The State of Public Education in Houston 2017 School Rankings Analysis Summer 2017

1 Greater Houston School Rankings Analysis Executive Summary

School Grade Breakdown & Overall College Readiness • 48% of schools throughout Houston have an A or B, lower than Austin (51%) and North Texas (52%) • 25% of students throughout Houston considered college ready, 10% for economically disadvantaged School Ranking Indicator Analysis • Houston schools perform marginally better than the State on the following indicators: • Elementary reading and math, Algebra I, English I & II, college readiness • Houston schools perform lower than the State on the following indicators: • Average SAT score, C@R Graduation rate Notable Improvements • The following districts significantly improved the number of schools earning an A or a B: • Galena Park ISD (+23% pts.), KIPP (+12% pts.), Alief ISD (+7% pts.) • Galena Park ISD with 82% economic disadvantaged increased its % of gold ribbon schools (elementary, middle, and high schools) by +32% pts. Student Mobility and School Rankings • Higher mobility rates are associated with high economic disadvantaged and low campus performance 2 Overview of Greater Houston Presentation

“Greater Houston” for the purpose of the rankings is comprised of 8 counties: 1. School Rankings Methodology Harris County 2. School Rankings Regional Indicator Analysis Fort Bend County Brazoria County 3. School Grade Distribution (K-12) Chambers County 4. Gold Ribbon Schools Galveston County 5. School Rankings and Student Mobility Rates Liberty County Montgomery County 6. School Grade Breakdown by Demographic Waller County

3 CHILDREN AT RISK School Rankings Methodology

I II III IV Elementary and Middle School High School

Student Achievement Student College Achievement & Poverty Growth Readiness

4 CHILDREN AT RISK School Rankings Methodology

60% Elem 20% Elem 20% Elem 60% Middle 20% Middle 20% Middle 30% High 20% High 20% High 30% High I II III IV Student Achievement Student College Achievement & Poverty Growth Readiness % of students at Year-over-year growth C@R Grad Rate Level III (Mastery) in in STAAR Reading and SAT / ACT Part. Rate Reading and Math Math scores at the AP / IB Part. Rate % STAAR Level III Level % STAAR student level combined % Eco Dis % AP / IB Pass Rate SAT / ACT Score

5 2016-17 STAAR Performance Measures: Descriptions

Does not meet Approaches Meets Masters

Students are unlikely Students are likely to Students have high Students expected to to succeed in the next succeed in the next likelihood of success in succeed in the next grade grade without grade with targeted the next grade but may with no intervention / significant academic academic intervention / still some intervention / have ability to think intervention / do not generally demonstrate have ability to think critically and apply skills demonstrate basic ability to apply critically and apply skills / in unfamiliar contexts / understanding of knowledge and skills in “sufficiently prepared” “well prepared” for knowledge and skills familiar contexts for postsecondary success postsecondary success

6 2016-17 STAAR Performance Measures: Example of % of Questions Needed to be Answered Correctly for Each Measure

2017 3rd STAAR English Reading Exam 85% MASTERS Students answer 76% less than 50% of questions correctly MEETS Standard 53% C@R uses in its ratings < 50% APPROACHES DOES NOT Standard TEA MEET uses in its ratings

7 Overview of Greater Houston Presentation

8 Greater Houston: C@R School Rankings Regional Indicator Performance

Third Grade Reading Algebra I Average SAT Score C@R Graduation Rate Percentage of students Percentage of students The average SAT score The highest of each campus’ performing at Level III performing at Level III (reading and math only) four-, five-, or six- year Advanced on the STAAR Advanced on the STAAR graduation rates using the Reading exam in the 3rd grade Algebra I End of Course exam May 2015 graduating cohorts

24% 22% 17% 9% 931 25% 85%

Third – Fifth Grade English I + II College Readiness Reading + Math Percentage of students Percentage of 2015 high school graduates who scored Percentage of students performing at Level III at or above TEA-defined performing at Level III Advanced on the STAAR criterion on either the SAT Advanced on the STAAR English I and II End of Course (1110 reading and math Reading + Math exams in exams combined) or ACT (24 grades 3-5 composite)

Source: CHILDREN AT RISK 2017 School Rankings. Spring 2016 data from the Texas Education Agency. 9 School Rankings Indicator Analysis How Greater Houston Compares to the State Across 7 Key Indicators

Current Change Change % Difference Houston Performance Indicators Year Since Since Between Houston in 2015-16 2015-16 2014-15 2013-14 and the State 3rd Grade Reading 24% N/A N/A 24% + 1% 3rd-5th Grade Reading & Math 22% +2% +1% 22% + 1% Algebra I 17% +3% +4% 17% + 2% English I & II 9% +1% +1% 9% + 2% Average SAT Score 931 -12 pts N/A 931 - 17 points College Readiness 25% -1% No Change 25% + 1% C@R Graduation Rate 85% No Change +1% 85% 85% - 3%

This analysis captures data from 8 counties with over 57 public school districts and 29 charter districts and 1,275,289 students

Source: CHILDREN AT RISK 2017 School Rankings. Spring 2016 data from the Texas Education Agency. 10 Greater Houston: College Readiness Over Four Years

2013 2014 2015 2016

All Students 27% 26% 26% 25%

Economically Disadvantaged 10% 10%30% 30%10%28% 10%

30% % of students who score at least a 24 on the ACT or 1110 on the SAT 11% 11% 10% (Reading and Math). Per TEA, these scores indicate high likelihood student will be successful in higher education.

Source: CHILDREN AT RISK 2017 School Rankings. Spring 2016 data from the Texas Education Agency. 11 Average SAT Scores by High School Across Greater Houston Few high schools have an average SAT score of 1110 or above

Relationship Between % Economically Disadvantaged and Average SAT Scores (Reading & Math) 1500

1300 Average 1100 TEA College Readiness SAT Score Score (Reading and Math): (Reading 1110 & Math) 900

700

500 0 20 40 60 80 100

% Economically Disadvantaged Students

Source: CHILDREN AT RISK 2017 School Rankings. Spring 2016 data from the Texas Education Agency. 12 School Rankings Indicator Analysis Comparison of the % Change Year-Over-Year Across Harris County Districts

3-5 Reading Avg SAT College C@R Grad Composite District # of Schools % Eco Dis Algebra I English I & II & Math Score Readiness Rate Change TOMBALL ISD 17 22% -2% 13% 7% 2% -1% 1% +20% SPRING ISD 36 73% 0% 6% 3% 4% -2% 7% +18% ALIEF ISD 41 83% 2% 10% 1% 1% 0% 1% +15% HUMBLE ISD 41 37% 2% 6% 3% 1% -2% 1% +11% KATY ISD 56 31% 1% 6% 4% 0% -1% 0% +10% CYPRESS-FAIRBANKS ISD 82 53% 3% 3% 2% -1% 0% 1% +8% HOUSTON ISD 268 80% 1% 5% 1% 1% 0% -1% +7% GALENA PARK ISD 22 83% 3% 4% -1% -1% -1% 1% +5% DEER PARK ISD 11 42% 1% 3% 2% -1% -3% 2% +4% KLEIN ISD 43 42% 2% -2% 2% 0% 0% 1% +3% KIPP INC CHARTER 17 92% 3% 3% 1% -2% -1% -2% +2% PASADENA ISD 60 79% 2% 2% 0% 0% -2% 0% +2% LA PORTE ISD 11 54% 2% 5% -1% 0% -6% 0% 0% SPRING BRANCH ISD 39 59% 2% 1% 3% -2% -6% 1% -1% GOOSE CREEK CISD 24 69% 2% 4% 2% -8% -5% 2% -3% HARMONY ACADEMY 14 58% -2% 11% 0% -4% -9% 0% -4% YES PREP SCHOOLS 17 83% N/A -17% 1% 0% 1% 3% -12% ALDINE ISD 58 89% 1% -9% 2% -5% -3% 0% -14%

Source: CHILDREN AT RISK 2017 School Rankings. Spring 2016 data from the Texas Education Agency. 13 Overview of Greater Houston Presentation

14 Grade Breakdown of Greater Houston Schools

1,383 schools in the 8 county Houston region

A B C D F

31% 17% 19% 18% 15%

15 Percent of Schools by Region with a CHILDREN AT RISK A or B Grade

2016 2017

51% North Texas 52% +

55% Austin 51% -

50% Houston 48% -

47% Tarrant County 48% +

42% San Antonio 43% +

Source: CHILDREN AT RISK 2017 School Rankings. Spring 2016 data from the Texas Education Agency. 16 School Grade Analysis: Comparison of the % of A/B Schools Across Harris County Districts

% Change District # of Schools % Eco Dis % A/B % A/B in 2015-16 from 2014-15 TOMBALL ISD 17 22% 94% 2% HARMONY ACADEMY 14 58% 78% -8% KLEIN ISD 43 42% 74% -9% KATY ISD 56 31% 73% -4% CYPRESS-FAIRBANKS ISD 82 53% 72% 3% HUMBLE ISD 41 37% 68% 5% KIPP INC CHARTER 18 92% 65% 12% YES PREP SCHOOLS 17 83% 65% -4% LA PORTE ISD 11 54% 55% -9% SPRING BRANCH ISD 39 59% 46% 0% DEER PARK ISD 11 42% 45% -19% GALENA PARK ISD 22 83% 41% 23% HOUSTON ISD 268 80% 40% 1% ALIEF ISD 41 83% 34% 7% PASADENA ISD 60 79% 33% -3% GOOSE CREEK CISD 24 69% 29% -4% SPRING ISD 36 73% 17% -6% ALDINE ISD 58 89% 5% -6%

17 Overview of Greater Houston Presentation

18 Greater Houston: Gold Ribbon Schools

Number of Gold Ribbon Schools Gold Ribbon Characteristics

More than 75% economically 88 disadvantaged (high poverty) in Greater Houston Receive an A or a B in the CHILDREN AT RISK rankings (high performing)

522 A traditional neighborhood campus; in Texas charter schools are not included

Source: CHILDREN AT RISK 2017 School Rankings. Spring 2016 data from the Texas Education Agency. 19 Change in % of Gold Ribbon Schools by Harris County District (2016 vs. 2017)

# of Eco Dis # Gold Ribbon % Gold # of Eco Dis # Gold Ribbon % Gold % Pt District Schools Schools Ribbon Schools Schools Ribbon Change 2016 2017 GALENA PARK ISD 19 3 16% 19 9 47% +32% CHANNELVIEW ISD 8 1 13% 8 3 38% +25% CYPRESS-FAIRBANKS ISD 14 3 21% 14 5 36% +14% ALIEF ISD 28 6 21% 35 9 25% +4% HOUSTON ISD 164 38 22% 177 39 22% 0% DEER PARK ISD 1 0 0% 1 0 0% 0% HUMBLE ISD 4 0 0% 4 0 0% 0% KATY ISD 1 0 0% 1 0 0% 0% LA PORTE ISD 1 0 0% 1 0 0% 0% SPRING BRANCH ISD 9 0 0% 20 0 0% 0% PASADENA ISD 41 10 24% 42 10 24% -1% SPRING ISD 17 3 18% 13 2 15% -2% ALDINE ISD 38 4 11% 56 2 4% -7% GOOSE CREEK CISD 7 1 14% 7 0 0% -14% KLEIN ISD 7 1 14% 6 0 0% -14% SHELDON ISD 5 1 20% 7 0 0% -20%

Source: CHILDREN AT RISK 2017 School Rankings. Spring 2016 data from the Texas Education Agency. 20 Top 10 Districts in Texas with the Greatest Increase in Gold Ribbon Elementary Schools

# of # of # Gold % Gold # Gold % Gold % District Area Eco Dis Eco Dis Ribbon Ribbon Ribbon Ribbon Increase Schools Schools 2016 2017 Galena Park ISD Greater Houston 13 2 15% 13 8 62% + 46% McAllen ISD Rio Grande Valley 14 4 29% 13 9 69% + 41% Southwest ISD San Antonio 10 2 20% 9 5 56% + 36% Edinburg CISD Rio Grande Valley 27 12 44% 27 19 70% + 26% Harlingen CISD Rio Grande Valley 13 5 38% 14 9 64% + 26% Amarillo ISD Amarillo 20 5 25% 22 11 50% + 25% El Paso ISD El Paso 37 9 24% 40 18 45% + 21% Mission CISD Rio Grande Valley 11 3 27% 11 5 45% + 18% La Joya ISD Rio Grande Valley 23 8 35% 23 12 52% + 17% Cypress-Fairbanks ISD Greater Houston 12 3 25% 12 5 42% + 17%

5 of 10 districts with the most growth in % of gold ribbon schools are concentrated in the Rio Grande Valley

Source: CHILDREN AT RISK 2017 School Rankings. Spring 2016 data from the Texas Education Agency. 21 Highlights from Recent Gold Ribbon School Site Visits Oakhurst Elementary (Fort Worth ISD) and Jensen Elementary (Pasadena ISD)

Clear school vision demonstrated by strong leadership A focused and innovative leader who instills in staff and students that success is possible

Data-driven instruction and teacher development Staff meets regularly to discuss student progress measured by data and share best practices in an effort to quickly identify every single student’s strengths and areas for growth Community and family engagement An active presence in the community with regular events for parents to be involved in their child’s education both in the classroom and at home School district interaction Vertical alignment of district-wide, high quality curriculum and teacher support

Source: CHILDREN AT RISK qualitative interviews with school staff at Oakhurst Elementary and Jensen Elementary. 22 Overview of Greater Houston Presentation

23 Overview of Student Mobility

% of students who have been in What is mobility? membership at a school for less than 83% of school year What is mobility? What is the difference between Membership: a student being scheduled for instruction (enrolled) versus attendance: a membership and attendance? student being physically present There is a relationship between mobility Why is mobility important? rates, % of economically disadvantaged students, & academic performance

What is the mobility rate in Houston? Mobility ranges between 0.6 to 37.2%

Source: Texas Education Agency 24 School Rankings Analysis Relationship Between Poverty and Mobility

Relationship Between Mobility and Varying Levels of Economic Disadvantage at Elementary Schools in Greater Houston 40% 35% Correlation 30% Coefficient = .5 Mobility 25% Rate 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % Economically Disadvantaged Students Higher mobility rates associated with higher levels of poverty at a campus; variation in mobility rates across high-poverty schools 25 School Rankings Analysis Relationship Between Student Mobility and Student Achievement

Relationship Between Student Mobility and STAAR 3rd-5th Grade Reading at Elementary Schools in Greater Houston 80%

70%

60% % Students at Only 3% of schools (5 of 160) STAAR Level III 50% with more than 20% mobility (3rd – 5th Grade have at least 30% of children 40% (3rd-5th Grade) reading at a Reading) mastery level by Campus 30% 20% Correlation 10% Coefficient = -.59 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% % Student Mobility by Campus

Source: CHILDREN AT RISK 2017 School Rankings. Spring 2016 data from the Texas Education Agency. 26 Top 15 Elementary Schools in Greater Houston

MOBILITY CAMPUS DISTRICT ECO DIS GRADE RATES 1. BUCKALEW EL CONROE ISD 7.2 1.8 A+ 2. COMMONWEALTH EL FORT BEND ISD 3.4 1.3 A+ 3. CREEKSIDE FOREST EL TOMBALL ISD 8.5 1.5 A+ 4. RIVER OAKS EL HOUSTON ISD 4.3 9.1 A+ 5. CORNERSTONE EL FORT BEND ISD 3.3 2.3 A+ 6. SILVERCREST EL PEARLAND ISD 2.9 6.1 A+ 7. HORN EL HOUSTON ISD 6.1 10.0 A+ 8. POPE EL CYPRESS-FAIRBANKS ISD 6.2 5.7 A+ 9. BESS CAMPBELL EL LAMAR CISD 4.0 2.6 A+ 10. DERETCHIN EL CONROE ISD 8.0 3.4 A+ 11. BUSH EL HOUSTON ISD 8.7 12.7 A+ 12. ROBERTS EL HOUSTON ISD 13.9 13.1 A+ 13. COLONY MEADOWS EL FORT BEND ISD 7.9 5.3 A+ 14. OAK FOREST EL HOUSTON ISD 4.7 32.8 A+ 15. TOUGH EL CONROE ISD 8.1 3.5 A+ Lower mobility rates are associated with relatively low economic disadvantage %, and high campus/student performance

Source: CHILDREN AT RISK 2017 School Rankings. Spring 2016 data from the Texas Education Agency. 27 Bottom 15 Elementary Schools in Greater Houston

MOBILITY CAMPUS DISTRICT ECO DIS GRADE RATES 865. FOERSTER EL HOUSTON ISD 32.7 88.2 F 866. BONHAM EL HOUSTON ISD 27.2 97.5 F 867. CLARK INT SPRING ISD 34.9 73.3 F 868. HILLIARD EL HOUSTON ISD 28.3 88.3 F 869. WEIS MIDDLE GALVESTON ISD 32.6 90.8 F 870. WESLEY EL HOUSTON ISD 22.0 97.5 F 871. TREASURE FOREST EL SPRING BRANCH ISD 17.1 93.9 F 872. AMBASSADORS PREPARATORY ACADEMY AMBASSADORS PREPARATORY ACADEMY 27.2 85.6 F 873. YOUNG EL HOUSTON ISD 33.6 98.4 F 874. CARAWAY INT ALDINE ISD 26.5 92.4 F 875. BRIARGATE EL FORT BEND ISD 27.0 75.4 F 876. CODWELL EL HOUSTON ISD 16.8 87.7 F 877. HIGHLAND HTS EL HOUSTON ISD 22.1 82.7 F 878. WOODSON SCHOOL HOUSTON ISD 29.0 89.9 F 878. C O R E ACADEMY C O R E ACADEMY 21.7 88.6 F Higher mobility rates are associated with high economic disadvantage % and low campus/student performance

Source: CHILDREN AT RISK 2017 School Rankings. Spring 2016 data from the Texas Education Agency. 28 Average Mobility Rates of Harris County School Districts

DISTRICTS AVG MOBILITY SPRING ISD 22% GOOSE CREEK CISD 20% ALIEF ISD 20% Harris County ALDINE ISD 18% 15% SHELDON ISD 17% HOUSTON ISD 16% LA PORTE ISD 16% Fort Bend County PASADENA ISD 16% 12% SPRING BRANCH ISD 15% CHANNELVIEW ISD 15% Brazoria County CYPRESS-FAIRBANKS ISD 14% KLEIN ISD 14% 13% GALENA PARK ISD 13% TOMBALL ISD 12% Montgomery HUFFMAN ISD 12% HUMBLE ISD 12% County DEER PARK ISD 11% 14% KATY ISD 11% CROSBY ISD 10% 29 Source: CHILDREN AT RISK 2017 School Rankings. Spring 2016 data from the Texas Education Agency. Relationship Between Mobility and C@R Rankings at Elementary Schools in Greater Houston

14 49 105 12 3 18 12 48 94 32 0-10 % 10-20 % 20-30 % 30-37 % 26 mobility mobility mobility 9 mobility 4

121 123 145 45

A B C D F

In conclusion… we see the majority of A’s at schools with the lowest mobility rates and the majority of F’s at schools with higher mobility rates

Source: CHILDREN AT RISK 2017 School Rankings. Spring 2016 data from the Texas Education Agency. 30 Overview of Greater Houston Presentation

31 Racial Disparity in the Bottom 50 Elementary Schools in Greater Houston

LATINO AFRICAN AMERICAN WHITE ASIAN

of students in of students in of students in of students in 49% bottom 50 schools 46% bottom 50 schools 3% bottom 50 schools 1% bottom 50 schools of students in of students in of students in of students in 51% all Houston schools 17% all Houston schools 23% all Houston schools 6% all Houston schools

32 Racial Disparity in the Top 50 Elementary Schools in Greater Houston

LATINO AFRICAN AMERICAN WHITE ASIAN

of students in of students in of students in of students in 22% Top 50 schools 7% top 50 schools 46% top 50 schools 22% top 50 schools of students in of students in of students in of students in 51% all Houston schools 17% all Houston schools 23% all Houston schools 6% all Houston schools

33 The majority of Latino children in Harris County are attending poor quality schools

Harris County: % of Latino Children in Quality Seats by C@R Grade

C@R School Grade Elementary Middle High

A 17% 28% 21%

B 20% 17% 16%

C 24% 22% 19%

D 23% 21% 20%

F 16% 12% 24%

C, D, F 63% 55% 63%

The majority of Latino children across Harris County are attending schools with a CHILDREN AT RISK grade of C, D, or F 34 The majority of African American children in Harris County are attending poor quality schools

Harris County: % of African American Children in Quality Seats by C@R Grade

C@R School Grade Elementary Middle High

A 15% 25% 18%

B 17% 14% 16%

C 18% 22% 16%

D 22% 17% 17%

F 29% 22% 33%

C, D, F 68% 61% 66%

The majority of African American children across Harris County are attending schools with a CHILDREN AT RISK grade of C, D, or F 35 The majority of minority children in Harris County are attending poor quality schools; We must address disparity

Harris County: % of Minority Children in Quality Seats by C@R Grade

C@R School Grade Elementary Middle High

A 17% 28% 20%

B 19% 15% 16%

C 22% 23% 18%

D 22% 19% 19%

F 19% 14% 26%

C, D, F 64% 57% 64%

The majority of minority children across Harris County are attending schools with a CHILDREN AT RISK grade of C, D, or F 36 We must improve the # of quality school seats that Latino children are accessing

The Problem The Goal Our Solution

Ensure all Latino parents have: Engage at least 3 community The majority A growing awareness of 1 partners to reach at least 150 of Latino different school options families in Harris County children Information to select the Distribute print materials in across Harris right schools for their 2 the form of Parent Action County are children Guides and family-friendly brochures attending low Tools to drive improvement performing Establish partnerships with mass media organizations, schools Tools to present concerns to 3 such as Univision, to increase policy makers on how their awareness about school choice schools can improve

37 Key Strategies to Engage & Educate Latino Parents

1 2 3 4 5 CLOSE TOUCH PRINT WEBSITE MEDIA TEXTING

Parent workshops Parent Action Guides Website Partnership with Mobile marketing via organized with our 3 and family-friendly dissemination of organizations that text message to partners targeting brochure print materials and see a high volume of access Latino parents 150 Latino families supplements other information Latino parent traffic