463-9087; or Chelaine Marion, Curriculum Standards and Support Services Division, (512) 463-9581. From 2002 until 2010, TEA conducted an annual survey of all school districts and charters to identify character education programs and determine the perceived effects of the programs on student discipline and academic achievement. TEA designated campuses as Character Plus Schools based on responses to the survey. For 2009-10, the most recent school year for which data are available, 227 Texas school districts or charters (approximately 18%) responded to the survey. Approximately 89 percent of districts and charters completing the survey reported having character education programs. A total of 1,296 campuses in the responding districts and charters had programs meeting the Character Plus criteria, and 367 campuses had programs not meeting the criteria. About 11 percent of survey respondents reported not having character education programs. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Other Sources of Information Criteria for Character Plus Schools, as defined by TEC §29.906, and the lists of Character Plus Schools for school years 2001-02 through 2009-10 are available at http://tea.texas.gov/Academics/Learning_Support_ and_Programs/Character_Education/Character_ Education/. 227 228 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 15. Student Health and Physical Activity S tudent health plays an integral part in the academic success of all students. To help promote student health, Texas has implemented the Coordinated School Health Model, which is designed to support and advance student academic performance by focusing on student physical, emotional, social, and educational development. Physical Fitness Assessment Under Texas Education Code (TEC) §38.101, all public school districts must assess the physical fitness levels of all students in Grades 3-12 on an annual basis. Districts must use a physical fitness assessment instrument specified by the commissioner of education and report results to the Texas Education Agency (TEA) (TEC §§38.102 and 38.103). The data must be aggregated and may not include student-level information (TEC §38.103). TEA is required to analyze the results of the physical fitness assessment and identify any correlation between the results and student academic achievement, attendance, obesity, disciplinary problems, and school meal programs (TEC §38.104). After a thorough review process, the commissioner selected the Fitnessgram in 2007 as the official physical fitness assessment instrument. The Fitnessgram, created by The Cooper Institute of Dallas, measures body composition, aerobic capacity, strength, endurance, and flexibility. In the Fitnessgram program, a student is considered to be in the "Healthy Fitness Zone" if the student achieves specified levels of fitness on individual tests, with performance targets tied to the student's age and gender. Students participate in six tests, which include activities such as a one-mile run, curl-ups, pushups, trunk lift, and shoulder stretches. In 2013, the 83rd Texas Legislature appropriated $5 million for the 2014-15 biennium for the physical fitness assessment and related analysis. In 2015, appropriations for the 2016-17 biennium were $2 million. TEA has provided a statewide license for Fitnessgram software at no cost to Texas public schools since the 2013-14 school year. The software provides a webbased data collection system and mobile applications that allow teachers to upload physical fitness assessment data directly to Fitnessgram servers. TEA continues to maintain the Physical Fitness Assessment 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Initiative application for districts that do not register for the Fitnessgram site license. During the 2014-15 school year, TEA collected physical fitness assessment data from 1,060 districts and charters on 2,324,797 students in Grades 3-12. Both the number of participating districts and charters and the number of students assessed increased from the previous year, when 826,459 students were assessed in 968 districts and charter schools. In 2015, The Cooper Institute conducted an analysis of the physical fitness assessment data to assess the relationships among physical fitness and student academic achievement, attendance, obesity, disciplinary problems, and school meal programs. The analysis is available on the TEA website. Through a competitive solicitation, a similar analysis of fitness assessment data for 2014-15 and 2015-16 is expected to be conducted in the 2016-17 school year. Coordinated School Health Programs TEC §38.013 requires that TEA make available to each school district one or more coordinated health programs designed to prevent obesity, cardiovascular disease, oral diseases, and Type 2 diabetes in elementary, middle school, and junior high school students. The health education component of coordinated school health programs must include oral health education. Programs approved by the commissioner of education that meet all criteria for a coordinated school health program outlined in 19 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §102.1031 are available on the TEA website. Instruction in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation The State Board of Education requires instruction in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for students in Grades 7-12 (19 TAC §74.38; TEC §28.0023). School districts and open-enrollment charter schools must provide students with instruction in CPR at least once before graduation. The instruction in CPR may be 229 provided as a part of any course, and a school administrator may waive the curriculum requirement for an eligible student who has a disability. Campus Improvement Plans Under TEC §11.253, campus improvement plans (CIPs) must establish goals and objectives for the coordinated school health program on each elementary, middle, and junior high school campus. The goals and objectives must be based on the following: student fitness data; student academic performance data; attendance rates; the percentage of students identified as educationally disadvantaged; the use and success of any methods used to ensure that students participate in moderate to vigorous physical activity; and any other indicators recommended by the local school health advisory council (SHAC). Commission have developed a website to provide resources for teachers of students with special health needs. The website provides access to documents that discuss treatment and management of chronic illnesses and the effects such illnesses can have on a student's well-being and ability to succeed in school. Other documents on the website present information about preventing exposure to food allergens and contagious diseases. Agency Contact Persons For additional information on student health and physical activity, contact Monica Martinez, Associate Commissioner for Standards and Support Services, (512) 463-9087; or Mackie Spradley, Curriculum Standards and Support Services Division, (512) 463-9581. School Health Survey Other Sources of Information To enhance implementation of school health requirements and improve the quality of fitness data, TEA developed an annual survey to collect additional data from school districts on student health and physical activity programs (TEC §38.0141). Results from the survey help identify district needs and guide technical support and training related to effective implementation of coordinated school health programs and SHACs. The results also help other organizations and agencies throughout the state in efforts to improve policies and practices that affect health behavior in their districts and communities. Additional information on the Physical Fitness Assessment Initiative is available at http://tea.texas.gov/ Texas_Schools/Safe_and_Healthy_Schools/ Physical_Fitness_Assessment_Initiative/. Mental Health Health and Safety Code §161.325 requires that TEA and the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) annually update a list of recommended best-practicebased programs that address early mental health intervention; mental health promotion and positive youth development; substance abuse prevention and intervention; and suicide prevention. The programs are intended to be implemented in public elementary, middle, junior high, and high schools. The list of programs is available on the TEA and DSHS websites and must also be accessible on the website of each ESC. Resources for Teachers of Students With Special Health Needs Aggregate fitness assessment data are available at http://tea.texas.gov/Texas_Schools/Safe_and_Healthy_ Schools/Physical_Fitness_Assessment_Initiative/ Fitness_Data/. Fitnessgram results at the district level are available at http://tea4avwaylon.tea.state.tx.us/Pfai/ ReportGenerator.aspx. Approved Coordinated School Health Programs are available at http://tea.texas.gov/Texas_Schools/ Safe_and_Healthy_Schools/Coordinated_School_ Health/Approved_Coordinated_School_Health_ Programs/. Best-practice-based programs that address early mental health intervention; mental health promotion and positive youth development; substance abuse prevention and intervention; and suicide prevention are available at http://tea.texas.gov/Academics/Subject_Areas/ Health_and_Physical_Education/Health_Education/. Resources for teachers of students with special health needs are available at http://tea.texas.gov/Texas_ Schools/Safe_and_Healthy_Schools/Coordinated_ School_Health/School_Health_-_Students_with_ Special_Health_Needs/. In accordance with the requirements of TEC §21.463, TEA and the Texas Health and Human Services 230 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 16. Foundation High School Program Endorsements W ith implementation of the Foundation High School Program (FHSP) in 2014-15, Texas added endorsements to high school graduation requirements. Endorsements consist of a series of related courses that are grouped together by interest or skill set and allow students to complete coursework in a particular subject area to pursue possible career paths or topics of interest. An endorsement may be earned in any of the following areas: ♦ science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); ♦ business and industry; ♦ public services; ♦ arts and humanities; or ♦ multidisciplinary studies. Beginning with the 2014-15 school year, each student entering ninth grade must select at least one endorsement to pursue. A student may graduate under the FHSP without earning an endorsement if, after the student's sophomore year, his or her parent or guardian files written permission to opt out of pursuing an endorsement. To earn an endorsement, a student graduating under the FHSP must successfully complete the curriculum requirements for that endorsement as identified by State Board of Education (SBOE) rule. A student seeking an endorsement is required to earn a total of 26 credits, including 4 credits each in mathematics and science and 7 elective credits (Table 16.1). A student not seeking an endorsement is required to earn a total of 22 credits. SBOE rules for the FHSP provide students with multiple options to earn each endorsement (Table 16.2 on page 232). The options, to the extent possible, require completion of a coherent sequence of courses. Public school districts and charters must make available to students the courses necessary to satisfy at least one endorsement and may offer multiple endorsements. If a district or charter offers only one endorsement, it must be in multidisciplinary studies. Although districts and charters do not report the endorsements they offer students, they are required to report, through the Public Education Information Management System, the endorsements each student pursues or completes. For 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 16.1. Foundation High School Program (FHSP) Credit Requirements Subject Area English Mathematics Science Social Studies LOTEa Physical Education Fine Arts Electives Total a FHSP Without Endorsement 4 3 3 3 2 1 1 5 22 FHSP With Endorsement 4 4 4 3 2 1 1 7 26 Languages other than English. each type of endorsement, Table 16.3 on page 232 presents counts of districts and charters that reported that at least one student pursued or completed the endorsement. Because the FHSP was implemented beginning with first-time ninth graders in the 2014-15 school year, the class of 2018 will be the first full class to graduate under the FHSP. Under Title 19 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §74.1021, students who entered high school prior to the 2014-15 school year were allowed to transition to the FHSP and pursue endorsements. Calculations In this chapter, endorsement data for 2014-15 include all ninth graders, plus students in Grades 10-12 who opted to transition to the FHSP and pursue endorsements. Data for 2015-16 include all ninth and tenth graders, plus students in Grades 11 and 12 who opted to transition to the FHSP and pursue endorsements. Student results are based on the last campus a student attended, as reported in the Public Education Information Management System. A student pursuing or completing more than one endorsement is included in the results for each endorsement pursued or completed. State Summary In 2014-15, a total of 442,495 students pursued or completed endorsements. Of those, 9.2 percent were students in Grades 10-12 who opted to transition to the 231 Table 16.2. Course Sequence Options to Complete Endorsements, by Endorsement Area Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)a ♦ Career and technical education (CTE) courses related to STEM ♦ Computer Science ♦ Mathematics ♦ Science ♦ Combination of no more than two of the categories listed above Business and Industry ♦ CTE courses selected from one of the 10 CTE career clusters approved for the endorsement: Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources; Architecture and Construction; Arts, Audio/Visual, and Communications; Business Management and Administration; Finance; Hospitality and Tourism; Information Technology; Marketing; Manufacturing; and Transportation, Distribution, and Logistics ♦ English electives in public speaking, debate, advanced broadcast journalism, including newspaper and yearbook ♦ Technology applications ♦ A coherent sequence of four credits from the categories listed above Public Services ♦ CTE courses selected from one of the five CTE career clusters approved for the endorsement: Education and Training; Government and Public Safety; Health Science; Human Services; and Law, Public Safety, Correction, and Security ♦ Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps Arts and Humanities ♦ Social studies ♦ Two levels each in two languages other than English (LOTE) or four levels in the same language other than English ♦ Four levels of American Sign Language ♦ Courses from one or two disciplines (music, theatre, art, and dance) in fine arts ♦ English electives not included in Business and Industry Multidisciplinary Studies ♦ Advanced courses from other endorsement areas ♦ Four credits in each foundation area (English, mathematics, science, and social studies), including English IV and Chemistry and/or Physics ♦ Four credits in Advanced Placement /International Baccalaureate, or dual credit selected from English, mathematics, science, social studies, economics, LOTE, or fine arts aThe STEM endorsement requires students to complete Algebra II, chemistry, and physics, in addition to the sequence of courses for one of the approved options. Table 16.3. Districts and Charters With Foundation High School Program Students Pursuing or Completing Endorsements, by Endorsement, 2014-15 and 2015-16 Endorsement STEMa Business and Industry Public Services Arts and Humanities Multidisciplinary Studies a 2014-15 735 794 622 709 996 2015-16 898 939 771 852 1,002 Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. FHSP and pursue endorsements. Multidisciplinary studies (26.0%) and business and industry (21.3%) were the two most pursued endorsements in Grades 9-12 overall (Table 16.4). A sizable percentage of students in Grades 9-12 (17.4%) did not pursue endorsements in 2014-15, likely because it was the first year the FHSP was implemented. The percentage was particularly high among Grade 12 students (43.4%), who may not have had time to complete the curriculum requirements for endorsements. 232 In 2015-16, a total of 849,157 students pursued or completed endorsements. Multidisciplinary studies (33.1%) and business and industry (24.4%) remained the two most pursued endorsements in Grades 9-12 overall (Table 16.4). Moreover, multidisciplinary studies was the most pursued endorsement among every student group (Table 16.5 on page 234). The percentage of FHSP students in Grades 9-12 who did not pursue endorsements (5.7%) decreased by 11.7 percentage points from 2014-15 (Table 16.4). Across student groups in 2015-16, students served in special education programs had the highest percentage of students not pursuing endorsements (10.0%). Under 19 TAC §89.1070(c), a student receiving special education services is not eligible for an endorsement if he or she receives a modified curriculum in any course required for an endorsement or fails to perform satisfactorily on the required state assessments, as established in the Texas Education Code, Chapter 39. In general, the percentage of students who pursued or completed each of the five endorsements increased between 2014-15 and 2015-16, the second year the 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 16.4. Foundation High School Students Pursuing or Completing Endorsements, by Endorsement and Grade, 2014-15 and 2015-16 Endorsement 2014-15 STEMa Business and Industry Public Services Arts and Humanities Multidisciplinary Studies No Endorsements 2015-16 STEM Business and Industry Public Services Arts and Humanities Multidisciplinary Studies No Endorsements Grade 9 Number Rate (%) Grade 10 Number Rate (%) Grade 11 Number Rate (%) Grade 12 Number Rate (%) 57,936 88,015 81,888 50,330 102,750 61,360 14.4 21.9 20.4 12.5 25.6 15.3 1,672 2,986 1,972 1,543 4,721 6,630 9.4 16.8 11.1 8.7 26.5 37.2 1,139 1,655 1,041 1,255 3,044 3,463 11.2 16.3 10.3 12.4 30.0 34.2 1,636 1,738 931 1,667 4,496 5,578 12.7 13.5 7.2 13.0 35.0 43.4 66,847 106,769 93,326 59,109 135,904 19,511 15.7 25.1 22.0 13.9 32.0 4.6 63,741 90,441 82,620 55,722 124,196 13,307 17.1 24.3 22.2 15.0 33.4 3.6 3,829 5,469 3,447 3,704 10,020 6,768 14.1 20.1 12.7 13.6 36.9 24.9 3,487 4,272 2,510 3,982 10,655 8,721 13.8 16.9 9.9 15.7 42.0 34.4 Note. Results are based on the last campus a student attended, as reported in the Public Education Information Management System. A student pursuing or completing more than one endorsement is included in the results for each endorsement pursued or completed. aScience, technology, engineering, and mathematics. FHSP was in place (Table 16.5 on page 234). Multidisciplinary studies experienced increases in almost every grade level and student group between the 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years (Tables 16.6 through 16.9, starting on page 235). Agency Contact Person For information on the state curriculum program, contact Monica Martinez, Associate Commissioner for Standards and Support Services, (512) 463-9087, or Shelly Ramos, Curriculum Standards and Student Support Division, (512) 463-9581. 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Other Sources of Information See the Public Education Information Management System Data Standards at http://tea.texas.gov/Reports_ and_Data/Data_Submission/PEIMS/PEIMS_Data_ Standards/PEIMS_Data_Standards/. For additional information related to endorsement options, see House Bill 5 Evaluation, at http://tea.texas.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=25769823287&libID=25769823385. 233 Table 16.5. Foundation High School Program Students Pursuing or Completing Endorsements, Grades 9-12, by Student Group and Endorsement, 2014-15 and 2015-16 Totala Student Group African American 2014-15 2015-16 American Indian 2014-15 2015-16 Asian 2014-15 2015-16 Hispanic 2014-15 2015-16 Pacific Islander 2014-15 2015-16 White 2014-15 2015-16 Multiracial 2014-15 2015-16 Econ. Disad.c 2014-15 2015-16 Female 2014-15 2015-16 Male 2014-15 2015-16 ELLd 2014-15 2015-16 Special Educatione 2014-15 2015-16 STEMb Rate Number (%) Business and Industry Rate Number (%) Public Services Rate Number (%) Arts and Humanities Rate Number (%) Multidisciplinary Studies Rate Number (%) Number Rate (%) 56,161 106,725 12.7 12.6 5,713 12,628 10.2 11.8 11,803 26,622 21.0 24.9 10,535 22,597 18.8 21.2 5,844 13,306 10.4 12.5 13,302 32,143 23.7 30.1 1,817 3,317 0.4 0.4 240 512 13.2 15.4 359 815 19.8 24.6 295 627 16.2 18.9 233 449 12.8 13.5 430 1,072 23.7 32.3 16,408 33,349 3.7 3.9 4,702 11,881 28.7 35.6 1,769 3,983 10.8 11.9 2,814 6,111 17.2 18.3 1,920 4,743 11.7 14.2 4,679 12,540 28.5 37.6 221,553 431,226 50.1 50.8 27,945 61,099 12.6 14.2 50,453 111,043 22.8 25.8 50,820 107,729 18.8 25.0 27,646 62,602 12.5 14.5 51,265 124,799 23.1 28.9 581 1,211 0.1 0.1 77 171 13.3 14.1 120 285 20.7 23.5 109 273 22.9 22.5 61 148 10.5 12.2 126 378 21.7 31.2 138,148 257,962 31.2 30.4 22,467 48,794 16.3 18.9 28,476 61,013 20.6 23.7 20,023 41,769 14.5 16.2 18,006 38,828 13.0 15.1 43,004 104,078 31.1 40.3 7,827 15,367 1.8 1.8 1,239 2,819 15.8 18.3 1,414 3,190 18.1 20.8 1,236 2,797 15.8 18.2 1,085 2,441 13.9 15.9 2,205 5,765 28.2 37.5 250,524 479,934 56.6 56.5 28,071 61,321 11.2 12.8 57,350 127,717 22.9 26.6 54,357 116,069 21.7 24.2 29,758 66,454 11.9 13.8 58,037 139,654 23.2 29.1 214,238 413,218 48.4 48.7 22,891 51,699 10.7 12.5 33,065 72,725 15.4 17.6 57,529 122,550 26.9 29.7 33,807 75,313 15.8 18.2 55,932 136,772 26.1 33.1 228,257 435,939 51.6 51.3 39,492 86,205 17.3 19.8 61,329 134,226 26.9 30.8 28,303 59,353 12.4 13.6 20,988 47,204 9.2 10.8 59,079 144,003 25.9 33.0 40,941 80,435 9.3 9.5 3,436 7,915 8.4 9.8 9,385 22,194 22.9 27.6 7,854 17,718 19.2 22.0 4,105 9,891 10.0 12.3 9,772 22,680 23.9 28.2 37,871 73,004 8.6 8.6 2,204 4,812 5.8 6.6 8,787 19,856 23.2 27.2 5,809 12,545 15.3 17.2 3,837 8,596 10.1 11.8 10,024 25,753 26.5 35.3 Note. Results are based on the last campus a student attended, as reported in the Public Education Information Management System. A student pursuing or completing more than one endorsement is included in the results for each endorsement pursued or completed. aResults include Foundation High School Program (FHSP) students who did not pursue endorsements. In addition, FHSP students pursuing or completing more than one endorsement are included only once. bScience, technology, engineering, and mathematics. cEconomically disadvantaged. dEnglish language learner. eA student receiving special education services is not eligible for an endorsement if he or she receives a modified curriculum in any course required for an endorsement or fails to perform satisfactorily on the required state assessments, as established in the Texas Education Code, Chapter 39 (19 TAC §89.1070(c)). 234 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 16.6. Foundation High School Program Students Pursuing or Completing Endorsements, Grade 9, by Student Group and Endorsement, 2014-15 and 2015-16 Totala Student Group African American 2014-15 2015-16 American Indian 2014-15 2015-16 Asian 2014-15 2015-16 Hispanic 2014-15 2015-16 Pacific Islander 2014-15 2015-16 White 2014-15 2015-16 Multiracial 2014-15 2015-16 Econ. Disad.c 2014-15 2015-16 Female 2014-15 2015-16 Male 2014-15 2015-16 ELLd 2014-15 2015-16 Special Educatione 2014-15 2015-16 STEMb Rate Number (%) Business and Industry Rate Number (%) Public Services Rate Number (%) Arts and Humanities Rate Number (%) Multidisciplinary Studies Rate Number (%) Number Rate (%) 52,041 54,823 13.0 12.9 5,512 6,392 10.6 11.7 11,486 14,551 22.1 26.5 10,252 11,768 19.7 21.5 5,614 6,971 10.8 12.7 12,485 16,002 24.0 29.2 1,635 1,700 0.4 0.4 220 263 13.5 15.5 328 445 20.1 26.2 275 329 16.8 19.4 209 219 12.8 12.9 389 529 23.8 31.1 15,470 16,638 3.9 3.9 4,594 5,826 29.7 35.0 1,704 2,166 11.0 13.0 2,743 3,073 17.7 18.5 1,842 2,195 11.9 13.2 4,462 6,078 28.8 36.5 203,086 220,986 50.6 52.0 26,284 30,570 12.9 13.8 48,029 58,711 23.6 26.6 48,915 56,181 24.1 25.4 25,739 31,019 12.7 14.0 45,655 61,889 22.5 28.0 536 615 0.1 0.1 73 90 13.6 14.6 113 152 21.1 24.7 107 139 20.0 22.6 56 81 10.4 13.2 118 180 22.0 29.3 121,779 122,277 30.3 28.8 20,091 22,370 16.5 18.3 25,037 29,096 20.6 23.8 18,422 20,418 15.1 16.7 15,863 17,410 13.0 14.2 37,610 48,411 30.9 39.6 7,133 7,684 1.8 1.8 1,162 1,336 16.3 17.4 1,318 1,648 18.5 21.4 1,174 1,418 16.5 18.5 1,007 1,214 14.1 15.8 2,031 2,815 28.5 36.6 229,741 250,050 57.2 58.9 26,453 31,500 11.5 12.6 54,295 68,685 23.6 27.5 52,241 61,501 22.7 24.6 27,588 33,839 12.0 13.5 52,291 70,785 22.8 28.3 194,147 203,574 48.3 47.9 20,797 24,307 10.7 11.9 30,711 37,081 15.8 18.2 54,736 62,018 28.2 30.5 31,081 36,279 16.0 17.8 49,697 64,779 25.6 31.8 207,533 221,149 51.7 52.1 37,139 42,540 17.9 19.2 57,304 69,688 27.6 31.5 27,152 31,308 13.1 14.2 19,249 22,830 9.3 10.3 53,053 71,125 25.6 32.2 38,733 47,439 9.6 11.2 3,360 4,742 8.7 10.0 9,190 13,393 23.7 28.2 7,715 10,854 19.9 22.9 3,988 5,675 10.3 12.0 9,334 13,178 24.1 27.8 35,278 39,479 8.8 9.3 2,114 2,778 6.0 7.0 8,401 10,960 23.8 27.8 5,637 7,049 16.0 17.9 3,675 4,698 10.4 11.9 9,534 13,853 27.0 35.1 Note. Results are based on the last campus a student attended, as reported in the Public Education Information Management System. A student pursuing or completing more than one endorsement is included in the results for each endorsement pursued or completed. aResults include Foundation High School Program (FHSP) students who did not pursue endorsements. In addition, FHSP students pursuing or completing more than one endorsement are included only once. bScience, technology, engineering, and mathematics. cEconomically disadvantaged. dEnglish language learner. eA student receiving special education services is not eligible for an endorsement if he or she receives a modified curriculum in any course required for an endorsement or fails to perform satisfactorily on the required state assessments, as established in the Texas Education Code, Chapter 39 (19 TAC §89.1070(c)). 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 235 Table 16.7. Foundation High School Program Students Pursuing or Completing Endorsements, Grade 10, by Student Group and Endorsement, 2014-15 and 2015-16 Totala Student Group African American 2014-15 2015-16 American Indian 2014-15 2015-16 Asian 2014-15 2015-16 Hispanic 2014-15 2015-16 Pacific Islander 2014-15 2015-16 White 2014-15 2015-16 Multiracial 2014-15 2015-16 Econ. Disad.d 2014-15 2015-16 Female 2014-15 2015-16 Male 2014-15 2015-16 ELLe 2014-15 2015-16 Special Educationf 2014-15 2015-16 STEMb Rate Number (%) Business and Industry Rate Number (%) Public Services Rate Number (%) Arts and Humanities Rate Number (%) Multidisciplinary Studies Rate Number (%) Number Rate (%) 1,959 46,583 11.0 12.5 75 5,898 3.8 12.7 137 11,601 7.0 24.9 141 10,409 7.2 22.3 76 5,959 3.9 12.8 325 14,502 16.6 31.1 <100 1,400 0.5 0.4 –c 227 8.3 16.2 12 329 12.5 23.5 – 277 13.5 19.8 – 206 10.4 14.7 – 476 15.6 34.0 465 15,454 2.6 4.2 54 5,765 11.6 37.3 36 1,733 7.7 11.2 34 2,896 7.3 18.7 33 2,346 7.1 15.2 103 5,991 22.2 38.8 7,462 184,951 41.9 49.7 556 27,609 7.5 14.9 1,135 48,140 15.2 26.0 860 48,303 11.5 26.1 622 27,924 8.3 15.1 2,201 52,825 29.5 28.6 <50 528 0.1 0.1 – 73 17.4 13.8 6 122 26.1 23.1 – 132 4.3 25.0 – 58 4.3 11.0 – 182 8.7 34.5 7,474 116,119 42.0 31.2 946 22,819 12.7 19.7 1,605 27,124 21.5 23.4 889 19,319 11.9 16.6 767 18,144 10.3 15.6 2,003 47,567 26.8 41.0 336 6,856 1.9 1.8 29 1,350 8.6 19.7 55 1,392 16.4 20.3 34 1,284 10.1 18.7 34 1,085 10.1 15.8 72 2,653 21.4 38.7 9,368 201,790 52.6 54.3 596 26,933 6.4 13.3 1,570 54,078 16.8 26.8 1,073 51,197 11.5 25.4 815 28,941 8.7 14.3 2,352 58,233 25.1 28.9 8,752 183,437 49.1 49.3 733 23,744 8.4 12.9 1,066 31,978 12.2 17.4 1,410 56,400 16.1 30.7 946 34,345 10.8 18.7 2,334 61,291 26.7 33.4 9,063 188,454 50.9 50.7 939 39,997 10.4 21.2 1,920 58,463 21.2 31.0 562 26,220 6.2 13.9 597 21,377 6.6 11.3 2,387 62,905 26.3 33.4 1,013 29,704 5.7 8.0 43 2,992 4.2 10.1 119 8,348 11.7 28.1 82 6,639 8.1 22.4 60 3,970 5.9 13.4 221 8,581 21.8 28.9 1,342 30,043 7.5 8.1 35 1,892 2.6 6.3 216 8,335 16.1 27.7 108 5,266 8.0 17.5 76 3,626 5.7 12.1 271 10,968 20.2 36.5 Note. Results are based on the last campus a student attended, as reported in the Public Education Information Management System. A student pursuing or completing more than one endorsement is included in the results for each endorsement pursued or completed. aResults include Foundation High School Program (FHSP) students who did not pursue endorsements. In addition, FHSP students pursuing or completing more than one endorsement are included only once. bScience, technology, engineering, and mathematics. cA dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. dEconomically disadvantaged. eEnglish language learner. fA student receiving special education services is not eligible for an endorsement if he or she receives a modified curriculum in any course required for an endorsement or fails to perform satisfactorily on the required state assessments, as established in the Texas Education Code, Chapter 39 (19 TAC §89.1070(c)). 236 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Table 16.8. Foundation High School Program Students Pursuing or Completing Endorsements, Grade 11, by Student Group and Endorsement, 2014-15 and 2015-16 Totala Student Group African American 2014-15 2015-16 American Indian 2014-15 2015-16 Asian 2014-15 2015-16 Hispanic 2014-15 2015-16 Pacific Islander 2014-15 2015-16 White 2014-15 2015-16 Multiracial 2014-15 2015-16 Econ. Disad.d 2014-15 2015-16 Female 2014-15 2015-16 Male 2014-15 2015-16 ELLe 2014-15 2015-16 Special Educationf 2014-15 2015-16 STEMb Rate Number (%) Business and Industry Rate Number (%) Public Services Rate Number (%) Arts and Humanities Rate Number (%) Multidisciplinary Studies Rate Number (%) Number Rate (%) 818 2,759 8.1 10.1 36 195 4.4 7.1 79 264 9.7 9.6 68 234 8.3 8.5 71 174 8.7 6.3 214 842 26.2 30.5 <50 <150 0.4 0.4 –c 13 5.1 11.1 9 20 23.1 17.1 – – 10.3 12.8 – – 17.9 7.7 – 27 28.2 23.1 262 730 2.6 2.7 23 170 8.8 23.3 18 50 6.9 6.8 20 73 7.6 10.0 18 128 6.9 17.5 50 264 19.1 36.2 4,473 12,625 44.1 46.4 428 1,621 9.6 12.8 647 2,423 14.5 19.2 548 1,845 12.3 14.6 570 1,822 12.7 14.4 1,328 4,988 29.7 39.5 <50 <50 0.1 0.2 0 7 0.0 15.6 0 11 0.0 24.4 – – 14.3 2.2 – – 28.6 8.4 – 8 28.6 17.8 4,375 10,442 43.2 38.4 632 1,751 14.4 16.8 882 2,602 20.2 24.9 386 1,216 8.8 11.6 568 1,489 13.0 14.3 1,392 3,745 31.8 35.9 <200 473 1.6 1.7 – 72 11.0 15.2 20 99 12.2 20.9 14 63 8.5 13.3 19 78 11.6 16.5 47 146 28.7 30.9 4,805 14,721 47.4 54.1 415 1,570 8.6 10.7 790 2,922 16.4 19.8 566 1,977 11.8 13.4 655 1,886 13.6 12.8 1,349 5,425 28.1 36.9 5,107 13,637 50.4 50.2 557 1,841 10.9 13.5 603 2,009 11.8 14.7 730 2,416 14.3 17.7 792 2,217 15.5 16.3 1,573 5,109 30.8 37.5 5,031 13,554 49.6 49.8 582 1,988 11.6 14.7 1,052 3,460 20.9 25.5 311 1,031 6.2 7.6 463 1,487 9.2 11.0 1,471 4,911 29.2 36.2 480 1,791 4.7 6.6 10 95 2.1 5.3 50 258 10.4 14.4 44 143 9.2 8.0 26 143 5.4 8.0 88 490 18.3 27.4 598 1,992 5.9 7.3 27 79 4.5 4.0 93 376 15.6 18.9 42 141 7.0 7.1 53 152 8.9 7.6 98 562 16.4 28.2 Note. Results are based on the last campus a student attended, as reported in the Public Education Information Management System. A student pursuing or completing more than one endorsement is included in the results for each endorsement pursued or completed. aResults include Foundation High School Program (FHSP) students who did not pursue endorsements. In addition, FHSP students pursuing or completing more than one endorsement are included only once. bScience, technology, engineering, and mathematics. cA dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. dEconomically disadvantaged. eEnglish language learner. fA student receiving special education services is not eligible for an endorsement if he or she receives a modified curriculum in any course required for an endorsement or fails to perform satisfactorily on the required state assessments, as established in the Texas Education Code, Chapter 39 (19 TAC §89.1070(c)). 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools 237 Table 16.9. Foundation High School Program Students Pursuing or Completing Endorsements, Grade 12, by Student Group and Endorsement, 2014-15 and 2015-16 Totala Student Group African American 2014-15 2015-16 American Indian 2014-15 2015-16 Asian 2014-15 2015-16 Hispanic 2014-15 2015-16 Pacific Islander 2014-15 2015-16 White 2014-15 2015-16 Multiracial 2014-15 2015-16 Econ. Disad.d 2014-15 2015-16 Female 2014-15 2015-16 Male 2014-15 2015-16 ELLe 2014-15 2015-16 Special Educationf 2014-15 2015-16 STEMb Rate Number (%) Business and Industry Rate Number (%) Public Services Rate Number (%) Arts and Humanities Rate Number (%) Multidisciplinary Studies Rate Number (%) Number Rate (%) 1,343 2,560 10.4 10.1 90 143 6.7 5.6 101 206 7.5 8.0 74 186 5.5 7.3 83 202 6.2 7.9 278 797 20.7 31.1 <50 <150 0.4 0.4 10 – 21.3 9.0 –c 21 21.3 21.0 – 6 6.4 6.0 – 15 14.9 15.0 – 40 31.9 40.0 211 527 1.6 2.1 31 120 14.7 22.8 11 34 5.2 6.5 17 69 8.1 13.1 27 74 12.8 14.0 64 207 30.3 39.3 6,532 12,664 50.8 50.0 677 1,299 10.4 10.3 642 1,769 9.8 14.0 497 1,400 7.6 11.1 715 1,837 10.9 14.5 2,081 5,097 31.9 40.2 <50 <50 0.1 0.1 0 – 0.0 4.3 – 0 6.7 0.0 0 – 0.0 4.3 – 5 13.3 21.7 – 8 26.7 34.8 4,520 9,124 35.1 36.0 798 1,854 17.7 20.3 952 2,191 21.1 24.0 326 816 7.2 8.9 808 1,785 17.9 19.6 1,999 4,355 44.2 47.7 <200 354 1.5 1.4 30 61 15.5 17.2 21 51 10.8 14.4 – 32 7.2 9.0 25 64 12.9 18.1 55 151 28.4 42.7 6,610 13,373 51.4 52.7 607 1,318 9.2 9.9 695 2,032 10.5 15.2 477 1,394 7.2 10.4 700 1,788 10.6 13.4 2,045 5,211 30.9 39.0 6,232 12,570 48.5 49.6 804 1,807 12.9 14.4 685 1,657 11.0 13.2 653 1,716 10.5 13.7 988 2,472 15.9 19.7 2,328 5,593 37.4 44.5 6,630 12,782 51.5 50.4 832 1,680 12.5 13.1 1,053 2,615 15.9 20.5 278 794 4.2 6.2 679 1,510 10.2 11.8 2,168 5,062 32.7 39.6 715 1,501 5.6 5.9 23 86 3.2 5.7 26 195 3.6 13.0 13 82 1.8 5.5 31 103 4.3 6.9 129 431 18.0 28.7 653 1,490 5.1 5.9 28 63 4.3 4.2 77 185 11.8 12.4 22 89 3.4 6.0 33 120 5.1 8.1 121 370 18.5 24.8 Note. Results are based on the last campus a student attended, as reported in the Public Education Information Management System. A student pursuing or completing more than one endorsement is included in the results for each endorsement pursued or completed. aResults include Foundation High School Program (FHSP) students who did not pursue endorsements. In addition, FHSP students pursuing or completing more than one endorsement are included only once. bScience, technology, engineering, and mathematics. cA dash (–) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. dEconomically disadvantaged. eEnglish language learner. fA student receiving special education services is not eligible for an endorsement if he or she receives a modified curriculum in any course required for an endorsement or fails to perform satisfactorily on the required state assessments, as established in the Texas Education Code, Chapter 39 (19 TAC §89.1070(c)). 238 2016 Comprehensive Biennial Report on Texas Public Schools Compliance Statement Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Modified Court Order, Civil Action 5281, Federal District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. Reviews of local education agencies pertaining to compliance with Title VI Civil Rights Act of 1964 and with specific requirements of the Modified Court Order, Civil Action No. 5281, Federal District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division are conducted periodically by staff representatives of the Texas Education Agency. These reviews cover at least the following policies and practices: 1. acceptance policies on student transfers from other school districts; 2. operation of school bus routes or runs on a nonsegregated basis; 3. nondiscrimination in extracurricular activities and the use of school facilities; 4. nondiscriminatory practices in the hiring, assigning, promoting, paying, demoting, reassigning, or dismissing of faculty and staff members who work with children; 5. enrollment and assignment of students without discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin; 6. nondiscriminatory practices relating to the use of a student's first language; and 7. evidence of published procedures for hearing complaints and grievances. In addition to conducting reviews, the Texas Education Agency staff representatives check complaints of discrimination made by a citizen or citizens residing in a school district where it is alleged discriminatory practices have occurred or are occurring. Where a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is found, the findings are reported to the Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education. If there is a direct violation of the Court Order in Civil Action No. 5281 that cannot be cleared through negotiation, the sanctions required by the Court Order are applied. Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964 as Amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972; Executive Orders 11246 and 11375; Equal Pay Act of 1964; Title IX, Education Amendments; Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as Amended; 1974 Amendments to the Wage-Hour Law Expanding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1972 as Amended; Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986; Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990; and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The Texas Education Agency shall comply fully with the nondiscrimination provisions of all federal and state laws, rules, and regulations by assuring that no person shall be excluded from consideration for recruitment, selection, appointment, training, promotion, retention, or any other personnel action, or be denied any benefits or participation in any educational programs or activities which it operates on the grounds of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, disability, age, or veteran status (except where age, sex, or disability constitutes a bona fide occupational qualification necessary to proper and efficient administration). The Texas Education Agency is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer. Texas Education Agency 1701 North Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701-1494 Document No. GE17 601 07 March 2017