Education Assessment

Elementary and Secondary Education

Part 2 of the education assessment

I. Introduction

Public schools are the starting point to address the two central challenges: 1) closing the achievement gap, and 2) meeting higher standards. Unless the achievement gap in elementary and secondary school is closed, the participation gap in higher education cannot be closed. Unless higher standards are met, students will be unable to succeed in higher education and/or in the workforce.

In the short term, public schools must address five significant changes in state policy. Each address some aspect of the two long term challenges (Texas Business and Education Council, April 3, 2001):

1. More rigorous standardized testing: Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). In the Spring of 2003, academic achievement will be measured by a new generation of standardized tests aligned with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). These tests will be more demanding than the TAAS because the TEKS are more rigorous than the Essential Elements they replace.
2. Elimination of social promotion: In 1999, the Student Success Initiative (TEC § 28.0211) ended the practice of “social promotion” in Texas public schools. Beginning with the third grade class of 2002-2003, students will be expected to pass 3rd grade reading and math assessment before being promoted to the next grade level. Improvements in performance on TAAS statewide have been truly remarkable, but a significant challenge remains to bring all students to grade level on time.
3. More rigorous testing required for graduation: The Exit-level Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills Exam. Senate Bill 103 signed into law at the end of the 1999 legislative session established new 11th grade exit tests. Beginning with the 9th grade class of 2001-2002, students will be required to pass the new exit tests as a high school graduation requirement. These new assessments in English/language arts, mathematics, science and social studies will be more rigorous than the 10th grade tests they replace. Increasing percentages of students are passing the current exit-level assessments, but high schools still face a significant challenge to prepare all students to meet the more rigorous requirements of the new 11th grade tests.
4. Standardized, rigorous high school curriculum: The Recommended High School Program (RHSP) as “the default curriculum.” The Texas Legislature in 2001 established a requirement that all students enter high school in 2004 (today’s 6th graders) with a plan to complete at minimum the course requirements of the Recommended High School Program.
5. Higher fiscal accountability: Senate Bill 218 enacted in 2001 establishes the nation’s first public school fiscal accountability system. Scheduled for full implementation in 2004, this system will rate each school district on its performance against a series of significant indicators of financial well-being and sound financial management practices.

Social Context

These formal changes to the system take place in a changing social context. Students in the public schools come from a great variety of family situations, income strata, and cultural backgrounds. We are fortunate that much research has already taken place on how these differences impact learning. Of particular import in our community are findings related to racial/ethnic minority and low-income families. Even as such students are becoming an increasing portion of the student population, they remain more at risk for poor school outcomes. Research dating back to the mid-1960s has linked the educational disadvantage of minority students to a combination of out-of-school factors, many of which center on family characteristics, such as poverty and parents’ education. These and other factors such as limited English proficiency and family structure are associated with various levels of educational access and different educational outcomes. However, such factors are interrelated and must be examined collectively to understand the effect on education.

While these social and economic factors do present new and growing challenges to many educators on many campuses, they are not insurmountable. Research by Just for the Kids (JFTK) and the National Center for Educational Accountability has identified high performing campuses of all shapes and sizes, many with seemingly overwhelming barriers to success. JFTK has identified strategies that have worked in all types of schools by helping schools organize their efforts and work smarter to ultimately make a real difference in what students are learning.

Top Of Page

II. Scope of Assessment

The K-12 portion of the CAN education assessment encompasses the following school districts:

This assessment does not include private or charter schools, but rather focuses on the independent school districts, which enroll more than 90% of all K-12 age students in the community. Further attention to private and charter schools as well as home schooling will be needed in the future. See Appendix A for a map of the independent school districts in the Austin Metropolitan area.

In some instances, statewide and regional data are included for comparison purposes. Also, some information on Fort Worth ISD is included to provide a comparison school district of similar size to Austin ISD. Fort Worth was chosen because its student enrollment is nearly identical to Austin ISD and is similarly diverse.

Across the nine districts, this assessment reviews data in four broad areas.

1. Student demographics: show how enrollment has grown and become more diverse, and consider variations across grade levels.
2. Dropout/Completion rates: indicate how many students remain in school so that they have an opportunity to achieve.
3. Student achievement: seen in performance on TAAS tests, early indicator data for the more rigorous TAKS tests, and readiness for higher education (using indicators such as number of students taking ACT/SAT tests and how they score,).
4. Learning environment: involves the conditions that impact student learning, such as staffing, discipline and special academic programs.

Top Of Page

III. Student Demographics

Growth Since the 1994-95 school year, student enrollment in the nine districts increased 23.3%. This growth far exceeds the statewide rate of 10.6%. All nine districts in the assessment have grown over this period, with rates ranging from 6.3% in Austin ISD to 80.3% in Leander ISD. Five of the area districts grew by more than 50%. Austin ISD remains the largest of the nine school districts with an enrollment of 77,816, 48.6% of the area’s total student enrollment (Table 1) (TEA, AEIS report data).

Diversity

Not only has student enrollment grown, it has become significantly more diverse. By the 2000-2001 school year, no single ethnic group represented a majority of student enrollment as the percent of white students dropped to 49.5%. While all population groups grew in the five school years from 96-97 to 00-01, the increase in Hispanic students (11,717) exceeded the total increase of the other four groups combined (White – 4,690; Asian/Pacific Islander – 1,902; African American – 1,335; Native American – 96) (TEA, SY 2000-01).

Substantial variation can be seen in the racial and ethnic makeup of the student body across the nine districts. For example, the Hispanic populations in these nine districts range from a high of 63% in Del Valle, to a low of 4.5% in Eanes (Table 2). The range of variation for low-income enrollment is very similar: a high of 63.7% in Del Valle and a low of 2.5% in Eanes.

Diversity by Grade

Just as diversity varies across districts, student diversity also varies across the different levels of school: elementary, middle, and high. Across the nine districts, 48% of elementary school students are white, compared to 51% of middle school and 54.8% of high school students (Figure 3). This is reflective of two issues: 1) relatively young and fast growing minority populations, particularly Hispanic, 2) higher attrition (dropout rates) among African American and Hispanic students. All levels of school (elementary, middle, and high school) are more diverse than the total county population, forecasting the future composition of our community.

Regardless of grade level, increasing diversity brings new challenges to education. In the classroom, teachers must be able to address cultural and language differences. Assessment tools, which are so essential to accountability, also must take into account cultural and language differences. Finally, the education institutions across our community must develop more effective means to communicate with and actively engage parents of all types in educating their children.

Population by Grade

Another potentially significant trend can be seen in Figure 4. This graphic shows two very telling developments in public education: 1) a spike in enrollment in the ninth grade, and 2) a sharp decline in enrollment each of the following years. The total enrollment in 12th grade during the 2000-2001 school year was just 62% of ninth grade enrollment. This reflects not only school dropout but also retention in grade as students in high school fail to earn the course credit required to advance.

Top Of Page

IV. School Dropouts

Dropping out of school indicates ultimate failure for schools, students and the community. The consequences of dropping out are enormously costly, both to the individual and to society. On average, students who fail to complete high school can expect to earn considerably less over their lifetimes than students who complete high school and post-secondary education. Some studies have demonstrated a positive correlation between dropping out and criminal activity and incarceration. Other studies have found similar correlations between dropouts and health problems. Dropouts also tend to experience higher rates of unemployment and place increased demands on social safety net programs (National Research Council, 2001).

As a number of researchers and practitioners have noted, dropping out of school is a process more than a singular event (National Research Council, 2001). Students rarely drop out of school for a single, isolated reason; in most cases an accumulation of causes and influences contribute over time to a decision to disengage from and eventually leave school without graduating. Researchers have noted that the process of disengagement may begin very early in a student’s academic career. A number of social and school factors are associated with dropping out. No single factor in isolation is a reliable predictor. (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).

Who Drops Out?

The stereotypical high school dropout is a low-achieving male who belongs to an ethnic minority, is of low socioeconomic status, lives in an urban area, is over-age for his grade, is frequently truant, and is likely to have discipline problems at school (Archer & Dresden, 1987; LeCompte & Dworkin, 1990; Rumberger, 1987, 1983). Minority students drop out of school at higher rates than do white students (Rumberger, 1987).

• The Texas Education Agency (TEA) found that African American and Hispanic students dropped out at nearly three times the rate of white students in school year 1998-99 (TEA, 2001).

While Hispanic and African-American students in Texas drop out of school at higher rates than their white counterparts, analysis in four national studies utilizing longitudinal dropout data reveals that race alone does not predict dropping out when family socioeconomic factors are controlled (Wehlage & Rutter, 1987).

National studies have found socio-economic class to be the most reliable predictor of dropping out. However, there are a number of other social and family factors that play a role (Rumberger, 1983; Wehlage & Rutter, 1987).

• Students from poor families drop out at higher rates, generally, than students from families with moderate and high incomes. However, in 1998-99 economically disadvantaged students in Texas dropped out at a slightly lower rate than students not identified as economically disadvantaged (TEA, 2001).
• The educational attainment level of parents has also been shown to influence children's propensity for dropping out (Wehlage, et al., 1987; National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).
• Students who live in single-parent homes, students from large families, and students who are parents themselves are at an increased risk of dropping out. (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).

Certain academic factors are also associated with dropping out:

• Students who are over-age for their grade when they enter high school are more likely to drop out of school than students who begin high school at the normal age (Hammack, 1991).
• Dropout self-report data reveal that dropouts have more disciplinary problems than do students who stay in school (Wehlage & Rutter, 1987).
• In the same study, almost two-thirds of the Hispanic dropouts and more than half of the African-American and white dropouts reported that they cut class more frequently than their peers who remained in school.
• The ninth-grade year is a critical juncture for many students. A statewide study determined that in the 1999-2000 school year, ninth-graders comprised almost 33% of all dropouts in grades 7-12. No other grade level represented more than 20% of total dropouts (TEA, 2001).

Although school districts have little influence over the social, family, and personal factors related to dropping out, those districts can control school factors and limit the extent to which they contribute to the problem.

Atypical Dropouts

While most dropouts fit the profile above, an increasing number of students who leave school prematurely deviate from it. Dropout rates are on the rise among students who previously have not been considered likely to drop out.

• LeCompte and Dworkin (1991) refer to some of these students as "able dropouts" (p. 49). These are students who have demonstrated moderate to high achievement and who come from middle class families.
• Another deviation from the traditionally held view is that students younger than ninth grade are dropping out. In 1998-99, nearly 10% of the state’s annual dropouts were in seventh and eighth grade (TEA, 2001). TEA does not report dropouts in grades K-6, but it is possible that some students in those grades are also dropping out without being officially reported as such.

Dropping Back In

When students drop out of school, they do not always do so permanently. Students frequently leave school during one school year and return during a later school year.

• In a study that followed a closed ninth-grade cohort in Austin ISD from 1993-94 through 1997-98, Smith and Wendt-Keswick (1999) found that the number of students enrolled in October of each school year was greater than the number of students enrolled the previous year minus the number of that year’s school leavers. During each of the school years studied, some students dropped out and re-enrolled in one or more subsequent years.
• TEA (2001) reports that for the class of 1999, 3,399 students temporarily left school in 1995-96: 1,814 temporarily left in 1996-97, and 924 temporarily left in 1997-98.

Dropping out, then, is not always a static, one-way event. This phenomenon of dropping back in to school has important implications for alternative education program design.

Students at Risk

The Texas Education agency uses a combination of in school (assessment scores, below grade level, etc.) and out of school (homelessness, teen pregnancy/parenting, etc.) factors to identify students as at-risk of dropping out (full definition can be found at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/stcomped/#eligibility). Utilizing this methodology defined by the Texas Education Agency, 55,310 students (34.5% of total enrollment) in our assessment area were defined as At-Risk of dropping out. However, significant variation exists across districts. At 50%, Austin ISD has the largest percentage of at risk students. Eanes ISD has the lowest percentage at 12.1%. Hispanic students are most likely to be categorized as at-risk, in six of the nine districts. In two districts (Lago Vista and Pflugerville) Asian students were most likely to be categorized as at-risk; and in Eanes, African-American students were most likely. Unfortunately, TEA has periodically changed the methodology utilized to identify at-risk students, making comparisons over time problematic.

Dropout Accounting and Reporting in Texas

Several methodologies exist for computing dropout rates, including annual dropout rates and longitudinal dropout rates (also called “attrition rates”), both defined by the Texas Education Agency. The Texas Education Agency computes and reports two official rates: an annual dropout rate (currently used in the state accountability system), and a four-year, longitudinal dropout-rate (sometimes referred to as an “attrition rate”). TEA also calculates a four-year ninth-grade cohort completion rate, which is a complement of the longitudinal dropout rate, and will be used in the revised statewide accountability system beginning in 2004.

There are several key distinctions between the annual and longitudinal rates:

• Annual dropout rates consider the dropout rates of students in grades 7-12; longitudinal rates take into account only students in grades 9-12. Because relatively few students in grades 7 and 8 drop out, annual dropout rates appear lower than the longitudinal rates.
• Annual dropout rates are based only on dropout events within a single academic year; longitudinal rates examine dropout events over a four-year period.
• The longitudinal rate presents a more dynamic picture of the academic progression of student cohorts over time than the more static annual dropout rate.

The annual dropout rate is reported as one of the performance indicators in the Texas School Accountability Ratings System and was first employed in 1994. TEA calculates annual dropout rates for campuses and districts using the following formula:

The dropout-reporting standards used in the state accountability system have been something of a moving target since they were introduced. Although the standard for an Exemplary rating has remained unchanged since 1994, all other rating categories have been subject to increasingly stringent standards during the same period of time. Currently, any campus or district with a dropout rate equal to or exceeding 5.0%—in total or for any subgroup—would receive a Low-performing rating.

Annual Dropout Trends in Travis County

The following tables provide a summary of annual dropout trends among students in grades 7-12 for the nine Austin-area school districts for school years 1997-98 through 2000-01, as reported by the Texas Education Agency. Table 3 shows annual dropout rates for all area districts for the last three reporting cycles; rates for the state and Ft. Worth ISD are included for comparison. Table 4 shows dropout rates by ethnicity and economic status, as well as the total number of dropouts for the 1999-2000 school year.

Tables in Appendix B provide disaggregated information on dropout rates among ethnic subgroups and for economically disadvantaged students (i.e., students qualifying for free or reduced-price school meals) for area school districts for the school years 1997-98 through 1999-2000 (the most recent available). Rates for Texas and Ft. Worth are also provided for comparison.

Completion Rates

In addition to the annual dropout rate, TEA also computes and reports an official four-year completion rate for campuses and districts, beginning with the graduating class of 1996. The completion rate is simply the percentage of students within a ninth grade cohort who graduate within a four-year span, i.e., “on-time graduates.” However, because some students within a given cohort may advance more slowly through school but do not drop out, the completion rate reports students as falling within four categories: (1) graduates, (2) GED recipients, (3) continuing students (i.e., did not graduate on time, but still enrolled), and (4) dropped out. The completion rate methodology also differs from that of the annual rate by taking only dropouts from Grades 9-12 into account, rather than Grades 7-12, and reflects a four-year attrition rate rather than annual dropout rates. Completion rates provide a dynamic portrayal of student progression through school and of cumulative dropout trends, unlike the reporting of annual dropout rates. While completion rates will become part of the state accountability system in 2004, standards for their use have not been finalized as of this printing.

Completion Rate Trends in Austin-area School Districts

Figure 6 summarizes four-year completion and attrition rates for the Class of 2000 cohort. Among area districts, Eanes had the highest on-time graduation rate (93.0%). The largest district in the area, Austin ISD, fared better than its peer district, Ft. Worth ISD, but not as well as surrounding school districts or the state. Table 1 in Appendix C provides a summary of four-year completion trends among three cohorts of ninth-graders in the nine Austin-area school districts for. Tables for the Ft. Worth ISD and state totals are included for comparison. These data are compiled by the Texas Education Agency annually, adapting the Holding Power Index methodology developed by Hartzell, McKay, and Frymier (1992).

Key Findings

Four-year graduation rates in Austin-area school districts have remained in a narrow range for the three most recent ninth-grade cohorts—between 78.3% and 79.4%, as calculated by the Texas Education Agency. Attrition rates have fluctuated even less, from 8.1% (Class of 1999) to 8.6% (Class of 2000). However, because the enrollment of the ninth-grade cohorts in Austin ISD constituted 48%-50% of the total cohorts, the behavior of the Austin cohort greatly influences that of the total area cohorts. More variation in graduation and attrition rates is evident when individual districts are examined.

A commonality between all districts is a consistent gap in on-time graduation rates between cohorts of white students and their Hispanic and African-American counterparts. In particular, the on-time graduation rate of Hispanic students is the lowest of all ethnic subgroups in all districts, with the exception of Manor. With limited exceptions, Hispanic students dropped out at a higher rate than other ethnic subgroups. (In several of the smaller districts, the number of students within subgroups was too small to be reported by TEA.) This trend is even more pronounced in the progress of economically disadvantaged students, who dropped out at four-year rates up to 33%. Sizable percentages of students (to 14%) failed to graduate with their original cohorts, but stayed enrolled in school. Small but consistent percentages (<1%-5.5%) of students within all cohorts elect to earn GED certificates.

Top Of Page

V. Student Achievement

While dropping out is a clear indication of failure, additional more positive indicators of Student achievement were used in this assessment. The CAN focused on four areas:

• Campus Accountability Ratings: the number and percent of students attending exemplary, recognized, acceptable or low performing schools;
• TAAS testing: how students perform on the statewide, standardized test;
• TAKS early indicator data: information compiled by the Texas Education Agency that is predictive of the performance we can expect when the more rigorous TAKS exam replaces the current TAAS test.
• Readiness for Further Education (community college, university, trade or technical school): in the absence of more direct indicators, this section makes use of available data demonstrating that students seem to be preparing for college. These include how many students are taking college entrance exams and how well students score on college entrance exams.

The reality facing today’s emerging workforce is that relatively few jobs offer a “living” wage without some form of higher education. While this reality does not necessarily mean that every potential worker must first graduate from college or university, it does provide the impetus for raising academic standards for all students. In light of this, our community should consider developing better follow up mechanisms so that we can better understand how our high school graduates are doing in further education and the workforce.

In addition to the nine districts in the CAN assessment area, some achievement data for the State of Texas, Education Service Center (ESC) Region XIII, and Fort Worth ISD is included for comparison.

Accountability Ratings

Based upon a combination of TAAS performance and completion rates, every regular campus in the state is rated as exemplary, recognized, acceptable, or low performing by the Texas Education Agency. During the 2000-2001 school year, almost half of all students in our assessment area attended campuses that are rated as exemplary (23.4%) or recognized (25.9%). Less than three percent (2.7%) attend low performing schools (all in AISD). However, there is huge variation among the districts. In two districts, more than 80% of the students are in exemplary schools, yet in four others 11% or less are in exemplary schools. The distribution of students across these four ratings for all nine districts can be seen in Figure 7. Preliminary information from TEA indicates that the number and percent of area students in recognized or exemplary campuses will rise in the next reporting period.

Just for the Kids

Another way to look at campus level performance has been developed by Just for the Kids (JFTK) and adopted by the National Center for Education Accountability. JFTK brings several innovations to the analysis of campus level performance on TAAS exams. First, this Austin-based organization utilizes a higher performance standard, looking for “proficiency” in addition to the “passing” level as defined by TEA (similar to comparing how many passed a course to how many got an A or B). Second, JFTK has utilized economic and demographic information to support comparisons among similar campuses. Third, JFTK has controlled for student mobility by conducting analysis of students who have been continuously enrolled at a given campus for at least five years.

Utilizing this methodology, JFTK ranks and groups campuses, presenting information in a highly useful format. It is possible to clearly see how any campus compares to other campuses with similar demographic and economic characteristics. For this assessment, all the campuses in our area that have been open since the 1998-99 school year have been sorted by their quintile ranking (among campuses statewide). The enrollments at these campuses were then totaled to identify how many local students attend campuses at each level (Table 5).

Using this type of analysis, NCEA has investigated high performing campuses across the state and identified common strategies that distinguish them from less successful campuses.

• Take initiative: make no excuses and strive for success.
• Develop and execute a clear strategy for improvement.
• Continuously assess progress and intervene immediately when students or teachers are struggling.
• Make high-quality teaching and research-based instructional practice the top priority.
• Collaborate, both inside and outside the school.

These strategies help the schools organize their efforts, work smarter and make a real difference in what students are learning (Just For the Kids, 2001).

TAAS Testing

The TAAS (Texas Assessment of Academic Skills) test has received a great deal of attention in recent years. Along with dropout rates, TAAS scores are the foundation of the state accountability system by which every campus in the state is rated. Under recently approved federal legislation, Texas’s testing and accountability framework has become the model for the national system. Yet, even as uniform standardized testing becomes more entrenched across the nation, debate continues on its impact:

“Uniform testing continues to be embraced warmly by lawmakers around the country, but educators and an increasing number of parents believe that the rush to standardize may discourage valuable alternatives being developed at the state and local levels. And there are fears that the testing requirements in this year’s federal law will work to the detriment of subjects not covered by the tests and may penalize students whose skills and challenges are more complex than a standardized system will be able to measure. (Governing, 2002)”.

While the potential for cultural and language bias and other issues continues to drive debate, this type of system will remain with us as a key measure of success.

All discussion of TAAS performance in this document refers to the “Accountability Subset”, the group of students whose performance on the TAAS is used to determine school and district accountability ratings. While all students are required to take the TAAS test, not every student’s performance is used for accountability ratings. Students can be excluded from the accountability subset for the following reasons:

• Mobility: only test takers who were enrolled in the district as of the last Friday of the previous October are included.
• For exit level performance, only 10th graders tested in the spring administration are included. This includes students who are repeating the grade and may be repeating the test, but not 11th or 12th graders.
• While nearly all special education and LEP students take an assessment, some are exempted.

Statewide the accountability subset includes 85% of all eligible students. In the nine area districts, the accountability subset ranges from 77.5% (Del Valle) to 95.5% (Eanes).

The starting point for using TAAS information is the TEA passing standard. In all but one district (Manor) the percent of all students passing all TAAS tests improved between the 1996-97 and 2000-01 school years. Only two districts, Austin and Lago Vista improved more than the state overall during this period. In the 2000-01 school year, six of the nine districts exceeded the statewide average passing rate (Table 6).

While TAAS performance in most area districts are comparable to state and regional levels, performance gaps among racial, ethnic, and economic groups persist (Table 7). In all area districts, as well as the state and region, the passing rate for Hispanic students is lower than the rate for white students. Only in Lago Vista ISD are African American students more likely to pass all TAAS tests than their white counterparts. In no district do less than 80% of white students pass all TAAS tests, yet in just two districts (Eanes and Lake Travis) do more than 80% of African American students pass all TAAS tests.

TAKS Early Indicators

Looking ahead to the new, more rigorous TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) assessment, the Texas Education Agency has utilized 1999-2000 assessment data to provide some indication of what can be expected under the new system. Two of the most telling are:

• 2000 8th Grade TAAS Tests: the percent of student passing all five tests at 8th grade provides an indication of how well students at this grade are being prepared for examinations in multiple subjects at higher grades.
• Cumulative End-of-Course Exams: because the knowledge and skills currently assessed on the four existing end-of-course examinations are required components of the new exit-level examination, performance on all four end-of-course exams is currently TEA’s best predictor of performance on the future 11th grade exit-level tests.

Considered together, 8th graders in the districts in our area performed slightly better than the state overall (69.3% of students taking all TAAS passed all, compared to 67.1% statewide). However, we again find significant variations among the nine districts. In three, the passing rate exceeded 80% (Eanes-88.5%, Round Rock-81.4%, Pflugerville-80.7%). In three others, the passing rate was below 60% (Austin-56.9%, Manor-54.8%, Del Valle-50.3%). In all districts, at least 85% of all 8th grade students took TAAS tests in all subjects.

Performance on end-of-course exams in our area also exceeds statewide levels, both in the percent of students taking all exit exams and the percent of students passing all. Statewide, 47.8% of all students took the end-of-course exams, compared to 54% in our area. Only in Lago Vista and Del Valle was the percent taking less than the state rate. The success rate locally far exceeds statewide performance, 52.1% compared to 39.2%. Only three districts (Del Valle, Lago Vista, and Manor) did not exceed the state level.

However, while our community can take some small satisfaction in outperforming the state overall, this data does point to very clear challenges in the immediate future. Starting with the class of 2005 (8th graders in 2000-01) all students will be required to pass 11th grade level exit exams that will assess English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies, and require knowledge of Algebra I and Geometry, Biology and integrated Chemistry and Physics, English III and early American and United States History.

Readiness for Further Education

The importance of higher education to success in the future workforce has been well established. Very few career paths projected to offer both high wages and continued growth do not require some form of education beyond high school. Those occupations that historically offered good wages with just a high school diploma continue to decline in number. In the absence of a system to support follow up with public school students as they move on to higher education and/or the workforce, this assessment process has looked for surrogate indicators that suggest how many students in our area are taking steps that could lead to higher education. These include: students taking college entrance exams, students receiving credit for advanced courses, and students taking advanced placement type courses that offer college credit.

Due to the available data, this section is focused on readiness (or apparent readiness) for college or university studies. Unfortunately, a more holistic assessment of where young people go after high school and how they do once they get there does not exist. In the future, our community should look to implement systems that will allow for follow up with all graduates to better determine if they were, in fact, well prepared for higher education, the workforce, or both.

College Entrance Exams: One simple indicator of readiness for college is whether students take college entrance exams, an obvious and necessary step toward college. This is one indicator where the nine area ISD's tend to outperform the state (Table 8). For the 2000-2001 school year, only in Del Valle did students take SAT/ACT tests at a lesser rate than the state overall (29.9% compared to 62.2%). The trends over time are far more ambiguous. As with TAAS data, considerable variation exists across racial, ethnic, and economic lines (Table 9). In every district for which TEA reported racial/ethnic specific information, Hispanic students were less likely to take college entrance exams than the overall student body. Among the area districts for which TEA reports information on African American students, two districts (Del Valle and Leander) indicate that African American students are actually more likely to take college entrance exams than the overall student body. This indicator is not reported for low-income students.

If taking college entrance exams is step one toward higher education, the second is to do well on these exams. Again, only two districts in the area (Del Valle and Manor) do not outperform the state in this area (Table 10). However, this still leaves only one district (Eanes) in which more than half of college entrance exam takers score at or above the state defined “passing” level (1110 SAT, 24 ACT). Much like the data on students taking college entrance exams, there are no clear trends over time.

Disparities across racial and ethnic lines become even greater when considering student performance on these exams. In all districts in TEA reported information for African-American students, their scores are uniformly low (Table 11). Round Rock ISD is the highest performing with 15.5% of African American students passing. In all but one district (Lake Travis), the performance of Hispanic students is somewhat better, but still lower than the overall student rate.

In all districts, white students have the most success on college entrance exams, yet even there the “passing” rate remains below 50% in six of the nine districts, and in no district are they higher than 68.9% (Eanes ISD).

Other College Readiness Indicators: As with college entrance exams, the trends over time in both Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate (AP/IB) testing and enrollment in advanced courses are inconsistent. The percent of students taking AP/IB tests has jumped in every district, except for Del Valle. Yet, at the same time, the percent of students scoring well enough to earn college credit has declined in five of nine districts. It is worth noting that while a smaller percentage of Del Valle students took these tests in the class of 2000, a higher percentage scored well enough to earn college credit. Enrollment in advanced courses is up in more districts (5) than not (4) and the magnitude of change varies widely, from +120% in Pflugerville to -63.3% in Manor. (A complete listing of TEA approved advanced courses can be found in appendix C of the TEA Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) glossary http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2001/glossary.html#appendc).

Where the trends over time are somewhat inconsistent, racial and ethnic variations repeat a clear and disturbing pattern. Hispanic and African American students, in almost every instance, are less likely to take advanced courses, are less likely to take AP/IB tests, and less likely to earn college credit for AP/IB tests.

Top Of Page

VI. Learning Environment

A variety of factors contribute to or detract from student learning. These include, but are not limited to:

• Teacher quality
• Facilities and Technology
• Campus safety and classroom discipline
• Access to specialized instructional programs
• Parent and community involvement.

For assessment purposes, we have focused on placement in special programs (specifically special education, gifted and talented education, and limited English proficient education) teacher quality (turnover, experience, certification), class size, and school discipline. In addition, the 2001 AISD parent survey, conducted by the University of Texas and Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce is utilized to provide some basic insight into parent involvement and awareness. Further attention to other environmental factors such as facilities and technology is warranted.

Special Programs

By virtue of placement in a specialized education program, students can find themselves at a disadvantage or advantage relative to the general student population. A student misplaced in special education will find his/her learning opportunities to be greatly limited, while a student fortunate to be placed in gifted and talented education may find greatly expanded opportunities.

State and federal law requires that:

“An education institution undertaking to provide education, services, or activities to any individual within the jurisdiction or geographical boundaries of the educational institution shall provide equal opportunities to all individuals within its jurisdiction or geographical boundaries” (Texas Education Code, Sec 1.002 (a)).

However, national research has found that some poor and minority students may be denied this opportunity by inappropriate placement in special education or denial of assignment to gifted and talented education. Local data from TEA confirms these findings. Designation as Limited English Proficient may also have negative implications for students, particularly as demand grows and exceeds the capacity of the schools to serve such students.

Special Education

Consistent with federal statute, the State of Texas is committed to making a free and appropriate public education available to all children with disabilities between the ages of three and 21.

For purposes of state and local policy, a child is deemed disabled if they are evaluated, in accordance with the Texas Education Code as "having mental retardation, a hearing impairment including deafness, a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment including blindness, serious emotional disturbance, an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, another health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services"

This assessment is conducted by the student’s Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) committee. This panel, by statute, consists of at least one of the child’s parents, regular and special education teachers, a representative from the school district, and other experts as appropriate.

We have attempted to gather basic data on the types of disabilities found in the special education population locally, but the Texas Education Agency has not yet been able to meet our request. National research using data from the 1996 school year find the following: specific learning disability – 46.3%, speech/language impairment – 18.3%, mental retardation – 10.2%, serious emotional disturbance – 7.9%, pre-school (of all types of disability) – 9.8%, all other disabilities – 7.5% (US Dept of Education, 2001). It is important to note that nationally, while the portion of all students placed in some form of special education has increased, one category – specific learning disability – accounts for nearly all of the increase between 1976 and 1999. This category consists of learning problems that are more subjective in their diagnosis and less expensive in their treatment (Education Week, 2002).

Research at the national level has found that there may be some biases that lead to disproportionate placement of poor and minority students in special education. This finds that poverty and other socio-economic factors correlate highly with disability among most groups and across most disability categories. However, the effect of race and ethnicity remain significant once socio-economic traits are factored out- “Many minority students—most significantly African American boys are over-represented in segregated special education classrooms,” a pattern that has lasted for well over twenty years (National Research Council, 2001). In national aggregate data, Hispanic students appear to be under-represented, but are increasingly likely to be over-represented as their proportion of a given district’s minority student body increases (Harvard University, 2000).

In the 2000-01 school year, local conditions were, in general, consistent with national research. The most substantial racial/ethnic variation is in the African American population, which makes up 12.1% of total enrollment but is 16.6% of special education enrollment (Table 13). The influence of poverty is similarly pronounced; while 34% of all students are categorized as low-income, 43% of special education students are from low-income families (Texas Education Agency, 2000-2001).

Overall, 12.3% (19,672) of all students in the nine-district CAN assessment area were enrolled in special education. This is an increase from 11.5% in the 1996-97 school year. Across the CAN assessment area, the racial and ethnic makeup of the special education population varies somewhat from that of the total student body.

With some variation, most of the individual districts follow the same basic pattern. The most notable exception is Leander ISD, the only district where African American students are not over-represented in special education (3.7% of total enrollment, 3.2% of special education enrollment).

Gifted and Talented While national research on the status of poor and minority students in gifted and talented education is inconclusive, local trends are very pronounced. Minority and low-income students are greatly under-represented in gifted and talented education. Where Hispanic students make up 34.2% of total enrollment, they constitute just 16.4% of enrollment in gifted and talented education. Similarly, African American students comprise 12.1% of total enrollment, but just 6.3% of gifted and talented enrollment. As with special education, income seems to have an even greater impact: low-income students are 34% of all students but just 12.5% of gifted and talented students (Table 14).

Only one district, Lake Travis, does not under-represent African-American students in gifted and talented education. In every district, Hispanic students are substantially under-represented in gifted and talented education. Overall, 7.8% of all students in the nine districts are in gifted and talented programs, an increase from 6.8% in the 1996-97 school year.

Limited English Proficiency

Another population group of growing importance in our community is students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). LEP includes students in both bi-lingual (primarily elementary students) and English as a Second Language (ESL, primarily secondary students) classes. 11.5% of all students in the nine districts are classified as limited English proficient, an increase from 9.9% in the 1996-97 school year. For the nine districts together, Hispanic students constitute the vast majority (87.7%) of LEP students (Table 15).

However, there are significant variations across districts, with Round Rock and Pflugerville ISD’s standing out. While just 8.4% of all LEP students in the nine districts are Asian/Pacific Islander, in Round Rock, 29.2% of LEP students are Asian/Pacific Islander, and in Pflugerville 33.3% are Asian/Pacific Islander. It is sometimes assumed that recent immigrants, and to a lesser degree, migrant students, account for a large portion of LEP students. This is, however, not the case in our area. While 11.5% (18,508) of all students in the nine districts are classified as LEP, just 2.4% (3,870) are immigrant students and less than 0.2% (294) are migrant students.

Teacher Quality

Central to any discussion of student success is teacher quality: “If students are to learn more, teachers must have both the subject matter knowledge and the teaching skills required to help their students reach higher standards” (Education Week, 1998). Three forces are creating ever-greater challenges to maintaining teacher quality: growing student enrollments, increasing numbers of teachers retiring, and most importantly, extremely high turnover rates among relatively new teachers. Put these forces together and we find supply is not keeping pace with demand. While there is debate over what makes a quality teacher, several indicators are available locally that can be informative. For assessment purposes, we have focused on: teacher turnover, teacher experience, and professional certification.

Turnover While the average annual turnover rate in most professions is 11%, one study found that teachers have a turnover rate of 13.2%. In addition, most leave within the first five years in the classroom. In the schools and staffing survey conducted by the US Department of Education, it was found that 29% leave after three years on the job, and 39% leave after five years (Education Week, 2002). State and local rates are higher. Statewide, the rate of teacher turnover is 16%. Locally, only one district (Leander) does not exceed state levels of turnover. The larger districts all tend to be closer to the state rate, while the four smallest districts have turnover rates of more than 20%. In all cases, including the state, teacher turnover was higher in the 2000-01 school year than five years earlier in the 1996-97 school year (Table 16) (TEA, AEIS Reports).

Teacher turnover is not reported by TEA at the campus level, but some inference regarding turnover can be made from the average tenure at the campus level

Low average tenure can be indicative of higher turnover. Across the nine districts in this assessment, the average campus tenure is 6.6 years, but for regular campuses ranges from as much as 13.7 years to as low as 1.5 years (some specialized campuses, such as the Austin State Hospital and Dill Special Program in AISD are higher). High tenure in district seems to correlate with higher achievement. Of the 10 regular campuses in the nine-district CAN assessment area with the highest average tenure (all in AISD), 8 were rated as either recognized or exemplary by TEA for 2000-01. There is no clear correlation between low tenure and low performance. Research conducted for the Texas Center for Educational Research shows turnover cost per teacher to be as high as $5,000 in a district with higher than average turnover. For Austin ISD alone, this translates into a cost of more than $4.5 million in the past school year.2

These costs do not take into account losses in productivity (Brenner, A., 2000). Turnover costs reduce the resources available for teaching and learning in Texas schools. Turnover requires additional administrative tasks. Resources for training that are required to orient new teachers on topics such as the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills and other local curriculum are diverted from more advanced professional development to broaden the expertise of veteran teachers.

Why Teachers Leave the Field

Considerable research has been done nationally to assess what factors drive teacher turnover. In March 2000, Scholastic Inc. and the Council of Chief State School Officers conducted the “Teacher Voices Survey” of the nation’s leading teachers. The 400 respondents included national teachers of the year from the past 50 years, and state teachers of the year from the past 10 years. Together they represented nearly 9,500 years of cumulative teaching experience. This survey found that approximately 80% of respondents felt that higher beginning salaries were needed to keep new teachers in the classroom and that better pay scales were needed to encourage experienced teachers to remain in the classroom. However, money alone does not drive teachers to leave the profession; those surveyed noted a number of other challenges that they face in the classroom (Goldberg and Proctor, Scholastic, Inc., 2000):

Local conditions seem to be consistent with these findings. Two of the three area districts with the lowest turnover rates (Round Rock and Leander) have the highest average salary for beginning teachers. In addition, the three districts with lowest turnover also have the smallest percentage of low-income students.

Experience

Teaching is not a simple task. It can take several years for a new teacher to become proficient. Experienced teachers have acquired a greater variety of strategies and skills that can be applied to new and challenging situations and changing student needs. Of the nine districts in the CAN assessment area, only in Eanes does the average teacher have more experience than the statewide average (Figure 8). This may simply be a function of growth: as shown earlier (Table 1), enrollment in the public schools in our area has grown faster than the state overall, creating a greater need for new teachers than the state, which requires the districts in our area to bring in new teachers at a higher rate than the state.

The true state of the workforce can be masked in an average. For example, a district with a large number of beginning teachers could appear comparable to a district with no beginning teachers, if the first district also has a large number of very experienced teachers and the second district has all moderately experienced teachers. To find variations hidden in an average, it can be useful to break down the workforce by experience cohorts. TEA has done this using five categories based upon years of experience: Beginning; 1-5 years; 6-10 years; 11-20 years; more than 20 years. Figure 9 shows the distribution of teachers by years of experience in all the districts in our area. It is worth noting that a comparison of Austin to Pflugerville replicates the hypothetical example above. Both have the same average experience level (11 years), yet Austin has a higher percentage of beginning teachers (8.7% compared to 5.8%) that is offset by a higher percentage of very experienced (e.g. 20 years of more) teachers (20.6% compared to 15.9%). Lago Vista also presents an interesting case, having the lowest average years experience (8.7%), but no beginning teachers during the 2000-01 school year.

Teacher Certification

Class Size

It is generally believed that smaller class sizes are more conducive to learning. There is a belief that all teachers can be more effective if they have fewer students.

This variation across campuses and level of school indicates that while class size may be an influence on student learning, small class size by itself does not guarantee success. Rather, class size is one of many variables that can influence student learning.

School Discipline

• Of students referred for disciplinary actions, 51% were Hispanic students, 30% were African American, and 18% were white – not reflective of overall student demographics;
• The majority (61%) of reported disciplinary actions were for reasons not included in the Texas Education Code (relatively minor infractions for which disciplinary action is discretionary);
• Of those items included in the Texas Education Code, the most frequently reported reason is possession, use or sale of marijuana or other controlled substances (16%). No other reason accounted for more than 10% of the cases in our sample.

Parental Involvement

Clearly, parent involvement plays a huge role in student success. Involvement may range from participation in PTAs, Campus Advisory Councils or other formal organizations, meeting individually with teachers and administrators, to simply helping with homework. Whatever form parental involvement takes, it must begin with awareness of the issues, expectations, and opportunities each student has. While we have no comprehensive assessment of parental involvement and awareness, we do have some resources upon which to begin work.

While limited to AISD parents, the survey conducted by the University of Texas, Office of Survey Research for the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce offers a useful snapshot of parental engagement. The second such survey was conducted between May and July 2001. It utilized a random sample of 909 parents, stratified by ethnicity, income status, and level of school to ensure accurate representation of student enrollment. The questions covered four subjects: 1) college readiness, 2) communications and awareness, 3) parent opinions of facilities and staff, and 4) parent satisfaction. The first two are most indicative of the level of parent awareness and involvement.

1. College Readiness: This section indicates a rather striking disconnect among parental expectations, awareness and actual student behavior. The survey found that about 95% of all parents, regardless of ethnicity, expect their child to go to college and graduate. Yet little more than half (53%) of all high school parents and only 38.2% of Hispanic parents are certain that their child is taking high school courses recommended by TEA that will prepare him/her for college. This clearly points to the need for a major awareness campaign to make parents understand the recommended (college prep) curriculum.
2. Parental involvement: The survey also raised more general questions regarding parental involvement. First, the majority of parents at all levels of school felt that their child’s school did encourage involvement in school activities (76.7% of white/Asian/Native American parents, 71.8% of African American, 54.1% of Hispanic). When asked if their child’s school takes their ideas and suggestions seriously, the results are much more mixed: the majority of Hispanic (61%) and of African American (55.6%) parents agreed, but less than a majority (47.8%) of white/Asian/Native American parents agreed. The variation is much greater when comparing different levels of school: 68.6% of elementary school parents, 45.3% of middle school, and just 40.1% of high school parents agreed.
3. Just for the Kids offers a set of basic questions as a starting point for parents to become involved in their child’s education.
   
   1. What is my student expected to learn in the next few weeks and for the remainder of this school year?
   2. What process does my student’s school have in place to examine schools that have reached academic excellence?
   3. Does the campus improvement plan, authored by the Campus Advisory Council:
      • Identify specific strengths and weaknesses in our instructional program by each grade and subject?
      • Plan specifically for building on the strengths and improving all areas of weakness?
   4. How and when is my student assessed to find out whether he/she:
      • Has learning gaps that will affect his/her success in the class?
      • Has already mastered some of the skills to be taught in the class?
      • Has the skill necessary to be successful in the next grade or subject?
   5. How will the teacher/school communicate with me concerning:
      • Academic adjustments that will be made due to the underachievement my student may experience?
      • Academic adjustments that will be made due to my student’s high level of achievement?
      • Ways we can work together to help my student?

Top Of Page

VII. Indicators

In assessing the status of public elementary and secondary schools, we are fortunate to have a well-defined set of indicators that demonstrate how schools perform. We have used some of them in the School Dropout and Student Achievement sections:

• School Completion
• Standardized Test Results
• College Readiness

The first two are also the basis for the statewide accountability system, so we can be certain that these statistics will continue to be collected for the foreseeable future. From its inception, however, this system was designed to evolve over time, reflect rising standards, incorporate additional indicators, and improve the information with which accountability decisions are made. As this system continues to evolve, the indicators that will be used to assess student and school performance will likely continue to change (Texas Education Agency, 2001).

Being able to match student results over time will become increasingly important, particularly as new assessments are developed. The State-Developed Alternative Assessment for special education students and the Reading Proficiency Tests in English are both growth measures, and accuracy of reported results will depend absolutely upon being able to link prior year’s baseline results to current year performance. Currently, accurate matching of student information from different sources and dates is critical to calculating the accountability subset, comparable improvement, current performance of prior year TAAS failures, completion rates, and longitudinal dropout rates.

Top Of Page

Next Section