Texas Education Agency Commissioner Mike Morath 1701 North Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701-1494 0 512 463-9734 0 512 463-9838 FAX 0 tea.texas.gov Certi?ed Mail 8. Regular Mail 101 -91 2 2019-2020 November 6, 2019 Dr. Grenita Lathan, Superintendent Ms. Diana Davila, Board President Houston Independent School District 4400 W. 18?1 St. Houston, TX 77092 RE: Appointment of Board of Managers Due to Special Accreditation Investigation and Lowered Accreditation, Campus Performance Ratings, and the Conservator Appointment Dear Dr. Lathan and Ms. Davila: The purpose of this correspondence is to provide Houston Independent School District or ?district?) with of?cial noti?cation regarding my determination to lower the district?s 2018-2019 accreditation status based on the results of a Special Accreditation Investigation. This action is authorized by Texas Education Code (Tex. Educ. Code) and and 19 Texas Administrative Code (Tex. Admin. Code) ??97.1055, 97.1057, and 97.1059. Speci?cally, Houston ISD's 2018-2019 accreditation status will be lowered to Accredited-Warned. This letter also provides the district notice of my appointment of a board of managers to Houston ISD to exercise the powers and duties of the district's board of trustees, and of my appointment of a superintendent based on the results of the Special Accreditation Investigation, the lowered accreditation status, the unacceptable performance of a district campus, and the length of the conservator appointment. See Tex. Educ. Code 39A.004, 39A.006 39A.111, 39A.201, 39A.202, 39A.906. and 19 Tex. Admin. Code ??97.1057, 97.1059, 97.1073. Special Accreditation Investigation In response to multiple complaints received by the Texas Education Agency (TEA or agency) alleging violations with laws relating to governance of an Independent School District and compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, TEA issued a Notice of Special Accreditation Investigation (SAI) on January 22, 2019, and due to concerns reported by Houston ISD staff, issued an amended Notice of SAI on March 24, 2019, to include alleged violations of contract procurement. On August 5, 2019, the Agency issued a Preliminary Report and provided the district and its trustees an opportunity to respond. After conducting an informal review of the responses, the Agency issued a Final Report on October 30, 2019, which documented the following ?ndings: 0 A quorum of the board of trustees deliberated and exercised decision making powers outside of a public meeting held in compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act in violation of Tex. Educ. Code - Members of the board of trustees acted individually on behalf of the board, exceeding the scope of their authority in violation of Tex. Educ. Code Governance of Independent School District . Members of the board of trustees violated contract procurement rules while the district was selecting a vendorlcontract as well as attempting to tamper with contracts that had been awarded in violation of Tex. Educ. Code ??44.031 and Based on these ?ndings, the Final Report recommended lowering the district?s accreditation status and appointing a conservator and a board of managers to ensure appropriate governance of the district and implementation of policies and procedures to address the issues raised in the Final Report. Accreditation Status and Appointment of a Board of Managers and Superintendent Pursuant to Tex. Educ. Code and and 19 Tex. Admin. Code and a school district's accreditation status may be raised or lowered and an accreditation sanction may be issued based on the results of a special accreditation investigation. 1 have evaluated and considered the issues documented in the Final Report relating to the inability of the board of trustees to carry out its power and duties in Tex. Educ. Code ??11.151 and 11.1511, and 19 Tex. Admin. Code as demonstrated by its failure to address the long-standing academic de?ciencies at Wheatley High School. Speci?cally, the report makes ?ndings of fact identifying serious and persistent instances where individual board members exercise decision-making authority in violation of Texas Open Meetings Act and violated laws relating to contracting. These ?ndings compel me to lower the district's 2018-2019 accreditation status to Accredited- Warned and appoint a board of managers because the district exhibits serious or persistent de?ciencies that may lead to the probation or revocation of the district's accreditation if not addressed because the breakdown in governance may impact academic and ?nancial performance. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code These actions are necessary because the district has failed to comply with the requirements related to purchasing as set forth in Subchapter B, Chapter 44 of the Education Code. See Tex. Educ. Code and and 19 Tex. Admin. Code and Given the inability of the board of trustees to govern the district, these sanctions are necessary to protect the best interests of the district's current and future students. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code The ?ndings demonstrate that individual members of the board of trustees acted on behalf the board outside of a meeting that complied with the Texas Open Meetings Act resulting in an inef?cient or ineffectual use of district funds or property. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code The board members should have focused on implementing effective change to improve the performance of students in the district?s low performing campuses. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code The board of trustees failed to do so. The ?ndings in the Final Report demonstrate material de?ciencies that are serious and extensive. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code The ?ndings also demonstrate that the district?s governing problems are long-standing and have recurred over time. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code The de?ciencies cited in the Final Report demonstrate a substantial and imminent threat to the welfare of the district?s students and to the public interest because the board of trustees is unable to govern the district, as demonstrated by its inability to address the long-standing academic de?ciencies at Wheatley High School. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code As stated above, I have reviewed the Final Report and determined that the ?ndings contained therein compel me to lower the district?s accreditation status. For the same reasons cited above, these ?ndings also compel me to appoint a board of managers to exercise the powers and duties of the board of trustees. This is authorized because the district?s accreditation rating has been lowered to Accredited-Wamed. See Tex. Educ. Code This intervention is also authorized because the ?ndings in the Final Report warrant the intervention. See Tex. Educ. Code This intervention is in the best interests of the students. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code and This intervention is needed to prevent imminent and substantial harm to the welfare of the district?s students or to the public interest, because the de?ciencies identi?ed in the Final Report warrant the appointment of a board of managers, and because a failure of governance has resulted in an inability of the board to carry out the powers and duties of the board as outlined in Tex. Educ. Code 11.151 and 11.1511, as demonstrated by its inability to address the long-standing academic de?ciencies of Wheatley High School. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code and and and These actions are necessary to achieve the purposes of the accreditation system. See Tex. Educ. Code ??39.051, 39.052, and 19 Tex. Admin. Code and These actions are necessary to inform stakeholders of the district?s poor compliance performance. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code These actions will encourage the district to comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act and the purchasing laws, and will allow stakeholders the ability to assist future board members in complying with the Texas Open Meetings Act and the purchasing laws. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code These actions will also encourage other districts to improve their compliance performance in order to avoid similar action and to retain their accreditation. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code Finally, these actions will improve the Texas public school system by eliminating poor compliance performance by the district. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code Campus Performance Ratings In 2011, Wheatley High School was assigned a ?nal academic accountability rating of Academically Unacceptable. This was the campus? ?rst unacceptable rating following a 2010 rating of Academically acceptable. The rating of Academically Unacceptable was the lowest rating in the accountability system. The campus was required to prepare a targeted improvement plan. In 2012, no campus ratings were issued due to transition from the TAKS to the STAAR test. Under this transition, 2011 and 2013 ratings were treated as consecutive. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code In 2013, Wheatley High School was assigned a ?nal academic accountability rating of Improvement Required. This was the campus' second consecutive unacceptable rating. The campus submitted its targeted improvement plan and a targeted reconstitution plan. In 2014, Wheatley High School was assigned a ?nal academic accountability rating of Improvement Required. This was the campus? third consecutive unacceptable rating. The campus was designated a Texas Title 1 Priority School (TTIPS) and received the TTIPS Cycle 3 Grant. As a condition of that grant, the campus submitted quarterly progress reports, staff and Principal effectiveness submissions, and end of year reports. In 2015, Wheatley High School was assigned a ?nal academic accountability rating of Improvement Required. This was the campus' fourth consecutive unacceptable rating. The campus continued to implement its plan associated with the TTIPS Cycle 3 grant. In 2018, Wheatley High School was assigned a ?nal academic accountability rating of Improvement Required. This was the campus' ?fth consecutive unacceptable rating. Under prior law, this district and campus would have been ordered to repurpose the campus, select alternative management, or close the campus.1 However, due to the passage of HE. 1842, a new set of sanctions was authorized. HS. 1842 included a transition plan for campuses such as Wheatley. Under the transition provisions, Wheatley was essentially treated as having three consecutive failed ratings following the 2016 rating, rather than ?ve. For such a campus, the sanctions authorized by Tex. Educ. Code (board of managers or campus closure) for campuses with ?ve consecutive failed ratings would apply to Wheatley following its seventh consecutive failed rating. In 2017, Wheatley High School was assigned a ?nal academic accountability rating of Improvement Required. This was the campus' sixth consecutive unacceptable rating. In 2018, Wheatley High School had student performance that would have led to its seventh consecutive failed rating. However, due to the Hurricane Harvey waiver, Wheatley was not issued a rating of Improvement Required. Instead the campus was not rated. The Hurricane Harvey waiver made it clear that for campuses that were not rated due to Hurricane Harvey, the 2017 and 2019 ratings would be considered to be consecutive.2 In 2019, Wheatley High School was issued a ?nal academic accountability rating of F. This was the cam pus? seventh consecutive unacceptable rating. On September 3, 2019, noti?ed the district that if the unacceptable 2019 preliminary academic performance rating assigned to the Wheatley High School became a ?nal rating, I would be required to order either the appointment of a board of managers to govern the district as provided by Tex. Educ. Code or closure of the cam pus. The district appealed the preliminary performance rating assigned to Wheatley High School and, on November 5, 2019, the district was noti?ed of the appeal denial and that Wheatley High School 1 See Tex. Educ. Code 2 See 2018 Accountability Manual, Chapter 10- Hurricane Harvey, School Districts and Open-Enrollment Charter Schools. received a ?nal 2019 academic performance rating of F, the seventh consecutive unacceptable rating assigned to the campusa. Consequently, I am required to take action pursuant to Tex. Educ. Code and 39A.111, and I am ordering the appointment of a board of managers. The long-standing failure of the board of trustees to provide better educational opportunities to the students of this campus, compel me to appoint a board of managers pursuant to Tex. Educ. Code 39A.906(b) and 19 Tex. Admin. Code This action is necessary because the Agency?s systems for campus accountability have identi?ed the board of trustees' material de?ciencies and inability to implement effective change to improve the performance of students assigned to the campus. See 19 Tex. Admin Code and These de?ciencies have been persistent and long-standing. The HISD Board of Trustees has allowed this campus to operate with unacceptable ratings since 2011, earning 7 consecutive unacceptable ratings, and demonstrate an ongoing failure of the board of trustees to address previously identi?ed de?ciencies and establish a pattern of recurring de?ciencies. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code This action is necessary to achieve the purposes of the accreditation system. See Tex. Educ. Code ??39.051, 39.052, and 19 Tex. Admin. Code and This action is necessary to inform stakeholders of the district's poor campus academic performance. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code This action will encourage the district to improve its academic performance, and will allow stakeholders the ability to assist future board members in improving the district's poor campus academic performance. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code This action will also encourage other districts to improve their campus academic performance in order to avoid similar action. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code Finally, these actions will improve the Texas public school system by appointing a board of managers to address the campus' poor academic performance. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code Length of the Conservator Appointment On September 2, 2016, appointed Dr. Doris Delaney as a conservator. At the time of this appointment, Kashmere High School had the most consecutive years of unacceptable performance of any campus in the state. The commissioner may appoint a board of managers if a conservator has been assigned to the district in any part of two consecutive school years, including the current school year. See Tex. Educ. Code ?39.006(b) and 19 Tex. Admin. Code Dr. Delaney's period of appointment has included four consecutive school years including most of the 2016-17 school year, the entire 2017-18 school year, the entire 2018-19 school year, and part of the current 2019-20 school year. Under the conservator?s direction, Kashmere High School has earned an acceptable rating. If the board of trustees had been more responsive to current intervention, the board should have made similar efforts to improve its other low-performing campuses. Pursuant to my authority under Tex. Educ. Code I am appointing a board of managers to oversee the district. This appointment is necessary due the district?s inability to implement 3 An unacceptable performance rating includes ratings of Academically Unacceptable, Improvement Required. and F. See 2019 Accountability Manual Chapter 9, page 91. 4 The commissioner can consider the entire ratings history of the campus when assigning accreditation statuses or issuing an accreditation sanction. See 19 Tax. Admin. Code effective change to improve the performance of students at its campuses. See 19 Tex. Admin- Code Public Noti?cation: Accreditation Status Districts that are assigned a status of Accredited-Warned must take speci?c actions to notify the parents of students enrolled in the district and property owners in the district. The requirements for public noti?cation are speci?ed in 19 Tex. Admin. Code and a template that re?ects the required format and . language for the public notice is posted at Houston ISD must complete the noti?cation requirement no later than December 9, 2019. Houston ISD also must send by certi?ed mail, return receipt requested, documentation showing compliance with the noti?cation requirement. This documentation may be addressed as follows: Division of Accreditation Texas Education Agency 1701 North Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701 Fax: (512) 475-3665 Districts with an accreditation status below Accredited may be subject to additional accreditation sanctions as referenced in 19 Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 97, Planning and Accountability, Subchapter EE. Questions related to the public noti?cation requirements may be addressed to accred@tea.texas.qov or (512) 463-5899. Appointment of Board of Managers and Superintendent Given the critical nature of the ?ndings, I am appointing a board of managers to the district to exercise the powers and duties of the district's board of trustees under the authority of Tex. Educ. Code 39A.006, and and 19 Tex. Admin. Code ??97.1057, 97.1059, and A majority of the board of managers will consist of members of the Houston ISD community who are committed to service on behalf of the students of the district and the community. The members of the board of managers will be responsible for overseeing the management of the Houston including oversight of the district?s efforts to address and correct identi?ed de?ciencies, and implementation of effective structural and procedural improvement strategies for long-tenn positive change. Texas Education Code also requires that appoint a superintendent. I will announce my appointments in future correspondence. Conservator Appointment The appointment of the previously appointed conservator will remain in effect and will not be impacted at this time. The district is directed to cooperate and comply with the directives given by the conservator. Please note that the appointment of a conservator does not relieve the district and its governing board of the responsibility to, at all times, operate the district in compliance with all applicable statutes and rules. The cost of the conservator's services will be paid by the district in accordance with Tex. Educ. Code The conservators fee shall be $85 per hour plus necessary travel expenses not to exceed the state per diem rate. Failure to make timely payments to the conservator may result in appropriate amounts being deducted from Foundation School Program (FSP) funds. The agency reserves the right to implement all available interventions and sanctions under Tex. Educ. Code, Chapter 39 and 39A, and Title 19, Tex. Admin. Code, Chapter 97, to address the current, or any future, de?ciencies identi?ed for the district. Parent Petition If the superintendent submits to the Commissioner a petition that the superintendent has certi?ed as a valid petition on or before December 2, 20195, and re?ects that the parents of a majority of the students enrolled at Wheatley High School request that I either close the campus or install of board of managers, I must order the action requested. See Tex. Educ. Code However, if authorized by a majority of the board of trustees in a meeting conducted in compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, the board may request that the commissioner take a different action than the action requested in the parent petition. If the board takes such an action, it must provide a written explanation of the basis for the board?s request to the commissioner no later than December 16, 2019?. See Tex. Educ. Code If the parent petition and the board request call for different actions, the commissioner may order either a board of managers or campus closure. See Tex. Educ. Code Review Process The district has a right to a formal review regarding the assignment of a board of managers and assignment of the lowered accreditation status of Accredited-Warned. 19 Tex. Admin. Code ?157.1131. However, this formal review shall be provided only if the district submits a written request for formal review no later than November 20, 2019. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code Written information must also be submitted by the required deadline for requesting a formal review. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code ?157.1133. If no formal review is requested by the deadline, a ?nal decision may be issued without formal review. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code Pursuant to Tex. Educ. Code and 19 Tex. Admin. Code ?157.1136, the Commissioner's decision related to the lowered accreditation status and appointment of the board of managers is ?nal and may not be appealed. A request for review and any written response and documentation must be received by the TEA no later than November 20, 2019, and should be sent to: Division of Enforcement Coordination Texas Education Agency 5 19 Tex. Admin. Code provides that if the petition was determined to be valid, it must be submitted by the district superintendent to the commissioner not later than December 1. However, as December 1, 2019 falls on a Sunday, the deadline was extended to Monday, December 2, 2019 per the Parent Petition for Action Guidance Document. 5 19 Tex. Admin. Code provides for a deadline of no later than December 15, however as December 15, 2019 falls on a Sunday, the deadline was extended to Monday, December 16, 2019 per the Parent Petition for Action Guidance Document. 1701 North Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701 Fax: (512) 475-3665 Should the district wish to appear in person at the review or attend via telephonic conference. the district must give such noti?cation within its request for review no later than November 20, 2019, and subsequent noti?cation from TEA will be issued scheduling the review. The district is not required to attend the review; however, if the district requests a review and chooses not to attend, the review will proceed, and a ?nal decision will be made based upon the documentation that was submitted by the district, if any, with its request for review. If no formal review is requested by the deadline, a ?nal decision may be issued without review. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code Compliance and Cooperation The board of managers, once installed, will keep me apprised of the conditions in the district and the agency will continue to monitor the district?s performance and its cooperation with the agency's interventions. I will appoint a board of managers comprised of a majority of members of the Houston ISD community because I believe the community is in the best position to effectuate long-term, positive change for the district. It is my sincere desire that all parties work together in a cooperative and productive manner to address the issues within the district. The agency reserves the right to implement all available interventions and sanctions under Tex. Educ. Code, Chapter 39, 39A, and 19 Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 97, to address the current, or any future, de?ciencies identi?ed for the campus and district. Any questions regarding this correspondence may be addressed to the Division of Enforcement Coordination at (512) 463-5899 or Any questions regarding the accreditation status may be addressed to the Division of Accreditation at (512) 463-5899 or by email at accred@tea.texas.qov. Any questions regarding the appointment of a board of managers, superintendent, and conservator may be addressed to Jason Hewitt in the Division of Monitors, Conservators 8. Investigations at (512) 936-5962 or by email at Jason.Hewitt@tea.texas.oov. Commissioner of Education cc: Dr. Pam Wells. Executive Director, Region 4, Education Service Center Jeff Cottrill, Deputy Commissioner, Governance Accountability, TEA Kelvey Oeser, Deputy Commissioner, Educator Support Mike Meyer, Deputy Commissioner, Finance, TEA Leo Lopez, Associate Commissioner/Chief School Finance Of?cer, TEA Cory Green, Associate Commissioner, Grants and Compliance Oversight, TEA Joe Siedlecki, Associate Commissioner, Innovation 8- Charters, TEA Von Byer, General Counsel, TEA Christopher Jones, Senior Legal Counsel, TEA Lizette Ridgeway, Director, School Improvement. TEA Jason Hewitt, Director, Monitors 8: Conservators, TEA 20] Campus Accountability+Table Inf? Texas Education Amend-fl Performance Reporting November 2011 TEXAS EDUCATIW AGENCY 2011 CAMPUS ACCOURTABILITY DATA TABLES - STANDARD PROCEDURES DISTRICT NAME: HOUSTON 18D CAMPUS NAME: CAMPUS NUMBER: 101912013 Campus Rating: Academically Unacceptable Grade Span: 09 - 12 Analysis groups used to determine ratings are highlighted in 3532. Accountability standards are shown in parentheses. Reasons for Academically Unacceptable rating are highlighted in Special formats are used to protect student confidentiality. TEXAS ASSESSMENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS (TAKS) TABLE Required Status I 2011 ll 2010 II Improvement II by Measure Number Stu Number Met Performance Met Number Met Met Number Met Min Act Met Results Taking Taking Size R1 STD RI EXCP Reading/SLR All Students 491 655 75% 100African Amer 317 409 76Hispanic 165 236 70white Econ Disadv 426 573 75Hriting l70%/80%/90%) All Students . . . African Amer Hispanic White Econ Disadv I - . - - Social Studies All Students 316 376 84% 100% 327 366 69% -5 RE African Amer 204 250 62Hispanic 106 120 66shite Econ Disadv 271 321 64Mathematics white Science African Amer Fit E64 16white a a a .- Met the minimum size requirement. but did not meet the 75% floor for Recognized. ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS PROGRESS INDICATOR TABLE (na/60%/60%J Reading/ELA ELL Students COMMENDED PERFORMANCE TABLE Ina/15%/25%) Number Stu Performance at Number at Results Commended Taking Commended ReadinngLA All Students 43 655 7% 200% Econ Disadv 76 573 6% 87% Mathematics All Students 1E 629 6% 100% Econ Disadv 1% 551 5% 86% ss' Summary column: November 2311 TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY 2011 CAMPUS ACCOUNTABILITY DATA TABLES - STANDARD PROCEDURES The final outcome for this measure after use of RI and exceptions (if applicable}. 11/6/20l9, 9:]6 Ab. 20] 1 Campus Accountability+Table 101?s DISTRICT NAME: HOUSTON ISD CAMPUS NAME: HHEAILEY 5 Campus Rating: Academically Unacceptable CAMPUS NUMBER: 101912018 Grade Span: 09 - 12 Analysis groups used to determine ratings are highlighted in BLUE. Accountability standards are shown in parentheses. Reasons for Academically Unacceptable rating are highlighted in Special formats 999%. 41%) are used to protect student confidentiality. EXCEPTIONS TABLE Number Number Number Floorts} Maris) Used Evaluated Allowed Needed Met? in 2010? Exceptions Applied 16 4 7 COMPLETION RATE I TABLE (Gr. 9-12} November 2011 Required Class of 2010 Class of. 2009 Improvement Stu Met Com- in Comp Com- in COmp Min Act Met pleters Dropouts Class Rate pleters Class Rate Size R1 All Students 239 15 274 37.2% 100% 247 287 86.1% 1-1 African Amer 164 22 186 88.2% 681 184 209 88.0% 3.2 Hispanic 73 11 86 34.9% 31% 63 78 80.8% Yes 0.1 2.1 Yes Hhite - - . i at - Econ Disadv 211 :u 230 91.1% 84% 192 213 90.1% 1-5 ANNUAL DROPOUT RATE TABLE (Gr. 7-8) Required 2009-10 2008-09 Improvement Stu Met 7-0 Dropout 7-8 Dropout Min Act Met Dropouts Graders Rate Dropouts Graders Rate Size RI Students - - - - - - - - African Amer - - - - - - - - Hispanic - - - - - - - - white - - - - - - - - Econ Disadv - - - - - - - - Dropout data not evaluated for your accountability rating due to grade span, small numbers. or no data. TEXAS EDUCAIION AGENCY PAGE 3 2011 CAMPUS GOED PERFORMANCE ACKNOWLEDGNEHT (GSA) DATA TABLES - STANDARD PROCEDURES DISTRICT NAME: HOUSTON ISD CAMPUS NAME: HEEAILBY CAMPUS NUMBER: 101912018 Campus Rating: Academically Unacceptable Grade Span: 09 - 12 Analysis groups used to determine acknowledgment are highlighted in 013E. Special formats are used to protect student confidentiality. Summary of Gold Performance Acknowledgments Earned 0 acknowledgmentis) out of 12 evaluated. Advanced Courses NO COmmended Reading/ELA NO APIIB N0 Commended Mathematics No Attendance Rate NO Commended Writing College-Ready No COmmended Science NQ N0 Commended Social Studies NO NO TSI ELA NO CI: Reading TSI Mathematics HQ CI: Mathematics - Acknowledged; ND - Does Not Qualify; Blank - Not Applicable Advanced Course/Dual Enrollment Completion (2009-10): DOES NOT QUALIFY number Number Percent w/credit for w/Credit for Student w/Credit for Student Groups an Advanced Any Group Advanced Course Course Percent Courses All Students 132 1.018 100% 13.0% African American 10: 640 63% 15.8% Hispanic 29 371 36% 7.8% Hhite I 1 :1 1 Ilia-"2019, 9:16 AN 201 1 Campus Accountability+Table Economically Disadvantaged 1:8 845 Hl% 12-91 Results (2009-10): DOES NOT QUALIFY Number Percent Number Number or Percent Scoring Number Scoring Taking 11th and Student Taking At or Taking At or Student Groups AP and/ 12th Group AP and] Above AP and! Above or IE Graders Percent or IE Criterion or IE Criterion All Students ES 366 100% 18.0% 0 SE 0.0% African American hl 235 64% 21.7% 5: 0.0% Hispanic 15 130 36% 11.5% 0 15 0.0% White 0% November 2011 TEN EDUCATION AGENCY PAGE 4 2011 CAMPUS GOLD ransom (GPA) DATA TABLES - STANDARD PROCEDURES DISTRICT NAME: HOUSNN ISD CAMPUS NAME: mm 5 Campus Rating: Academically Unacceptable CAMPUS NUMBER: 101912013 Grade Span: 09 - 12 Analysis groups used to determine acknowledgment are highlighted in BLUE. Special formats are used to protect student confidentiality. Attendance Rate [2009-10) DOES NOT QUALIFY Total Days Absent Student Student Groups Total Total Days Group Attendance Days Present Present Percent Rate All Students 155.831 173.934 100% 89.6% Atrican American 96.122 107.497 62% 85.4% Hispanic 58.646 65,277 38% 89.8% white 528 0% Economically Disadvantaged 134.31: 149.488 86% 89.8% Attendance Rate standard for your acknowledgment is 95.0%. College-Ready Graduates {Class of 2010}: DOES NOT QUALIFY 30H Number Scoring NUmber Percent Scoring At or Above Taking Student At or Above Student Groups Criteria on Both ELA Group Criteria on Both ELA 6 Math 6 Math Percent Both ELA Math All Students RH 174 100% 16% African American 2: 119 68% 17% Hispanic 54 31% 15% ?nine 0 II II I Economically Disadvantaged 21 163 94% 14% Commended on Reading/ELA: DOES NOT QUALIFY Student Student Groups Number Number Group Percent Commended Taking Percent Commended All Students 41 655 100% African American 21 409 62% T1 Hispanic :5 236 36% 8% Hhitc 1- Economically Disadvantaged 15 573 87% 6% Reading includes second administration results for Student Success Initiative students tested at the same campus. November 2011 TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY PAGE 5 2011 CAMPUS GOLD SEREORMANCE ACKNOWLEDGMENT (GPA) DATA TABLES - STANDARD PROCEDURES DISTEICT NAME: HOUSTON ISD CAMPUS NAME: HHEAILEY CAMPUS NUMBER: 101912018 Campus Rating: Academically Unacceptable Grade Span: 05 - 12 Analysis groups used to determine acknowledgment are highlighted in BLUE. Special formats are used to protect student confidentiality. Commended on Mathematics: DOES NOT QUALIFY Student Student Groups Number Number Group Percent Commended Taking Percent Commended All Students 1E- 620 100% 6% 111'612019, 9:l6 AN 2011 Campus Accountability+Table dof? African American 22 400 64% 6% Hispanic 13 216 34% 6% White Economically Disadvantaged 3: 551 88% 5% Mathematics includes second administration results for Student Success Initiative students tested at the same campus. Commended on writing: NOT APPLICABLE Student Student Groups Number Number Group Percent Commended Taking Percent Commended All Students African American a Hispanic - white I i i . Economically Disadvantaged Hriting data not evaluated for your acknowledgment due tn grade span, small numbers, or no data. Commended on Science: DOES NET QUALIFY Student Student Groups Number Number Group Percent Commended Taking Percent Commended All Students is 383 100% 1% African American 5? 254 66% 1% Hispanic a 123 32% 1% White Economically Disadvantaged :3 327 85% 1% November 2011 taxes EDUCATION AGENCY PAGE 6 2011 CAMPUS GCED ACKNOWLEDGMENT (GPA) DATA TABLES - STANDARD PROCEDURES DISTRICT NAME: HOUSTON ISD CAMPUS smut: NUEATLSY 8 Campus Hating: Academically Unacceptable CAMPUS NUMBER: 101912018 Grade Span: 09 - 12 Analysis groups used to determine acknowledgment are highlighted in Special formats are used to protect student confidentiality. Commended on Social Studies: DOES NOT QUALIFY Student Student Groups Number Number Group Percent Commended Taking Percent Commended All Students 14 376 100% 12% African American 28 250 66% 11% Hispanic 15 120 32% 13% ?hit-E I II II I Economically Disadvantaged 1? 321 85% 12% Comparable Improvement: NOT APPLICABLE Total Number of Matched Students Quartile A Reading - Mathematics - A Data not evaluated for CI acknowledgment due to no matched students or small numbers. Does Not Meet Minimum Size Requirement. There is no CI Report for Your Campus. Recommended High School Program (Class of 2010): DOES NOT QUALIFY Percent Rec. Student Completing Student Groups HS Pgm. Total Group Rec. Graduates Graduates Percent 85 Pgm. All Students 188 233 100% 80.7% African American 132 158 68% 83.5% Hispanic 55 74 32% 74.3% White :a .. Economically Disadvantaged 172 207 89% 83.1% llf6f2019, 9:16 AN 201 1 Campus Accountability+Table 50H The count of RESP graduates includes Distinguished Achievement Program graduates. November 2011 DISTRICT NAME: HOUSTON ISD CAMPUS NAME: WHEATLEY CAMPUS NUMBER: 101912010 TRIAS EDUCAIION AGENCY 2011 CAMPUS GOLD PERFORMANCE ACKNOWLEDGMENT (GPA) DAIA TABLES - STANDARD PAOCEDURES Campus Rating: Grade Span: U9 - 12 Analysis groups used to determine acknowledgment are highlighted in 3;u5. Special formats are used to protect student confidentiality. PAGE 7 Academically Unacceptable Results {Class of 2010): DOES NOT QUALIFY Number Percent Number Number of Percent Scoring Number Scoring Taking Non-Special Student Taking At or Taking At or Student Groups SAT and] Education Group SAT and! Above SAT and! Above or ACT Graduates Percent or ACT Criterion or ACT Criterion All Students 57 13: 100% 51.1% 5? 3.1% Atrican American as 120 68% 52.7% 2 00 2.9% Hispanic 2! s: 32% 46.7% 1 20 3.6% white 1% . Texas Success Initiative ELA: DOES NOT QUALIFY Number Number Percent Scoring At Taking Student Scoring At Student Groups or Above Exit-level Group or Above Standard ELA Percent Standard All Students 42 160 100% 26% African American 3] 98 61% 34% Hispanic 0 61 38% 13% tht'?' i II I II Economically Disadvantaged 11 141 00% 23% Texas Success Initiative Mathemati?s: DOES NOT QUALIFY Number Number Percent Scoring At Taking Student Scoring At Student Groups or Above Exit-level Group or Above Standard Mathematics Percent Standard All Students T2 154 100% 47% African American 51 90 64% 52% Hispanic RD 54 35% 37% HhitE II I Economically Disadvantaged 55 135 00% 48% This request took 0.87 seconds ofreai n'me (v9. 4 build 1509). 1 11612019, 9:16 Al'v TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY 2013 Accountability Summary WHEATLEY 5 (101912013) - HOUSTON ISD Accountability Rating Improvement Required Met Standards on - NONE - Student Achievement - Student Progress Did Not Meet Standards on - Closing Performance Gaps - Postsecondary Readiness Performance Index Report Distinction Designation Academic Achievement in ReadinglELA Percent of Eligible Measures in Top Quartile 1 out of 7 14% DOES NOT QUALIFY Academic Achievement in Mathematics Percent of Eligible Measures in Top Quartile 1 out of 7 14% DOES NOT QUALIFY Top 25 Percent Student Progress DOES NOT QUALIFY Campus Demographics - a . ti Campus Type High School 25 - r: I, Campus Size 886 Students . . -. Grade Span 09 - 12 48 :16_ . . 253 71 Percent Economically Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index it Disadvantaged 83.7% 953:2; Gaps ?lms?? Percent English Language (Target Score-SD) (Target Secret?) {Target Score I 55) (Target Score I 75) Learners 1 53% Mobility Rate 34.2% Performance Index Summary System Safeguards Points Maximum Index Number and Percent of Indicators Met Index Earned Pomts Score Performance Rates 9 out of 30 30% 1 Student Acmevement 1355 2'3? 48 Participation Rates 12 out of 12 100% 2 Student Progress 238 1'800 16 Graduation Rates 1 0U10f5 20% 3 - Closing Performance Gaps 527 1.000 53 Total 22 out of 47 47% 4 Postsecondary Readiness 499.8 700 71 For further information about this report. please see the Performance Reporting Division web site at TBA hiiricinn AF 1 Annual TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY 2014 Accountability Summary WHEATLEY 5 (101912013) - HOUSTON ISD Accountability Rating Distinction Designation Improvement Required Academic Achievement in ReadingiELA NO DISTINCTION EARNED Met Standards on Did Not Meet Standards on - NONE - Student Achievement Academic Achievement in Mathematics - Closing Performance Gaps NO DISTINCTION EARNED - Postsecondary Readiness Academic Achievement in Science NO DISTINCTION EARNED Academic Achievement in Social Studies Performance Index Report No 0.5mm? EARNED mo Top 25'Percent Student Progress NOT ELIGIBLE 75 1 Top 25 Percent Closing Performance Gaps NO DISTINCTION EARNED 50 - Postsecondary Readiness - NO EARNED 25 - 47 NM 14?. 59 Campus Demographics 0 1 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4 Student Siudenl Closing Postsecondary campus Type Achievement Progress Performance Gaps Readiness (Target Score=551 (Target Score I 31) (Target Score a: 57} Campus SIZE 343 Students Grade Span 09 - 12 Percent Economically Performance Index Summary D'sadvantaged 823% Percent English Language Points Maximum Index Learners 15.2% Index Earned Points Score . . a 1 - Student Achievement 593 1.265 47 M?b""y Rate 41'7 2 - Student Progress NIA NIA NIA 3 - Closing Performance Gaps 466 1.600 29 System Safeguards 4 - Postsecondary Readiness STAAR Score 2.5 Graduation Rate Score 19.2 Number and Percent of Indicators Met Graduation Plan Score 19.5 a Postsecondary Indicator Score 8.4 50 Performance Rates 11 out of 22 50 A: Participation Rates 2 out of 12 17% Graduation Rates 0 out of 5 0% Total 13 out of 39 33% For further information about this report. please see the Performance Reporting Division web site at TEA niuirinn n; Dav-{armature Danni-Hun D'Ir'ln Alum It} a 1H1 A TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY 2015 Accountability Summary WHEATLEY 5 (101912013) - HOUSTON ISD Accountability Rating Distinction Designation Improvement Required _a . . Met Standards on Did Not Meet Standards on Academic Achievement in ReadinngLA - Postsecondary Readiness - Student Achievement No DIS11NCTION EARNED - Student Progress Academic Achievement in Mathematics - Closing Performance Gaps N0 DISTINCTION EARNED In 2015. to receive :1 Met Standard or Met Alternative Standard rating. districts and campuses must meet targets on three indexes. Index 1 or Index 2 and Index 3 and Index 4. Academic Achievement in Science NO DISTINCTION EARNED Academic Achievement in Social Studies Performance Index Report No .3511me EARNED 1i"! Top 25 Percent Student Progress no EARNED Top 25 Percent Closing Performance Gaps. NO DISTINCTION EARNED 50 . . Postsecondary Readiness . NO DISTINCTION EARNED :25; a. 53 Campus Demographics 0 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4 Student Student Closing Postsecondary campus Type High Achievement Progress Performance Gaps Readiness {TargetScoressoi {TannetScoreSISI tTargetScore831) (Target Soote=57l Campus Size 775 Students Grade Span 09 - 12 Percent Economically Performance Index Summary D'sadvantaged 34-9 Percent English Language Points Maximum Index Learners 16.5 Index Earned Points Score . . 1 - Student Achievement 573 1.233 46 Rate 3? 2 - Student Progress 109 800 14 3 - Closing Performance Gaps 414 1.600 26 State System Safeguards 4 - Postsecondary Readiness STAAR Score 3.8 Graduation Rate Score 18.3 Number and Percent of Indicators Met Graduation Plan Score 18.8 Postsecondary Component Score 17.2 58 Performance Rates 4 mt Of 23 17 A Participation Rates 12 out of 12 100% Graduation Rates 1 out of 5 20% Total 17 out of 40 43% For further information about this report. please see the Performance Reporting Division website at TEA ?italic-inn nF Danni-tine! 1 Ann: let TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY 2016 Accountability Summary WHEATLEY 5 (101912013) - HOUSTON ISD Accountability Rating Distinction Designation Improvement Required Met Standards on Did Not Meet Standards on Academic Amman in Wading - Student Progress - Student Achievement no DISTINCTION EARNED Pemm?ance Gaps Academic Achievement in Mathematics - Postsecondary Readiness NO EARNED In 2016. to receive a Met Standard or Met Alternative Standard rating. districts and campuss must meet targets on three indexes. Index 1 or Index 2 and Index 3 and Index 4 Performance Index Report 100 "219 . Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4 sum Student Closing Postsecondary Adrevement Progress Performance Gaps Readiness {Target Score-60) (Target Scored 7) ('I'arget Scores?? {Target Score=501 Performance Index Summary Points Maximum Index Index Earned Points Score 1 - Student Achievement 761 1.533 50 2 - Student Progress 189 1 .000 19 3 - Closing Performance Gaps 455 1.600 28 4 - Postsecondary Readiness STAAR Score 4,4 Graduation Rate Score 17.1 Graduation Plan Score 15.3 Postsecondary Component Score 19.2 56 Academic Achievement in Science NO DISTINCTION EARNED Academic Achievement in Social smote; NO DISTINCTION EARNED Top 25 Percent Student Progress NO DISTINCTION EARNED Top 25 Percent Closing Performance Gaps NO EARNED Postsecondary Readiness NO DISTINCTION EARNED Campus Demographics Campus Type High School Campus Size 761 Students Grade Span 09 - 12 Percent Economically Disadvantaged 69.4 Percent English Language Leamers 13.4 Mobility Rate 31.5 System Safeguards Number and Percentage of Indicators Met 7 out of 24 29% 12 outof12= 100% 3 out of 5 60% Performance Rates Participation Rates Graduation Rates Total 22 out of 41 54% For further information about this report. please see the Performance Reporting Division website at TEA Division of Performance Reporting Page 1 September 2016 TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY 2017 Accountability Summary WHEATLEY 5 (101912013) - HOUSTON ISD Accountability Rating a. Improvement Required Met Standards on Did Not Meet Standards on - Student Progress - Student Achievement - Closing Performance Gaps - Postsecondary Readiness In 2017. to receive 3 Met Standard or Met Alternative Standard rating. districts and campuses must meet targets on three indexes Index 1 or Index 2 and ndex 3 and Index 4. Performance Index Report Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4 Student Student Closing Posisecondary Actievemerx Progress Performance Gaps Readiness (Target Score-60) {Target Scorer?) (Target Score-30) (Target Score=601 Performance Index Summary Points Maximum Index Index Earned Points Score 1 Student Achievement 754 1.454 52 2 Student Progress 177 1.000 18 3 - Closing Performance Gaps 473 1.600 30 4 - Postsecondary Readiness STAAR Score 7.2 Graduation Rate Score 17.0 Graduation Plan Score 10.1 Postsecondary Component Score 12.6 47 Distinction Designation Academic Achievement In ELAIReading NO DISTINCTION EARNED Academic Achievement in Mathematics NO DISTINCTION EARNED Academic Achievement In Science NO DISTINCTION EARNED Academic Achievement In Social Studies NO DISTINCTION EARNED Top 25 Percent Student Progress NO DIS11NCTION EARNED Top 25 Percent Closing Performance Gaps NO DISTINCTION EARNED Postsecondaly Readiness NO EARNED Campus Demographics Campus Type High School Campus Size 827 Students Grade Span 09 - 12 Percent Economically Disadvantaged 69.9 Percent English Language Learners 18.0 Mobility Rate 29.9 Percent Served by Special Education 21.3 Percent Enrolled in an Early College High School Program 0.0 System Safeguards Number and Percentage of Indicators Met Performance Rates 9 out of 24 30% Participation Rates 12 out of 12 100% Graduation Rates 2 out of 5 40% Total 23 out of 41 56% For further information about this report. please see the Performance Reporting website at Iperfreportlaccountf201 7n ndex.htm' TEA Academics Performance Reporting Page 1 August 15. 2017 2018 Accountability: Overall ?lnu Education Agency Accountability Data Postsecondary Readiness Finance Data Performance Search Participation Pro?le KG Readiness Attendance and Graduation Texas Education Agency 2018 Accountability Ratings Overall Summary WHEATLEY 5 (101912018) - HOUSTON ISD Component Scaled Score Score Overall 52 Student Achievement 50 STAAR Performance 26 52 College. Career and Military Readiness 13 45 Graduation Rate 73.2 55 School Progress 62 Academic Growth 57 62 Relative Performance (Eco Dis: 73.9%} 20 50 Closing the Gaps 0 30 Notes: Postsecondary Outcomes Rating Not Rated: Harvey Provision Improvement Required Met Standard Met Standard Improvement Required improvement Required - This campus was directly affected by Hurricane Harvey and did not receive an overall rating. lofl Distinction Designations ELAJReading Mathematics Science Social Studies Comparative Academic Growth Postsecondary Readiness Comparative Closing the Gaps Not Eligible Not Eligible Not Eligible Not Eligible Not Eligible Not Eligible Not Eligible 1 13652019, 9:01 A 2019 Accountability: Overall loft TEA Tons Education A- Hf ma 'vllL? Postsecondary Readiness Accountability Rating Summary Overall Student Achievement Wm mam School Progress Academic?mutlh Closingjhe?ans - Performance Pro?le Participation KG Readiness arykay&_ Texas Education Agency 2019 Accountability Ratings Overall Summary WHEATLEY (101912018) - HOUSTON Component Score 30 26 73.6 61 23 7 Attendance and Graduation Postsecondary Outcomes Scaled Score Finance Data Rating This campus received an rating in three of the four areas: Student Achievement; School Progress. Part A: Academic Growth: School Progress, Part B: Relative Perfonnanoe, or Closing the Gaps. and the Student Achievement domain rating is an therefore. the overall score is limited to a 59. Identi?cation of Schools for improvement This campus is a comprehensive support and improvement reidenti?ed school. Distinction Designations ELNReading Mathematics Science Social Studies Comparative Academic Growth Postsecondary Readiness Comparative Closing the Gaps Texas Education Agency Governance and Accountability Pencnnanoe Reporting Not Earned Not Earned Not Earned Not Earned Not Earned Not Earned Not Earned August 20 1 9 ll/6/20i9, 8:56 19 TEE Texas Education Agency Commissioner Mike Morath 1701 North Congress Avenue Austin,Texas 78701-1494 0 512463-9734 512463-9838 FAX 0 tea.texas.gov November 5, 2019 Dr. Grenita Lathan, Interim Superintendent Houston Independent School District 4400 W. 18th St. Houston, TX 77092 Dear Dr. Lathan: Thank you for your letters dated September 12. 2019, and September 13, 2019, appealing the accountability ratings of T.H. Rogers School and Wheatley High School. Each appeal has been carefully considered, along with information provided by staff and the recommendations of an independent, three-person appeals panel. The decision for each appeal follows. The basis of your appeal for T.H. Rogers School is that the campus serves three, distinct special programs. The campus houses a gifted and talented program, Regional Day School for Pervasively Deaf or Hard of Hearing, and the Preparing Students for Independent Living (PSI) for severely and multiply impaired and medically fragile high school students. Your appeal provides supporting documentation showing that the only high school students on the campus are the 25 students in the PSI program. Your appeal requests the exclusion of the College, Career, and Military Readiness (CCMR) components from the accountability calculations for this campus. As this campus serves a unique and diverse population. the agency agrees that the limited number of high school students served by this special program has had a disproportionate impact on accountability outcomes. As such, the agency will evaluate T.H. Rogers School as an elementary school type for 2019 and 2020 accountability purposes. Houston Independent School District should seek options to resolve this unusual situation before 2021 accountability, such as requesting a unique campus number for the students served in the PSI program. Using the elementary school type targets and weights improves the campus's overall scaled score to a 94 or a rating of A. For this reason. your appeal for T.H. Rogers School (101912039) is granted. When a district or campus rating is changed as the result of an appeal, the data and calculations, on which the original rating was based are not changed; only the rating itself is changed. Accountability reports for the 2018?19 school year will include the same data and calculations as do the original reports. However, the overall rating for T.H. Rogers School will be changed to an A. The agency will update its website and accountability products in November 2019 after resolving all appeals. You are welcome to share the result of your appeal with your community before then. Notwithstanding a changed rating, a campus identi?ed for comprehensive support and improvement, targeted support and improvement, or additional targeted support must implement the applicable Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS) requirements. Questions regarding TAIS requirements may be directed to the School Improvement Division at (512) 463- 5226. The basis of your appeal for Wheatley High school is twofold. First, the appeal contends that as graduation rates and CCMR indicators are lagging, these components include students who were impacted by Hurricane Harvey. Second, the appeal requests the agency modify the methodology for calculating overall campus ratings found in Chapter 5 of the 2019 Accountability Manual. This step states: If an rating is received in three of the four areas of Student Achievement; School Progress, Part A: Academic Growth; School Progress, Part B: Relative Performance; or Closing the Gaps, the highest scaled score a campus can receive for the overall rating is a 59. In order for this provision to be applied, the campus must be evaluated in all four areas. If the Student Achievement domain rating is a or higher, this provision will not be applied. Your appeal requests Wheatley High School either receive a Not Rated or Not Rated: Hurricane Harvey label. Please be aware that in order to preserve its intent and integrity, the accountability system, as prescribed each year in the accountability manual, must be applied to all districts consistently. The requests described above to modify accountability indicators and an accountability methodology constitute a request to modify indicators and a methodology that are applied to all districts and campuses. Consequently, the rating for Wheatley High School cannot be changed, and your appeal is denied. The overall rating for Wheatley High School (101912018) remains an F. Please direct any questions to the Performance Reporting Division at (512) 463-9704 or Sincerely, Mike Morath Commissioner of Education cc: Jeff Cottrill, Deputy Commissioner, Governance and Accountability Jamie Crowe, Executive Director, Performance Reporting