Houston Independent School District
Strategic Direction:
Student Achievement Analysis
July 6, 2010
Student achievement data analysis focused
on three main objectives
• Developing a clear picture of student achievement across the district, in order to provide a “point of departure” for the Strategic Direction
• Identifying areas of focus for initiatives in the Strategic Direction that will improve student achievement across HISD
• Increasing understanding of the underlying factors correlated with different levels of student achievement, in order to help HISD close student performance gaps
Special thanks to the Department of Research and Accountability –
especially Carla Stevens, LuEllen Jenkins‐Bledsoe, and Michael Thomas – for their assistance in developing the methodology and providing the data, and Michele Pola, Chief of Staff, for her feedback on numerous drafts and help in shaping the final output
2
Several caveats are warranted:
• We relied on existing data sets to develop this analysis – any limitations in the accuracy of those data will affect the results
• We conducted this analysis in order to inform HISD’s decisions about its Strategic Direction. This analysis is not, and should not be used as, a formal evaluation of the performance of HISD or any other group mentioned
• This analysis is only one piece of the puzzle in developing the Strategic Direction. A number of other sources of critical input will also shape the core decisions
3
Key findings
• An estimated 15% of HISD first‐time ninth graders will ultimately go on to earn a postsecondary certificate or degree • Approximately 16% of HISD high school graduates meet the generally accepted standards for college readiness, which are similar to the requirements for career success
• The percentage of HISD students in each grade from 1‐11 who are on‐track to graduating high school college‐ready ranges from a high of 30% (first‐graders) to a low of 12% (7th graders)
• Over three times as many students who were on‐track to college readiness in 11th grade, compared with those who were off‐track, actually went on to earn a postsecondary degree (61% vs. 17%)
• Clear achievement gaps can be found across ethnicity groups, income levels, and gender, as well as between students who are or are not English language learners or special education students
• Though poverty is inversely correlated with on‐track to college readiness rates and high school graduation rates, there are outlier schools with relatively high poverty and high success rates
• The dropout rate of students who remain in the same school throughout all their years of high school is less than half the dropout rate of students who transfer among schools at least once
• Although HISD graduates enroll in postsecondary institutions at similar rates as their national peers (~70%), their graduation rates are substantially lower (~30% vs. ~50%)
• Almost three‐quarters of HISD graduates who enroll in postsecondary institutions attend schools whose degree completion rates are lower than the Texas state average
4
Table of contents
• Overview of methodology
• Definition of key outputs
• Results of student achievement analysis
• Selected leverage points for improving student success
• Overall implications
5
This analysis follows groups of actual HISD
students – or cohorts – across time
• Facilitates year‐over‐year outcome analysis for individual students, mirroring their actual trajectory
• Identifies where and when students fall behind as they move through their years in school
• Allows corrections that enable “apples‐to‐apples” comparisons (e.g., outcomes for students who have spent the same amount of time in HISD) • Complements point‐in‐time student achievement reports that HISD already generates
6
We analyzed multiple cohorts of students,
some full groups and others samples
Elementary School
Middle School
Full group
of enrolled students:
High School
Postsecondary
F1
F2
(SY04‐05 – 07‐08, &
continuers in 08‐09)
(HISD class of 2004,
2004 ‐ Jan. 2010)
F3
(HISD class of 2005,
2005 – Jan. 2010)
F4
(HISD class of 2008,
2008‐ Jan. 2010)
Sample
of enrolled students:
S1
S2
S3
(SY03‐04 – 07‐08)
(SY05‐06 – 07‐08)
(SY04‐05 – 07‐08)
S4
(HISD class of 2005,
2005 – Jan. 2010)
Following different cohorts in each of the age groups allows us to study results from recent years in every stage of schooling
7
Definition of cohort F1
SY2004‐05
SY2005‐06
SY2006‐07
SY2007‐08
SY2008‐09
Ninth graders
Still in school?
Still in school?
Graduated?
Continuing?
•Step 1: Identified all students who were 9th graders in HISD as of the PEIMS fall snapshot date of SY 2004‐05
•Step 2: Deleted from the cohort any students who were also 9th graders in SY 2003‐04. The cohort thus included first time 9th graders only
•Step 3: Excluded from cohort all students who transferred out of HISD during the SY2004‐05 – SY2007‐
08 period, including both students with leavers codes and “underreported” students (i.e., students without leaver codes who also were coded neither as dropouts nor graduates, but stopped appearing in the enrollment data). Excluded as well any students who transferred into HISD during SY2004‐05 –
SY2007‐08. The analysis was thus applied to only those students who spent their entire high school experience in HISD.
Cohort F1 has 9,517 students
8
Definition of cohorts F2, F3, and F4
Cohort F2 – class of 2004
Cohort F3 – class of 2005
Cohort F4 – class of 2008
SY 2003‐04
Fall 2004 – Jan. 2010 SY 2004‐05
Fall 2005 – Jan. 2010
SY 2007‐08
Fall 2008 – Jan. 2010
Graduated high
school
In postsecondary?
Graduated high
school
In postsecondary?
Graduated high
school
In postsecondary?
Cohort F2
Cohort F3
Step 1
Identified all high school graduates in 2003‐04
Step 2
Removed from cohort any students whose ID numbers did not appear in National Student Clearinghouse data
Number of students in cohort
8,520
Indentified all high school graduates in SY 2004‐05
Cohort F4
8,475
Identified all high school graduates in SY 2007‐08
7,760
Definition of cohorts S1, S2, and S3
Cohort S1 – elementary school
SY 03‐04
SY 04‐05
SY 05‐06
SY 06‐07
Cohort S2 – middle school
SY 07‐08
Grade 1
SY 05‐06
SY 06‐07
SY 07‐08
Grade 6
Cohort S1
Cohort S3 – high school
SY 04‐05
SY 05‐06
SY 06‐07
SY 07‐08
Grade 9
Cohort S2
Step 1
Identified all first‐time 1st
graders in SY 2003‐04
Step 2
Tracked student outcomes throughout cohort period. Excluded from cohort all students who did not remain in HISD for the duration of the cohort (from start year through SY 2007‐08)
Step 3
Excluded from cohort all students for whom data were not available in one or more key areas (e.g., grades, TAKS scores), with the exception of students who were granted waivers from taking TAKS
Number of students in cohort
7,548
Indentified all first‐time 6th
graders in SY 2005‐06
Cohort S3
7,470
Identified all first‐time 9th
graders in SY 2004‐05
3,407
Definition of cohort S4
SY2004‐05
SY2005‐06
SY2006‐07
SY2007‐08
SY2008‐09
Fall 2009 –
Jan. 2010
Enrolled in Graduated high school in college?
HISD
Still in college? Graduated?
Still in college? Graduated?
Still in college? Graduated?
Still in college? Graduated?
• Step 1: Identified all students who were HISD high school graduates in SY 2004‐05
• Step 2: Excluded any student from the cohort who graduated from high school but whose ID was not found in the dataset provided by National Student Clearinghouse
• Step 3: Excluded from cohort students who either were not enrolled in HISD in SY 2003‐04 or for whom key data (e.g., grades, TAKS scores) were not available
• NOTE: The class of 2005 was chosen for cohort S4 so that it would be possible to track student performance backward to student results in key areas, including the TAKS exam, while the students were in HISD. Given that TAKS is administered in grades 3‐11 only, and the first year TAKS was administered was SY2003‐04, the farthest back in time the analysis could be carried was for students who were in 11th grade in SY2003‐04; these students are in the graduating class of 2005.
Cohort S4 has 3,805 students
11
Table of contents
• Overview of methodology
• Definition of key outputs
• Results of student achievement analysis
• Selected leverage points for improving student success
• Overall implications
12
We analyzed the following key outcomes
Outcome
Definition
High school graduation rate
• Four‐year longitudinal graduation rate, calculated according to the official Texas methodology except the analysis excludes students who transferred into HISD after the start of ninth grade, thus focusing the analysis on those who spent the entirety of their high school experience in HISD
College readiness rate of HISD graduates
• Percent of high school graduates who graduated with the academic preparation needed to succeed in college (and career), measured by GPA, ACT/SAT scores, and rigor of high school coursework
Postsecondary enrollment rate
• Percent of high school graduates who enrolled in a postsecondary institution
Postsecondary graduation rate
• A longitudinal graduation rate that reports the percent of college‐enrolled students who ultimately earned any type of certificate or degree within 4.5 years of their enrollment date. A 5.5‐year rate was also calculated for comparison (6‐
year rate unavailable given current data)
On track to college readiness rate
• Percent of students in each grade who are at an academic level that corresponds with being on‐track to graduating high school college‐ready. Standards for indicators that measure being on‐track (e.g., attendance, grades) are determined by working backward from actual college success, to college readiness measures for high school graduates, to the progress a student generally must make in each grade to be on track to graduate from high school college‐ready
13
Methodology for calculating high school
graduation rates
1. For each year from SY2004‐05 to SY2007‐08, assigned each cohort F1 student into one of the following categories: enrolled in HISD, earned GED, dropped out, graduated
2. For students who did not drop out, earn a GED, or graduate high school by SY 2007‐08, used SY 2008‐09 PEIMS fall enrollment data to place students in one of two categories: continuer (data show the student is enrolled in HISD in SY2008‐09) or leaver (student either has a leaver code or lacks a leaver code but ceases to appear in the data, known as “underreported”)
3. Formula to calculate high school graduation rate: (# of high school graduates – # of graduates who were not enrolled in HISD at the start of 9th grade)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
(# of first‐time ninth graders – leavers/underreported)
14
Methodology for calculating college
readiness rate of high school graduates
1. Identified the cohort S3 students who were 12th graders in SY2007‐08 and graduated in SY2007‐08. This is the universe of students analyzed in this calculation
2. Identified which of the students in the group were “college ready,” defined as having met all three of the following criteria:
a. Took at least 4 years of English, 3 years of math, and 3 years of science in high school
b. Earned a cumulative high school GPA of higher than 3.0
c. Took the ACT and scored at least 21 in English and 22 in math OR took the SAT and scored at least 590 in verbal and a 610 in math
3. Formula to calculate college readiness rate of graduates:
(# of graduates who met all three college readiness standards)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
(# of cohort S3 students who were 12th graders in SY07‐08 and graduated in SY07‐08)
15
Methodology for postsecondary enrollment
rate
1. Conducted analysis on cohorts S4, F2, and F3
2. Considered all students for whom NSC data contained at least one record indicating the student had enrolled (value of field “Record Found Y/N” = Y)
•
To classify students as enrolled in a less than 2‐year, 2‐year, or 4‐year postsecondary institution, identified the NSC record with the earliest enrollment date and used the type of institution reported in that record (see field “2‐year / 4‐year,” which has values of “L”, “2”, or “4”)
3. Formula to calculate postsecondary enrollment rate:
(# of high school graduates who enrolled at a postsecondary institution)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
(# of high school graduates)
16
Methodology for postsecondary graduation
rate
1. Conducted analysis on cohorts S4, F2, and F3
2. Classified all students for whom NSC contained at least one record indicating the student had enrolled (value of field “Record Found Y/N” = Y)
•
To classify students as enrolled in a less than 2‐year, 2‐year, or 4‐year postsecondary institution, identified the NSC record with the earliest enrollment date and used the type of institution reported in that record
3. Classified all students that NSC reported as having graduated (value of field “Graduated?” = Y) as graduates
•
To classify students as graduated from a less than 2‐year, 2‐year, or 4‐year postsecondary institution, identified all graduation records reported by NSC for each student, and then used the degree which required the most time to earn (e.g., classify a student who earned a 2‐year and a 4‐year degree as having a 4‐
year degree)
4. Formula to calculate postsecondary graduation rate:
(# of graduates from a postsecondary institution)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
(# of students who enrolled in a postsecondary institution)
17
Methodology for calculating on-track-tocollege-readiness rates
1. Conducted analysis on cohorts S1, S2, and S3
2. Identified which of the students in each grade were on‐track to college, defined as the students who met all of the on‐track standards for all of the indicators matched to his/her grade (see following slide) 3. General notes:
a. If a student was off‐grade – for example, Student 1 was in 2nd grade in SY04‐05 and repeated 2nd grade in SY05‐06 ‐ used the second‐grade indicators again in SY05‐06 to measure whether Student 1 was on‐track in SY05‐06. For members of the cohort who were on‐grade – for example, 3rd grade in SY05‐06 ‐ used the third‐
grade indicators to measure whether those students were on‐track. Thus, regardless of their actual grade, all students in the cohort were included each year in the calculation of the percent of students in cohort who were on‐track
b. If a student had a waiver from taking TAKS, the calculation did not include TAKS in the group of indictors used to measure whether the student was on‐track
4. Formula to calculate on‐track rates:
(# of students in the given school year who are on‐track)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
(# of students in the cohort)
18
A variety of research sources suggest indicators
that measure on-track to college readiness; the
table below presents one possible indicator group
On track to college readiness
Attendance
Grades
Standard‐
ized Test Scores
Courses
Grades
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Attendance >=90%
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Reading (elementary) / English grade >=80%
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Math course grades >= 80%
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
TAKS reading >=2300
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
TAKS math >=2300
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
TAKS written comp. >=3
Pre‐algebra or higher taken by 8th grade
√
This example provides a starting point for HISD’s development of a set of on‐track indicators appropriate for HISD students
Notes:
[1] See “Sources” slide for interviewees and secondary research sources that informed this list of indicators
19
TAKS proficiency is not a high enough standard for
preparing students for college and career success
• The TEA cut score for TAKS proficiency is 2100
• The Board Monitoring System college readiness standard for TAKS is 2200
• However, empirical research on Texas students by the National Center for Educational Achievement suggests that the TAKS cut score that identifies which students are on‐track for postsecondary success is 2300
20
This analysis incorporates TAKS scores rather than Stanford
scores into the on-track analysis; there are pros and cons to
using each (1 of 2)
Pros
Cons
TAKS
•Empirical evidence is available linking •TAKS is not administered in grades 1 or 2, so TAKS can not serve as one of TAKS scores to college success: NCEA the on‐track indicators for students in has conducted a longitudinal study of those years
the correlations between student outcomes in college and TAKS reading •TAKS standards for passing have been relaxed in recent years
and math scores at each grade level
•TAKS is a criterion‐referenced exam, meaning it measures skills against an absolute scale, and therefore all students can achieve high TAKS scores
Stanford
•There are no empirical studies we •Stanford is administered in every have found that link Stanford grade‐
grade from 1 to 11
•Stanford offers an estimate of student equivalent scores to college outcomes
•Stanford is a norm‐referenced exam, academic levels relative to the meaning it is not possible for all standard for their grade
students in a given year to score at grade‐level
21
This analysis incorporates TAKS scores rather than Stanford
scores into the on-track analysis; there are pros and cons to
using each (2 of 2)
• An additional factor in the decision to use TAKS over Stanford scores was the wide variation observed in students’ year‐over‐year Stanford grade‐
equivalent scores
– Examples:
Math Grade Equivalent
Reading Grade Equivalent
SY 03‐04
SY 04‐05
SY 05‐06
Student 1
2.9
11.3
6.0
Student 2
11.0
3.8
13.0
SY 03‐04
SY 04‐05
SY 05‐06
Student 3
7.3
13.0
8.9
Student 4
4.9
9.4
5.0
– Overall statistics:
» Total number of students with at least two consecutive years of Stanford scores from SY03‐04 to SY07‐08: Reading ‐ 140,579 / Math ‐ 140,527
» Percent of these students with at least one instance of a year‐over‐year change of 3+ grade levels in Stanford GE scores: Reading ‐ 21% / Math – 23%
22
Empirical studies show academic requirements for career and
college ready are similar, suggesting that the on-track analysis can
be interpreted as “on-track to college or career readiness”
Findings – ACT college and career readiness benchmarks:
ACT benchmark for skills needed to enter Zone 3 jobs
ACT college readiness benchmark
Reading for information
19 ‐ 23
21
Applied mathematics
18 ‐ 21
22
“Whether planning to enter college or workforce training programs after graduation, high school students need to be educated to a comparable level of readiness in reading and mathematics.” (ACT)
Notes:
[1] Zone 3 jobs are defined as entry‐level jobs that require less than a bachelor’s degree, pay a wage sufficient to support a family, and offer the potential for career advancement. ACT study relied on data from the Occupational Information Network, or O*NET, which is a comprehensive national database of job and worker attributes developed for the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor
[2] Source: ACT (see Sources slide)
23
Table of contents
• Overview of methodology
• Definition of key outputs
• Results of student achievement analysis
• Selected leverage points for improving student success
• Overall implications
24
Results
District‐wide
25
HISD student pipeline: Ninth grade through
postsecondary
Percent of first time 9th graders
100%
100
80
69
60
52
2‐year or below
(34%)
40
2‐year or below (12%)
20
0
4‐year
(66%)
Enroll in 9th grade
Graduate from high school Enroll in postsecondary
15
4‐year
(88%)
Attain postsecondary
degree within 4.5 years
Percent of 9th graders
69%
52%
15%
Percent of previous stage
69%
76%
28%
Notes:
[1] High school graduation rate calculated from cohort F1. College enrollment and graduation rates calculated from cohort S4. Percent of ninth graders who attain postsecondary degree = high school graduation rate * % of graduates who enroll in college * % of enrollees who earn college degree 26
[2] Sources: NSC data, HISD student outcome data
The profile of students categorized as leavers is
different from the overall cohort
Leavers / Underreported
Cohort of high school students
Male
55%
48%
Eligible for Free Lunch/Other Economic Disadvantage
74%
65%
Classified as Special Education
14%
10%
Classified as English Language Learner
16%
10%
Ethnicity Classification: African American
34%
30%
Ethnicity Classification: Hispanic
54%
53%
The population of leavers/underreported contains higher percentages of the socioeconomic and demographic groups that data show to be less likely graduate
Notes:
[1] Analysis compares students in cohort F1 to the group of students who were first‐time ninth‐graders in HISD in SY2003‐04 and then left, defined as leavers plus “underreported” students between SY2003‐04 and SY2007‐08.
[2] Source: HISD student outcome data
27
The elementary, middle, and high school cohorts differ in
composition by the socioeconomic and demographic groups
that data show to be less likely graduate
Elementary
(cohort S1)
Middle
(cohort S2)
High
(cohort S3)
48%
48%
46%
77%
66%
53%
3%
2%
2%
Classified as English Language Learner
52%
13%
4%
Ethnicity Classification: African American
23%
25%
27%
Ethnicity Classification: Hispanic
68%
61%
48%
Male
Eligible for Free Lunch/Other Economic Disadvantage
Classified as Special Education
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohorts S1, S2, and S3
[2] Source: HISD student outcome data
28
Less than 20% of HISD high school graduates
meet college-readiness standards
College readiness of HISD high school graduates
Percent of HISD high school graduates
100%
Percent of not‐college‐ready graduates
who did not meet the standard
100%
80
60
Reasons why HISD high school graduates did not meet college‐ready standards
80
Not college‐ready
82
60
44
40
40
20
20
8
College‐ready
0
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohort S3
[2] Students can miss the college‐readiness standards for more than one reason
[3] Source: HISD student outcome data
0
Did not meet
benchmark
scores in either
ACT or SAT
GPA less than Did not complete
or equal to 3.0 at least 4 years
of English, 3
years of science,
and 3 years
of math
29
HISD postsecondary 6-year graduation rates are
unlikely to be considerably different from the rates
presented in this analysis
• The postsecondary pipeline analysis is based on a sample of students for whom all key HISD academic and demographic data were available, and who were in HISD in both 11th and 12th grades. The earliest cohort for which 11‐grade TAKS results were available is the HISD graduating class of 2005, which is why 4.5 year graduation rates were calculated
• Postsecondary enrollment and graduation rates were also calculated for the full class of HISD 2004 and 2005 graduates (see below). Enrollment rates are lower than the sample in both cases, and the 5.5 year graduation rate for the full 2004 class is in line with the pipeline sample
• Based on national data, the difference between 4 and 5 year college graduation rates on average is much larger than the difference between 5 and 6 year rates. Therefore, moving to 6‐year rates for all HISD graduates is unlikely to improve the performance cited in the pipeline significantly
Percent of HISD high school graduates enrolling in postsecondary
Percent of postsecondary enrollees who received a degree
Percent of HISD 9th
graders receiving a postsecondary degree
Sample class of 2005 (4.5 year rate)
76%
28%
15%
Full class of 2005 (4.5 year rate)
66%
21%
10%
Full class of 2004 (5.5 year rate)
67%
29%
13%
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohorts S4, F2, and F3; percent of 9th graders earning postsecondary degree is based on 69% high school graduation rate in all cases
[2] NCES reports that the 4, 5, and 6‐year college graduation rates for students seeking a bachelor’s or equivalent degree at 4‐year Title IV institutions 30
who completed a bachelor’s or equivalent degree, were 36.1%, 52.6%, and 57.5%, respectively.
[3] Sources: NSC data, HISD student outcome data, and NCES “Condition of Education 2009” report
HISD students’ rate of degree attainment at the top 10
postsecondary institutions where they enroll, which account for
78% of their total enrollments, mostly fall below the state average
Rate of degree attainment, by institution where student
initially enrolled
100%
Of HISD high school graduates 80 77
who enroll in postsecondary 80
institutions, 90% enroll in‐state and 10% enroll out‐of‐state
60
49
43 41
40
35
22
15 14
20
10
Texas
(43)
Co
lle
ge
m
un
it y
om
Ho
us
to
nC
Un
i ve
rs
Un
it y
ive
rs T of T
it y ex e
of as xas
Te A& at
xa M Au
s ‐ U st
Sa niv in
n er
Un
An sit
i
v
to y
Sa
er
ni
sit
m
o
yo
Ho
fH
us
Pr
ou
ar t on
st o
ie
St
L
a
n
Vi a t e
ew m U
Un
A&ar Univ
ive
Sa M niveersi
rs
n Un r s t y
i ty
Ja
ci n iver it y
of
Ho
to sit
Co y
us
to
lle
n
ge
‐D
ow
nt
ow
n
0
Number of HISD students enrolled (2008)
Notes: [1] Graduation rates are 5.5‐year rates calculated from cohort F2 (students who graduated high school in 2004). Top 10 postsecondary institutions where HISD graduates enroll are based on cohort F3 (students who graduated high school in 2008). [2] Graduation rates include students who earned certificates or two‐year degrees as well as students who earned four‐year degrees.
[3] Sources: NSC data, HISD student outcome data
31
HISD graduation rates at top colleges are
comparable to overall campus rates
College graduation rates
100%
82
80 80
80
77
60
51
50
41
49
43
41
40
40
40
Texas (43)
35
29
25
22
20
iv
er
Un
&M
as
A
Te
x
S
St am
at H
eU o
U
ni usto
niv
ve n
rs i
er
sit
ty
yO
fH
ou
sto
n
P
A & ra
M irie
Un V i
iv e ew
rs i
La
ty
m
ar
Un
iv
er
si t
y
U
at . o
Sa f T
n e
A n xa
Sa
to s
nJ
nio
ac
in
to
Co
lle
Ho
ge
us
to
n
Co Co
ll e mm
ge u
ni
ty
U.
o
Do f H
wn ous
t o to
wn n‐
tin
at
Au
s
ex
as
fT
14
HISD
students
All
students
si t
y
10
0
U
.o
21
15
Notes : [1] HISD student graduation rates based on cohort F2
[2] Overall institution graduation rates are calculated from THECB data and represent six‐year graduation rates of first‐time students entering in the fall semester of 2001 who enrolled in at least 12 semester credit hours for at least their first semester. Students did not necessarily graduate from the institution where they first enrolled
[3] For the community colleges, the overall graduation rate is calculated as the sum of students who earned a certificate, a two‐year degree, or a 32
baccalaureate degree. For four‐year institutions, the graduate rate is the percent of students who earned a baccalaureate degree
[4] Sources: NSC data, THECB data, and HISD student outcome data
On-track-to-college-readiness rates vary from
12% to 30% for HISD students in grades 1-11
Percent of HISD students
Off‐track
Off‐track
Off‐track
Off‐track
Off‐track
Off‐track
Off‐track
Off‐track
Off‐track
60
Off‐track
80
Off‐track
100%
Percent
on‐track
On‐track
On‐track
On‐track
On‐track
On‐track
On‐track
On‐track
On‐track
On‐track
0
On‐track
20
On‐track
40
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11
30%
29%
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohorts S1, S2, and S3
[2] Source: HISD student outcome data
21%
22%
24%
21%
12%
17%
16%
15%
17%
33
Among off-track students, few miss the
attendance target while most are off-track in TAKS
Percent of Off‐Track Students Who Are Off‐Track in Each Indicator
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
G11
Attendance
5%
4%
3%
3%
2%
4%
6%
9%
3%
5%
9%
English grade
69%
69%
52%
53%
50%
43%
46%
46%
39%
44%
47%
Math grade
96%
94%
48%
44%
43%
51%
52%
61%
54%
56%
62%
TAKS reading
67%
80%
89%
69%
82%
55%
80%
78%
61%
TAKS math
82%
78%
63%
87%
87%
86%
81%
85%
77%
Pre‐Algebra by 8th
grade
ELA written composition
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohorts S1, S2, and S3
[2] Source: HISD student outcome data
0%
58%
34
On-track students are more likely to enroll
in 4-year colleges and earn a degree
College enrollment rates
College graduation rates
Percent of HISD students
enrolled in college
100%
Percent of HISD students
graduating from college
96
80
100%
80
73
National
enrollment
rate (67)
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
On‐track
Off‐track
61
National
college
graduation
rate (48)
17
2‐year
2‐year
4‐year
4‐year
0
On‐track
Off‐track
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohort S4
[2] National college graduation rate of 48% calculated by weighting the 4‐year and 2‐year postsecondary institution graduation rates reported by NCES (58% and 28% ,respectively) by the numbers of HISD students who enrolled in 4‐year and 2‐year institutions. The 4‐year NCES rate is a six‐year graduation rate. The 2‐year NCES rate is for graduation within 150% of the time needed to complete the degree.
[3] Sources: NCES data, NSC data, HISD student outcome data
35
Results
By demographic and socioeconomic groups
36
College-completion rates for ninth graders
vary by demographic/socioeconomic group
Percent of HISD 9th graders who earn a postsecondary
degree
100%
80
60
40
40
28
18
11
11
16
7
0
No
tE
LL
Am
er
ica
n
Hi
sp
an
ic
As
ian
Af
ric
an
W
hi
te
M
al
e
0
Fe
m
a le
11
15
Average (15)
7
7
EL
L
di Eco
sa n
dv ‐
a n no
ta t
re E g ed
du co
c n
Ec ed ‐
on lu
‐ f nch
re
e
lu
nc
No
h
ts
pe
cia
le
d
Sp
ec
ia l
ed
20
38
Notes:
[1] High school graduation rate calculated from cohort F1. College enrollment and graduation rates calculated from cohort S4. For each group, college completion rate = high school graduation rate * % of graduates who enrolled in college * percent of enrollees who graduated college
[2] Analysis excludes the ethnicity group “Native American” due to the very small size of the group
[3] “Econ‐free lunch” group includes both students eligible for free meals and those coded in HISD data as “other economic disadvantage”
[4] Sources: NSC data, HISD student outcome data
37
On-track rates vary by demographic and
socioeconomic group: 5th graders
Percent of students on‐track to college readiness
95
100%
80
62
60
52
40
Average (24)
26
21
22
19
28
20
26
19
24
20
20
‐n
ot
EL
di
L
sa
d
v
Ec
an
on
ta
ge
‐r
ed
d
uc
ed
lu
Ec
nc
on
h
‐f
re
e
lu
nc
No
h
ts
pe
cia
le
d
Sp
ec
ial
ed
Ec
on
No
tE
LL
Hi
sp
an
ic
Am
er
ica
n
Af
ric
an
W
hi
te
As
ia
n
M
al
e
Fe
m
a le
0
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohort S1
[2] Analysis excludes the ethnicity group “Native American” due to the very small size of the group
[3] “Econ‐free lunch” group includes both students eligible for free meals and those coded in HISD data as “other economic disadvantage”
[4] Source: HISD student outcome data
38
On-track rates vary by demographic and
socioeconomic group: 8th graders
Percent of students on‐track to college readiness
100%
80
63
60
49
38
40
20
18
12
17
11
19
17
17
3
Average (17)
10
10
‐n
ot
EL
di
L
sa
d
v
Ec
an
on
ta
ge
‐r
ed
d
uc
ed
lu
Ec
nc
on
h
‐f
re
e
lu
nc
No
h
ts
pe
cia
le
d
Sp
ec
ial
ed
Ec
on
No
tE
LL
Hi
sp
an
ic
Am
er
ica
n
Af
ric
an
W
hi
te
As
ia
n
Fe
m
al
e
M
a le
0
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohort S2
[2] Analysis excludes the ethnicity group “Native American” due to the very small size of the group
[3] “Econ‐free lunch” group includes both students eligible for free meals and those coded in HISD data as “other economic disadvantage”
[4] Source: HISD student outcome data
39
On-track rates vary by demographic and
socioeconomic group: 11th graders
Percent of students on‐track to college readiness
100%
80
60
51
35
40
20
18
31
18
17
11
8
1
‐n
ot
EL
di
L
sa
d
v
Ec
an
on
ta
ge
‐r
ed
d
uc
ed
lu
Ec
nc
on
h
‐f
re
e
lu
nc
No
h
ts
pe
cia
le
d
Sp
ec
ial
ed
3
Ec
on
No
tE
LL
Hi
sp
an
ic
Am
er
ica
n
Af
ric
an
W
hi
te
As
ia
n
M
al
e
Average (17)
10
0
Fe
m
a le
18
12
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohort S3
[2] Analysis excludes the ethnicity group “Native American” due to the very small size of the group
[3] “Econ‐free lunch” group includes both students eligible for free meals and those coded in HISD data as “other economic disadvantage”
[4] Source: HISD student outcome data
40
High school graduation rates differ by
socioeconomic and demographic group
High school graduation rate
100%
80 73
90
87
65
86
70
74
73
63
62
57
60
40
71
Overall
graduation
rate (69)
52
33
EL
L
di Eco
sa n
dv ‐
n
Ec ant ot
a
on g
‐ r ed
l
u
Ec nc edu
on h ce
d
‐f
re
e
lu
nc
No
h
ts
pe
cia
le
d
Sp
ec
ia
le
d
Am
er
ica
n
Hi
sp
Na
an
tiv
ic
eA
m
er
ica
n
No
tE
LL
W
hit
e
Af
ric
an
As
ia
n
Fe
m
a le
0
M
a le
20
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohort F1
[2] There were seven Native American students in this cohort. This is a significantly smaller group than all other ethnic groups in the cohort.
[3] “Econ‐free lunch” group includes both students eligible for free meals and those coded in HISD data as “other economic disadvantage”
[4] Source: HISD student outcome data
41
College-ready rates for graduates vary by
demographic and socioeconomic group
Percent of students meeting college readiness standards
100%
80
60
47
40
20
18
42
35
17
15
7
5
16
3
7
4
Average (16)
8
EL
L
di Eco
sa n
dv ‐
a n
Ec nta ot
on g e
‐ d
lu red
Ec nch uc
ed
on
‐f
re
e
lu
nc
No
h
ts
pe
cia
le
d
Sp
ec
ia l
ed
No
tE
LL
Am
er
ica
n
Hi
sp
an
ic
W
hi
te
Af
ric
an
As
ia
n
Fe
m
al
e
M
a le
0
Notes:
[1] Analysis is based on Cohort S3 students who attended HISD through the 12th grade and graduated in 2007‐08. [2] Analysis excludes the ethnicity group “Native American” due to the very small size of the group
[3] “Econ‐free lunch” group includes both students eligible for free meals and those coded in HISD data as “other economic disadvantage”
[4] Source: HISD student outcome data
42
College enrollment rates vary by
demographic and socioeconomic groups
Percent of high school graduates who enroll in a
postsecondary institution
100%
80
94
78
91
87
79
73
78
77
74
Average (76)
64
64
60
48
36
40
20
EL
L
di Eco
sa n
dv ‐
a n
Ec nta ot
on g e
‐ d
lu red
Ec nch uc
ed
on
‐f
re
e
lu
nc
No
h
ts
pe
cia
le
d
Sp
ec
ia l
ed
No
tE
LL
Am
er
ica
n
Hi
sp
an
ic
As
ian
Af
ric
an
W
hi
te
M
al
e
Fe
m
a le
0
Notes:
[1] Analysis is based on cohort S4
[2] Analysis excludes the ethnicity group “Native American” due to the very small size of the group (3 students).
[3] “Econ‐free lunch” includes both students eligible for free meals and those coded in HISD data as “other economic disadvantage”
[4] Sources: NSC data, HISD student achievement data
43
College graduation rates vary by
demographic and socioeconomic groups
Percent of postsecondary institution enrollees who earn
a degree
100%
80
60
40
50
31
46
38
28
24
20
20
18
21
28
20
Average (28)
17
8
EL
L
di Eco
sa n
dv ‐
a n
Ec nta ot
on g e
‐ d
lu red
Ec nch uc
ed
on
‐f
re
e
lu
nc
No
h
ts
pe
cia
le
d
Sp
ec
ia l
ed
No
tE
LL
Am
er
ica
n
Hi
sp
an
ic
As
ian
Af
ric
an
W
hi
te
M
al
e
Fe
m
a le
0
Notes:
[1] Analysis is based on cohort S4
[2] Analysis excludes the ethnicity group “Native American” due to the very small size of the group
[3] “Econ‐free lunch” group includes both students eligible for free meals and those coded in HISD data as “other economic disadvantage”
[4] Sources: NSC data, HISD student outcome data
44
Results
By Trustee regions
45
HISD students’ high school and
postsecondary outcomes vary by district
X
Highest
X
District
Lowest
High school graduation rate
Postsecondary enrollment
Postsecondary graduation rate
9th grade to postsecondary
I (Eastman)
66%
63%
16%
7%
II (Mims Galloway)
67%
67%
15%
7%
III (Rodriguez)
64%
67%
13%
5%
IV (Harris)
74%
80%
30%
17%
V (Lunceford)
80%
91%
52%
38%
VI (Meyers)
68%
85%
33%
19%
VII (Moore)
72%
88%
42%
27%
VIII (Dávila)
74%
65%
13%
6%
IX (Marshall)
65%
71%
15%
7%
HISD average
69%
76%
28%
15%
Notes:
[1] High school graduation rate calculated from cohort F1. College enrollment and graduation rates calculated from cohort S4.
[2] Calculations done as follows: high school graduation rate = high school graduates / 9th graders. Postsecondary enrollment = enrollees / high school graduates. Postsecondary graduation rate = postsecondary graduates / enrollees. Pipeline rate (rate of 9th graders earning a postsecondary degree) = high school graduation rate * postsecondary enrollment * postsecondary graduation rate
[3] Sources: NSC data, HISD student outcome data
46
HISD student pipeline: Trustee district I
(Anna Eastman)
Percent of first time 9th graders
100%
100
100
80
69
60
66
52
41
40
20
15
7
0
Enroll in 9th grade
Trustee district I
Overall HISD
Graduate from high Enroll in postsecondary Attain postsecondary
school
degree within 4.5 years
Notes:
[1] High school graduation rate calculated from cohort F1. College enrollment and graduation rates calculated from cohort S4. Percent of ninth graders who attain postsecondary degree = high school graduation rate * % of graduates who enroll in college * % of enrollees who earn postsecondary degree [2] Sources: NSC data, HISD student outcome data
47
HISD student pipeline: Trustee district II
(Carol Mims Galloway)
Percent of first time 9th graders
100%
100
100
80
69
60
67
52
45
40
20
15
7
0
Enroll in 9th grade
Trustee district II
Overall HISD
Graduate from high Enroll in postsecondary Attain postsecondary
school
degree within 4.5 years
Notes:
[1] High school graduation rate calculated from cohort F1. College enrollment and graduation rates calculated from cohort S4. Percent of ninth graders who attain postsecondary degree = high school graduation rate * % of graduates who enroll in college * % of enrollees who earn postsecondary degree [2] Sources: NSC data, HISD student outcome data
48
HISD student pipeline: Trustee district III
(Manuel Rodriguez Jr.)
Percent of first time 9th graders
100%
100
100
80
69
60
64
52
43
40
20
15
5
0
Enroll in 9th grade
Trustee district III
Overall HISD
Graduate from high Enroll in postsecondary Attain postsecondary
school
degree within 4.5 years
Notes:
[1] High school graduation rate calculated from cohort F1. College enrollment and graduation rates calculated from cohort S4. Percent of ninth graders who attain postsecondary degree = high school graduation rate * % of graduates who enroll in college * % of enrollees who earn postsecondary degree [2] Sources: NSC data, HISD student outcome data
49
HISD student pipeline: Trustee district IV
(Paula M. Harris)
Percent of first time 9th graders
100%
100
100
80
69
74
59
60
52
40
20
15
17
Trustee district IV
Overall HISD
0
Enroll in 9th grade
Graduate from high Enroll in postsecondary Attain postsecondary
school
degree within 4.5 years
Notes:
[1] High school graduation rate calculated from cohort F1. College enrollment and graduation rates calculated from cohort S4. Percent of ninth graders who attain postsecondary degree = high school graduation rate * % of graduates who enroll in college * % of enrollees who earn postsecondary degree [2] Sources: NSC data, HISD student outcome data
50
HISD student pipeline: Trustee district V
(Michael L. Lunceford)
Percent of first time 9th graders
100%
100
100
80
80
73
69
60
52
38
40
20
15
Trustee district V
Overall HISD
0
Enroll in 9th grade
Graduate from high Enroll in postsecondary Attain postsecondary
school
degree within 4.5 years
Notes:
[1] High school graduation rate calculated from cohort F1. College enrollment and graduation rates calculated from cohort S4. Percent of ninth graders who attain postsecondary degree = high school graduation rate * % of graduates who enroll in college * % of enrollees who earn postsecondary degree [2] Sources: NSC data, HISD student outcome data
51
HISD student pipeline: Trustee district VI
(Greg Meyers)
Percent of first time 9th graders
100%
100
100
80
69
68
58
60
52
40
20
15
19
Trustee district VI
Overall HISD
0
Enroll in 9th grade
Graduate from
high school
Enroll in
postsecondary
Attain
postsecondary
degree within 4.5
years
Notes:
[1] High school graduation rate calculated from cohort F1. College enrollment and graduation rates calculated from cohort S4. Percent of ninth graders who attain postsecondary degree = high school graduation rate * % of graduates who enroll in college * % of enrollees who earn postsecondary degree [2] Sources: NSC data, HISD student outcome data
52
HISD student pipeline: Trustee district VII
(Harvin C. Moore)
Percent of first time 9th graders
100%
100
100
80
69
72
64
60
52
40
27
20
15
Trustee district VII
Overall HISD
0
Enroll in 9th grade
Graduate from high Enroll in postsecondary Attain postsecondary
school
degree within 4.5 years
Notes:
[1] High school graduation rate calculated from cohort F1. College enrollment and graduation rates calculated from cohort S4. Percent of ninth graders who attain postsecondary degree = high school graduation rate * % of graduates who enroll in college * % of enrollees who earn postsecondary degree [2] Sources: NSC data, HISD student outcome data
53
HISD student pipeline: Trustee district VIII
(Diana Dávila)
Percent of first time 9th graders
100%
100
100
80
69
60
74
52
48
40
20
15
6
0
Enroll in 9th grade
Trustee district VIII
Overall HISD
Graduate from high Enroll in postsecondary Attain postsecondary
school
degree within 4.5 years
Notes:
[1] High school graduation rate calculated from cohort F1. College enrollment and graduation rates calculated from cohort S4. Percent of ninth graders who attain postsecondary degree = high school graduation rate * % of graduates who enroll in college * % of enrollees who earn postsecondary degree [2] Sources: NSC data, HISD student outcome data
54
HISD student pipeline: Trustee district IX
(Lawrence Marshall)
Percent of first time 9th graders
100%
100
100
80
69
60
65
52
46
40
20
15
7
0
Enroll in 9th grade
Trustee district IX
Overall HISD
Graduate from high Enroll in postsecondary Attain postsecondary
school
degree within 4.5 years
Notes:
[1] High school graduation rate calculated from cohort F1. College enrollment and graduation rates calculated from cohort S4. Percent of ninth graders who attain postsecondary degree = high school graduation rate * % of graduates who enroll in college * % of enrollees who earn postsecondary degree [2] Sources: NSC data, HISD student outcome data
55
Results
By schools
56
On-track rates differ by elementary school:
5th graders
Percent of students on‐track to college readiness
100%
80
60
Note: Cohort excludes schools that did not have at least 50 students who remained enrolled in the school over the entire period from SY2003‐04 to SY2007‐08
40
Average (24)
0
Horn
Roberts
Condit
Travis
Herod
Kolter
Oak Forest
Askew
Henderson, J. P.
Rice School ES
Lantrip
Cornelius
Parker
ized for Excellence Acad ES
White
De Zavala
Carrillo
Park Place
Longfellow
Lyons
Piney Point
Seguin
Barrick
Scroggins
Garden Villas
Sutton
Davila
Garcia
Bell
Coop
Valley West
Mitchell
Patterson
Northline
Herrera
Gross
Burbank ES
Montgomery
Windsor Village
Anderson
Moreno
Brookline
Harris, J. R.
Hobby
Neff
Sanchez
Gallegos
Hines‐Caldwell
Benavidez
Crespo
Codwell
Rodriguez
Tinsley
De Chaumes
Scarborough ES
Burnet
Rucker
Bonham
Durkee
Sherman
Bonner
Bastian
Berry
Grissom
Bellfort Academy
Braeburn
20
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohort S1 and defines grade 5 as students in cohort S1 in 2007‐08. Students not in grade 5 in that year are measured as on/off track based on the indicators for their actual grade, but are still included in the counts in this analysis
[2] Analysis excludes schools with fewer than 50 students in cohort S1 in SY2007‐08
57
[3] Source: HISD student outcome data
5th grade on-track rates versus poverty
levels
Percent of students on‐track to college readiness
100%
90
80
Horn
70
Roberts
Condit
Travis
R² = 0.77
60
Kolter
50
Oak Forest
Askew
Rice School ES
40
Parker
30
20
Henderson, J. P.
Lantrip
Cornelius
De
Zavala
Longfellow
White Carrillo
Davila
Seguin
Bell
Gross
Neff
Patterson
Hines‐Caldwell Codwell
Bonham
10
0
Bellfort Academy
Braeburn
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Free and reduced lunch rate
70
80
90
100%
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohort S1 and defines grade 5 as students in cohort S1 in 2007‐08. Students not in grade 5 in that year are measured as on/off track based on the indicators for their actual grade, but are still included in the counts in this analysis
[2] Analysis excludes schools with fewer than 50 students in cohort S1 in SY2007‐08
58
[3] Sources: HISD student outcome data, HISD “District and Schools Profile Report,” Free/Reduced Lunch rate for each school in SY07‐08
On-track rates differ by middle school:
8th graders
Percent of students on‐track to college readiness
100%
80
60
Note: Cohort excludes schools that did not have at least 50 students who remained enrolled in the school over the entire period from SY2005‐06 to SY2007‐08
40
0
Average (17)
Rogers, T.H.
Lanier
West Briar
Pin Oak
Pershing
Grady
Johnston
Rice School
Clifton
Hamilton
Long
Burbank
Ortiz
Hartman
Stevenson
Revere
Edison
Deady
Williams
Jackson
McReynolds
Welch
Hogg
Henry
Sharpstown
Thomas
Black
Attucks
Marshall
Ryan
Fondren
Cullen
Dowling
Gregory‐Lincoln
Key
Fonville
Holland
Woodson
20
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohort S2 and defines grade 8 as students in cohort S2 in 2007‐08. Students not in grade 8 in that year are measured as on/off track based on the indicators for their actual grade, but are still included in the counts in this analysis
[2] Analysis excludes schools with fewer than 50 students in cohort S2 in SY2007‐08
59
[3] Source: HISD student outcome data
8th grade on-track rates versus poverty
levels
Percent of students on‐track to college readiness
100%
90
Rogers, T.H.
80
70
Lanier
60
R² = 0.65
50
40
West Briar
30
Pershing
20
Pin Oak
Grady
Johnston
Rice School
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Clifton
Long
Burbank Ortiz
Hamilton
Revere Hogg
Henry
Marshall
Ryan
Gregory‐Lincoln
Cullen
60
Free and reduced lunch rate
70
80
90
100%
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohort S2 and defines grade 8 as students in cohort S2 in 2007‐08. Students not in grade 8 in that year are measured as on/off track based on the indicators for their actual grade, but are still included in the counts in this analysis
[2] Analysis excludes schools with fewer than 50 students in cohort S2 in SY2007‐08
60
[3] Sources: HISD student outcome data, HISD “District and Schools Profile Report,” Free/Reduced Lunch rate for each school in SY07‐08
On-track rates differ by high school:
11th graders
Percent of students on‐track to college readiness
100%
Note: Cohort excludes schools that did not have at least 50 students who remained enrolled in the school over the entire period from SY2004‐05 to SY2007‐08
80
60
40
20
Sterling
Wheatley
Jones
Jordan
Madison
Houston
Westbury
Reagan
HSLECJ
Chavez
Worthing
Sharpstown
Lee
Washington
Waltrip
Milby
Furr
Davis
Westside
Lamar
Carnegie Vanguard
DeBakey
HSPVA
Bellaire
0
Average (17)
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohort S3 and defines grade 11 as students in cohort S3 in 2006‐07. Students not in grade 11 in that year are measured as on/off track based on the indicators for their actual grade, but are still included in the counts in this analysis
[2] Analysis excludes schools with fewer than 50 students in cohort S3 in SY2006‐07
61
[3] Source: HISD student outcome data
11th grade on-track rates versus poverty
levels
Percent of students on‐track to college readiness
100%
90
80
70
60
Bellaire
50
HSPVA
R² = 0.74
40
DeBakey
Carnegie Vanguard
30
Lamar
20
Westside
Davis
Waltrip
10
0
Worthing
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Milby
Westbury
70
Furr
HSLECJ Sharpstown
Chavez
80
Lee
Houston
90
100%
Notes:
Free and reduced lunch rate
[1] Analysis based on cohort S3 and defines grade 11 as students in cohort S3 in 2006‐07. Students not in grade 11 in that year are measured as on/off track based on the indicators for their actual grade, but are still included in the counts in this analysis
[2] Analysis excludes schools with fewer than 50 students in cohort S3 in SY2006‐07
62
[3] Sources: HISD student outcome data, HISD “District and Schools Profile Report,” Free/Reduced Lunch rate for each school in SY07‐08
Graduation rates differ by high school
High school graduation rate
100%
99
99
98
98
93
87
80
60
40
85
81
80
79
75
71
70
69
69
68
68
68
68
Overall graduation rate
64
62
69
62
58
56
55
53
51
49
40
20
Ca De
rn B a
eg ke
ie y H
Va SH
n P
Ea gua
st rd
wo
H S od
P
HS VA
LE
La C J
B e mar
W lla i
es re
ts
Jo ide
rd
W Wa an
as lt
hi rip
ng
to
Sc
a r Ya n
bo te
ro s
ug
M h
Ch ilby
av
Au ez
st
Da in
M v
a d is
i
Re son
ag
a
Jo n
St ne
W erli s
es ng
tb
ur
y
Ho Fur
W ust r
he on
W atl
o e
Ka rthi y
Sh s hm ng
ar e
ps re
to
wn
Le
e
0
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohort F1
[2] Students who spent at least 2/3 of their time in a given school are attributed to that school. Otherwise, all cohort members are attributed to their 9th
grade campus.
[3]Analysis includes standard accountability high schools, except for Early College High Schools. It thus excludes alternative and DAEP (disciplinary alternative education programs) campuses.
63
[4] Source: HISD student outcome data
High school graduation rates tend to be inversely
correlated with poverty levels, though there are
outliers
High school graduation rate
100%
HSPVA
HSLECJ
Carnegie Vanguard DeBakey HSHP
90
Bellaire
Lamar
Waltrip
Westside
80
Eastwood
Jordan
Washington
Yates
Milby
Madison
Jones
Westbury
70
60
Worthing
50
Scarborough
Chavez
Austin
Reagan Davis
Sterling Furr
Houston
Wheatley
Kashmere
Sharpstown
Lee
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100%
Notes:
Free and reduced lunch rate
[1] Analysis based on cohort F1
[2] Students who spent at least 2/3 of their time in a given school are attributed to that school. Otherwise, all cohort members are attributed to their 9th
grade campus.
[3]Analysis includes standard accountability high schools, except for Early College High Schools. It thus excludes alternative accountability and DAEP (disciplinary alternative education programs) campuses.
64
[4] Sources: HISD student outcome data, HISD “District and Schools Profile Report,” Free/Reduced Lunch rate for each school in SY07‐08
Postsecondary enrollment rates differ by
high school
Percent of high school graduates enrolling in a
postsecondary institution
100%
98 96
92 92 91 90
88
80
85
73 73 72
Overall postsecondary enrollment rate (76)
69 69 69 69 68
67 67 66 66
60
63 63
61 59 58
56 54
43
40
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohort S4
[2] Sources: NSC data, HISD student outcome data
Wheatley
Eastwood
Houston
CLC
Kashmere
Davis
Chavez
Reagan
Jones
Scarborough
Sterling
Jordan
Furr
Sharpstown HS
Yates
Madison
Worthing
Westbury
Waltrip
Washington
Milby
Carnegie Vanguard
Westside HS
Bellaire
Middle College TC
HSPVA
Lamar HS
0
DeBakey HSHP
20
65
Postsecondary graduation rates differ by
high school
Percent of postsecondary institution enrollees who
earn a degree
100%
80
55
52
45
40
42 40
35
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohort S4
[2] Sources: NSC data, HISD student outcome data
5
4
2
Kashmere
Worthing
Yates
8
Wheatley
9
Houston
9
Jordan
Eastwood
Chavez
Scarborough
Westbury
Furr
Milby
Jones
Sterling
Davis
16 16 16 15 15
13 11 11
10 10
Reagan
Madison
Washington
Middle College TC
Westside HS
Carnegie Vanguard
DeBakey HSHP
Lamar HS
Bellaire
0
HSPVA
20
Overall postsecondary graduation rate (28)
24 23
20
Waltrip
26 26
Sharpstown HS
60
66
Some correlation exists between college
graduation and college enrollment rates
College graduation rate
80%
Bellaire
60
Lamar HS
HSPVA
Carnegie Vanguard
40
Westside
HS
Reagan
Waltrip
Madison
Sharpstown
20
Furr
Wheatley
Sterling
Eastwood
Scarborough
Houston
0
40
Middle
College
TC
Milby
Jones
Davis
Washington
DeBakey
HSHP
125
HISD students
enrolled in college
(2004‐05cohort)
Westbury
Kashmere
Chavez
CLC
60
Yates
Jordan
Worthing
80
100%
College enrollment rate
Notes:
[1] Analysis is based cohort S4
[2] Analysis excludes campuses that had fewer than 10 students in cohort S4
[3] Source: NSC data, HISD student outcome data.
67
Table of contents
• Overview of methodology
• Definition of key outputs
• Results of student achievement analysis
• Selected leverage points for improving student success
• Overall implications
68
High school student graduation rates
decline as school transfers increase
Majority of students attended one high school Number of entering 9th
graders (SY2004‐05)
10,000
Attended three schools
Attended two schools
8,000
Students fared considerably worse with each school transfer Percent of HISD students
100%
Other
80
Other
Other
Dropouts
Dropouts
60
6,000
4,000
Dropouts
Attended one school
40
Graduates
Graduates
2,000
20
0
0
Graduates
Attended 1
school
Attended 2
schools
Attended 3
schools
Across all grades and schools, the mobility rate in Houston ISD exceeds 25%
Notes:
[1] Analysis is based on cohort F1 and considers each student’s high school to be the one he/she was attending as of the end of the school year. It does not consider additional campus‐switching that may have occurred within a single school year
[2] Mobility rate reflects the number of children who spend less than 83 percent of the school year at the same campus.
[3] Sources: Mobility rate from a J. Radcliffe article in the Houston Chronicle, 15Dec2008 (see Sources slide for full citation); HISD student outcome data
69
Students who are younger in ninth grade are more
likely to graduate high school and enroll in college
High school graduation rate
(percent of HISD 9th graders)
College enrollment rate
(percent of HISD graduates)
100%
80
100%
79
80
74
68
66
60
60
40
20
0
16
11
14
15
Age (as of Dec 31, 2004)
40
40
36
16 17
18
22
20
0
11
14
15
Age (as of Dec 31, 2004)
16
17
18
Width of bar represents % of total starting group
Width of bar represents % of total starting group
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohort F1. [2] Age groups with fewer than 50 students in the cohort (13‐, 19‐, and 20‐year‐olds ) were excluded from analysis
70
[3] Sources: NSC data, HISD student outcome data.
In grades 1-12, the percent of HISD students who
have been held back one or more grades varies
Estimated
Percent of HISD students
100%
80
Behind 4
or more
grades
60
Behind 3
grades
40
Behind 2
grades
Behind 1
grade
On or
above
grade
20
Notes:
[1] See “Methodology for overage analysis” slide for an explanation of the analysis.
[2] Source: HISD student outcome data
2
Gr
ad
e1
11
Gr
ad
e
0
Gr
ad
e1
9
Gr
ad
e
8
Gr
ad
e
Gr
ad
e
7
6
Gr
ad
e
5
Gr
ad
e
4
Gr
ad
e
3
Gr
ad
e
2
Gr
ad
e
Gr
ad
e
1
0
71
Most students who score below proficiency on
TAKS are earning passing grades
Ranges of Grades Earned by Students Scoring Below Proficiency on TAKS
5th Grade
English
Math
8th Grade
English
Math
11th Grade
English
Math
0 – 50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
50 < x <=60%
3%
3%
5%
5%
2%
11%
60 < x <=70%
28%
23%
19%
27%
22%
39%
70 < x <=80%
58%
57%
49%
55%
44%
40%
80 < x <=90%
11%
16%
23%
15%
30%
8%
90 < x <=100%
0%
1%
3%
0%
2%
1%
Notes:
[1] Proficiency standard for TAKS is 2100
[2] Calculations based on data from cohorts S1, S2, and S3, for only those students who were on‐grade.
[3] Source: HISD student outcome data.
72
Students who attend either an alternative
accountability or DAEP campus for at least one of
their high school years have varying dropout rates
Number who Number of students who attended the school ultimately dropped out of HISD
at least one year
Percent
ALTA
266
133
50%
Reach Charter
41
20
49%
Carter Career
47
17
36%
CLC High School
253
77
30%
CEP SE
223
59
26%
CEP SW
220
46
21%
Community Services
117
20
17%
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on cohort S3
[2] 6 students attended more than one AEC / DAEP campus, and they are counted in each
[3] Analysis excludes campuses attended by fewer than 40 students in the cohort
[4] Source: HISD student achievement data
100%
80
60
40
0
Clarendon College
Blinn College
Lamar State Coll‐Port Arthur
Frank Phillips College
Victoria College, The
Tex as State T. C. West Texas
V ernon College
Lamar Institute O f Technology
Texas State T. C. Waco
Wharton County Junior College
Trinity Valley Comm College
Paris Junior College
Panola College
W estern Texas College
Alvin Community College
Midland College
Templ e College
Mclennan Community College
Kilgor e College
Howard College
Laredo Community College
Grayson County College
Coastal Bend College
Brazosport College
Texas State T. C. Marshall
Col lin Co Comm Coll District
Texas State T. C. Harlingen
South Plains College
Lone Star College ‐ Kingwood
Sout hwest Texas Junior College
Navarro College
Texas Southmost College
DCCCD Richland College
North Central Texas College
Northeast Texas Comm College
Cisco College
Lamar Stat e Coll‐Or ange
San Jacinto Coll ege S Campus
Weatherford College
Tyler Junior College
Hill College
Lone Star College ‐ Tomball
DCCCD North Lak e College
San Jacinto College Cen Campus
Tarrant Co Southeast Campus
Lone St ar Coll ege ‐ Montgomery
Alamo Ccd Nw Vista College
Amarillo College
R anger College
South Texas College
Dcccd Cedar Valley College
Odessa College
Central Texas College
San Jacinto College N Campus
Texarkana College
Del Mar College
Tarrant Co Northwest Campus
Austin Community College
Houston Community College
Tarrant Co Northeast Campus
Angelina College
Dcccd Mountain V iew College
College Of The Mainland Commun
DCCCD East fi eld College
DCCCD Brookhav en College
Lone Star College ‐ N. Harri s
Tarrant Co South Campus
Galveston College
DCCCD El Centro College
El Paso Community Col lege Dist
St. Philip'S College
Pal o Alto College
San Antonio College
The most successful community and technical colleges
in Texas have almost double HCC’s graduation rate
College graduation rates ‐ All students
National research suggests that there is significant variability in graduation rates for postsecondary institutions at all levels of selectivity
Texas community and technical colleges average (31)
20
Notes:
[1] Excludes institutions with fewer than 100 students enrolled
[2] Source: THECB Community and Technical Colleges 6‐year Graduation Rates of First‐Time Entering Fall 2001.
74
Table of contents
• Overview of methodology
• Definition of key outputs
• Results of student achievement analysis
• Selected leverage points for improving student success
• Overall implications
75
Implications
• Most HISD students are not graduating high school ready to succeed in college or career, and most students in grades 1 through 11 are not on‐track to graduate college/career ready • Progress toward college and career readiness can be assessed with some degree of confidence at each grade level using data that are currently available
• Performance rates of HISD schools vary considerably even when they have similar poverty levels, suggesting the potential to share best practices across schools
• A greater focus on channeling HISD students to postsecondary institutions with track records of success can improve graduation rates
• HISD students are performing better in the classroom than on standardized tests, suggesting that classroom expectation levels may need to be assessed
76
Appendix
77
Sources: databases with student outcome data and
research sources that informed the choice of indicators
for the on-track-to-college/career analysis
• ACT, “Ready for College and Work: Same or Different?,” 2006
• ACT, “What are ACT’s College Readiness Benchmarks?,” downloaded from ACT website, spring 2010
• Allensworth, Elaine, “Update to: From High School to the Future,” Consortium of Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago, October 2006
• Dougherty, Chris, PhD, “They Can Pass, but Are They College Ready?,” Data Quality Campaign, August 2008
• Houston ISD student outcome data, SY 2002‐03 through SY 2008‐09
• Interviews:
– Meredith Butterfield, Program Development Associate, National Center for Educational Achievement (NCEA)
– Caroline Holcombe, Project Coordinator, Children at Risk
– Professor Patricia McDonough, Professor of Higher Education and Organizational Change at UCLA Graduate School of Education
• Kobrin, Jennifer L., “Determining SAT Benchmarks for College Readiness,” College Board Office of Research and Analysis, Research Notes #30, January 2007
• Learning Point Associates, “Connecting Research about Access to Higher Education to Practice,“ March 2010
• National Student Clearinghouse data on HISD students who graduated high school in any year from 2004‐2008
• National Center for Educational Accountability, “Identifying Appropriate College Readiness Standards for All Students ” NCEA Issue Brief #2, May 2006
• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): “Condition of Education 2009” report and database of college graduation rates, http://nces.ed.gov
• Pinkus, Lyndsay, “Using Early‐Warning Data to Improve Graduation Rates: Closing Cracks in the Education System,” Alliance for Excellent Education Policy Brief, August 2008 • Radcliffe, Jennifer, “Schools confront a moving problem,” Houston Chronicle, 15Dec2008 • Radcliffe, Jennifer, “Home‐school is so popular, some are getting suspicious,” Houston Chronicle, 10May2010
78
• Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board data resources (www.txhighereddata.org)
The methodology used to identify whether a student met
each of the on-track indicator standards in some cases
required multiple calculations (1 of 2)
• Attendance: Use HISD student outcome data field that reports percent of days attended
• Course grades: – In the on/off track analyses, a student has just one English course grade and one math course grade per year. This single grade is calculated from all the final course grades in a given subject received by the student over the course of the school year. For example, if enrolled in a school operating on a quarter system, the student would have four final grades; if the school were on a semester system, the student would have two final grades, etc.
– If a student took just one course per main subject area per grading period (e.g., just one English course per quarter), the student’s annual grade is calculated as the average of all of his/her final grades per grading period. If however a student took multiple courses in the same main subject area within the same grading period, first take the average of all final grades received within a given grading period, and then calculate the average of the average grades per grading period in order to arrive at the student’s annual grade to use in the on/off track analysis. – In grades 3‐11, the on‐track course grade standard is 80% in both reading in math. In grades 1 and 2, however, the standard is higher, due to evidence of grade inflation in those years. The on‐track standards for grades 1 and 2 were calculated from an OLS regression of TAKS scores (y‐variable) on grades (x‐variable), and then plugging a TAKS score of 2300 into the resulting equation to calculate the course grade associated with a TAKS score of 2300. • TAKS: – If students received a waiver from TAKS (code L, R, W, or X), TAKS in that subject was excluded from the list of on‐
track indicators against which the student was measured in that year. In other words, a student waived from TAKS Reading but not TAKS Math in her 4th grade year would, in that year, be considered on‐track if she met four indicators: attendance >=90%, English course grade >=80%, math course grade >=80%, and TAKS math >= 2300. – If a student record is missing data for her ELA written composition score in 11th grade, but her 10th grade ELA written composition score is available, use the 10th grade score to assess whether the student met the ELA written composition on‐track indicator. If neither score is available, the student is excluded from the cohort.
79
The methodology used to identify whether a student met
each of the on-track indicator standards in some cases
required multiple calculations (2 of 2)
• Took pre‐algebra or higher: –
If a student skipped 8th grade but was taking algebra or higher in 9th grade, consider the student as having MET the on‐track indicator of taking pre‐algebra or higher in the 8th grade.
–
The courses in HISD considered to be equivalent to pre‐algebra are listed below:
» AJ Math 8
» BIL Math 8
» ESL 8 Adv (Lev 3), Int (Lev 2), or Beg (Lev 1)
» Fund Math 8
» Math 7 PreAP
» Math 7 PreAP VG
» Math 7 PreAP / GT
» Math 8
» Math 8 MYP
» Math 8 MYP / VG
» Math 8 PreAP
» Math 8 PreAP VG
» Math 8 PreAP / GT
» Math 8 – ESL
» Math 8 ‐ Magnet
» Math for Life 8, 8A, or 8B
• General methodology note:
–
If a student skips a grade or is held back a grade, he/she will not be “on‐grade” for a given school year. For example, in Cohort 1, all students are in first grade in SY2003‐04, which means that on‐grade for them in SY2004‐05 is 2nd grade, on‐grade in SY2005‐06 is 3rd
grade, etc. If a student is held back a year and thus is still in 2nd grade in SY2005‐06, (s)he is classified as on or off track based on whether (s)he has met the second grade on‐track indicators in SY2005‐06, but his/her outcome will still be counted along with all the other on/off track outcomes in SY2005‐06. That is, the percent of students in HISD reported as on‐track in the year when on‐grade is 3rd grade is calculated as the number of Cohort 1 students who were on‐track in SY2005‐06 divided by the total number of Cohort 1 students, though some of the students my actually not have been in 3rd grade in SY2005‐06.
80
Methodology for overage analysis
General notes:
• As the longitudinal data available for this analysis covered seven years only, SY2002‐03 through SY2008‐09, the figures in the overage calculations do not follow one single cohort of students from grades 1 through 12. Instead, they are calculated based on the following methodology:
1. Identify all first‐time first graders in SY2003‐04, using SY2002‐03 data to identify and exclude students who were also in first grade in SY2002‐03
2. Follow these students through SY2008‐09, when on‐grade students would be in 6th grade. Note what percent of students were actually in 6th grade in SY2008‐09, as well as the percent behind 1 grade, 2 grades, etc.
3. Identify all sixth graders in SY2002‐03
4. Assume the same percentage of the SY2002‐03 sixth graders were on vs. off grade as was the case for the sixth graders from our first group in SY2008‐09
5. Follow the 2002‐03 sixth graders through SY208‐09, calculating in each year what percent of students remained off grade, fell behind one grade, fell behind two grades, etc.
6. Apply those percentages to the estimated counts of sixth grade students who on‐grade, behind one grade, etc. in SY2002‐03 to arrive at an estimate of how many students were on‐grade or overage from grades 7 ‐12. Example: • Suppose there are 100 6th graders in SY2002‐03, and by SY2008‐09, 80% of those students were in 6th grade or above, while 15% were behind one‐grade and 5% were behind two grades.
• Thus, we estimate that of all the 6th graders in SY2002‐03, 80 are in 6th grade for the first time (on‐grade) , 15 are behind one grade, and 5 of them are behind 2 grades. • If we observe that 80% of SY2002‐03 sixth graders are promoted to seventh grade in SY2003‐04, while 20% remain in 6th grade, that gives us 80% of students not losing a grade and 20% losing one grade. • To estimate the count of students on‐grade in SY2003‐04, multiply 80 * 0.80 = 64. To estimate the count of students off one grade in SY2003‐04, calculate (15*0.80+80*0.20) = 28. Students estimated to be off two grades in SY2003‐04 would be 5*0.80 + 15*0.20 = 7. And the number of students off 3 grades would be 5*0.20 = 1. 81
Approximately 48% of first-time 9th graders
graduate high school in HISD within 4 years
Number of HISD students
15,000
Graduation rate:
Base cohort: 69%
First‐time 9th graders: 48%
13,847
9,517
10,000
‐4,330
6,581
s
at
e
ed
Le
av
er
s
(S & u
Y 2 nd
00 er
8 ‐ re
0 9 po
)
rt
Co
nt
20 inue
08 rs
‐0 , S
9 Y
ts
ou
op
Dr
Ba
20 se
08 cla
co s s
h o of
rt
Le
( SY a ve
20 rs
04 &
‐0 un
5 t de
o rr
S Y ep
2 0 or
0 7 te d
‐0
8)
Fir
st
g r tim
ad e
er 9t
s h
0
‐9
ad
u
‐544
5,000
Gr
‐737
GE
D
‐1,646
31%
12%
5%
4%
0%
Notes:
[1] Analysis based on all HISD students who were first‐time ninth graders in SY 2004‐05.
[2] Continuing into a fifth year in HISD early college high schools (ECHSs) has a different meaning from other continuing, as the ECHS graduation track is five years. However, as only 38 of the continuers in the cohort were part of ECHSs, this analysis combines all continuers into a single bucket. [3] The GED count reported in this table (9) is slightly smaller than the actual number, as complete GED data were inaccessible. According to state counts, only ~1% of HISD students in the state’s definition of the class of 2008, which includes students who transferred into HISD, earned a GED.
[4] Source: HISD student outcome data.
82