RGV LEAD's 2014 Regional Data Report

Transcription

1 LEAD's 2014 Regional Data Report MISSION STATEMENT Partnering to engage students in college-and-career-focused learning opportunities to achieve a higher level of competence in the workforce. Commissioned by LEAD and prepared by the Texas Education Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin in collaboration with LEAD.

2 Data extracted and analyzed by: The University of Texas at Austin s Education Research Center Report edited by: LEAD Staff The ERC contact information: Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs Austin, TX (Fax) The research presented here The research presented here utilizes confidential data from the State of Texas supplied utilizes by the Texas Education confidential Research Center at The University data of Texas from at Austin. The the the authors and should not be attributed the funders or supporting organizations State mentioned herein, of including Texas The University of Texas, the State of Texas. Any errors are authors gratefully acknowledge the use of these data. The views expressed are those of attributable to the authors. Page 1

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 4 Tech Prep Policy Changes... 4 Purpose of the Report... 5 Structure of the 2014 Regional Report... 5 LEAD s Regional 2014 Data Report Part One... 6 Section 1: A General Overview of the Cohort Context, Region 1, and LEAD Districts... 6 Section 2: Demographics Section 3: Comparison of Graduation Rates; Attendance Rates, Drop-out Rates and Completion-of-College Preparatory Program Rates Section 4: Performance On State-Mandates Tests Summary of Part One LEAD s 2014 Regional Data Report Part Two Reporting Metrics Data Considerations High School Graduation Higher Education Enrollment Post-Graduation Workforce Participation Working and Studying in Higher Education Transition Straight to the Workforce Higher Education Attainment Demographics of Higher Education Graduates Postsecondary-Graduation Workforce Participation Tech Prep and Participation in the Post-Higher Education Workforce Workforce by Degree Type Summary of Part Two LEAD s Regional Data Report Part Three Reporting Metrics Data Considerations High School Graduates and Higher Education Enrollment Developmental Need The Texas Success Initiative (TSI) Developmental Enrollment Levels of Developmental Education Passing and Failing Developmental Classes Summary of Part Three Page 2

4 Summary of Findings: Impacts of Tech Prep Programming Appendix A (PEIMS Coding of Tech Prep) Appendix B (Tech Prep Texas Scholars) Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E (TAKS and STARR Report) Appendix F Page 3

5 INTRODUCTION LEAD (formerly Tech Prep of the Rio Grande Valley) facilitates collaboration between employers, community leaders, and educators from public schools, colleges, and universities to assist students in acquiring the academic and career skill sets necessary for success in higher education, careers, and life. LEAD is a regional intermediary organization that contributes to the economic development of the Rio Grande Valley by coordinating effective partnerships of public schools, institutions of higher education, businesses, and government to create an educated, skilled workforce that can succeed in an evolving economy. LEAD created partnerships to provide technology-rooted and reality-based learning in schools. This effort has been based on a mission to achieve a higher level of student readiness for success in post-secondary education and ultimately success in the workforce. As part of this effort LEAD provides stakeholders with an annual report of the districts and communities participation in LEAD programs as well as an annual regional report of student outcomes. In 2013 LEAD contracted with The University of Texas at Austin s Education Research Center (Texas ERC) to develop this annual regional report. The Texas ERC is headquartered at the Ray Marshall Center (RMC) within UT Austin s Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. The Texas ERC is a research center that supports scientific inquiry and datadriven policy analysis using a clearinghouse of state-level information. Created by legislative mandate in 2006, the Texas ERC is an independent, non-partisan, and non-profit organization focused on generating data-based solutions for Texas education and workforce demands. The goal of the Texas ERC is to supply policymakers, practitioners, opinion leaders, the media, and the general public with academically sound research surrounding today s critical education issues. The Texas ERC provides access to high quality, longitudinal data from the Texas Education Agency (TEA), the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), the State Board of Educator Certification (SBEC), and the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). The Texas ERC data resources span from the Pre-K level through higher education (P-16) and into the workforce. Researchers can use this rich warehouse of data to follow individual Texas students from their first day in school to their first day on the job. Specifically for this project, ERC data from both TEA and THECB will be used to describe high school and higher education outcomes. As students progress, workforce information from the TWC will be added to obtain further information on student outcomes. TECH PREP POLICY CHANGES The Tech Prep Initiative was commissioned in 1991 through the federal Carl D. Perkins Act. It was part of a push to strengthen greater access to Career and Technical (CTE) courses which help students prepare for workforce and postsecondary success. Tech Prep programs are specifically clustered CTE and other courses which are taken in a sequence, paired with higher education and workforce mentoring opportunities, and culminate in a certificate beyond a diploma upon high school completion. In 1999, a bill in the Texas legislature created the Texas Tech Prep Act. Again, in 2005 a bill was passed that strengthened the Texas Tech Prep Act. It is codified in Texas Education Code Chapter 61, Subchapter T. In addition, improvements to the federal law occurred through the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of However, although the Perkins Act still authorizes grant programs Page 4

6 for states, the state of Texas has decided not to allocate any of those funds to Tech Prep. In essence the Tech Prep program in Texas continues to exist, but is not funded. For the 19 years that Tech Prep in Texas was funded under Title II of the Carl Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act (and earlier versions), participating students were tracked through a unique indicator in the PK-12 data system PEIMS (Public Education Information Management System). Using this indicator, evaluations of Tech Prep programs and students were completed through state reports supplied by the THECB. Recently though, TEA has dropped the indicator from its PEIMS data collection and the variable will be phased out starting with students entering the ninth grade in the school year. Alternative ways to code Tech Prep students using a cluster of other data variables still collected by the PEIMS system have been developed which will capture both students taking Tech Prep courses and other CTE programs of study (See Appendix A for a fuller description). PURPOSE OF THE REPORT The LEAD board and their staff have identified metrics to be used to evaluate their impact on the regional educational challenges. Performance goals have been set comparing Tech Prep and other career-focused student performance with state averages and the projected level of achievement in each area. LEAD established these goals in its corporate strategic plan adopted in August of 2012: FIRST GOAL: Increase the number and percentage of high school students, including Tech Prep and other career-focused students, who graduate and transition into higher education and/or the workforce. SECOND GOAL: Increase the number and percentage of college and university students, including Tech Prep and other career-focused students, who earn certificates, degrees and/or industry- or state-recognized licenses or certifications and transition into the workforce. The intent of all performance metrics is to provide the LEAD Board with objective measures that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and to make necessary adjustments as the organization moves forward toward accomplishment of its mission. STRUCTURE OF THE 2014 REGIONAL REPORT This report examines Tech Prep students and other career-focused students in the Rio Grande Valley districts ( districts) comparing them to other students who are neither Tech Prep nor career-focused students. The evaluation is divided into two parts as follows: (1) a comparison of the performance of the defined student groups while still in high school for the specified academic years, and (2) a reporting of students who graduated or will graduate from high school in the specified academic years followed into post-secondary education and/or the workforce. The report also includes a summary regional evaluation report, and aggregated output tables for each school district and the region as a whole. Each part of the report addresses specific performance metrics aligned with high school, postsecondary, and/or workforce outcomes. Page 5

7 LEAD'S 2014 REGIONAL DATA REPORT PART ONE One of the most important aspects of any study is to identify the parameters of the study and the assumptions that govern the methodology. The first of these parameters is to identify who is to be included in the study. In the case of LEAD it is high school students who attended school districts served by LEAD during a specific period of time and participated or not in Tech Prep programs. In this case the time period is influenced by the data available. As stated earlier the data comes from state educational and workforce agencies that collect and make the data available to eligible organizations. Since collection of data and placing it data sets take time, the data will generally be one or more years old. In this case the latest available for study is the school year. In addition to the constraints on available data, changes in several of the state policies including the use of codes that categorized students by CTE course participation have influenced the availability of data as well as the analysis of these data. Part One of the report is divided into four sections and a summary. Section one describes the policy changes and how these changes have affected cohort identification as well as the limits of the cohort to be included in the analysis. Section 2 provides a demographic description of the cohort. Sections 3 and 4 are focused on student outcomes for this cohort including comparisons of Valley students with the state and among the different PEIMS code categories within the Valley. SECTION 1: A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF COHORT CONTEXT, REGION 1, AND LEAD DISTRICTS Cohort Context: A General Overview of the Cohort Being Evaluated Identifying Tech Prep Students. Before the changes to the coding system using participation in CTE courses, school districts were required to code students according to the following schema. Code Table 1.1 Tech Prep/Career and Technical Education Status Coding Tech Prep/Career and Technical Education Status 0 No participation in CTE courses 1 Participant in CTE course-taking, but is not participating in a coherent sequence of courses and not Tech Prep. 2 Participant in a coherent sequence of courses which develops occupational knowledge, skills, and competencies relating to a career pathway/major (other career oriented students). 3 Participant in a Tech Prep program-in grades 9-12 who follows an approved Tech Prep high school plan of study leading to postsecondary education and training, and is enrolled in courses appropriate to that plan. Page 6

8 For this report most students are grouped according to the above coding system. That system allowed researchers to determine whether students had no exposure to CTE courses, had limited access through CTE classes, took a sequential career-oriented program, or were involved in Tech Prep programming (PEIMS Codes 0-3 respectively). For the school year, however, the data structure changed. Districts were asked to begin implementing new rules on the coding of students into categories of CTE courses and sequences. 1 Students were no longer to be coded as a 3 in the system if they met the requirements as a Tech Prep student and only the remaining 0, 1, and 2 codes would remain in the system. This new set of data standards significantly hampers efforts to track students involved with Tech Prep programming as it makes it harder to identify them in the system. While the coding of Tech Prep students for the , , and school years made it possible to correctly identify students into the PEIMS code groupings for those years, the the phasing out of PEIMS code 3 has caused that year to have incomplete information. Future reports will remedy this problem by using a new method for categorizing students. Please see Appendix A for more information regarding the phase-out of the coding used in this report and Appendix B for the methods which will be used in all future reports to correctly identify course groupings and Tech Prep students. For future reports, the school year will be reported on again using the new methodology for capturing Tech Prep students within the system. By analyzing the data using the old PEIMS coding and new comprehensive methods, the research team will be able to triangulate the accuracy of the proposed capture design. The process will allow for several validity checks as follows: 1) comparisons to previous school years will show consistent gains over time, 2) comparisons to previous PEIMS coding during the same year taking into account for shrinkage from implementation will show accuracy in accounting for students, and 3) comparisons to student groupings during the same year which will demonstrate if the new methodology correctly captures Tech Prep students in the system. State Accountability Testing. Much like student groupings are measured in available state data, so are achievement scores. These too shift during the time period of study in the report because of changes in state mandated testing. Since 2003, Texas had administered the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) designed to measure the state-mandated curriculum known as the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). For high school students, TAKS testing occurred for 9 th, 10 th, and 11 th grades in language, mathematics, science, and social studies. In spring 2012, the State of Texas Assessments of 1 Though the PEIMS structure and implementation standards changed for the school year, many schools slowly changed their practices and were still coding students using the Tech Prep (PEIMS code 3). As such analysis for this report includes the use of the full 0-3 spectrum of coding for the year where possible with the knowledge that it does not capture all students involved in Tech Prep programming. Researchers found that the codes did measure a large amount of Tech Prep students still in the system. For the year 30 of the 98 schools within the study had stopped using the PEIMS code 3; this represents 31% of the full sample. Twenty-four of the schools which had stopped coding Tech Prep also coded no students as 2 in the PEIMS system either with many not coding under 1 as well. When it came to districts involved with LEAD, 15 of the 33 districts had some school which had stopped using the 3 in the PEIMS system but only 3 districts had stopped using the code district-wide: IDEA Public Schools, Monte Alto ISD, and San Isidro ISD. With the knowledge that the PEIMS data standards are implemented to various degrees and the prior used code is in the process of phase-out, future reports will use newly developed data coding to identify Tech Prep and other program students. Knowledge gained from this report will validate the ability of new data standards to correctly identify such students. Page 7

9 Academic Readiness (STAAR) replaced the TAKS for students entering the 9 th grade in Other students are being phased in according to a predetermined schedule. The STAAR program is also designed to measure the TEKS. STAAR includes annual assessments which are also referred to as End-Of- Course (EOC) exams. They currently measure the subjects English I, English II, algebra I, biology and U.S history. Additionally, there are a number of other STAAR EOC exams which may be taken on a voluntary basis. 2 Graduation Plans. Lastly, there are some policy changes which have shaped graduation plans for students during the reporting period. These will affect future reports rather than the current graduating classes in this report. All graduating classes through 2014 had three graduation plans or diplomas which could be earned: the Minimum High School Plan (MHSP), the Recommended High School Plan (RHSP), and the Distinguished Achievement Program (DAP). Both the RHSP and the DAP are considered college and career ready plans as they require four courses in all core subjects as well as additional elective credits and foreign language requirements. The DAP is the most distinguished plan as it has additional state and district requirements which show excellence in academics. Starting in new graduation plans were implemented including the Foundation High School Plan (FHSP), the Foundation High School Plan plus Endorsement (FHSP+), and the Foundation High School Plan plus Distinguished Level of Achievement (FHSP+DLA). 3 These diploma plans differ as they do not require the same four courses in core subjects and allow for students to opt out of certain classes which were required under previous plans. While most graduates will still graduate under the older MHSP, RHSP, and DAP diplomas, 2014 freshmen and all newer classes will use these plans. Table 1.2 Overview of the LEAD High School Cohort, PEIMS TAKS STARR Graduation Plans # Students Code th 3 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 2, th 3 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 2, th 3 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 4, th 3 n/a n/a MHSP, RHSP, DAP 6,714 9 th 3 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 4, th 3 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 4, th 3 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 5, th 3 n/a n/a MHSP, RHSP, DAP 7,111 2 The most up-to-date model for STAAR testing differs from the original testing calendar which included broader testing of students across all available EOC tests. This original model was used in the school year and is included in the current report. As such data is available in which a number of students took EOC tests in more than the five currently mandated tests. 3 The Texas Legislature originally planned for changes to high school graduation plans to be enacted for freshman starting in ; these plans included the FHSP, FHSP+, and FHSP+DLA. Delays in adopting rules for administration pushed the implementation of these measures to the start of the school year. Page 8

10 PEIMS Code LEAD's 2014 Regional Data Report TAKS STARR Graduation Plans # Students 9 th 3 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 3, th 3 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 4, th 3 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 5, th 3 n/a n/a MHSP, RHSP, DAP 7,393 9 th 2 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 2,293* 10 th 3 X X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 3, th 3 X X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 5, th 3 n/a n/a MHSP, RHSP, DAP 7,067 * While held smaller numbers of Tech Prep participants, it does show that not all schools had phased out the coding. Texas Education Agency Region 1 LEAD operates within the geographic area served by Region One of the Texas Education Agency. The Education Service Center Region 1 (ESC), located in Edinburg, is part of a state-wide system of 20 regional education service centers created by the 59th Texas Legislature to assist school districts across the state. Located in South Texas on the United States/Mexico border, Region One ESC serves 37 school districts in the seven county areas of Cameron County, Hidalgo County, Jim Hogg County, Starr County, Webb County, Willacy County, and Zapata County. From the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), Table 1.7 presents the student information for Region 1. LEAD Districts LEAD does not serve all the school districts within Region One. Rather LEAD serves those districts that were part of the former Tech Prep Consortium. The public schools that were members of that consortium and are the subject of this report are as follows: 1. Cameron County: Brownsville ISD, Harlingen CISD, La Feria ISD, Los Fresnos CISD, Point Isabel ISD, Rio Hondo ISD, San Benito CISD, Santa Maria ISD, Santa Rosa ISD, and South Texas ISD. 2. Hidalgo County: Donna ISD, Edcouch-Elsa ISD, Edinburg CISD, Hidalgo ISD, La Joya ISD, La Villa ISD, McAllen ISD, Mercedes ISD, Mission CISD, Monte Alto ISD, Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD, Progreso ISD, Sharyland ISD, Valley View ISD, and Weslaco ISD. 3. Starr County: Rio Grande City CISD, Roma ISD, and San Isidro ISD. 4. Willacy County: Lasara ISD, Lyford CISD, Raymondville ISD, and San Perlita ISD. Page 9

11 SECTION 2: DEMOGRAPHICS Figure 1 compares the TEA PEIMS coding of percent participation in CTE of students in the state and districts. The CTE code 3 ranges from a low of 13% in the state in the school year and a high of 24% in districts in While numbers between the state and districts were similar in most categories, districts consistently showed a greater percentage of students participating in Tech Prep programs across all years. When broken down by grade level, both at the state and district level, seniors accounted for the largest percentage of students coded as Tech Prep (20-21% across Texas and 34-36% across districts). Sophomore and junior grade level students accounted for somewhat smaller numbers of students but showed that many entered into Tech Prep programs during these years of schooling (12-18% for Texas and 15-29% for districts). Comparatively fewer freshman students were labeled as Tech Prep showing that many students officially transitioned to the program in later years of their high school career, though larger percentages in the districts suggested that more students were likely to identify earlier and enter into Tech Prep programming at the beginning of high school (7-9% of Texas students and 8-16% of district students during the time period) (See Appendix C for more details). Figure 1 State and LEAD Districts of Tech Prep and CTE Participation* 45% 40% 39% 35% 30% 35% 33% 32% 29% 34% 32% 33% 34% 31% 35% 35% 30% % 20% 19% 20% 19% 20% 24% 24% 18% 20% 23% 23% 18% 21% 23% 20% 19% % 13% 14% 15% 14% 10% 5% 0% State State State State * State classification of students based on CTE and Tech Prep Participation: 0 = not enrolled in CTE course; 1= enrolled in CTE course; 2 = participant in CTE coherent sequence program; 3 = participant in Tech Prep program Page 10

12 Figure 2 compares the TEA PEIMS code 3 students in the state and districts each academic year by economically disadvantaged status. There tended to be a general trend of a higher average of noneconomically disadvantaged students participating in Tech Prep (code 3) in the districts. The state subgroups (economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged) appeared close to the same percent. One important reason for comparing economically disadvantaged students to non-economically disadvantaged students is to emphasize the social contexts surrounding students. educators many times have to overcome significant obstacles to student success which are not associated with the school itself. Being born into a family that is economically disadvantaged has a negative impact on a student s chances of achieving academic success. A recent report released by the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institute, Pathways to the Middle Class: Balancing Personal and Public Responsibilities suggests that individuals born into low income households are much less likely to succeed at each stage of life and less likely to achieve middle class status by adulthood. 4 Figure 2 State and Districts Percent of Tech Prep PEIMS Code 3 by Economically Disadvantaged Students 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Tech Prep By Economically Disadvantaged 14% 13% 28% 19% State Non-Eco.Dis. Eco.Dis. 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Tech Prep By Economically Disadvantaged 16% 15% 33% 22% State Non-Eco.Dis. Eco.Dis. 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Tech Prep By Economically Disadvantaged 15% 15% 42% 24% State Tech Prep By Economically Disadvantaged 45% 40% 35% 28% Non-Eco.Dis. 30% 25% 19% Eco.Dis. 20% 15% 14% 15% 10% 5% 0% State Non- Eco.Dis. 4 Sawhill, Isabel V., Scott Winship, and Kerry Searle Grannis. Pathways to the Middle Class: Balancing Personal and Public Responsibilities. Center on Children & Families at Brookings. Washington, D.C Page 11

13 Figure 3 State and Districts of Tech Prep PEIMS Code 3 Participation by Ethnicity Tech Prep by Ethnicity 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Asian African Am Hispanic White 10% 0% State State State State Figure 3 shows the distribution of Tech Prep students by ethnicity across both Texas and districts for the years in question. These figures show that certain types of students in Texas and in districts participated in Tech Prep programming in somewhat disproportionate numbers when compared to overall enrollment. Table 1.3 illustrates the total student body enrollment for both Texas and LEAD districts for the school year alone; this table should give an idea as to the enrollment trends across the state and districts. Table 1.3 Student Body Enrollment by Ethnicity, Asian Black Hispanic White Texas ISDs 4% 13% 48% 33% LEAD ISDs <1% <1% 97% 2% These overall enrollment percentages did not always correspond to Tech Prep enrollment percentages. Asian students stood out the most as they participated in Tech Prep in very high numbers across all years. Students identified with this ethnicity took up a larger percentage of Tech Prep enrollments across the state than their study body enrollments. Across LEAD districts, this percentage was even higher. Black students participated in positive, disproportionate numbers in Tech Prep programming across LEAD districts. Importantly, in districts less than 25% of the overall Hispanic/Latino students were participating in Tech Prep programming. This is challenging given the especially high concentration of Latino students overall enrolled in the Valley area. (See Appendix C for a full breakdown of CTE and Tech Prep participation by ethnicity.) Page 12

14 Figure 4 State and Districts of Tech Prep PEIMS Code 3 Participation by Gifted Program 40% 35% 30% Percent of Gifted Students in PEIMS Code 3 - State and Comparison 36% 35% 30% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 13% 14% 18% 23% 22% 19% 16% 16% 15% 14% 15% 14% State not-gift State Gifted not-gift Gifted 0% Figure 4 shows the breakdown of gifted students involved in Tech Prep programming. While gifted and non-gifted students were enrolled in programming at similar levels across the state, there was a divergence in districts. For the years studied, gifted students were enrolled in Tech Prep programming at higher levels. Figure 5 depicts at-risk student enrollment in Tech Prep. Students are identified as at-risk of dropping out of school if they meet any of the state s criteria, including for high school students: 1. Not advancing from one grade level to the next for one or more years; 2. Failing two or more core subjects in the past year (or current semester); 3. Failing a previous year s state accountability test; 4. Is pregnant or a parent; 5. Placement in an alternative education program in the last year; 6. Expulsion in the last or current school year; 7. Is currently on parole, probation, deferred prosecution, or other conditional release; 8. Was previously reported to have dropped out of school; 9. Is a LEP (Limited English Proficient) student; 10. Is in the custody of (or been referred to by a school or law enforcement official) the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services; 11. Is homeless; or 12. Lives or lived in the preceding school year in a residential placement facility, detention facility, substance abuse treatment facility, emergency shelter, psychiatric hospital, halfway house, or foster group home. Figure 5 shows that the state had slightly lower levels of at-risk students enrolled in Tech Prep programming than non-at-risk students. Higher levels of at-risk students enrolled in districts from During that time though, non-at-risk students in districts enrolled in much bigger Page 13

15 numbers suggesting that some of the improvement in overall Tech Prep enrollment in the Valley area came from both types of students but especially those less likely to drop out of high school. Figure 5 State and Districts of Tech Prep PEIMS Code 3 Participation by At-Risk Status 40% 35% 30% Percent of At-Risk Students in PEIMS Code 3 - State and Comparison 34% 33% 30% 28% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 12% 15% 15% 21% 19% 14% 14% 16% 18% 14% 16% 16% State not-at-risk State at-risk not-at-risk at-risk 0% Figure 6 State and Districts of Tech Prep PEIMS Code 3 Participation by LEP Students 40% Percent of LEP Students in PEIMS Code 3 - State and Comparison 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 27% 26% 22% 22% 15% 16% 15% 14% 9% 7% 7% 8% 7% 7% 7% 5% State not-lep State LEP not-lep LEP Both Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the breakdown of special population students involved in Tech Prep programming, Limited English Proficient (LEP) and special education respectively. Both figures show that there are differences between those who were labeled either as LEP or special education and those who were not; students who were unlabeled tended to enroll in higher numbers than those who were labeled either LEP or special education. While the numbers of students involved in special programming remained somewhat similar both across the state and within districts, the number of non-labeled students enrolled in Tech Prep in LEAD districts was greater in comparison to the state. In classroom terms, this Page 14

16 suggests that Tech Prep programs in districts had lower percentages of both LEP and special education students enrolled in them than the average Texas Tech Prep program. Figure 7 State and Districts of Tech Prep PEIMS Code 3 by Special Education Status 40% Percent of Special Education Students in PEIMS Code 3 - State and Comparison 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 28% 26% 22% 22% 16% 16% 15% 14% 11% 12% 12% 13% 12% 11% 9% 9% State not-sped State SPED not-sped SPED SECTION 3: COMPARISON OF GRADUATION RATES; ATTENDANCE RATES, DROP-OUT RATES AND COMPLETION-OF-COLLEGE- PREPARATORY PROGRAM RATES. Graduation. Graduation numbers were calculated for the state of Texas and LEAD districts for 2009, 2010, and Data on students who were graduated in these years suggests that LEAD districts successfully implemented Tech Prep programming that fostered strong ties to completing a high school degree. Table 1.4 shows numbers for and Texas graduates as well as the percentages of those graduates who completed college-ready degrees by program type (more information and a more detailed number breakdown may be found in Appendix D). In all years districts graduated a larger percentage of students with college- and career-ready degrees than the state. These included both RHSP and DAP diploma graduates. For the years in question there were three graduation plans available to students: (1) Distinguished Achievement Program (DAP) 26 credits in the state-approved curriculum and a combination of advanced measures (plus any additional district requirements), (2) Recommended High School Program (RHSP) 26 credits in the state-approved curriculum (plus any additional district requirements), and (3) Minimum High School Program (MHSP) at least 22 credits in the state-approved curriculum (plus any additional district requirements) data is not included in this reporting cycle as data for graduates (and dropouts) and has not been released for use by TEA yet. Outcomes for 2012 and beyond will be computed as it becomes available. Page 15

17 Students who completed the MHSP were not eligible for the Top 10% automatic admissions program or other state admissions/scholarship programs. In addition, the RHSP and DAP were generally used for considerations of college readiness and the MHSP usually did not meet admissions requirements for college or university entrance. areas were largely more successful in all student course groupings as they graduated a larger proportion of DAP diplomas, the highest level of degree, than their state peers in each level. Table 1.5 shows that districts ranged from 22-25% in DAP participation in graduation years while Texas averaged between 12-13%. Importantly, the percentage of students in Tech Prep programs in areas receiving DAP diplomas was twice that of the Texas average in all years. Tech Prep students enrolled in DAP between 34-39%; comparatively Texas Tech Prep student graduation ranged between 15-17%. Within students course groupings, Tech Prep students in had twice the enrollment in the DAP than any other student group. Other course groupings from ranged from 11-18% and while they were each comparatively high against their Texas peers, they were low when compared to Tech Prep groups which ranged between 34-39%. Table 1.4 and Figure 8 show that when compared to total graduated seniors across the state in Tech Prep, districts had more graduates involved than the state average as well as much larger percentages than other student groups. Table 1.4 Graduates for 2009, 2010, and 2011 (2012 data is pending release) Code # Grads RHSP & DAP DAP # Grads RHSP DAP # Grads RHSP & & DAP DAP 0 1,910 (80%) (11%) 2,015 (83%) (11%) 2,311 (83%) (10%) 1 4,374 (84%) (14%) 4,645 (89%) (16%) 5,418 (90%) (16%) 2 3,152 (87%) (17%) 3,543 (89%) (17%) 3,356 (89%) (18%) 3 6,416 (89%) (34%) 6,895 (97%) (39%) 7,205 (97%) (38%) Total # Graduates 15,921 17,198 18,364 Total RHSP & DAP (86%) (92%) (92%) Total DAP (22%) (25%) (24%) STATE Code # Grads RHSP & DAP DAP # Grads RHSP & DAP DAP # Grads RHSP & DAP 0 52,199 (80%) (16%) 53,837 (81%) (17%) 57,898 (78%) (16%) 1 86,559 (80%) (9%) 87,695 (81%) (9%) 91,824 (78%) (10%) 2 64,785 (82%) (9%) 70,516 (84%) (10%) 71,917 (82%) (10%) 3 56,322 (84%) (15%) 62,294 (87%) (16%) 63,055 (84%) (17%) Total # Graduates 261, , ,807 Total RHSP & DAP (81%) (83%) (80%) Total DAP (12%) (12%) (13%) DAP DAP Page 16

18 Figure 8 State and Districts Graduates with Tech Prep PEIMS Code 3 DAP Participation Texas DAP Participation These numbers suggest that students who took a Tech Prep program were more likely to graduate college ready and in position to enter higher education. Importantly, students who graduated under RHSP and DAP completed programs of study with rigorous levels of core courses, foreign languages, and electives. Not only do these courses reflect the basic entrance requirements for most higher education institutions but successful completion also decreases the need for developmental or remedial education upon arrival in college settings. Advanced graduation plans also gave students unique opportunities Page 17

19 in Texas. These opportunities include the use of the Top 10% automatic admissions program to state universities or the TEXAS Grant which awards students financial assistance with tuition. Table 1.5 Dropout Data for , , and (most recent available data) Code Dropout # % Dropout Dropout # % Dropout Dropout # % Dropout 0 1,198 48% 1,066 52% 1,169 52% % % % % % % % 169 8% 136 6% Total 2,498 2,042 2,234 School Dropout Rate 2.8% 2.2% 2.4% STATE Code Dropout # % Dropout Dropout # % Dropout Dropout # % Dropout 0 17,103 50% 14,442 55% 15,752 53% 1 8,890 26% 6,735 26% 8,243 28% 2 4,059 12% 3,334 13% 3,643 12% 3 1,839 5% 1,552 6% 1,920 6% Total 34,434 26,063 29,558 School Dropout Rate 2.4% 1.9% 2.0% *The percentages represent the percentage within the groups which account for the total number of dropouts. Dropout and Attendance. Table 1.5 reports data for dropouts during the time period. districts displayed slightly higher rates of dropouts than the state as a whole during the three years. When broken down into coursework and programming groups, Tech Prep students proportionally made a higher percent of the total population of dropouts than the state but that number dropped to even with state averages in 2010 and 2011, both groups made up around 6% of the total dropouts for their sample. When compared with other CTE and career-oriented groupings, Tech Prep students in both the state and sample were the smallest proportion of students who dropped out. The largest proportion of dropouts came from students who had no exposure to CTE courses. In the sample this accounted for 48-52% of dropouts and across the state this accounted for 50-55% of dropouts. These findings suggest that Tech Prep participation either draws students less likely to drop out of school or helps keep students in school and on the path to high school completion. Page 18

20 Table 1.6 Attendance LEAD's 2014 Regional Data Report Overall Rate 97% 95% 95% 96% Code 0 87% 87% 88% 89% 1 96% 97% 97% 97% 2 95% 97% 97% 98% 3 97% 98% 98% 98% STATE Overall Rate 92% 95% 94% 95% Code 0 88% 90% 90% 91% 1 95% 96% 95% 96% 2 95% 96% 96% 97% 3 95% 97% 96% 97% While no trends were found in attendance information across the state within districts for Tech Prep (they ranged between 95-98% for attendance), the information does show that the lowest attendance both in Texas and in districts was for students who had no participation in CTE courses (code 0). This suggests that even some exposure to CTE, career courses, and/or Tech Prep may foster greater daily attendance. SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE ON STATE-MANDATED TESTS High school student success can be defined in several ways including graduation rates, college enrollment rates as well as grades on the student achievement tests such as the TAKS test or the STAAR. This section of the report uses passing rates on the TAKS and STAAR because it is a major factor the state of Texas uses as the definition of student success, and by proxy school and district success. Appendix E shows full results of testing data according to Tech Prep and other CTE Page 19

21 Table 1.7 School District Alphabetical List of Region One School Districts with Selected Characteristics Count % Hispanic % White % EconDis % LEP % Pass 11 TH TAKS BROWNSVILLE ISD 49, DONNA ISD 14, EDCOUCH-ELSA ISD 5, EDINBURG CISD 33, HARLINGEN CISD 18, HIDALGO ISD 3, IDEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS* 9, JIM HOGG COUNTY ISD* 1, LA FERIA ISD 3, LA JOYA ISD 28, LA VILLA ISD 5, LAREDO ISD* 24, LASARA ISD LOS FRESNOS CISD 10, LYFORD CISD 1, MCALLEN ISD 25, MERCEDES ISD 5, MISSION CISD 15, MONTE ALTO ISD PHARR-SAN JUAN-ALAMO ISD 31, POINT ISABEL ISD 2, PROGRESO ISD 2, RAYMONDVILLE ISD 2, RIO GRANDE CITY CISD 10, RIO HONDO ISD 2, ROMA ISD 6, SAN BENITO CISD 11, SAN ISIDRO ISD SAN PERLITA ISD SANTA MARIA ISD SANTA ROSA ISD 1, SHARYLAND ISD 10, SOUTH TEXAS ISD 3, UNITED ISD* 42, VALLEY VIEW ISD 4, WEBB CISD* WESLACO ISD 17, ZAPATA COUNTY ISD* 3, * Districts not served by LEAD Page 20

22 Test Category. Students enrolled in Tech Prep programming in districts were shown to be at an advantage when taking state-mandated tests. Over the period studied, Tech Prep students scored both higher than the average student in the district, higher than the state average, and--with few exceptions--higher than students in statewide Tech Prep programs. Tables 8-11 illustrate the percent passing rates in all four subject areas for TAKS exit exams through (Tech Prep students are labeled as 3 under the PEIMS code). This data also reveals that 11 th grade Tech Prep students in districts and across the state were scoring better than other career-oriented peers those in CTE coherent sequence programs (PEIMS code 2) and those taking CTE courses for an elective (PEIMS code 1). Table 1.8 TAKS Report th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas Total Table 1.9 TAKS Report th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas Total Table 1.10 TAKS Report th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas Total Page 21

23 Table 1.11 TAKS Report th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas Total While Tables only show the exit-level TAKS, a full description of all testing can be found in Appendix E which holds all tables for each year, subject, and grade level tested. This appendix also holds data for STAAR testing on 9 th grade students as well as any other students who participated in STAAR End of Course (EOC) testing. district scores across subjects and grades were found to maintain at the same percent passing rate, rise by a small amount, or drop by a very small amount in the years studied. These trends were in line with Texas scores of the same grades and subject areas. Figure 9 shows the rate changes over time for exit-level TAKS across in both districts and across the state. 6 Figure 9 Percent Passing For All TAKS Subjects for and Texas, LEAD Texas Read Math Hist Science Read Math Hist Science Reading scores were most consistently larger in districts for Tech Prep students while mathematics and social studies scores also trended towards higher percentages for students in Tech Prep programming over their state peers. In some cases, science scores for Tech Prep students in districts were slightly lower than the state Tech Prep average but these averages were still consistently higher than both the district average and the averages of other CTE groupings. Grade Level. Similar trends occurred in grade levels as occurred in subject areas. Students in Tech Prep programming mostly outperformed the average student as well as other career-oriented students. Also, 6 Passing rates for exit exams on TAKS only show the first round of testing and no retesting of students. As such this is not a final number but rather a depiction of how many students pass the test on the first try. Page 22

24 district students in Tech Prep programming tended to outperform their statewide Tech Prep peers. One grade area in TAKS did not follow this trend though, 9 th grade. Tech Prep students in districts tended to score slightly lower than their statewide counterparts in several years of testing (see Appendix E for more information). Tables show that in two of the three years of TAKS testing the Tech Prep students in districts scored lower than their statewide counterparts in both reading and mathematics TAKS. These scores, though, were still larger than the statewide average, the district-wide average, and larger than their other career-oriented peers. Table 1.12 TAKS Report th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas Total Table 1.13 TAKS Report th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas Total With the addition of STAAR testing, the trends found in TAKS testing did not necessarily apply. STAAR testing transitioned in the school year and as such only 9 th graders in that year used the test as their yearly state accountability test. Other students in higher grades were still tested under TAKS though some students in grades still took the STAAR EOC exams if they were enrolled in a course that was tested. Because of this roll-out of testing there were a number of ways to score proficiency. As it was the first year, there was a phase-in standard in which students could meet a minimum requirement score or achieve satisfactory academic performance. This phase-in standard had a lower bar for passing and was used as schools, teachers, and students were inexperienced with the test; it was expected not to last. As such students were also scored on the expected recommended standard which would be used in the future. This score also had two levels: (1) minimum score achieved, and (2) satisfactory performance. All four scores are posted in the data charts both in the report and Appendix E. 7 7 All scores and data on STAAR exams represent the first testing round, or the first attempt at passage given to students in May of Additional testing or retest scores from July and December were not included. Page 23

25 Tables 1.16 and 1.17 illustrate the passing rates according to all STAAR standards for the two exams which made up the 9 th grade accountability tests in , English I and algebra I. Table 1.13 shows that Tech Prep students in districts were doing about the same as their statewide peers in English I; they were, however, doing better than the statewide average on the test as well as far better than other career-oriented students. district students in Tech Prep were also outperforming their other career-oriented students in algebra I but were performing at slightly lower levels than their statewide counterparts. PEIMS Phase-In Standard Minimum Table 1.14 STAAR Report th Grade Percent Overall Passing Standards for English I Phase-In Standard Satisfactory Recommended Standard Minimum Recommended Standard Satisfactory Texas Texas Texas Texas Total PEIMS Phase-In Standard Minimum Table 1.15 STAAR Report th Grade Percent Overall Passing Standards for Algebra I Phase-In Standard Satisfactory Recommended Standard Minimum Recommended Standard Satisfactory Texas Texas Texas Texas Total Student Characteristics. Factors unrelated to schooling, but rather context and home life, are likely to influence student success. Such factors are often very complex and researchers use the best available data points to help understand both the effect of schooling and its limits. This report looks at the impacts of several characteristics including ethnicity and the level of economic disadvantage on student outcomes. It is important to view these characteristics as they relate to both the levels in which they appear in schools and the outcomes of testing as they may impact the capacity and timeline of reform. This section discusses important findings from student characteristics aligned with student achievement but fuller results may be viewed for all student groups in Appendix E. For the academic year the average percent of Hispanic students in districts was 97% compared to 48% for the state of Texas. Also, the combined RVG district average for percent economically disadvantaged was 85% compared to the state of 60%. Table 1.7 is an alphabetical list of Page 24

26 the districts (including IDEA public schools) with selected LEAD related factors that were determined likely to influence scores on state-mandated achievement tests. In all, the table suggests that while there are differences in school sizes and the percentages of certain types of students served, all schools in the district areas have many outside influences to contend with when helping to educate its students. When breaking down educational outcomes, perhaps one of the most important factors to look at is how well Hispanic or Latino students are testing given the especially large concentration of students in the area. Figures 10 and 11 show the percent passing of Hispanic students on exit level TAKS testing in both mathematics and reading. These charts clearly depict that Hispanic students involved in Tech Prep programming across the state are more likely to score higher on both math and reading TAKS. Importantly, Hispanic Tech Prep students in districts consistently outperformed Hispanic Tech Prep students across the state in both subjects. In mathematics, Tech Prep students significantly outscored their state peers and also other career-oriented students as well as all other students taking CTE courses and students not involved in CTE. In reading TAKS differences were not as pronounced but Hispanic Tech Prep students were still at the best advantage. These findings suggest that involvement with the Tech Prep program in the Valley may help foster better educational outcomes in academic areas, especially for Latino students. Figure 10 Percentage Passing by Hispanic Students on Mathematics TAKS Exit, Math Exit TX TX TX TX Page 25

27 Figure 11 Percentage Passage By Hispanic Student on Reading TAKS Exit, Reading Exit TX TX TX TX When looking at the passing rates of white students, a traditionally privileged ethnicity when compared to minority populations, Tech Prep students in districts tended to score similarly to their Texas Tech Prep peers either at the same level or a point above or below. These scores were still above the state average, above the district average, and above the average of other career-oriented students. This group of students scores was also above the average of Hispanic students. Importantly though was the lack of difference between state and district scores for white Tech Prep students, denoting these students may not be receiving any supplementary benefit from programming (see Appendix E for full details on scores for white students). Figure 12 Percentage Passage By Economically Disadvantaged Student on Mathematics TAKS Exit, Math Exit TX TX TX TX Page 26

28 Figure 13 Percentage Passage By Economically Disadvantaged Student on Reading TAKS Exit, Reading Exit TX TX TX TX Similar to Hispanic students, students noted as economically disadvantaged enrolled in Tech Prep programming in districts seemed to benefit when tested on state accountability tests. On all subjects tested, students in Tech Prep showed higher scores, on average, than their Tech Prep peers across Texas. Figures 12 and 13 depict the exit level TAKS percentages according to economically disadvantaged students for both mathematics and reading. In both subjects, state and district scores for non-tech Prep students are similar across time but scores for Tech Prep students are slightly better in LEAD districts. For Limited English Proficient (LEP) students, there were no discernable trends in TAKS scores in regard to Tech Prep programming. The only noticable trend was that TAKS scores for these students were significantly lower than overall and all other subgroups of students. Grade levels and subjects varied from year to year where in some district Tech Prep students outperformed their Texas peers and in others failed to do so. In most circumstances, those LEP students enrolled in Tech Prep programming did have an advantage over other career-oriented students (See Appendix E for a breakdown of LEP scores for each year and subject).. Lastly, the transfer to STAAR testing was difficult for many subgroupings and subpopulations. While certain groups excelled on specific tests, many in districts had a hard time in keeping with the state averages. Table 1.16 shows the breakdown of EOC scoreing for subpopulations on all English and algebra EOC exams for the school year. This may be because of the first year of the exam process. For example. In the English I EOC all district subgroups failed to match the averages of peers across Texas but those taking the English II exam fared much better. Those taking the beginning and intermediate algebra courses had a similar experience. Page 27

29 Table 1.16 Passing Percentages for All EOC Exams, 2012 (Includes All Students 9-12 Tested) Phase-In Standard Minimum Phase-In Standard Satisfactory Recommended Standard Minimum Recommended Standard Satisfactory Texas Texas Texas Texas English I Hispanic White Econ. Dis LEP English II Hispanic White >89 71 >83 64 >82 57 >78 49 Econ. Dis LEP English III Hispanic White >54 59 >54 54 >26 44 >26 37 Econ. Dis LEP Algebra I Hispanic White Econ. Dis LEP Algebra II Hispanic White > Econ. Dis LEP <5 10 district students involved in Tech Prep programming scored at similar levels to their across Texas peers in English I; they also scored much higher than their other career-oriented peers. In English II and III, district Tech Prep students scored higher than Texas students and other types of students. These findings hold for all subgroups. Overall and in all subgroups, Tech Prep students from the district score slightly lower than students from across Texas on the EOC algebra I and II exams (For a full description of results see Appendix E). Notably, LEP students involved in Tech Prep benefitted the most from the TAKS to STAAR EOC changeover. Tables 1.17 and 1.18 show LEP passing rates for English I and algebra I EOCs. In both cases, LEP students involved with Tech Prep scored higher than the state and district averages. They also scored higher than their Texas Tech Prep counterparts and other career-oriented peers. Page 28

30 PEIMS Table 1.17 STAAR Report All Students 9-12 Tested Percent Limited English Proficient Passing Standards for English I Phase-In Standard Minimum Phase-In Standard Satisfactory Recommended Standard Minimum LEAD's 2014 Regional Data Report Recommended Standard Satisfactory Texas Texas Texas Texas Total PEIMS Table 1.18 STAAR Report All Students 9-12 Tested Percent Limited English Proficient Passing Standards for Algebra I Phase-In Standard Minimum Phase-In Standard Satisfactory Recommended Standard Minimum Recommended Standard Satisfactory Texas Texas Texas Texas >91 83 Total SUMMARY OF PART ONE In summation, this report provides the first step in evaluating the impacts of the LEAD consortium participation and partnership with Tech Prep programming in Valley school districts. It examines the participation of students in Tech Prep programming as compared to similar students across the state of Texas as well as other career-oriented students taking CTE sequential courses and/or CTE electives. Findings for this regional report focused on three performance metrics: (1) demographic information related to the students of interest, (2) information related to attendance, dropouts, and graduation, and (3) information on high school achievement outcomes. Findings from these metrics have been informative. Demographics have shown that districts had greater participation in Tech Prep programming than the state as a whole. Students in Tech Prep programs looked a bit different than the state and district makeup though. First, participation in Tech Prep programming was disproportionate in terms of ethnicity. Asian students in districts and across the state participated in larger numbers in Tech Prep. Black students participated in larger numbers in LEAD districts. In districts, Hispanic students were participating in lower numbers than the total enrollment of the district as only 25% are enrolled versus the 97% makeup of the area. Further, Tech Prep programming tended to draw less economically disadvantaged students and fewer students from special populations such as Limited English Proficient (LEP) or special education students. Page 29

31 On enrolled in Tech Prep programming, there were benefits. Students in Tech Prep programs made up the least proportion of dropouts when compared to other course groupings of students. Students not exposed to CTE courses had the highest proportion of the yearly dropout numbers both across the state and in districts. Tech Prep also fostered high school completion. Tech Prep program students in districts were associated with diploma tracks which signaled college and career readiness. Indeed Tech Prep students in areas had twice the enrollment in the highest degree plan, the DAP, than other student groupings as well as Tech Prep students across Texas. district students had advantages in state-mandated testing. Tech Prep students mostly scored higher than the average student, higher than other career-oriented students, and higher than Tech Prep students across Texas. These findings occurred across most subject areas and grade levels. Further, Hispanic and economically disadvantaged students in Tech Prep programs also were advantaged showing that the students involved in such programs drew benefits of participation. The moves from TAKS testing to STAAR EOC testing meant that in some areas district Tech Prep students did not outperform their Texas peers but they still had an advantage over other career-oriented students and the state average as a whole. Lastly, the STAAR exam seemed to benefit LEP students as a whole and Tech Prep students in particular as they outperformed their Texas peers for the first time. These findings inform the current state of Tech Prep in districts and allow for critical review of implementation and partnership efforts. The second portion of reporting will focus on student outcomes as they relate to postsecondary and workforce entrance and success. Page 30

32 LEAD s 2014 Regional Data Report Part Two The skills needed for today s industries are shifting and the demand for educated workers is growing faster than the supply of qualified high school and university graduates. In an effort to bridge gaps between education and economic needs, efforts centered on Career and Technical Education (CTE) in high schools have been used as a way to better translate both workforce training and postsecondary preparedness. One such program is the use of technical preparation or Tech Prep courses of study. Tech Prep programs are part of a regimented CTE course plan; they include a planned sequence of study in a defined field during high school which includes secondary training and leaves the student with some form of postsecondary certificate or degree upon completion. Tech Prep programs involve complex partnerships with high schools, higher education providers, and local industries to fully implement and involve students in the curriculum. LEAD (Rio Grande Valley Linking Economic & Academic Development) is an intermediary organization which works to partner the various stakeholders needed for a successful Tech Prep program as well as other career-oriented opportunities. They work with public education service providers, institutions of higher education, and local businesses in the south of Texas. LEAD s mission is partnering to engage students in college-and-career-focused learning opportunities to achieve a higher level of competence in the workforce. The partnership includes 32 local school districts, one charter school network, five regional universities and community colleges, the K-12 Education Service Center (ESC), and a number of business and professional organizations representing the economic needs of the Texas Rio Grande Valley area. The alliance supplies resources and programming to high schools, hosts scholarships for graduating students, and creates opportunities for mentoring and early exposure in career pathways. As part of its work, LEAD provides stakeholders with feedback based on student outcomes pertaining to both experiences in the high school setting as well as transitions into higher education and the workforce. These outcomes track students participating in area Tech Prep programs as they reach critical milestones in their educational careers including graduation, postsecondary enrollment and attainment, as well as workforce transitions. As such, LEAD and stakeholders utilize such outcomes to better understand the impacts of participation in CTE and Tech Prep to plan for the future. REPORTING METRICS The first portion of this report (Part I) measured student outcomes and metrics relating to high school including program participation, achievement, dropout, and graduation. The second portion of this report looks at students who completed high school matching them with outcomes related to college and career transitions. The report covers the following areas: High School Graduation, Higher Education Enrollment, Post-Graduation Workforce Participation, Higher Education Attainment, and Postsecondary-Graduation Workforce Participation. Page 31

33 DATA CONSIDERATIONS The data for the study come from the Texas Education Research Center (ERC) clearinghouse. The ERC hosts access to high quality, longitudinal data from the Texas Education Agency (TEA), the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), and the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). Multiple data sets from all three state agencies are combined using a unique identifier in order to track students over time and different educational settings. Using this resource, high school graduates from 2009, 2010, and 2011 are matched against both higher education and workforce information to ascertain information on selected student outcomes. Comparisons between students are made in several ways. First, high school graduates from LEAD districts and schools are compared to Texas graduates of the same year. In addition students who participated in CTE courses, Tech Prep programming, or other career-oriented programs are also compared against each other (both within the area and the state). In order to properly organize and compare these types of students a coding formation was selected using the following definitions in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Tech Prep/Career and Technical Education Status Coding Code Tech Prep/Career and Technical Education Status 0 No participation in CTE courses 1 Participant in CTE course-taking, but is not participating in a coherent sequence of courses and not in Tech Prep. 2 Participant in a coherent sequence of courses which develops occupational knowledge, skills, and competencies relating to a career pathway/major (other career oriented students). 3 Participant in a Tech Prep program-in grades 9-12 who follows an approved Tech Prep high school plan of study leading to postsecondary education and training, and is enrolled in courses appropriate to that plan. The coding of students in CTE, Tech Prep, or other types of coursework aligns with an older method of data collection used by the state of Texas when funding for CTE was more readily available. More recently this coding has been replaced starting in the school year. Future iterations of this report will reflect this change and has already created alternative means for data triangulation for CTE and Tech Prep students. For this report, though, the use of the older PEIMS (Public Education Information Management System) codes is maintained as data only refer to students through 2011 and still correctly identify students according to program participation. HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION For three years of high school graduates (2009, 2010, and 2011) districts graduated more students with college and career ready diplomas than the state overall (see Table 2.2). The RHSP (Recommended High School Plan) and the DAP (Distinguished Achievement Plan) both require four years in each core subject as well as advanced elective and foreign language requirements needed for college entrance and higher qualifying jobs. district performance can be attributed to two areas of excellence. First, they had much higher percentages of students taking the highest diploma track, the DAP, than Texas students overall; districts ranged from 22-25% in the graduation years while Texas averaged Page 32

34 between 12-13%. Second, the percentage of students in Tech Prep programs in areas receiving DAP diplomas was twice that of the Texas average in all years. Tech Prep students on average enrolled in DAP between 34-39%; comparatively Texas Tech Prep student enrollment ranged between 15-17%. Within students course groupings, Tech Prep students in had twice the enrollment in the DAP than any other student group. Table , 2010, and 2011 Texas and District Graduates Code # Grads RHSP & DAP # Grads RHSP & DAP # Grads RHSP & DAP DAP DAP DAP 0 1,910 (80%) (11%) 2,015 (83%) (11%) 2,311 (83%) (10%) 1 4,374 (84%) (14%) 4,645 (89%) (16%) 5,418 (90%) (16%) 2 3,152 (87%) (17%) 3,543 (89%) (17%) 3,356 (89%) (18%) 3 6,416 (89%) (34%) 6,895 (97%) (39%) 7,205 (97%) (38%) Total # 15,921 17,198 18,364 Graduates Total RHSP & (86%) (92%) (92%) DAP Total DAP (22%) (25%) (24%) STATE Code # Grads RHSP & DAP # Grads RHSP & DAP # Grads RHSP & DAP DAP DAP DAP 0 52,199 (80%) (16%) 53,837 (81%) (17%) 57,898 (78%) (16%) 1 86,559 (80%) (9%) 87,695 (81%) (9%) 91,824 (78%) (10%) 2 64,785 (82%) (9%) 70,516 (84%) (10%) 71,917 (82%) (10%) 3 56,322 (84%) (15%) 62,294 (87%) (16%) 63,055 (84%) (17%) Total # Graduates 261, , ,807 Total RHSP & (81%) (83%) (80%) DAP Total DAP (12%) (12%) (13%) Page 33

35 When looking at the ethnic breakdown of graduates, both Texas and segments graduated students similar to the whole of their student bodies (see Chart 1). Breaking apart the ethnicity of students by the type of coursework they were enrolled in showed a bit more information though (see Chart 2). The segmented bar graph for Texas shows that for each ethnicity the state graduated a somewhat even number of students from each type of course program. For districts there are two standout differences. While there is a lack of diversity in the population as the vast majority of students were Hispanic, districts graduated more Hispanic students in Tech Prep programs and slightly more students enrolled in CTE courses. Students not enrolled in CTE or enrolled in other types of programming made up less of the graduating classes. Chart 1 Ethnic Breakdown of High School Graduates, Texas Graduates Graduates White 3% Other 1% Other 19% White 45% Hispanic 36% Hispanic 96% Page 34

36 Chart 2 Breakdown High School Graduates by Course Preparation, Texas Graduates Other Hispanic White Total Graduates Other Hispanic White Total The above charts show information from the combined graduates of The same information on individual graduation cohorts may be found in the Appendix. Each individual graduating group showed similar trends. The state had even percentages of students from various ethnicities graduating Page 35