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. www.rgvlead.com Commissioned by LEAD and prepared by the Texas Education Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin in collaboration with LEAD.
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 78712 512-471-4528 (Fax) 512-471-5975 www.utaustinerc.org 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
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... 10 Section 3: Comparison of Graduation Rates; Attendance Rates, Drop-out Rates and Completion-of-College Preparatory Program Rates... 15 Section 4: Performance On State-Mandates Tests... 19 Summary of Part One... 29 LEAD s 2014 Regional Data Report Part Two... 31 Reporting Metrics... 31 Data Considerations... 32 High School Graduation... 32 Higher Education Enrollment... 36 Post-Graduation Workforce Participation... 42 Working and Studying in Higher Education... 43 Transition Straight to the Workforce... 46 Higher Education Attainment... 50 Demographics of Higher Education Graduates... 55 Postsecondary-Graduation Workforce Participation... 58 Tech Prep and Participation in the Post-Higher Education Workforce... 61 Workforce by Degree Type... 62 Summary of Part Two... 66 LEAD s Regional Data Report Part Three... 69 Reporting Metrics... 69 Data Considerations... 70 High School Graduates and Higher Education Enrollment... 71 Developmental Need The Texas Success Initiative (TSI)... 72 Developmental Enrollment... 75 Levels of Developmental Education... 78 Passing and Failing Developmental Classes... 81 Summary of Part Three... 83 Page 2
Summary of Findings: Impacts of Tech Prep Programming... 85 Appendix A (PEIMS Coding of Tech Prep)... 86 Appendix B (Tech Prep Texas Scholars)... 88 Appendix C... 89 Appendix D... 94 Appendix E (TAKS and STARR Report)... 95 Appendix F... 113 Page 3
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 2006. However, although the Perkins Act still authorizes grant programs Page 4
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 2011-2012 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
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 2011-2012 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
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 2011-2012 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 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011 school years made it possible to correctly identify students into the PEIMS code groupings for those years, the 2011-2012 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 2011-2012 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 2011-2012 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 2011-2012 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 2011-2012 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
Academic Readiness (STAAR) replaced the TAKS for students entering the 9 th grade in 2011-2012. 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 2013-2014 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, 2008-2012 PEIMS TAKS STARR Graduation Plans # Students Code 2008-2009 2009-2010 9 th 3 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 2,852 10 th 3 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 2,982 11 th 3 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 4,387 12 th 3 n/a n/a MHSP, RHSP, DAP 6,714 9 th 3 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 4,668 10 th 3 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 4,338 11 th 3 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 5,577 12 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 2011-2012 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 2013-2014; 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 2014-2015 school year. Page 8
2010-2011 2011-2012 PEIMS Code LEAD's 2014 Regional Data Report TAKS STARR Graduation Plans # Students 9 th 3 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 3,730 10 th 3 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 4,437 11 th 3 X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 5,993 12 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 3,523 11 th 3 X X MHSP, RHSP, DAP 5,714 12 th 3 n/a n/a MHSP, RHSP, DAP 7,067 * While 2011-2012 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 2012-2013 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
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 2008-09 school year and a high of 24% in districts in 2009-10. 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 2008-2012 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% 0 1 25% 20% 19% 20% 19% 20% 24% 24% 18% 20% 23% 23% 18% 21% 23% 20% 19% 2 3 15% 13% 14% 15% 14% 10% 5% 0% State 0809 0809 State 0910 0910 State 1011 1011 State 1112 1112 * 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
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% 2008-09 Tech Prep By Economically Disadvantaged 14% 13% 28% 19% State 08-09 08-09 Non-Eco.Dis. Eco.Dis. 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2010-11 Tech Prep By Economically Disadvantaged 16% 15% 33% 22% State 10-11 10-11 Non-Eco.Dis. Eco.Dis. 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2009-10 Tech Prep By Economically Disadvantaged 15% 15% 42% 24% State 09-10 09-10 2011-12 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 11-12 11-12 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. 2012. Page 11
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 08-09 08-09 State 09-10 09-10 State 10-11 10-11 State 11-12 11-12 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 2011-2012 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, 2011-2012 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
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% 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 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 2008-2012. During that time though, non-at-risk students in districts enrolled in much bigger Page 13
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% 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 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% 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 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
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% 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 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 2011. 5 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). 5 2012 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
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 2009 2010 2011 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 2009 2010 2011 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 261,072 275,785 285,807 Total RHSP & DAP (81%) (83%) (80%) Total DAP (12%) (12%) (13%) DAP DAP Page 16
Figure 8 State and Districts Graduates with Tech Prep PEIMS Code 3 DAP Participation 40 35 30 25 20 15 0 1 2 3 10 5 0 2009 2010 2011 Texas DAP Participation 40 35 30 25 20 15 0 1 2 3 10 5 0 2009 2010 2011 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
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 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 (most recent available data) 2009 2010 2011 Code Dropout # % Dropout Dropout # % Dropout Dropout # % Dropout 0 1,198 48% 1,066 52% 1,169 52% 1 595 24% 460 23% 662 30% 2 388 16% 258 13% 267 12% 3 228 9% 169 8% 136 6% Total 2,498 2,042 2,234 School Dropout Rate 2.8% 2.2% 2.4% STATE 2009 2010 2011 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
Table 1.6 Attendance 2009-2012 LEAD's 2014 Regional Data Report 2009 2010 2011 2012 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 2009 2010 2011 2012 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
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 49,593 98.8.8 96.0 31.4 78 DONNA ISD 14,929 99.6.3 97.3 49.0 79 EDCOUCH-ELSA ISD 5,168 99.7.3 98.8 38.1 78 EDINBURG CISD 33,311 97.9 1.1 85.5 29.4 80 HARLINGEN CISD 18,464 90.6 7.9 77.5 13.5 77 HIDALGO ISD 3,289 99.7.2 87.8 51.5 76 IDEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS* 9,505 95.7 2.3 82.3 23.2 94 JIM HOGG COUNTY ISD* 1,098 95.9 3.3 81.1 12.3 82 LA FERIA ISD 3,698 96.5 2.9 85.8 13.0 75 LA JOYA ISD 28,895 99.7.2 95.5 45.8 76 LA VILLA ISD 5,94 99.5.5 87.5 25.1 71 LAREDO ISD* 24,761 99.5.3 97.2 59.8 80 LASARA ISD 472 96.6 2.1 84.3 14.4 74 LOS FRESNOS CISD 10,295 96.1 3.1 76.7 22.3 91 LYFORD CISD 1,532 97.3 2.2 83.5 11.7 82 MCALLEN ISD 25,126 92.5 5.0 67.0 27.1 84 MERCEDES ISD 5,695 98.8.8 93.2 28.1 84 MISSION CISD 15,639 98.8.9 83.7 31.1 79 MONTE ALTO ISD 950 98.6 1.3 92.8 37.6 71 PHARR-SAN JUAN-ALAMO ISD 31,620 99.0.7 89.0 40.3 76 POINT ISABEL ISD 2,561 90.6 7.9 89.9 31.9 77 PROGRESO ISD 2,154 99.1.7 79.5 56.2 77 RAYMONDVILLE ISD 2,197 98.3 1.0 94.0 8.0 84 RIO GRANDE CITY CISD 10,817 99.2.5 95.4 58.5 82 RIO HONDO ISD 2,188 97.3 2.6 85.1 15.9 64 ROMA ISD 6,615 99.8.2 91.8 69.1 81 SAN BENITO CISD 11,373 98.9.9 82.9 23.3 80 SAN ISIDRO ISD 291 97.9 1.4 83.5 16.8 78 SAN PERLITA ISD 291 89.0 10.3 72.9 14.1 88 SANTA MARIA ISD 664 99.5.5 96.1 44.1 71 SANTA ROSA ISD 1,183 99.0.9 94.5 14.8 83 SHARYLAND ISD 10,135 91.1 5.9 56.5 27.7 88 SOUTH TEXAS ISD 3,237 82.3 6.3 55.1 1.4 98 UNITED ISD* 42,096 98.3 1.2 74.5 40.8 82 VALLEY VIEW ISD 4,760 99.7.3 93.3 54.9 93 WEBB CISD* 371 93.5 6.2 62.8 7.5 84 WESLACO ISD 17,663 98.2 1.2 86.3 25.7 78 ZAPATA COUNTY ISD* 3,455 99.0.8 77.2 26.8 84 * Districts not served by LEAD Page 20
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 2008-2012 (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 2008-2009 11 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 81 92 69 82 89 96 68 85 1 86 90 71 76 92 95 71 80 2 90 92 79 80 94 96 77 84 3 96 94 88 85 98 97 88 88 Total 89 92 77 80 94 96 76 84 Table 1.9 TAKS Report 2009-2010 11 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 81 93 79 88 92 97 78 91 1 85 91 80 85 93 96 81 88 2 90 93 86 88 95 97 85 90 3 94 95 93 91 98 98 92 93 Total 88 92 85 88 95 97 85 90 Table 1.10 TAKS Report 2010-2011 11 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 86 94 82 90 93 98 80 91 1 87 93 81 87 95 97 79 87 2 90 95 87 90 96 98 85 90 3 97 96 94 93 99 99 92 93 Total 90 94 87 89 96 98 85 90 Page 21
Table 1.11 TAKS Report 2011-2012 11 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 85 93 85 91 95 98 87 94 1 85 91 84 88 94 97 86 91 2 92 94 90 91 97 98 91 94 3 96 95 94 93 99 98 96 95 Total 89 93 88 90 96 98 90 93 While Tables 1.8-1.11 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 2011-2012 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, 2008-2012 LEAD Texas 100 100 95 95 90 90 85 85 80 80 75 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 75 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 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
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 12-13 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 2009-2010 9 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas 0 83 92 59 73 1 87 91 63 67 2 88 93 66 72 3 91 94 69 76 Total 87 92 63 71 Table 1.13 TAKS Report 2010-2011 9 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas 0 78 89 61 73 1 81 87 61 67 2 86 90 69 73 3 91 92 74 77 Total 82 89 64 71 With the addition of STAAR testing, the trends found in TAKS testing did not necessarily apply. STAAR testing transitioned in the 2011-2012 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 10-12 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 2012. Additional testing or retest scores from July and December were not included. Page 23
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 2011-2012, 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 2011-2012 9 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Standards for English I Phase-In Standard Satisfactory Recommended Standard Minimum Recommended Standard Satisfactory Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 55 78 45 70 34 61 25 50 1 64 75 53 65 42 54 30 42 2 68 78 58 68 47 57 35 44 3 80 82 73 73 62 63 51 50 Total 63 77 53 68 42 58 31 46 PEIMS Phase-In Standard Minimum Table 1.15 STAAR Report 2011-2012 9 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Standards for Algebra I Phase-In Standard Satisfactory Recommended Standard Minimum Recommended Standard Satisfactory Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 82 87 70 77 32 39 22 28 1 84 86 72 73 32 33 22 23 2 84 88 73 77 35 36 25 26 3 87 90 76 80 38 40 29 29 Total 83 87 71 76 33 36 23 26 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 2011-2012 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
the 2011-2012 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, 2008-2012 100 Math Exit 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 2008-09 2008-09 TX 2009-10 2009-10 TX 2010-11 2010-11 TX 2011-12 2011-12 TX 0 1 2 3 Page 25
Figure 11 Percentage Passage By Hispanic Student on Reading TAKS Exit, 2008-2012 100 Reading Exit 95 90 85 80 75 0 1 2 3 70 65 2008-09 2008-09 TX 2009-10 2009-10 TX 2010-11 2010-11 TX 2011-12 2011-12 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, 2008-2012 95 90 Math Exit 85 80 75 70 0 1 2 3 65 2008-09 2008-09 TX 2009-10 2009-10 TX 2010-11 2010-11 TX 2011-12 2011-12 TX Page 26
Figure 13 Percentage Passage By Economically Disadvantaged Student on Reading TAKS Exit, 2008-2012 100 Reading Exit 95 90 85 80 75 70 0 1 2 3 65 2008-09 2008-09 TX 2009-10 2009-10 TX 2010-11 2010-11 TX 2011-12 2011-12 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 2011-2012 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
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 62 69 52 59 41 48 30 36 White 82 88 76 82 66 73 57 61 Econ. Dis. 60 68 49 57 38 45 27 33 LEP 21 27 15 20 7 11 4 7 English II Hispanic 80 68 75 60 68 51 60 42 White >89 71 >83 64 >82 57 >78 49 Econ. Dis. 77 64 72 56 65 47 56 39 LEP 31 31 21 22 14 15 10 9 English III Hispanic 51 54 44 48 32 36 23 28 White >54 59 >54 54 >26 44 >26 37 Econ. Dis. 50 52 43 45 31 33 22 26 LEP 21 31 16 24 8 14 5 9 Algebra I Hispanic 83 85 71 72 33 31 23 21 White 88 92 78 84 45 48 36 36 Econ. Dis. 82 84 70 70 31 29 22 20 LEP 71 70 55 54 18 17 12 12 Algebra II Hispanic 74 74 59 60 26 28 19 20 White >87 81 80 70 45 42 38 33 Econ. Dis. 72 72 56 57 25 26 18 18 LEP 57 60 33 41 7 15 <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
PEIMS Table 1.17 STAAR Report 2011-2012 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 0 19 23 12 17 6 9 4 6 1 23 30 17 23 8 12 5 8 2 20 27 14 20 7 11 3 7 3 50 31 30 22 24 13 11 9 Total 21 27 15 20 7 11 4 7 PEIMS Table 1.18 STAAR Report 2011-2012 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 0 69 68 53 52 12 12 75 73 1 73 71 55 54 12 11 78 76 2 68 74 55 57 12 12 76 79 3 89 79 75 60 24 14 >91 83 Total 71 70 55 54 12 12 77 76 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
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
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
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 2011-2012 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
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 2.2 2009, 2010, and 2011 Texas and District Graduates 2009 2010 2011 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 2009 2010 2011 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 261,072 275,785 285,807 Total RHSP & (81%) (83%) (80%) DAP Total DAP (12%) (12%) (13%) Page 33
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, 2009-2011 Texas Graduates 2009-2011 Graduates 2009-2011 White 3% Other 1% Other 19% White 45% Hispanic 36% Hispanic 96% Page 34
Chart 2 Breakdown High School Graduates by Course Preparation, 2009-2011 900000 Texas Graduates 2009-2011 800000 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 3 2 1 0 200000 100000 0 Other Hispanic White Total Graduates 2009-2011 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 3 2 1 0 10000 0 Other Hispanic White Total The above charts show information from the combined graduates of 2009-2011. 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
from each type of course program (or even slightly smaller amounts from Tech Prep programming compared to other course groupings or codings). graduates, when segmented by ethnicity and type of course program, illustrated that larger percentages of students in Tech Prep made up the graduating class across all ethnic groups with students in CTE courses also showing greater proportions of the graduates. Other demographic information in the Appendix shows the breakdown of graduating years by characteristics such as gender and LEP (Limited English Proficient) status. Across all years Tech Prep programming held greater percentages of female graduates than other program types both within the and across the state. In addition, districts graduated a greater percentage of female students in Tech Prep than their state Tech Prep counterparts. districts also graduated more LEP students than Texas as a whole but the percentage of students involved in Tech Prep was similar to state enrollment for all graduating years. The largest percentages of LEP graduates in districts were in the non-cteenrolled and those taking CTE courses but no specific program of study. HIGHER EDUCATION ENROLLMENT Once graduated, the performance metric associated with higher postsecondary transitions was to identify whether students enrolled in higher education no later than one year after their graduation. In order to accomplish this task, high school graduates were matched against enrollment information for the year following their graduation date. Since graduation from high school is typically placed at the end of the spring semester, students were matched against higher education enrollment for the following summer, fall, and spring. For example, 2009 high school graduates were paired with summer 2009, fall 2009 and spring 2010 semesters to check enrollment. Enrollment was matched against all community colleges, health related institutions, public universities, and private universities located within Texas. 8 Table 2.3 2009 High School Graduates 2009-2010 Higher Education Enrollment Enrolled in Any HE Community College Public University Private University 0 45% 36% 18% 1% 10% 1 51% 40% 20% 1% 10% 2 55% 45% 20% 1% 11% 3 76% 65% 35% 3% 27% Total 61% 51% 26% 2% 17% TEXAS 0 55% 35% 24% 6% 11% 1 53% 40% 18% 4% 8% 2 56% 43% 18% 4% 9% 3 62% 48% 21% 3% 11% Total 56% 41% 20% 4% 9% Two or More Types of HE 8 While students were matched against Health Related Institutions, less than 10 new high school graduates statewide enrolled in such institutions each year. As such, disaggregated results from these students are not presented. Page 36
LEAD's 2014 Regional Data Report Table 2.4 2010 High School Graduates 2010-2011 Higher Education Enrollment Enrolled in Any HE Community College Public University Private University 0 40% 33% 14% 1% 8% 1 51% 42% 19% 1% 11% 2 54% 45% 20% <1% 12% 3 76% 64% 34% 2% 24% Total 60% 50% 25% 2% 16% TEXAS 0 53% 34% 24% 6% 10% 1 52% 38% 18% 4% 8% 2 54% 41% 18% 3% 8% 3 61% 47% 21% 3% 11% Total 55% 40% 20% 4% 9% Two or More Types of HE Table 2.5 2011 High School Graduates 2011-2012 Higher Education Enrollment Enrolled in Any HE Community College Public University Private University 0 40% 31% 17% 1% 9% 1 49% 40% 19% 1% 12% 2 55% 48% 22% 1% 16% 3 71% 59% 35% 2% 24% Total 58% 48% 26% 2% 17% TEXAS 0 51% 33% 23% 5% 9% 1 51% 37% 18% 4% 8% 2 53% 40% 18% 3% 9% 3 59% 45% 22% 3% 11% Total 53% 39% 20% 4% 9% Two or More Types of HE 2009-2011 high school graduates each made up 7-8% of the total Texas higher education enrollment within the year after their graduation. Graduates from districts made up around 1% of the total higher education enrollment. districts sent slightly greater percentages of students to higher education than the state as a whole (61% vs. 56% for 2009 graduates, 60% vs. 55% for 2010 graduates, and 58% vs. 53% for 2011 graduates) (see Tables 2.3-2.5). Within programming comparison groups, Tech Prep students were the most likely to enroll in higher education for both the state and LEAD districts. Their percentage of enrollment was much higher than any other grouping of course participation. Tech Prep students in districts enrolled in greater percentages in higher education than their Texas counterparts as well; their higher education participation ranged from 71-76% for the three graduating years. Texas Tech Prep student enrollment ranged from 59-62%. Page 37
On the opposite spectrum, students not enrolled in Tech Prep, CTE, or any other career-oriented courses had the lowest percentages of higher education enrollment across graduating years for districts. These numbers were below the total state average as well as the averages in the same course grouping for the state suggesting that enrollment in some form of career structure courses positively impacts higher education transitions in the area specifically. Enrollment By Institution Type Tables 2.3-2.5 show enrollment by type of institution for each high school graduating class and the correct year corresponding to higher education enrollment; the year coincides within one year of high school graduation. It is clear that both graduates and Texas graduates took the most advantage of community colleges though graduates from areas enrolled in community colleges at even higher rates than the state as a whole. Within course groupings for both the state and districts, the percentage of enrollment at the community college level trended in similar fashions. The students least enrolled were those who did not participate in any program; next were those in CTE courses followed by those in other career-oriented programs. The largest community college enrollment came from Tech Prep program students for all years. A similar trend was seen for enrollment in public universities from graduates but a different trend appeared for Texas graduates enrolling in public universities. Higher numbers of students enrolled in public universities if they were not in any program and if they were in a Tech Prep program but if they took CTE courses or were in other types of career-oriented programming they had slightly lower percentages of enrollment in all years. In addition, students across Texas were slightly more likely to enroll in private institutions though there were no trends associated with course groupings. Lastly, Tables 2.3-2.5 show that some students enrolled in more than one type of higher education institution during the year following their high school graduation. LEAD graduates were more likely to enroll in two types of schools and Tech Prep students from both and Texas were even more likely to enroll. Tech Prep students from districts had the greatest percentage of cross-enrollment by institution type for all three graduation cohorts (24-27%). Cross-Enrollment Table 2.6 Cross Enrollment of 2009 High School Graduates in Higher Education, 2009-2010 CC and Public CC and Private Public and Private 0 9% 1% <1% 1% 1 10% 1% <1% 1% 2 11% 1% <1% 2% 3 25% 2% <1% 3% Total 16% 1% <1% 2% TEXAS 0 9% 2% <1% 4% 1 7% 1% <1% 4% 2 7% 1% <1% 4% 3 10% 1% <1% 5% Total 8% 1% <1% 4% Enrolled in 2 or More Different CCs Page 38
Tables 2.6-2.8 give a more in-depth view into cross-enrollment between differing types of institutions. While extremely small numbers of students cross-enrolled with public and private universities, there were 1-2% of students from both districts and Texas as a whole which enrolled in both a private institution and a community college at some point during the year. The largest overlap between types of institutions came from students enrolled both in public universities and community colleges. Students from LEAD districts were more likely to cross-enroll at both community colleges and public universities and Tech Prep students from schools had a much larger cross-enrollment than their Texas peers and any other student group; Tech Prep cross-enrollment between community colleges and public universities ranged from 22-25% while Texas Tech Prep students were only between 9-10%. Also, all other student groups ( and Texas) ranged between 8-16%. Table 2.7 Cross Enrollment of 2010 High School Graduates in Higher Education, 2010-2011 CC and Public CC and Private Public and Private 0 8% <1% <1% 1% 1 10% 1% <1% 1% 2 12% <1% <1% 1% 3 22% 2% <1% 3% Total 15% <1% <1% 2% TEXAS 0 8% 2% <1% 3% 1 7% 1% <1% 5% 2 7% 1% <1% 5% 3 9% 1% <1% 5% Total 8% 1% <1% 4% Enrolled in 2 or More Different CCs Table 2.8 Cross Enrollment of 2011 High School Graduates in Higher Education, 2011-2012 CC and Public CC and Private Public and Private 0 9% <1% <1% 2% 1 11% 1% <1% 2% 2 15% 1% <1% 3% 3 23% 1% <1% 3% Total 16% 1% <1% 3% TEXAS 0 8% 2% <1% 4% 1 7% 1% <1% 5% 2 7% 1% <1% 5% 3 10% 1% <1% 5% Total 8% 1% <1% 5% Enrolled in 2 or More Different CCs Page 39
Another type of cross-enrollment taken into consideration was the number of students enrolling at two or more different community colleges during the year (Tables 2.6-2.8). Though a small number of graduates overall participated in this form of higher education, graduates from Texas were more likely than their peers to take advantage of multiple schools or community college systems. Within the district graduates, Tech Prep students were slightly more likely to enroll in more than one community college. Semester Credit Hours Part of higher education enrollment is the completion of course hours or Semester Credit Hours (SCH). Tables 2.9-2.11 show the breakdown of SCH by graduate cohorts, course groupings, and /Texas comparisons. In all graduate cohorts there is little diversity between the course groupings and the mean number of SCH. There were also only slight differences between the state and LEAD districts in all years. The only notable difference is that for all three graduating cohorts, those enrolled at community colleges averaged less SCH by the end of the year than those attending either public or private universities (range between 10.44-10.71). Table 2.9 Semester Credit Hours 2009 High School Graduates in Higher Education, 2009-2010 HE Total CC Total Public Total Private Total 0 Mean SCH 13.85 10.05 14.14 14.09 1 Mean SCH 13.41 10.72 13.91 14.26 2 Mean SCH 13.34 10.83 13.83 14.04 3 Mean SCH 13.56 11.05 13.85 14.03 Total Mean SCH 13.51 10.71 13.94 14.12 Min 1 1 1 1 Max 53 47 41 32 TEXAS 0 Mean SCH 13.86 10.07 14.12 14.09 1 Mean SCH 13.41 10.69 13.90 14.26 2 Mean SCH 13.34 10.80 13.81 14.05 3 Mean SCH 13.84 10.98 13.78 14.09 Total Mean SCH 13.58 10.68 13.91 14.13 Min 1 1 1 1 Max 53 50 41 32 In all, each cohort of high school graduates enrolling in higher education within one year averaged between 13.48-13.58 SCH for the time period. In practical terms this breaks down to between four and five college classes per year. Page 40
Table 2.10 Semester Credit Hours 2010 High School Graduates in Higher Education, 2010-2011 HE Total CC Total Public Total Private Total 0 Mean SCH 13.57 10.32 13.51 NA 1 Mean SCH 13.77 10.43 13.51 14.48 2 Mean SCH 13.89 10.51 13.28 16.00 3 Mean SCH 15.3 10.64 13.62 15.08 Total Mean SCH 14.55 10.56 13.53 14.94 Min 1 1 1 12 Max 53 45 38 18 TEXAS 0 Mean SCH 13.55 10.31 13.49 14.23 1 Mean SCH 13.41 10.60 13.86 14.33 2 Mean SCH 13.36 10.69 13.78 13.99 3 Mean SCH 13.72 10.80 13.78 14.28 Total Mean SCH 13.55 10.56 13.90 14.25 Min 1 1 1 1 Max 60 60 45 24 Table 2.11 Semester Credit Hours 2011 High School Graduates in Higher Education, 2011-2012 HE Total CC Total Public Total Private Total 0 Mean SCH 13.75 10.24 12.71 14.89 1 Mean SCH 13.80 10.37 12.58 15.18 2 Mean SCH 14.14 10.72 11.72 14.87 3 Mean SCH 15.11 10.63 12.47 14.99 Total Mean SCH 14.49 10.55 12.39 15.01 Min 1 1 1 11 Max 57 46 36 19 TEXAS 0 Mean SCH 13.66 9.81 14.17 14.37 1 Mean SCH 13.33 10.44 13.77 14.36 2 Mean SCH 13.33 10.60 13.67 14.13 3 Mean SCH 13.67 10.65 13.60 14.65 Total Mean SCH 13.48 10.44 13.80 14.35 Min 1 1 1 3 Max 57 50 45 28 Page 41
POST-GRADUATION WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION Workforce participation was measured in a similar fashion to participation in higher education enrollment. Since the performance metric was to ascertain employment within a year of graduation, employment was tracked following graduation in the spring to the next spring. In such a way the term of employment ran from summer, fall, winter, and spring (quarters 3, 4, 1, and 2 as counted by the TWC). For example, students graduating in 2009 would be tracked for employment against summer 2009, fall 2009, winter 2010, and spring 2010. Table 2.12 2009 High School Graduates and 2009-2010 Work Enrollment All Grads with Jobs Grad in HE with Jobs 0 52% 63% 43% 1 55% 64% 45% 2 55% 62% 47% 3 57% 62% 43% Total 56% 62% 45% TEXAS 0 59% 67% 50% 1 64% 71% 55% 2 67% 72% 60% 3 67% 71% 60% Total 64% 70% 56% Grads with Jobs (no HE) Tables 2.12-2.14 each show the workforce participation of high school graduates for the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. They breakdown the percentage of total graduates working, those working and participating in higher education, and those only working those graduates who transitioned directly into the workforce. Table 2.13 2010 High School Graduates and 2010-2011 Work Enrollment All Grads with Jobs Grad in HE with Jobs 0 50% 59% 44% 1 52% 59% 45% 2 54% 60% 47% 3 57% 61% 45% Total 54% 60% 45% TEXAS 0 59% 66% 51% 1 63% 70% 57% 2 66% 71% 60% 3 66% 71% 60% Total 64% 70% 57% Grads with Jobs (no HE) Page 42
Table 2.14 2011 High School Graduates and 2010-2011 Work Enrollment All Grads with Jobs Grad in HE with Jobs 0 51% 58% 47% 1 53% 61% 46% 2 57% 63% 49% 3 54% 58% 44% Total 54% 60% 46% TEXAS 0 61% 68% 53% 1 65% 71% 59% 2 66% 71% 61% 3 66% 71% 60% Total 65% 71% 58% Grads with Jobs (no HE) In all graduation years, students from across Texas had a greater percentage of workforce participation than students coming from backgrounds. This was true for both higher education workers and those only working. Total workforce participation ranged from 54-56% while total Texas participation ranged from 64-66%. For those transitioning straight to the workforce without higher education, 45-46% of graduates in districts were working within a year of graduation while 56-58% of Texas graduates found jobs. When looking at the breakdown of Texas students across course participation groupings, the lowest workforce participation percentages were from those uninvolved in any form of CTE, career, or Tech Prep courses or programs. All other groupings had similar levels of workforce participation; this finding held true for graduates involved in higher education and those entering directly into the workforce. This trend was not found in courses groupings, though, as there were no clear patterns of lower or higher participation by any specific student group. WORKING AND STUDYING IN HIGHER EDUCATION Table 2.15 2009 High School Graduates Enrolled in Higher Education and Working, 2009-2010 HE and Job HE and 2 Jobs HE and 3 Jobs 0 63% 15% 1% 1 64% 15% 1% 2 62% 14% 2% 3 62% 15% 2% Total 62% 15% 2% TEXAS 0 67% 17% 2% 1 71% 20% 2% 2 72% 20% 3% 3 71% 20% 2% Total 70% 19% 2% Page 43
Table 2.16 Wages of 2009 High School Graduates Enrolled in Higher Education, 2009-2010 Total Salary Job 1 Salary Job 2 Salary Job 3 Salary 0 Mean Salary $4,803.10 $4,634.21 $665.15 $283.21 1 Mean $4,662.56 $4,473.66 $775.34 $305.41 2 Mean $5,016.86 $4,810.19 $852.37 $294.63 3 Mean $5,018.70 $4,771.54 $962.05 $753.94 Total Mean $4,915.07 $4,695.76 $871.42 $549.95 Min $5.00 $5.00 $0.40 $2.48 Max $6,3043.24 $36,298.44 $19, 428.87 $16,302.59 TEXAS 0 Mean Salary $4,434.17 $4,233.97 $765.53 $346.43 1 Mean $5,027.95 $4,791.91 $804.68 $361.47 2 Mean $5,540.31 $5,293.92 $839.64 $362.96 3 Mean $5704.81 $5,440.49 $904.01 $452.48 Total Mean $5,209.37 $4,970.60 $831.31 $380.34 Min $0.08 $0.08 $0.13 $0.01 Max $102,083 $102,083 $33,381.64 $30,383.11 Tables 2.15, 2.17, and 2.19 show the participation of graduates in the workforce from those also enrolled in some form of postsecondary education. Overall, students in Texas held jobs and went to school in higher numbers than students from districts. Participation from districts ranged from 60-62% while Texas participation ranged from 70-71%. There were small differences but no trends in the types of courses graduates participated in during their high school career. Students across Texas were also slightly more likely to hold more than one job than their LEAD counterparts; Texas second jobs holders accounted for 19-21% of students while students had smaller double-employment at 14-15%. Generally there were few who took on three or more positions while also enrolling in higher education. Table 2.17 2010 High School Graduates Enrolled in Higher Education and Working, 2010-2011 HE and Job HE and 2 Jobs HE and 3 Jobs 0 59% 14% 1% 1 59% 15% 1% 2 60% 14% 1% 3 61% 15% 2% Total 60% 15% 1% TEXAS 0 66% 17% 2% 1 70% 20% 2% 2 71% 20% 2% 3 71% 21% 2% Total 70% 20% 2% Page 44
Table 2.18 Wages of 2010 High School Graduates Enrolled in Higher Education, 2010-2011 Total Salary Job 1 Salary Job 2 Salary Job 3 Salary 0 Mean Salary $4,830.38 $4,639.85 $769.19 $313.14 1 Mean $4,817.53 $4,620.30 $745.69 $218.64 2 Mean $4,921.88 $4,746.91 $750.43 $353.92 3 Mean $4,918.20 $4,680.52 $899.71 $480.28 Total Mean $4,893.58 $4,680.58 $827.09 $404.71 Min $1.50 $1.50 $0.08 $9.14 Max $75,460.59 $69,650.29 $17,977.05 $9,225.20 TEXAS 0 Mean Salary $4,513.94 $4,290.56 $826.16 $380.53 1 Mean $5,054.75 $4,810.62 $807.50 $343.41 2 Mean $5,601.42 $5,345.46 $856.31 $337.85 3 Mean $5,795.60 $5,525.84 $879.62 $358.72 Total Mean $5,295.58 $5,045.11 $843.34 $352.29 Min $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 Max $189,695.90 $189,695.90 $45,194.29 $28,778.30 Table 2.19 2011 High School Graduates Enrolled in Higher Education and Working, 2011-2012 HE and Job HE and 2 Jobs HE and 3 Jobs 0 58% 17% 2% 1 61% 14% 1% 2 63% 15% 2% 3 58% 14% 1% Total 60% 14% 1% TEXAS 0 68% 19% 2% 1 71% 22% 3% 2 71% 23% 3% 3 71% 22% 3% Total 71% 21% 3% Page 45
Table 2.20 Wages of 2011 High School Graduates Enrolled in Higher Education, 2011-2012 Total Salary Job 1 Salary Job 2 Salary Job 3 Salary 0 Mean Salary $4,923.67 $4,656.33 $879.16 $345.71 1 Mean $4,888.30 $4,679.60 $850.68 $719.39 2 Mean $4,750.95 $4,521.75 $909.39 $394.11 3 Mean $4,930.94 $4,697.36 $886.87 $670.19 Total Mean $4,893.77 $4,663.34 $885.07 $581.18 Min $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $0.78 Max $86,377.25 $61,882.00 $21,459.14 $14,789.30 TEXAS 0 Mean Salary $4,807.09 $4,559.45 $850.33 $356.67 1 Mean $5,396.07 $5,111.70 $878.22 $395.88 2 Mean $5,878.85 $5,566.56 $935.53 $387.92 3 Mean $5,949.24 $5,641.87 $941.44 $412.70 Total Mean $5,551.06 $5,260.46 $905.19 $391.85 Min $0.16 $0.16 $0.08 $0.15 Max $272,000.00 $272,000.00 $30,712.99 $20,680.08 For income from the primary, or highest earning, job Texas students earned more than students (see Tables 2.16, 2.18, and 2.20). When breaking apart income into course groupings, though, different patterns emerged. The mean salary for the primary job for students enrolled in no type of career course programming was greater for students in all three graduating years. This also impacted the overall mean salary for this particular student group. For all other student groups, Texas students had larger mean incomes than students. In the salaries for jobs two and three, both Texas and graduates enrolled in higher education followed a similar trend. The average income rose with the level of the student course grouping. The lowest earners in these job categories were those taking no career courses while the highest earners in these categories were those who had participated in Tech Prep. TRANSITIONS STRAIGHT TO THE WORKFORCE Unlike students who took on higher education and the workforce, some high school graduates chose to enter directly into the job market. Tables 2.21, 2.23, and 2.25 show the percent of students who held a job within one year of graduation and who did not enroll in any form of postsecondary education. While lower percentages of graduates overall decided to enter the workforce only rather than enter the workforce while also taking some form of higher education, similar participation trends did occur between Texas and districts. Page 46
Table 2.21 2009 High School Graduates Enrolled in the Workforce Only, 2009-2010 HE and Job HE and 2 Jobs HE and 3 Jobs 0 43% 13% 2% 1 45% 11% 1% 2 47% 12% 1% 3 43% 12% 2% Total 45% 12% 2% TEXAS 0 50% 14% 2% 1 55% 17% 2% 2 60% 19% 2% 3 60% 20% 2% Total 56% 18% 2% Table 2.22 Wages of 2009 High School Graduates Enrolled in the Workforce Only, 2009-2010 Total Salary Job 1 Salary Job 2 Salary Job 3 Salary 0 Mean Salary $6,803.97 $6,418.64 $981.29 $412.98 1 Mean $5,958.41 $5,682.04 $1,006.44 $367.84 2 Mean $6,553.49 $6,314.27 $919.23 $352.21 3 Mean $7,162.16 $6,827.59 $1,107.39 $398.87 Total Mean $6,532.58 $6,246.80 $1,015.93 $422.67 Min $17.00 $17.00 $0.15 $21.53 Max $95,093.22 $95,093.22 $12,262.95 $4,338.98 TEXAS 0 Mean Salary $6,369.90 $6,069.08 $1,007.67 $570.53 1 Mean $6,840.42 $6,517.76 $988.04 $397.01 2 Mean $7,581.92 $7,238.40 $1,026.01 $360.51 3 Mean $7,816.35 $7,446.25 $1,072.87 $351.93 Total Mean $7,147.92 $6,814.04 $1,020.15 $409.72 Min $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.15 Max $775,000.00 $775,000.00 $36,727.92 $30,202.63 Graduates from districts had lower job enrollment than their Texas counterparts for all years; job participation for graduates spanned from 45-46% while participation from Texas graduates ranged from 56-58%. In addition, Texas graduates held second jobs at slightly higher proportions than graduates from district schools. Page 47
Table 2.23 2010 High School Graduates Enrolled in the Workforce Only, 2010-2011 HE and Job HE and 2 Jobs HE and 3 Jobs 0 44% 14% 2% 1 45% 13% 2% 2 47% 14% 25 3 45% 12% 1% Total 45% 13% 2% TEXAS 0 51% 16% 2% 1 57% 19% 3% 2 60% 21% 3% 3 60% 21% 3% Total 57% 19% 3% Table 2.24 Wages of 2010 High School Graduates Enrolled in the Workforce Only, 2010-2011 Total Salary Job 1 Salary Job 2 Salary Job 3 Salary 0 Mean Salary $7,224.21 $6,824.64 $1,224.85 $437.94 1 Mean $6,594.89 $6,274.92 $1,012.22 $479.56 2 Mean $6,567.34 $6,252.80 $1,022.17 $346.27 3 Mean $6,660.24 $6,326.91 $1,134.22 $1,259.21 Total Mean $6,752.29 $6,416.46 $1,082.98 $587.22 Min $9.06 $9.06 $1.52 $5.44 Max $16,583.96 $16,583.96 $18,786.68 $16,348.88 TEXAS 0 Mean Salary $6,910.09 $6,567.59 $1,024.01 $442.89 1 Mean $7,142.46 $6,788.69 $1,019.66 $362.84 2 Mean $8,039.33 $7,648.40 $1,080.27 $428.53 3 Mean $8,375.52 $7,956.72 $1,118.46 $406.45 Total Mean $7,632.01 $7,255.22 $1,062.73 $404.50 Min $0.25 $0.25 $0.02 $0.07 Max $523,402.70 $523,402.70 $37,366.51 $18,417.95 For those who transitioned directly into the workforce, their mean salary was somewhat larger than their peers taking some form of postsecondary education, though not significantly higher. Tables 2.22, 2.24, and 2.26 show the breakdown of income by comparison groups for each graduate class. Much like other earners, Texas graduates out-earned their counterparts overall. Mean salaries for workers were between $6,532-7,475 while Texas graduates earned between $7,147-8,133 per year. Within Page 48
student groupings, however, there were no overall trends or trends within the salaries for the primary, secondary, or tertiary jobs. For each year and within both Texas and, former Tech Prep students had the highest overall salaries. Their salaries were not always attributable to the highest primary wage, though, which may mean these graduates were combining wages from two or more jobs. Table 2.25 2011 High School Graduates Enrolled in the Workforce Only, 2011-2012 HE and Job HE and 2 Jobs HE and 3 Jobs 0 47% 16% 3% 1 46% 13% 2% 2 49% 15% 2% 3 44% 13% 1% Total 46% 14% 2% TEXAS 0 53% 18% 3% 1 59% 22% 4% 2 61% 22% 3% 3 60% 23% 3% Total 58% 21% 3% Table 2.26 Wages of 2011 High School Graduates Enrolled in the Workforce Only, 2011-2012 Total Salary Job 1 Salary Job 2 Salary Job 3 Salary 0 Mean Salary $7,603.63 $7,154.71 $1,246.08 $613.61 1 Mean $7,147.07 $6,792.68 $1,205.01 $377.08 2 Mean $7,404.40 $6,994.30 $1,301.84 $428.05 3 Mean $7,722.03 $7,386.74 $1,068.19 $385.87 Total Mean $7,475.66 $7,088.00 $1,216.95 $469.70 Min $18.13 $18.13 $2.60 $1.53 Max $300,315.43 $300,315.43 $12,517.44 $7,632.00 TEXAS 0 Mean Salary $7,452.91 $7,057.80 $1,093.83 $393.28 1 Mean $7,784.78 $7,349.27 $1,111.47 $431.35 2 Mean $8,495.87 $8,054.21 $1,166.31 $447.02 3 Mean $8,838.24 $8,368.15 $1,180.79 $437.09 Total Mean $8,133.03 $7,696.04 $1,138.38 $432.00 Min $0.36 $0.36 $0.15 $0.09 Max $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $38,669.59 $29,445.03 Page 49
HIGHER EDUCATION ATTAINMENT Each high school graduating class was tracked against higher education graduating data to determine whether or not they had completed a program, what degree/certificate they received, and what time to degree they had taken. High school/higher education graduation was compiled along a yearly basis as well as summed across years. Older high school cohorts have more connected years of higher education data thus have larger and more complete information on attainment. In addition to compiling attainment, type of degree as well as time to degree were tracked. Time to degree is defined as the normal timeframe typically assumed to complete a degree or certificate (two years for an associate s degree or certificate and four years for a bachelor s degree). Time to degree is only measured where available given the length of time the high school graduates have been enrolled in the higher education system. High School and Higher Education Graduates Table 2.27 2009 High School Graduates and Higher Education Attainment by Higher Education Graduation Year HE Grad Total 0 207 (11%) 1 474 (11%) 2 421 (13%) 3 1,383 (22%) Total 2,485 (16%) TEXAS 0 9,750 (19%) 1 12,290 (14%) 2 9,964 (15%) 3 10,087 (18%) Total 42,091 (16%) 2009 HE Grad <10 (<1%) <10 (<1%) 12 (<1%) 25 (<1%) 54 (<1%) 35 (<1%) 170 (<1%) 64 (<1%) 151 (<1%) 420 (<1%) 2010 HE Grad <10 (<1%) 17 (<1%) >20 (<1%) 49 94 116 (<1%) 233 (<1%) 298 (<1%) 367 1,014 (<1%) 2011 HE Grad 28 83 (2%) 66 (2%) 225 (3%) 402 (4%) 873 (2%) 1658 (2%) 1492 (2%) 1,640 (3%) 5,663 (2%) 2012 HE Grad 64 (3%) 130 (3%) 142 (5%) 394 (6%) 730 (5%) 1,541 (3%) 2,744 (3%) 2,598 (4%) 2,668 (5%) 9,551 (4%) 2013 HE Grad 127 (7%) 290 (7%) 244 (8%) 897 (14%) 1,558 (10%) 7,787 (15%) 8,631 (10%) 6,514 (10%) 6,413 (11%) 2,9345 (11%) Table 2.27 shows the higher education graduation information for students who completed high school in 2009. It has the most information as it contains higher education graduation dates for the year concurrent with high school graduation (2009) as well as 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. In all, it holds attainment data for four years following graduation. Trends from 2009 high school graduates show that district grads enrolled in Tech Prep attained higher education credentials at higher rates than their Texas peers and their peers in other course groupings (22% for vs. 18% for Texas). While Tech Prep students did well in higher education, students from other course groupings did not graduate in the Page 50
same percentages as their Texas peers nor near as successfully as Tech Prep students. Students in codes 0-2 had lower percentages of higher education graduates from districts than the state. A large contributor to this trend was the lower number of graduates in 2013 for groupings compared to much larger percentages in all Texas groupings; Texas as a whole experienced a larger boom of graduates at the four-year mark than districts. Table 2.28 displays the same information for students who graduated high school in 2010. Tech Prep students in districts still displayed an advantage over their Texas peers in the overall higher education rate, though it was a small advantage. Percentages of students graduating are similar across and Texas as well as within course groupings. In addition, the percentage of graduates is somewhat stable from year to year, 2010-2013. Table 2.28 2010 High School Graduates and Higher Education Attainment by Higher Education Graduation Year HE Grad Total 0 84 (4%) 1 210 (5%) 2 213 (6%) 3 669 (10%) Total 1,176 (7%) TEXAS 0 2,453 (5%) 1 4,473 (5%) 2 4,287 (6%) 3 4,869 (8%) Total 16,082 (6%) 2010 HE Grad <10 (<1%) 21 >10 (<1%) 125 (2%) 165 78 (<1%) 272 (<1%) 110 (<1%) 365 825 (<1%) 2011 HE Grad 10 (<1%) 21 (<1%) 17 (<1%) 65 113 141 (<1%) 294 (<1%) 345 (<1%) 436 1,216 (<1%) 2012 HE Grad 28 55 67 (2%) 172 (2%) 322 (2%) 828 (2%) 1,568 (2%) 1,540 (2%) 1,697 (2%) 5,633 (2%) 2013 HE Grad 49 (2%) 150 (3%) 135 (4%) 381 (6%) 715 (4%) 1,612 (3%) 2,804 (3%) 2,679 (4%) 2,823 (5%) 9,918 (4%) Table 2.29 displays the limited higher education graduation for 2011 graduates. It only holds graduation data for the year concurrent with high school graduation and one year after graduation. Together this table represents only a small fraction of the higher education completion for the high school class of 2011. It does show similar trends as there is little variance between comparison groups. Tech Prep students are proportionally graduating at a slightly higher rate mostly due to the 2011 higher education graduation. This may be an artifact of Tech Prep programming though as some students gain a degree upon completion of their Tech Prep courses and high school graduation. Page 51
Table 2.29 2011 High School Graduates and Higher Education Attainment by Higher Education Graduation Year HE Grad Total 0 52 (2%) 1 148 (3%) 2 142 (4%) 3 417 (6%) Total 759 (4%) TEXAS 0 1,154 (2%) 1 2,278 (2%) 2 2,262 (3%) 3 2,709 (4%) Total 8,403 (3%) 2011 HE Grad 14 39 43 199 (3%) 295 (2%) 105 (<1%) 357 (<1%) 222 (<1%) 545 1,229 (<1%) 2012 HE Grad <10 (<1%) >25 (<1%) 29 50 115 133 (<1%) 324 (<1%) 375 430 1,262 (<1%) 2013 HE Grad 31 86 (2%) 77 (2%) 183 (3%) 377 (2%) 960 (2%) 1,688 (2%) 1,766 (2%) 1,868 (3%) 6,282 (2%) Type of Degree In addition to educational attainment, the type of credential was also measured. All credentials awarded by a higher education institution counted as a graduation but three specific types of credentials were tracked for further analysis. Certificates were counted and included any form of undergraduate/baccalaureate level certification; for example Advanced Technology Certificates (ATCs), Level 1 Certifications (15-42 SCH), Level 2 Certifications (43-59SCH), or Level 3 Enhanced Skills Certificates. Associate s degrees included Associate of Arts (AA), Associate of Applied Arts (AAA), Associate of Applied Science (AAS), Associate of Arts in Teaching (AAT), and Associate of Science (AS) degrees as well as others defined by the institution. Bachelor s degrees included all forms of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science degrees as well as the Bachelor of Applied Technology (BAT). These three forms of degrees (certificates, associate s, and bachelor s) were counted across all institution types including community colleges, public and private universities, and health related institutions. High School graduates from 2009 had the opportunity to enter higher education and complete several different degree and/or program options within the average or normal timeframe for such a degree. They may have completed a certificate in two years or less, and associate s degree in two years or less, or a bachelor s degree in four years or less. Table 2.30 shows the breakdown of degree attainment and timely completion. Trends show that Tech Prep participation in high school resulted in a slight advantage Page 52
in completion of either a certificate or an associate s degree; it may also have resulted in a very slight advantage in time to degree. There were no differences found between districts and the state in either certificates or associate s degrees. Table 2.30 2009 High School Graduates and Higher Education Attainment by Degree Type Certificate 0 27 1 88 (2%) 2 74 (2%) 3 226 (4%) Total 415 (3%) TEXAS 0 462 1 1,161 2 1,441 (2%) 3 1,596 (3%) Total 4,660 (2%) Normal Completion Timeframe for CERT 10 42 36 112 (2%) 200 165 (<1%) 496 650 826 2,137 Associate s Degree 75 (4%) 178 (4%) 165 (5%) 461 (7%) 879 (6%) 1,876 (4%) 3,611 (4%) 3,273 (5%) 3,459 (6%) 12,219 (5%) Normal Completion Timeframe for AA 26 45 1%) 41 107 (2%) 219 534 930 746 827 3,037 Bachelor s Degree * 112 (6%) 208 (5%) 183 (6%) 712 (11%) 1215 (8%) 7,201 (14%) 6,985 (8%) 4,960 (8%) 4,854 (9%) 24,000 (9%) * Percentage for students completing a bachelor s degree also counts as the normal timeframe for completion given the time from graduation in 2009 to the reporting period ending at 2013. In the completion of a bachelor s degree, participation in Tech Prep resulted in higher completion of a degree when compared both to other course groupings and the state as a whole. 11% of Tech Prep students from districts completed a bachelor s credential while only 9% of Texas students attained a degree. Importantly, districts held lower numbers overall and in other course groupings in bachelor s completion but not in Tech Prep (other grouping ranged from 5-8%); this suggests that participation may specifically help students attain a four-year degree. Tables 2.31-2.32 describe the trends in certificate/degree completion for 2010 and 2011 high school graduates. Like 2009 graduates, Tech Prep participation resulted in a very slight advantage in certificate and associate s degree completion as well as time to degree. In both years, Tech Prep accounted for 1-2% higher completion than other student groups. Page 53
Table 2.31 2010 High School Graduates and Higher Education Attainment by Degree Type Certificate Normal Completion Associate s Degree Normal Completion Bachelor s Degree Timeframe for CERT Timeframe for AA 0 21 15 40 (2%) 21 23 1 58 31 115 (2%) 47 52 2 55 (2%) 29 126 (4%) 55 (2%) 28 3 210 159 345 134 108 (3%) Total 344 (2%) TEXAS 0 285 1 849 2 1,048 3 1,431 (2%) Total 3,613 (2%) 234 163 (<1%) 452 655 975 (2%) 2,245 (5%) 626 (4%) 1,256 (2%) 2,510 (3%) 2,171 (3%) 2,445 (4%) 8,382 (3%) (2%) 257 (2%) 553 1,083 860 984 (2%) 3,460 (2%) 211 553 551 424 442 1,970 Page 54
Table 2.32 2011High School Graduates and Higher Education Attainment by Degree Type Certificate 0 21 1 61 2 65 (2%) 3 226 (3%) Total 373 (2%) TEXAS 0 201 (<1%) 1 534 2 732 3 1,097 (2%) Total 2,564 Associate s Degree 26 77 70 (2%) 156 (2%) 329 (2%) 628 1,226 1,068 1,152 (2%) 4,074 Bachelor s Degree <5 (<1%) <10 (<1%) <5 (<1%) <10 (<1%) 15 (<1%) 22 (<1%) 35 (<1%) 24 (<1%) 25 (<1%) 106 (<1%) * Both the certificate and associate s degree numbers/percentages also count as those high school graduates who completed a degree program within a normal timeframe of two years from the start of higher education post high school completion. DEMOGRAPHICS OF HIGHER EDUCATION GRADUATES Tables 2.33-2.35 show the demographic breakdown of high school and higher education graduates overall and by degree type. In all, the information shows that districts and Texas shared similar problems when it came to helping students gain a higher education credential. LEP and students formerly labeled at risk of dropping out of high school had very low attainment rates overall and in every degree category. LEP participation ranged between 2-5% for districts and 1-4% overall for Texas. For students labeled at risk, districts varied more widely from year to year with a range from 2-9% while the state averaged between 3-7%. Additionally, gender trends were present in both the region and state. Certifications drew more male completers for each year of graduates while associate s and bachelor s degrees drew more female completers. Men dominated certifications with 54-60% completion in districts and 55-57% across Texas. In associate s degrees, 60-61% of degrees were given to women in districts while 54-65% of degrees across Texas were attributable to women. This bias towards men in certificate fields and women in academic fields may be problematic in job placement. Page 55
Table 2.33 Demographics of 2009 High School Graduates Who Completed a Higher Education Program Texas Total HS/HE Graduates % Female 62% 62% % Hispanic 30% 93% % White 56% 5% % Other Ethnicity 14% 2% % At Risk 7% 9% % LEP 4% 5% Certificate Graduates % Female 44% 46% % Hispanic 43% 98% % White 48% 2% % Other Ethnicity 9% <1% % At Risk 2% 3% % LEP 2% 3% Associate s Degree Graduates % Female 61% 65% % Hispanic 41% 97% % White 46% <1% % Other Ethnicity 13% 3% % At Risk 3% 4% % LEP 2% 2% Bachelor s Degree Graduates % Female 66% 67% % Hispanic 21% 88% % White 64% 9% % Other Ethnicity 15% 4% % At Risk 2% 2% % LEP <1% 2% Page 56
Table 2.34 Demographics of 2010 High School Graduates Who Completed a Higher Education Program Texas Total HS/HE Graduates % Female 58% 60% % Hispanic 40% 96% % White 48% 3% % Other Ethnicity 12% 1% % At Risk 4% 5% % LEP 2% 3% Certificate Graduates % Female 42% 45% % Hispanic 45% >98% % White 46% <1% % Other Ethnicity 8% <1% % At Risk 1% 2% % LEP 1% 1% Associate s Degree Graduates % Female 60% 64% % Hispanic 41% 97% % White 46% <2% % Other Ethnicity 13% <1% % At Risk 2% 3% % LEP 1% 1% Bachelor s Degree Graduates % Female 72% 66% % Hispanic 29% 97% % White 60% <2% % Other Ethnicity 11% <2% % At Risk <1% 2% % LEP <1% 1% Lastly, a breakdown of those receiving bachelor s degrees showed that graduates were dramatically more female and far less likely to be a minority, even when overall degree patterns were more in line with the general populations of the region and state. This illustrates the need to fill education and opportunity gaps between groups allowing for greater opportunity in college access. Page 57
Table 2.35 Demographics of 2011 High School Graduates Who Completed a Higher Education Program Texas Total HS/HE Graduates % Female 56% 49% % Hispanic 45% 97% % White 43% <3% % Other Ethnicity 12% <1% % At Risk 2% 3% % LEP 1% 2% Certificate Graduates % Female 40% 43% % Hispanic 52% 97% % White 40% <2% % Other Ethnicity 7% <1% % At Risk 1% 2% % LEP 1% 2% Associate s Degree Graduates % Female 62% 54% % Hispanic 44% 96% % White 37% <5% % Other Ethnicity 19% <2% % At Risk 1% 1% % LEP <1% <1% Bachelor s Degree Graduates NA: insufficient time to degree to measure outcomes properly POSTSECONDARY-GRADUATION WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION Once a person has completed a higher education credential, the performance metric to identify is whether or not they enter the workforce in a timely manner. This section identifies students broken down by high school graduation, higher education graduation, and connection with workforce entry. Associated with whether or not High School/Higher Education (HS/HE) graduates are working are also measures of income. Income is broken down into the mean, median, range, and percentiles of salary per year. As with wage earning and the post-high school transition, the yearly wages were measured according to the summer, fall, winter, and spring quarters following a spring graduation date. Page 58
Table 2.36 2009 High School Graduates Wages Post Higher Education Graduation 09HS09HE Grad 09HS10HE Grad 09HS11HE Grad 09HS12HE Grad % Working 65% 78% 76% 80% Mean Income $4,678.21 $9,850.79 $10,694.11 $13,961.45 Median $3,217.00 $8,010.61 $7,780.24 $11,602.18 Range $15,782.95 $35,584.18 $100,117.14 $63,220.03 25 th Percentile $1,025.00 $3,871.20 $3,302.39 $5,573.45 50 th Percentile $3,217.00 $8,010.61 $7,780.24 $11,602.18 75 th Percentile $7,382.53 $13,703.98 $12,980.23 $18,798.73 TEXAS % Working 68% 81% 79% 82% Mean Income $7,762.27 $12,865.63 $12,184.53 $15,992.20 Median $4,797.91 $10,425.36 $9,129.76 $12,665.72 Range $57,809.52 $76,075.16 $134,799.46 $122,518.45 25 th Percentile $1,515.50 $4,500.70 $3,630.06 $5,924.79 50 th Percentile $4,797.91 $10,425.36 $9,129.76 $12,665.72 75 th Percentile $10,808.74 $17,701.68 $16,520.32 $21,666.25 Table 2.37 2010 High School Graduates Wages Post Higher Education Graduation 10HS10HE Grad 10HS11HE Grad 10HS12HE Grad % Working 58% 73% 81% Mean Income $5,039.12 $8,067.70 $11,031.97 Median $4,026.90 $6,989.98 $7,887.97 Range $21,952.12 $35,405.09 $62,327.42 25 th Percentile $1,323.04 $2,781.69 $3,665.85 50 th Percentile $4,026.90 $6,989.98 $7,887.97 75 th Percentile $7,948.58 $9,758.12 $15,454.24 TEXAS % Working 63% 81% 80% Mean Income $6,023.67 $12,811.66 $12,327.15 Median $4,166.73 $9,758.48 $9,527.43 Range $63,007.25 $70,316.80 $109,994.88 25 th Percentile $1,370.00 $4,641.49 $3,837.44 50 th Percentile $4,166.73 $9,758.48 $9,527.43 75 th Percentile $8,652.70 $17,728.69 $16,624.81 Page 59
Tables 2.36-2.38 represent the breakdown of HS/HE graduation. Each column represents a cohort of high school graduates who also attained a higher education degree and/or certificate within a given year. Table 2.36 shows 2009 high school graduates who completed higher education in 2009, 2010, 2011, and/or 2012. Table 37 shows 2010 high school graduates who completed a higher education credential in 2010, 2011, and/or 2012; Table 2.38 shows 2011 high school grads with 2011 and/or 2012 higher education credentials. The various tables suggest several trends across all HS/HE groups. First is that district graduates consistently entered the workforce at lower rates after higher education completion than their Texas peers. job enrollment ranged between 58-83% for all HS/HE groups while Texas job enrollment ranged from 63-82%. While they worked at lower rates, those that completed a credential further in time from their high school graduation (e.g., older students) were more likely to have a job after higher education completion; they were also more closely aligned with Texas job enrollment. While less HS/HE grads were holding jobs in districts than in Texas overall, the ones who were working made on average less than their Texas peers. In all graduation cohorts and years graduates had lower mean, median, and percentile incomes than the state comparison group. However, the numbers do not account for regional differences in cost-of-living and salaries; the wages do show that there are differences in the earning capacities of those students in districts who did complete higher education credentials. Table 2.38 2011 High School Graduates Wages Post Higher Education Graduation 11HS11HE Grad 11HS12HE Grad % Working 58% 83% Mean Income $4,252.56 $12,756.80 Median $2,732.58 $9,675.54 Range $28,003.74 $48,551.37 25 th Percentile $1,215.46 $4,497.13 50 th Percentile $2,732.58 $9,675.54 75 th Percentile $6,408.87 $17,911.08 TEXAS % Working 70% 81% Mean Income $6,405.81 $13,708.01 Median $4,142.42 $10,361.97 Range $90,517.45 $154,210.45 25 th Percentile $1,537.91 $4,320.51 50 th Percentile $4,142.42 $10,361.97 75 th Percentile $8,829.23 $18,529.22 Page 60
TECH PREP AND PARTICIPATION IN THE POST-HIGHER EDUCATION WORKFORCE Tables 2.39-2.41 illustrate differences in job participation and salary intake between higher education graduates who had once participated in Tech Prep programming while in high school and those who had not. While most comparisons in the report make further comparison between programs including other CTE courses, the small numbers associated with high school and higher education made it only possible to compare Tech Prep versus other high school graduates. Table 2.39 2009 Tech Prep High School Graduates Wages Post Higher Education Graduation Work Participation Mean Salary Texas Work Participation Texas Mean Salary 09HS09HE Other Programs 69% $ 3,073.56 65% $ 7,483.90 Tech Prep 60% $ 6,817.74 72% $ 8,268.28 Total 65% $ 4,678.21 68% $ 7,784.95 09HS10HE Other Programs 80% $10,679.62 81% $ 12,567.84 Tech Prep 73% $ 8,464.39 80% $ 13,077.77 Total 77% $ 9,572.01 80% $ 12,750.31 09HS11HE Other Programs 81% $10,461.23 79% $ 11,555.22 Tech Prep 72% $10,898.42 80% $ 13,684.25 Total 76% $10,694.11 79% $ 12,180.09 09HS12HE Other Programs 82% $14,381.52 82% $ 15,708.01 Tech Prep 79% $13,595.63 82% $ 16,703.79 Total 80% $13,964.35 82% $ 15,984.59 Table 2.40: 2010 Tech Prep High School Graduates Wages Post Higher Education Graduation Work Participation Mean Salary Texas Work Participation Texas Mean Salary 10HS10HE Other Programs 55% $ 3,394.99 61% $ 5,201.09 Tech Prep 60% $ 5,521.40 65% $ 7,010.78 Total 59% $ 5,039.12 63% $ 6,029.07 10HS11HE Other Programs 77% $ 6,592.88 82% $ 12,608.09 Tech Prep 69% $ 9,280.33 78% $ 13,253.10 Total 73% $ 8,067.70 81% $ 12,830.98 10HS12HE Other Programs 76% $11,572.44 80% $ 11,777.70 Tech Prep 83% $10,650.13 80% $ 13,521.79 Total 80% $11,059.25 80% $ 12,307.25 Page 61
When breaking down employment involvement by prior participation in Tech Prep, an interesting trend occurred with students who gained a higher education credential as part of their high school program (those students that graduated high school and higher education in the same year). These students varied in their participation in the workforce but the mean income of Tech Prep students who entered the workforce versus other HS/HE groups was much larger. This trend signifies that Tech Prep students were on average able to secure better paying jobs if they were young workers holding both a high school degree and some form of higher education credential. This trend was apparent for all graduation cohorts and continued into the next graduation year but leveled out as time went on. Those former Tech Prep students graduating at later dates had similar workforce participation and mean salaries as their peers who had not participated in the program. Other than the trend of higher earnings for Tech Prep participants, numbers between and Texas participants mirror the participation and wage numbers overall. graduates participated in the workforce at slightly lower rates and made lower mean wages than their Texas peers. These differences became less as higher education graduation was further from high school graduation. There were no trends associated with Tech Prep participation as HS/HE cohorts often had very different participation rates between Tech Prep and Other Program students. Table 2.41 2011 Tech Prep High School Graduates Wages Post Higher Education Graduation Work Participation Mean Salary Texas Work Participation Texas Mean Salary 11HS11HE Other Programs 61% $ 2,933.36 66% $ 5,318.53 Tech Prep 57% $ 4,941.35 68% $ 7,727.84 Total 58% $ 4,252.56 67% $ 6,401.10 11HS12HE Other Programs 88% $13,223.97 82% $ 13,334.11 Tech Prep 78% $12,074.01 80% $ 14,474.91 Total 83% $12,756.80 82% $ 13,717.33 WORKFORCE BY DEGREE TYPE Tables 2.42-2.44 overview the breakdown of income by HS/HE graduation year and type. The breakdown of the workforce by the type of degree yields trends that show a discrepancy in the salary of individuals in districts when compared to Texas as a whole. Much like overall workforce entry, district high school grads independent of the year they received their higher education credential tended to make less than their comparison graduate group. While disparities still existed, high school graduates who earned an associate s degree or certificate farther from their time of high school graduation were more likely to earn a better salary when they entered the workforce. This may be a characteristic of older workers, continuing jobs, or combined job experience with degree completion. The largest jump in income (for both types of degrees as well as and Texas students) came between those who completed higher education the same year as they graduated high school and those who completed higher education one year or more after high school graduation. For example, for a 2009 Page 62
HS/HE graduate with an associate s degree the mean income was $3,900 but for a 2009 high school graduate who gained an associate s degree between 2010-2012, their mean income ranged between $6,978-$12,505. This suggests that while it might be useful to have a higher education credential upon high school graduation, those students entering postsecondary after high school to complete work are gaining some form of experience that aids their career. Table 2.42 2009 High School Graduates Wages Post Higher Education Graduation, By Type Degree ASSOCIATE S DEGREE 09HS09HE Grad 09HS10HE Grad 09HS11HE Grad 09HS12HE Grad Mean Income $3,900.19 $6,978.28 $9,552.45 $12,505.31 Median $2,574.16 $6,456.70 $7,446.89 $10,130.25 Range $14,121.08 $18,876.72 $53,942.14 $59,237.15 25 th Percentile $1,143.39 $1,874.88 $3,238.57 $4,930.00 50 th Percentile $2,574.16 $6,456.70 $7,446.89 $10,130.25 75 th Percentile $5,164.10 $10,087.03 $12,066.85 $16,999.89 TEXAS Mean Income $6,077.02 $8,744.12 $10,816.93 $15,076.70 Median $2,758.26 $6,884.09 $8,228.82 $12,031.28 Range $57,809.52 $59,328.45 $134,799.46 $122,518.45 25 th Percentile $1,107.31 $2,665.82 $3,231.22 $5,776.30 50 th Percentile $2,758.26 $6,884.09 $8,228.82 $12,031.28 75 th Percentile $7,458.14 $12,389.17 $14,786.71 $19,672.47 CERTIFICATE 09HS09HE Grad 09HS10HE Grad 09HS11HE Grad 09HS12HE Grad Mean Income $7,682.30 $11,899.46 $15,016.11 $15,461.22 Median $7,382.53 $9,969.58 $11,124.25 $12,776.24 Range $15,782.95 $35,499.96 $99,953.05 $59,237.15 25 th Percentile $1,912.46 $6,103.98 $4,357.50 $6,906.02 50 th Percentile $7,382.53 $9,969.58 $11,124.25 $12,776.24 75 th Percentile $12,157.21 $15,993.72 $17,086.08 $20,822.36 TEXAS Mean Income $9,671.53 $14,843.72 $18,663.85 $20,452.55 Median $7,277.19 $12,442.35 $15,496.01 $17,108.28 Range $37,903.00 $69,661.77 $134,762.91 $121,999.83 25 th Percentile $2,732.80 $6,140.48 $7,258.01 $8,952.10 50 th Percentile $7,277.19 $12,442.35 $15,496.01 $17,108.28 75 th Percentile $13,396.01 $21,338.63 $25,502.98 $28,557.62 Page 63
Table 2.43 2009 High School Graduates Wages Post Higher Education Graduation, By Type Degree ASSOCIATE S DEGREE 10HS10HE Grad 10HS11HE Grad 10HS12HE Grad Mean Income $4,180.55 $7,061.36 $9,812.83 Median $2,980.78 $5,311.75 $7,097.02 Range $21,952.12 $29,294.89 $55,870.27 25 th Percentile $1,049.37 $1,500.39 $2,934.00 50 th Percentile $2,980.78 $5,311.75 $7,097.02 75 th Percentile $4,651.59 $7,783.21 $13,616.07 TEXAS Mean Income $4,855.52 $8,981.87 $11,051.82 Median $3,017.50 $7,004.79 $8,607.89 Range $24,805.64 $69,718.90 $107,033.43 25 th Percentile $1,036.87 $3,431.26 $3,434.37 50 th Percentile $3,017.50 $7,004.79 $8,607.89 75 th Percentile $7,957.12 $12,372.69 $14,642.61 CERTIFICATE 10HS10HE Grad 10HS11HE Grad 10HS12HE Grad Mean Income $5,978.62 $10,241.41 $15,973.54 Median $5,476.35 $8,671.15 $12,848.00 Range $17,807.23 $35,130.30 $62,100.42 25 th Percentile $2,400.82 $6,111.93 $6,613.57 50 th Percentile $5,476.35 $8,671.15 $12,848.00 75 th Percentile $9,090.49 $12,416.40 $20,057.72 TEXAS Mean Income $7,615.58 $15,308.52 $19,305.35 Median $6,067.54 $12,487.50 $16,015.72 Range $62,909.37 $70,316.80 $109,954.62 25 th Percentile $2,637.05 $6,096.59 $8,431.55 50 th Percentile $6,067.54 $12,487.50 $16,015.72 75 th Percentile $10,562.44 $21,683.29 $26,669.67 The most pronounced salary gains from year to year were found in those gaining certifications rather than associate s degrees. Students who completed their certification a longer time after high school were more likely to be working within a year of the credential and were making more money on average. For example, 2010 Texas high school graduates who gained a certification ranged in salary from $7,615-19,305 while students who gained associate s degrees ranged from $4,855-11,051. Both salary ranges Page 64
trended up dependent on the year of higher education completion. Students who gained a certificate, though, on average had better salaries and the pay benefit of gaining a certificate grew much larger for students who completed their credential farther from their high school career. This may suggest that certifications may not be the only requirement to a well-paying job and that life- or work-experience may play a larger role in employment for these students when compared to students gaining an associate s degree. Table 2.44 2011 High School Graduates Wages Post Higher Education Graduation, By Type Degree ASSOCIATE S DEGREE 11HS11HE Grad 11HS12HE Grad Mean Income $3,196.83 $4,768.24 Median $2,178.80 $3,219.38 Range $13,326.64 $19,754.87 25th Percentile $995.18 $1,669.42 50th Percentile $2,178.80 $3,219.38 75th Percentile $3,951.50 $6,014.49 TEXAS Mean Income $4,997.65 $8,700.13 Median $3,347.36 $7,519.09 Range $39,672.33 $52,186.70 25th Percentile $1,191.26 $2,571.56 50th Percentile $3,347.36 $7,519.09 75th Percentile $7,350.21 $12,153.70 CERTIFICATE 11HS11HE Grad 11HS12HE Grad Mean Income $5,077.68 $15,498.63 Median $3,738.41 $14,362.22 Range $28,003.74 $48,259.41 25th Percentile $1,390.49 $6,358.25 50th Percentile $3,738.41 $14,362.22 75th Percentile $8,135.90 $20,375.20 TEXAS Mean Income $8,720.69 $16,793.70 Median $6,262.15 $13,498.83 Range $90,517.45 $154,210.45 25th Percentile $2,105.98 $6,083.76 50th Percentile $6,262.15 $13,498.83 75th Percentile $11,337.26 $23,004.48 Page 65
SUMMARY OF PART TWO Over the course of three graduating classes, districts showed a greater percentage of students graduating with college and career ready diplomas, specifically RHSP and DAP. A contributor to this trend was the especially large portion of Tech Prep students enrolled in the DAP; Tech Prep students in districts opted into the highest graduation plan at twice the rate of any other student grouping. The percentage of Tech Prep students in the DAP was also twice the amount of Tech Prep students from across the state. These findings suggest that districts are providing students with diploma options which will make them better prepared for postsecondary and workforce transitions. Looking into the demographics of graduates, the state had somewhat even distributions of students across course groupings. districts on the other hand had a much larger proportion of Hispanic graduates taking Tech Prep courses with lower percentages enrolled in other career-oriented courses or not participating in any CTE offerings. Further demographic comparisons revealed that both the state and districts had greater percentages of female graduates involved with Tech Prep and similar levels of LEP students who were graduated from high school. Higher Education Enrollment Students were tracked from graduation to identify whether they had enrolled in some form of postsecondary education within a year of their high school completion. districts overall sent more of its graduates to higher education institutions than the state. In addition, Tech Prep graduates from both the state and were the highest enrollment group, outperforming all other curricular groupings. district graduates with the lowest enrollment were those who had not been enrolled in any form of CTE courses while in high school; their participation averaged below any other student grouping as well as state averages. and Texas graduates most often enrolled in community colleges, though graduates from areas enrolled in community colleges higher rates than the state as a whole. The largest participation in community colleges was from Tech Prep students with decreasing levels of enrollment for other careeroriented students, students in CTE courses only, and students who lacked CTE participation. Similar trends appeared for students at the public university level but state Tech Prep students lacked any trend and had similar enrollment rates to other student groupings. Tech Prep students were also likely to cross-enroll between two different types of institutions. Most crossenrollment took place between community colleges and public universities. In addition cross-enrollment between two different community colleges happened infrequently but Tech Prep students had the highest participation in multiple community colleges or community college districts. Post-Graduation Workforce Participation Workforce participation was measured as those entering wages within one year of graduation. Two different types of workers were found, those employed while also participating in some form of postsecondary education and those who transitioned directly into the workforce. Within both types of workers, the state averaged more graduates entering the workforce than those from districts. Students working and going to school had greater workforce participation proportionally to those graduates who transitioned directly into the workforce; this finding held for both and Texas Page 66
graduates. For those only working, the types of high school course enrollment did not impact the level of workforce participation. Overall Texas workers made more money than those workers from districts. Those who transitioned directly into the workforce made slightly higher average salaries than those graduates juggling both school and work. Graduates from Tech Prep backgrounds on average made more money than other student groupings; in some instances the higher mean salary was connected to several factors such as a lower average income from a primary position but higher wages for secondary or tertiary positions. Higher Education Attainment Using available data, high school graduates were compared against higher education graduation. Those earlier graduates (i.e., the class of 2009) had more information on graduation than recent high school graduates. Tech Prep graduates from 2009 had a higher percentage of attainment than their state counterparts as well as other student groupings within districts. students with no CTE participation or limited exposure had lower attainment rates than other groups and the state; this can be attributed to a low four-year graduation rate. Indeed, Texas students in all groups had increased rates of degree attainment in 2013 while only Tech Prep students had a higher percentage of completion. For 2010 and 2011 graduates, the higher education attainment data was less complete as it did not contain four, full years of information. Trends suggest, though, that Tech Prep students in both Texas and districts were more likely to gain a higher education credential. Looking specifically at the types of credentials gained, involvement with Tech Prep may have given a small advantage to completing both an associate s degree and/or a certification. It might also have slightly advantaged students completing these credentials in a timely manner. For 2009 graduates completing a bachelor s degree within four years, Tech Prep participation resulted in a higher completion of degree in districts. Importantly, this was the only student grouping at and above the state average and surpassing all other student groupings. Bachelor s completion was low in all other areas for districts suggesting that participation in Tech Prep may specifically help students attain a bachelor s degree. Postsecondary-Graduation Workforce Participation High school graduates were connected both to higher education attainment but also to entry into the workforce upon postsecondary success. High school/higher education graduates from areas entered the workforce at lower proportions than student from Texas. graduates also tended to make less money in the year following their higher education completion. High school graduates who completed a higher education credential further in time from leaving high school tended to have higher salaries in the year following their higher education credential. This was especially true of students gaining certifications. Students who entered the workforce upon gaining a higher education credential concurrent with high school graduation (high school and higher education graduation within the same year) had the lowest salaries for both and Texas groups. These findings suggest that while it might be of some use to gain a credential during high school, students who entered some form of postsecondary education after high school gained some experience that aided their career. Page 67
When broken down into Tech Prep participation, those students who gained a higher education credential concurrent with their high school diploma did make a higher average wage than students who had not participated in the program. This trend appeared across all graduation cohorts. While salaries for these types of graduates were still lower, overall, than those who went on to receive multiple years of higher education, it did signify a targeted impact for students who were only able to participate in higher education in limited ways through their high school career. Tech Prep programming specifically had positive wage impacts for students who had the least exposure to higher education outside of their high school experience. Page 68
LEAD s 2014 Regional Data Report Part Three LEAD (Rio Grande Valley Linking Economic & Academic Development) is an intermediary organization which works to partner K-12 schools, higher education institutions, community members, businesses, and economic drivers together to build a better, more educated workforce. They work with various stakeholders to implement and support Career and Technology Education (CTE) through Tech Prep programming as well as other career-oriented opportunities. 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. 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 Former reports (I and II) have detailed high school and postsecondary outcomes. This third, addendum report is focused on a particular and complex portion of the high school to higher education pipeline the need for developmental education. As many students who enter higher education are unprepared or underprepared for the rigors of coursework, developmental education provides non-credit remediation to help make students college-ready. Developmental education is an umbrella term that defines any assistance, whether it falls in the regular semester schedule or not, which helps prepare a student for credit-bearing courses. Its purposes are to help provide the necessary academic supports to improve basic skills and competencies in subject areas, usually mathematics, reading, and writing. Metrics for this report are only compiled for high school students who have enrolled in higher education. Outcomes for these students include: Need for Developmental Education, Developmental Enrollment Overall, Developmental Enrollment Per Subject Area (Mathematics, Reading, and Writing), Page 69
Levels of Developmental Education (Low, Medium, and High), and Passing and Failure Rates of Developmental Courses. DATA CONSIDERATIONS The Data for the study comes 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. For this particular report, high school graduates from 2009, 2010, and 2011 are matched against higher education information collected on both overall enrollment and developmental education enrollment in particular. 9 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 3.1. While some institutions and reports may cite developmental involvement on a yearly basis in regards to enrollment, the more accurate measure of developmental course-taking is to follow cohorts. As such this report follows each high school graduating class as they enter, enroll, and complete developmental requirements in order to better measure how many students are in need of assistance. Since several cohorts are being reported on at once it is important to remember that certain groups have more information than others (i.e., the 2009 high school graduating class has four years of information whereas the 2011 cohort only has two years in the higher education system). While certain trends may be developing over time, it is unknown whether they will continue until all groups have reached a sufficient amount of time to compete higher education coursework. Table 3.1 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. 9 The data collected on developmental education has undergone some recent changes in the past years. As such there were several different data sets and different variables used and transformed to create the necessary information for this report (primarily changes to THECB CBM002 and the introduction of CMB00S in 2011). Small differences in course enrollment may occur starting in 2011 for reading/writing due to coding decisions of non-standard course prefixes in CBM00S. Changes to the state records also signify a shift in record keeping as a whole which may coincide with better tracking of developmental coursework and students over time. Page 70
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 2011-2012 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 GRADUATES AND HIGHER EDUCATION ENROLLMENT For three years of high school (2009, 2010, and 2011) districts graduated a high number of students through their Tech Prep programming and other career-oriented programs (see Table 3.2). This table shows both graduates by year but also overall enrollment in higher education. For 2009 graduates this enrollment period goes from summer 2009 through spring 2013 a full four year cycle though postsecondary education. For the other two graduating years, it shows less and less time as they have had fewer years out of high school. Even with the differing cohorts and different years of enrollment per group, the trend is highly positive. Many of these students continue on to higher education; indeed 75-79% of 2009-2011 Tech Prep students enrolled in some form of higher education. This percentage is higher than all other course groupings, statewide peers, and any overall averages. Though successfully traversing the transition from high school to higher education, the question remains as to whether these students were fully qualified to take college-ready courses or whether they were in need of remediation, or developmental education. Code Table 3.2 2009, 2010, and 2011 High School to Higher Education Enrollment 2009 2010 2011 HS % Enroll HE HS % Enroll HE HS % Enroll HE Grads SU09-SP13 Grads SU10-SP13 Grads SU11-SP13 0 1,910 55% 2,015 49% 2,311 46% 1 4,374 61% 4,645 58% 5,418 56% 2 3,152 64% 3,543 61% 3,356 61% 3 6,416 78% 6,895 79% 7,205 75% Total HS Graduates 15,921 17,198 18,364 % Enroll HE 67% 66% 63% STATE 0 52,199 64% 53,837 61% 57,898 57% 1 86,559 65% 87,695 62% 91,824 58% 2 64,785 66% 70,516 63% 71,917 61% 3 56,322 71% 62,294 69% 63,055 66% Total HS Graduates 261,072 275,785 285,807 % Enroll HE 66% 63% 60% Page 71
DEVELOPMENTAL NEED THE TEXAS SUCCESS INITIATIVE (TSI) In Texas, all students must meet certain requirements at their institution to take credit-bearing courses. The program, the Texas Success Initiative (TSI), sets minimum requirements for math, reading, and writing at the state level though institutions may set higher requirements. The TSI refers to both the complex set of state minimum requirements (as the state has no standardized testing procedure for developmental education) and the tracking protocols for developmental students. The TSI includes a waiver for certain students and situations, but most students have to meet requirements through any one of several methods. 10 Requirements for meeting TSI obligations are as follows: A prior earned degree (AA or BA) from an accredited institution; Transfer student from a private, independent, or out-of-state higher education institution; Active or veteran military; Grandfathered exemptions; Active ACT/SAT/STAAR/TAKS scores valid for exemption for five years from the qualifying test date (exit-level state accountability tests are valid for three years). Portions of these test may exempt a student from all TSI standards or only the subject area. Standards are: ACT: Composite score of 23 with a minimum of 19 on the English and/or the mathematics tests shall exempt them for the corresponding sections, SAT: Combined critical reading and mathematics score of 1070 with a minimum of 500 in each section to for each subject for exemption (THECB has no clear standard on writing portions), STAAR: Minimum score of 2000 on the English III reading and/or writing test (which was administered together through spring 2013) and/or a minimum score of 4000 on the Algebra II test for each subject, TAKS: Minimum scale score of 2200 on math or English-Language-Arts sections and a writing score of 3 for each subject; AP/IB/Dual-Credit: Satisfactory completion of college-level coursework in a subject related field; THEA/TASP: Math - 230; Reading - 230; Writing - 220. The TASP Passing Standards are 220 for all test sections prior to September 1, 1995. ASSET: Elementary Algebra - 38; Reading Skills - 41; Written Essay - 6 (raw score); Writing Skills (objective) - 40 COMPASS: Algebra - 39; Reading Skills - 81; Written Essay - 6 (raw score); Writing Skills (objective) - 59 MAPS: Elementary Algebra - 613; Reading Comprehension - 114; Written Essay - 6 (raw score); Conventions of Written English - 310 ACCUPLACER: Elementary Algebra - 63; Reading Comprehension - 78; Written Essay - 6 (raw score); Sentence Skills - 80 10 TSI waivers are granted to students if: 1) they are not enrolled in a degree seeking program, 2) they are only enrolled in a year-long certificate program, 3) they are a current military member or a veteran, 4) they are a high school student enrolled in a dual-credit course, or 5) they have already earned a degree from an accredited institution. Though some of these waivers are also used as exemptions, waivers are not blanketed and students may use a waiver one semester but need to meet TSI requirements in another semester. Page 72
The passing standard for the written essay portion of all tests is a score of 6 (raw score). However, if the student meets the objective writing test standard, an essay score of 5 will pass (THECB, CBM 2011 and 2013 Reporting Manuals). Students must either show they have met the requirement or they are tested to meet the TSI. If they do not meet the minimum, they are stated to be in need of developmental education and required to take some form of remediation. Students must meet the demands of the TSI before they are allowed to enroll in credit-bearing courses for that subject. Excluding those who were granted waivers, many students did not meet the state minimum standards for credit-bearing work upon enrollment in higher education. Tables 3.3 3.5 show two percentages for each cohort. In the columns labeled No TSI Before the numbers show the percentage of students who at some point during their time of enrollment were found to not have met the TSI requirement in that specific subject area. The second column, labeled No TSI After refers to the percentage of students who at the end of term had still not met the TSI requirement. Since each group represents a cohort over time, this variable was created as such that if they had not met their requirement in one semester but did in a following semester, the end result would be that they had satisfied their TSI requirement. No TSI After refers only to students who had not been recorded as completing what was required to meet the TSI by the endpoint of enrollment. Table 3.3 Those Not Meeting TSI Math Requirements, Before and After 2009 2010 2011 Code No TSI No TSI No TSI No TSI No TSI No TSI Before After Before After Before After 0 45% 26% 56% 33% 43% 29% 1 47% 28% 52% 27% 44% 26% 2 44% 24% 50% 24% 36% 22% 3 35% 15% 46% 13% 30% 13% Total 40% 21% 49% 20% 36% 20% STATE 2009 2010 2011 Code No TSI Before No TSI After No TSI Before No TSI After No TSI Before No TSI After 0 32% 14% 34% 15% 34% 16% 1 40% 19% 41% 21% 39% 20% 2 41% 19% 42% 21% 40% 19% 3 36% 16% 38% 16% 35% 15% Total 38% 18% 39% 19% 37% 18% Page 73
In Table 3.3 what is striking is that many students have failed to meet the minimum math standards for credit-bearing courses, both in Districts and across the state (36-49% of students and 37-39% of all Texas students). On average Tech Prep students had slightly higher levels of college readiness than their peers, but there was not a large difference between and the state. When looking at the students who met their TSI requirement in math during their higher education enrollment, a much larger percentage of students in Tech Prep worked towards college readiness when compared to other course groupings. This is especially true within course groupings; Tech Prep students ranged from 13-15% still in need while the area average was between 20-21%. These findings illustrate that even though many Tech Prep students entered higher education underprepared for college, they worked at greater rates to reach readiness. Table 3.4 Those Not Meeting TSI Reading Requirements, Before and After 2009 2010 2011 Code No TSI Before No TSI After No TSI Before No TSI After No TSI Before No TSI After 0 37% 19% 49% 23% 40% 24% 1 39% 19% 46% 18% 38% 19% 2 36% 17% 44% 16% 37% 19% 3 28% 9% 42% 8% 29% 9% Total 33% 14% 44% 13% 34% 15% STATE 2009 2010 2011 Code No TSI Before No TSI After No TSI Before No TSI After No TSI Before No TSI After 0 23% 7% 24% 8% 25% 8% 1 29% 10% 29% 10% 30% 10% 2 31% 10% 31% 11% 32% 10% 3 26% 8% 28% 8% 27% 8% Total 28% 9% 28% 9% 29% 9% Tables 3.4 and 3.5 show TSI standards for reading and writing respectively. The same trends found in math preparedness were also present in these subjects. Districts as a whole were found to have greater percentages of students who did not meet the TSI standards. Tech Prep students across the state and in had slightly lower percentages of students who failed to meet the TSI. Importantly, those who had participated in Tech Prep within had the lowest percentages of those who had still not met the standards at the end of enrollment term. The percentages of Tech Prep students not meeting the TSI standards in reading and writing post-enrollment was near to the state average though the rest of the Valley area had larger numbers in need. In reading, Tech Prep need after enrollment ranged from 8-9% concurrent with the state average; in writing the percentages ranged the same as the state whole, from 9-11% Page 74
Table 3.5 Those Not Meeting TSI Writing Requirements, Before and After 2009 2010 2011 Code No TSI Before No TSI After No TSI Before No TSI After No TSI Before No TSI After 0 36% 20% 49% 25% 43% 25% 1 38% 20% 48% 21% 42% 23% 2 36% 18% 47% 18% 39% 20% 3 28% 10% 43% 9% 31% 11% Total 33% 15% 45% 15% 36% 17% STATE 2009 2010 2011 Code No TSI Before No TSI After No TSI Before No TSI After No TSI Before No TSI After 0 22% 7% 24% 8% 26% 9% 1 28% 10% 29% 11% 30% 12% 2 29% 10% 30% 11% 32% 12% 3 26% 9% 28% 8% 28% 9% Total 26% 9% 28% 10% 29% 11% DEVELOPMENTAL ENROLLMENT Though many students were found to be in need of developmental education, not all students enrolled in courses. Importantly, not all students enrolled at the beginning of their career either. For high school students who were graduated in 2009 and enrolled in postsecondary education within a year of their graduation, 37% of them enrolled in developmental coursework (43% in Districts). During the range of their higher education career though between summer of 2009 and spring 2013 44% enrolled in developmental work (48% in ). These differences show the importance of following students for multiple years as many students put off their courses. Tables 3.6-3.9 show the participation rate of developmental education over the course of full enrollment in higher education. For each cohort that includes the summer after graduation until the spring of 2013. Developmental participation includes any no-credit semester course as well flex courses that start and end at different times during the semester, and any other alternative courses or interventions the state tracks. 11 Table 3.6 outlines total participation in developmental education including mathematics, reading, and writing (but discluding study skills, and ESL which have only recently been added to the data). Districts had slightly higher participation rates in developmental education than the state as a whole. Though statewide students who participated in no CTE courses had the lowest levels of participation, Tech 11 While these areas are recorded by the state, each institution varies in their definition of courses (and course numbers), flex plans and semester credit hours, and alternative developmental coursework. For more information you can view the THECB yearly Developmental Education Program Survey (DEPS). Page 75
Prep students had the lowest levels of participation in districts. Taking into consideration the charting of need (TSI requirements) in the previous section, these numbers are proportional to those who were not ready for credit-bearing work. Table 3.6 Total Developmental Enrollment Code 2009 HS Cohort 2010 HS Cohort 2011 HS Cohort 0 49% 50% 43% 1 57% 52% 42% 2 54% 53% 40% 3 42% 39% 30% Total 48% 46% 36% TEXAS 0 33% 32% 31% 1 47% 45% 42% 2 48% 46% 42% 3 44% 41% 37% Total 44% 42% 39% Table 3.7 depicts the percentages of students who enrolled in developmental mathematics. While more students were found to be in need of remediation according to the TSI, similar percentages of students were enrolling overall which further explains the higher percentages of students which remained having yet met the TSI requirement at the end of term in Districts. Of note, lower percentages of Tech Prep students in Districts enrolled in developmental math courses over the course of cohort enrollment. Page 76
Table 3.7 Total Math Developmental Enrollment LEAD's 2014 Regional Data Report Code 2009 HS Cohort 2010 HS Cohort 2011 HS Cohort 0 40% 39% 29% 1 46% 39% 29% 2 41% 39% 24% 3 34% 29% 20% Total 39% 34% 24% TEXAS 0 30% 28% 27% 1 42% 40% 36% 2 42% 40% 36% 3 39% 36% 31% Total 39% 37% 33% Table 3.8 Total Reading Developmental Enrollment Code 2009 HS Cohort 2010 HS Cohort 2011 HS Cohort 0 25% 28% 21% 1 26% 24% 18% 2 26% 25% 20% 3 17% 15% 12% Total 21% 20% 16% TEXAS 0 11% 10% 9% 1 16% 16% 13% 2 18% 17% 14% 3 15% 14% 10% Total 15% 15% 12% Reading and writing developmental enrollment showed similar trends (Tables 3.8 3.9). In Districts, students involved with Tech Prep coursework had the lowest percentages of enrollment in developmental coursework (13-17%) while other course groupings had somewhat similar involvement (18-28%). Overall in Texas, the trend was different; Tech Prep students enrolled at rates close to the state average and the lowest percentages of enrollment were students who had no involvement with CTE courses. Page 77
Table 3.9 Total Writing Developmental Enrollment Code 2009 HS Cohort 2010 HS Cohort 2011 HS Cohort 0 21% 23% 19% 1 25% 23% 18% 2 24% 25% 19% 3 16% 14% 13% Total 21% 19% 16% TEXAS 0 10% 11% 11% 1 15% 16% 15% 2 16% 17% 16% 3 14% 14% 13% Total 14% 15% 14% LEVELS OF DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION For students who enroll in developmental education, there are various levels of courses which signify the distance from college readiness. Low level courses are those which are considered the most basic and fundamental of classes. Medium or mid-level courses include introductory material and intermediate courses. Lastly, high-level courses are those closest to college-level work; they are considered precollege. All subject-developmental courses and interventions are labeled by their level. Students may take one course or many of differing levels in order to meet their developmental requirements. For students who participated in mathematics developmental education, the majority of them took a course which was considered the highest level of a class (see Table 3.10). For math, this would include classes like intermediate algebra. Fewer and fewer students percentagewise were enrolled in the mid-level and low-level courses. Medium courses would include introductory algebra where a low-level course would be exemplified by pre-algebra. While similar proportions of students from all course groupings took courses at the various levels across the state, in districts, Tech Prep students differed. A lower percentage of Tech Prep students took low-level courses. This suggests that while these students were not college ready, they had more skills and less distance to go before they were ready for collegelevel math. Page 78
Table 3.10 Levels of Math Developmental Enrollment LEAD's 2014 Regional Data Report 2009 2010 2011 Code Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High 0 30% 55% 61% 40% 59% 58% 45% 51% 62% 1 34% 51% 62% 38% 54% 56% 39% 46% 69% 2 35% 53% 60% 35% 55% 59% 36% 49% 69% 3 29% 50% 70% 28% 47% 70% 28% 41% 77% Total 32% 51% 65% 33% 52% 63% 35% 45% 71% STATE 2009 2010 2011 Code Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High 0 34% 43% 68% 38% 42% 67% 42% 45% 73% 1 36% 45% 66% 40% 43% 66% 44% 45% 73% 2 34% 45% 68% 37% 47% 67% 41% 48% 75% 3 33% 45% 70% 35% 44% 69% 39% 44% 76% Total 34% 45% 68% 38% 44% 67% 42% 45% 74% Table 3.11 shows the levels for reading developmental education. Much like mathematics, low-levels are the farthest from college-ready while high levels are the closest to college-ready. Much like math trends, Tech Prep students in Districts took proportionally fewer low-level courses suggesting that while they needed remediation, they needed fewer skills to become ready for credit-bearing courses. The statewide trend for Tech Prep students followed Districts in reading as overall Tech Prep students in developmental reading enrolled in proportionally fewer low-level courses than their peers in other course groupings. Page 79
Table 3.11 Levels of Reading Developmental Enrollment 2009 2010 2011 Code Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High 0 24% 41% 67% 35% 48% 62% 48% 64% 64% 1 26% 46% 61% 30% 49% 63% 41% 67% 68% 2 23% 43% 64% 29% 48% 64% 37% 62% 71% 3 18% 41% 70% 21% 46% 69% 31% 63% 73% Total 22% 43% 66% 27% 47% 65% 37% 64% 70% STATE 2009 2010 2011 Code Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High 0 28% 36% 71% 33% 41% 71% 58% 60% 77% 1 29% 38% 67% 36% 43% 67% 61% 60% 77% 2 26% 38% 72% 32% 44% 72% 54% 62% 81% 3 21% 39% 74% 25% 41% 72% 49% 58% 81% Total 26% 38% 71% 32% 42% 70% 56% 60% 79% No clear trends could be found in the levels of developmental writing (see Table 3.12). Percentages of students enrolled at various levels in both Districts and across the state varied between course groupings and graduation cohorts. Table 3.12 Levels of Writing Developmental Enrollment 2009 2010 2011 Code Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High 0 27% 49% 61% 37% 50% 59% 48% 56% 65% 1 30% 48% 58% 34% 51% 58% 50% 62% 61% 2 28% 46% 64% 30% 47% 66% 42% 57% 68% 3 28% 46% 67% 25% 48% 67% 42% 51% 67% Total 28% 47% 63% 30% 49% 63% 45% 56% 65% STATE 2009 2010 2011 Code Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High 0 31% 32% 74% 38% 37% 74% 57% 53% 80% 1 30% 36% 72% 37% 40% 72% 60% 55% 79% 2 28% 31% 75% 35% 35% 77% 54% 55% 84% 3 24% 36% 77% 30% 38% 75% 49% 52% 83% Total 28% 34% 74% 35% 38% 74% 55% 54% 82% Page 80
PASSING AND FAILING DEVELOPMENTAL CLASSES LEAD's 2014 Regional Data Report In addition to enrollment, an important question is whether or not students successfully complete developmental coursework. Tables 3.13 3.15 show both passing and failure percentages for students taking classes. The percent passing denotes the percentage of students who have passed at least one of the developmental courses in any given subject (they may have taken just the one class or several courses). The percent failing refers to students who have failed or failed to complete any of their developmental courses in a given subject. Incomplete grades and withdrawn courses are included in this percentage as they mark a class a student has failed to successfully complete. These rates include grades given for semester courses, flex plans, and any alternative developmental work a student completed in hopes of changing their TSI status. Table 3.13 shows these rates for math. The first finding is that while the majority of students who took a developmental math course passed a developmental math course, many yet have failed to find success (70-74% passed a class in districts while 74-78% passed a class in Texas overall). The numbers who have failed or failed to complete a course are large for every group and there are little differences between course groupings in each cohort. In regards to Tech Prep, involvement with the program in districts seems to have advantaged students slightly. Students had a higher percentage of passing a class than any other course grouping in all three cohorts. This trend was not seen at the state level. Table 3.13 Passing/Failing Rates for Math Developmental Education 2009 2010 2011 Code Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail 0 72% 88% 64% 92% 68% 89% 1 67% 89% 69% 92% 73% 89% 2 69% 91% 65% 91% 73% 92% 3 77% 89% 76% 94% 76% 92% Total 72% 89% 70% 92% 74% 91% STATE 2009 2010 2011 Code Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail 0 76% 88% 74% 91% 77% 94% 1 75% 88% 73% 91% 77% 94% 2 76% 86% 75% 90% 79% 93% 3 77% 89% 76% 92% 77% 94% Total 76% 88% 74% 91% 78% 94% Page 81
Much like students taking developmental mathematics, students who were in Tech Prep and found themselves in developmental reading had a slight advantage. They had higher percentages of students who experienced success in a course. This meant that larger proportions of Tech Prep students (vs. other course groupings) passed at least one of their developmental reading courses. Their average was 76-77% compared to the overall average of 70-74%. There were no differences between groups in the large percentages of students who experienced failure in a developmental reading course. These students either failed or failed to finish one or more developmental reading course. Table 3.14 Passing/Failing Rates for Reading Developmental Education 2009 2010 2011 Code Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail 0 78% 77% 71% 85% 77% 91% 1 76% 80% 79% 87% 82% 89% 2 76% 80% 80% 82% 85% 87% 3 85% 79% 85% 87% 87% 89% Total 79% 79% 81% 85% 84% 89% STATE 2009 2010 2011 Code Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail 0 78% 77% 77% 85% 80% 95% 1 77% 78% 77% 86% 81% 94% 2 81% 75% 80% 84% 84% 93% 3 82% 77% 79% 87% 80% 94% Total 80% 77% 79% 85% 82% 94% Lastly in writing developmental education the trend of Tech Prep students experiencing success was very slight to non-existent in the 2011 cohort (see Table 3.15). When looking at all three math, reading, and writing failure percentages, though, the 2011 cohort has an interesting trend of its own. It has lower average failure rates in all three subject areas for the area than the state. This means that proportionally fewer students failed or failed to finish developmental courses compared to their Texas peers. Though the numbers are still high, districts averaged 91% for math, 89% for reading, and 90% for writing. The average for each subject across Texas was 94%. Page 82
Table 3.15 Passing/Failing Rates for Writing Developmental Education 2009 2010 2011 Code Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail 0 80% 77% 71% 88% 81% 91% 1 75% 81% 75% 87% 85% 88% 2 77% 81% 78% 84% 85% 91% 3 83% 80% 84% 87% 85% 91% Total 79% 80% 78% 86% 84% 90% STATE 2009 2010 2011 Code Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail 0 75% 82% 75% 88% 83% 95% 1 75% 81% 76% 88% 83% 94% 2 77% 80% 78% 87% 84% 94% 3 80% 81% 79% 89% 82% 95% Total 76% 81% 77% 88% 83% 94% SUMMARY OF PART THREE To start, Districts are transitioning many of their students to higher education, proportionally high amounts of those students participated in Tech Prep programming. Much like the rest of the state though, large amounts of recent high school graduates are coming to higher education unprepared or underprepared for credit-bearing courses. District graduates overall had higher rates of developmental need based on Texas measures, the TSI Texas Success Measure, in mathematics, reading, and writing. Tech Prep students from the area, though, had slightly higher levels of collegereadiness in all areas. Importantly, Tech Prep students differed greatly from their peers in their capacity to change their TSI status, that is to turnaround their developmental need and become college-ready. Tech Prep students from Districts had proportionally lower numbers of students at the end of term that were still in need of remediation in all subjects; this suggests that these students in particular are motivated to get the help that they need to take credit-bearing courses. In keeping with measures of readiness, Tech Prep students had lower enrollment in all subjects than peers in other course groupings, but larger enrollment than state averages. When looking at the types of courses students enrolled in, differences in the levels of developmental courses became apparent. Tech Prep students had the largest proportions of students taking high-level courses (pre-college) and the lowest proportions of students enrolled in low-level courses (fundamental/basic). The percentages show that while many Tech Prep students still needed remediation, they needed fewer skills to become college- Page 83
ready in math and reading than other students who had participated in CTE and other career-oriented programs. A final look at the pass and fail rates of students shows that while many students experience success in developmental education, many still are struggling. Tech Prep students had a slight advantage in the percentage of students who passed one or more developmental courses of a subject (math and reading specifically). High percentages of students in all groups and across the state were failing and/or failing to complete one or more developmental course in all subjects. These findings are in line with national research on developmental education which estimates that anywhere from 25-40% of students come to higher education in need of developmental remediation. These high estimates are exacerbated by dismal findings that few enroll in their needed coursework and fewer still successfully complete developmental classes in order to start credit-bearing work. 12 Positive trends in Tech Prep students from Districts, though, support the notion that strong programs can work as developmental avoidance or programmatic tools which can limit the overall need for remediation and work to decrease the distance between what knowledge students transition to college with and what they need to know to be college-ready. 13 12 Bailey, T., Jeong, D.W., & Cho, S.W. (2010). Referral, enrollment, and completion in developmental education sequences in community colleges. Economics of Education Review, 29, 2, 255-270. Collins, M.L. (2009). Setting up success in developmental education: How state policy can help community colleges improve student outcomes. Boston, MA: Jobs For the Future. Parsad, & Lewis. (2003). Remedial education at degree-granting postsecondary institution in fall 2000 (NCES 204010). Washington D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. Price, D.V., & Roberts, B. (2009). Improving student success by strengthening developmental education in community colleges: The role of state policy. Washington D.C.: The Working Poor Families Project. Russell, A. (2008). Enhancing college student success through developmental education. Washington D.C.: American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Strong American Schools. (2009). Diploma to nowhere. Washington D.C: Author. 13 Rutschow, E.Z., & Schneider, E. (2011). Unlocking the gate: What we know about improving developmental education. New York, NY: MDRC. Page 84
Summary of Findings: Impacts of Tech Prep Programming Tech Prep programming was found to advantage students at the most critical start to their high school to higher education transition. Students involved with the program had higher percentages of college ready and advanced diplomas making them more prepared and capable of entrance into postsecondary education and/or the workforce. Indeed, Tech Prep students enrolled in higher education in higher numbers proportionally than any other groups within a year of graduation suggesting that participation helps students transition into postsecondary without a time gap in learning. For those transitioning into the workforce directly from high school, Tech Prep may not influence the ability to gain a job. Those with Tech Prep backgrounds, though, held higher wages than other groups suggesting a higher quality of living and better job placement. Higher education attainment was also influenced by Tech Prep participation. It gave small advantages to students gaining associate s degrees and certificates. Importantly, Tech Prep participation helped students in districts specifically gain a bachelor s degree within four years. This suggests that the program may have targeted impacts at helping students gain higher level degrees. As high school students also gained higher education degrees, Tech Prep programming benefitted certain students. Those who gained a higher education credential concurrent with their high school graduation earned a better average wage the next year when compared to other students who had not participated in the program. This suggests that Tech Prep specifically provides quality higher education exposure to students which translate into better job outcomes even if they are unable to obtain further education. In all, participation with Tech Prep was found to have lasting influences on students as they progressed beyond high school. These impacts helped students better fill their higher education and workforce needs. Page 85
APPENDIX A PEIMS CODING OF TECH PREP PEIMS Tech Prep/Vocational Education Status Coding PEIMS Code Tech Prep/Vocational Education Status 0 No participation in CTE courses 1 Participant in CTE course-taking CTE, but is not participating in a coherent sequence of courses and not Tech Prep. 2 Participant in a coherent sequence of courses program-enrolled in a sequential course of study 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. In October of 2012 the state Director of Career & Technology Education at TEA issued guidelines for phasing out the PEIMS Code 3 which is the PEIMS data indicator for Tech Prep students. As a result of the phasing out of the data identifier, a plan of action for identifying Tech Prep students has been developed. 2012-2013: PEIMS 3 will be utilized for 2012-2013 juniors and seniors. 2013-2014: PEIMS 3 will be utilized for 2013-2014 seniors only. 2014-on: The following is used to define students: 1. Tech Prep secondary student is defined as a student (grades 9-12) who a. A student who is enrolled in, will graduate from, or has graduated from high school under the Recommended High School Program or the Distinguished Achievement Program; b. A student whose high school graduation plan includes two or more CTE courses; c. A student who, at the time of graduation, has successfully completed two or more CTE courses that are either statewide-articulated (Advanced Technical Credit, or ATC) courses or dual-credit courses; and d. A student who has been assigned a CTE Student Indicator Code (as defined in PEIMS Data Standards, Code Table ID C142) of either 2 or 3 2. Other career-focused secondary student is defined as a student who a. Has been assigned a CTE Student Indicator Code 2 (as defined in PEIMS Data Standards, Code Table ID C142) and b. Does not meet the other requirements for Tech Prep student as defined above. Page 86
3. Other secondary student is defined as a student who has been assigned a CTE Student Indicator Code 0 or 1 (as defined in PEIMS Data Standards, Code Table ID C142) 4. Tech Prep postsecondary student is defined as follows: A student who graduated from high school in the academic years of 2007-08 through 2012-2013, met the criteria for being identified as a tech prep student as defined above, and enrolled in postsecondary education after high school graduation. 5. Other career-focused postsecondary student is defined as follows: A student graduated from high school in the academic years of 2013 or an earlier year, met the criteria for being identified as an other career-focused secondary student as defined above, and enrolled in postsecondary education after high school graduation. 6. Other postsecondary student is defined as a student who was an other secondary student as defined above at the time of high school graduation and enrolled in postsecondary education after high school graduation. Page 87
APPENDIX B Tech Prep Texas Scholars is a program developed and managed by the LEAD Board of Directors in collaboration with the Texas Business and Education Coalition. Prep Texas Scholars must follow approved College Tech Prep programs of study that include career and technical education courses. Definition of a Tech Prep Texas Scholar: Tech Prep Texas Scholars is a recognition program organized by the Tech Prep Board in collaboration with the Texas Business and Education Coalition, to encourage students to enroll in, and complete, Tech Prep programs. To be a Tech Prep Texas Scholar, a student must do all four of these things: 1. Complete all courses required by the Recommended High School Program or the Distinguished Achievement Program. 2. Complete the high school portion of a six- or eight-year plan of study that includes, in high school, a coherent sequence of two or more career and technical education courses for 3 or more credits. 3. Complete at least two college-level Tech Prep courses as part of your high school graduation plan. Each college-level Tech Prep course must meet all of the following requirements: must be a career and technical education course taken in high school must be either an articulated course for which you have earned a grade of 80 or better or a dual/concurrent-enrollment course for which you have earned a passing grade must be a course that is included in a Tech Prep program of study plan at one of the following local colleges: South Texas College, Texas State Technical College Harlingen, Texas Southmost College, Coastal Bend College, or another college that offers programs not available in the Valley. 4. When you take college-level Tech Prep courses, you are creating a scholarship for yourself. Students who take these courses may earn between 3 and 15 or more college credit hours without being charged tuition at the college. Page 88
APPENDIX C Table C1 State and LEAD districts Counts and Percents of Tech Prep PEIMS Code PEIMS Code 0 # 0 % 1 # 1 % 2 # 2 % 3 # 3 % Total # 2008-2009 State 421,820 33% 446,202 35% 235,756 19% 159,412 13% 1,263,190 districts 24,974 29% 27,632 32% 17,580 20% 16,935 19% 87,121 2009-2010 State 434,808 32% 467,847 34% 269,410 20% 198,094 14% 1,370,159 districts 21,686 24% 29,531 33% 16,230 18% 21,694 24% 89,141 2010-2011 State 433,799 31% 469,225 34% 273,500 20% 211,664 15% 1,388,188 districts 21,504 23% 32,369 35% 16,396 18% 21,553 23% 91,822 2011-2012 State 419,321 30% 485,306 35% 296,111 21% 201,676 14% 1,402,414 districts 20,914 23% 36,008 39% 17,159 19% 18,597 20% 92,678 Page 89
Table C2 State and Districts by Grade PEIMS Code 0 # 0 % 1 # 1 % 2 # 2 % 3 # 3 % Total # 2008-2009 State Grade 9 173,884 43% 149,588 37% 50,911 13% 28,451 7% 402,834 Grade 10 117,271 35% 121,182 36% 61,247 18% 39,161 12% 338,861 Grade 11 86,311 28% 105,090 34% 69,356 22% 48,698 16% 309,455 Grade 12 69,328 23% 97,974 33% 71,822 24% 60,037 20% 299,161 Grade 9 12,341 43% 9,043 31% 4,587 16% 2,852 10% 28,823 Grade 10 6,162 30% 6,802 33% 4,555 22% 2,982 15% 20,501 Grade 11 3,350 17% 6,684 35% 4,819 25% 4,387 23% 19,240 Grade 12 3,121 17% 5,103 27% 3,619 20% 6,714 36% 18,557 2009-2010 State Grade 9 169,142 42% 148,447 37% 54,490 13% 33,432 8% 405,511 Grade 10 112,419 33% 117,810 35% 63,933 19% 44,646 13% 338,808 Grade 11 83,068 26% 104,726 33% 74,433 24% 54,383 17% 316,610 Grade 12 70,179 23% 96,864 31% 76,554 25% 65,633 21% 309,230 Grade 9 10,484 36% 9,801 34% 4,091 14% 4,668 16% 29,044 Grade 10 4,801 24% 7,367 36% 3,792 19% 4,338 21% 20,298 Grade 11 3,150 16% 7,189 35% 4,400 22% 5,577 27% 20,316 Grade 12 3,251 17% 5,174 27% 3,947 20% 7,111 36% 19,483 Page 90
PEIMS Code 0 # 0 % 1 # 1 % 2 # 2 % 3 # 3 % Total # 2010-2011 State Grade 9 17,0910 42% 144,076 36% 52,391 13% 36,556 9% 403,933 Grade 10 10,9531 32% 119,652 34% 68,436 20% 49,978 14% 347,597 Grade 11 80,139 25% 104,533 33% 75,526 24% 58,867 18% 319,065 Grade 12 73,219 23% 100,964 32% 77,147 24% 66,263 21% 317,593 Grade 9 10,600 36% 10,888 37% 4133 14% 3,730 13% 29,351 Grade 10 4,220 20% 7,821 37% 4,587 22% 4,437 21% 21,065 Grade 11 3,146 15% 7,656 37% 4,095 20% 5,993 29% 20,890 Grade 12 3,538 17% 6,004 29% 3,581 17% 7,393 36% 20,516 2011-2012 State Grade 9 170,910 42% 144,076 36% 52,391 13% 36,556 9% 403,933 Grade 10 109,531 32% 119,652 34% 68,436 20% 49,978 14% 347,597 Grade 11 80,139 25% 104,533 33% 75,526 24% 58,867 18% 319,065 Grade 12 73,219 23% 100,964 32% 77,147 24% 66,263 21% 317,593 Grade 9 11,107 39% 11,404 40% 4,022 14% 2,293 8% 28,826 Grade 10 3,668 17% 10,087 46% 4,552 21% 3,523 16% 21,830 Grade 11 3,067 14% 8,371 39% 4,361 20% 5,714 27% 21,513 Grade 12 3,072 15% 6,146 30% 4,224 21% 7,067 34% 20,509 Page 91
Table C3 State and Districts by Ethnicity PEIMS Code 0 # 0 % 1 # 1 % 2 # 2 % 3 # 3 % Total # 2008-2009 State Asian 20,165 42% 14,532 30% 6,663 14% 6,884 14% 48,244 African 66,452 33% 82,718 41% 30,197 15% 20,845 10% 200,212 Amer. Hispanic 189,117 32% 211,005 36% 114,581 19% 76,711 13% 591,414 White 169,351 34% 163,853 32% 101,001 20% 71,251 14% 505,456 Asian 78 15% 133 26% 41 8% 255 50% 507 African 105 35% 98 33% 28 9% 65 22% 296 Amer. Hispanic 24,148 29% 26,569 32% 16,880 20% 15,743 19% 83,340 White 633 22% 820 28% 627 21% 862 29% 2942 2009-2010 State Asian 21,366 42% 14,641 29% 7,166 14% 7,642 15% 50,815 African 65,458 33% 80,687 40% 32,626 16% 22,183 11% 200,954 Amer. Hispanic 182,665 30% 206,087 34% 132,193 22% 92,524 15% 613,469 White 163,367 33% 164,586 33% 96,440 19% 75,009 15% 499,402 Asian 107 19% 152 26% 75 13% 240 42% 574 African 90 30% 106 35% 31 10% 76 25% 303 Amer. Hispanic 20,865 24% 28,442 33% 15,734 18% 20,338 24% 85,379 White 605 21% 812 29% 384 14% 1,028 36% 2,829 2010-2011 State Asian 21,156 42% 14,211 28% 6,795 13% 8,201 16% 50,363 African 61,019 32% 73,241 39% 31,581 17% 22,479 12% 188,320 Amer. Hispanic 190,760 29% 218,452 34% 138,619 21% 100,210 15% 648,041 White 151,152 32% 153,950 33% 91,496 19% 76,615 16% 473,213 Two/More 7,477 35% 6,953 33% 3,549 17% 3,124 15% 21,103 Asian 79 14% 141 25% 98 17% 251 44% 569 African 78 34% 63 28% 24 11% 62 27% 227 Amer. Hispanic 20,845 24% 31,384 35% 15,990 18% 20,350 23% 88,569 White 454 20% 714 31% 263 12% 839 37% 2,270 Two/More 31 29% 30 28% 11 10% 35 33% 107 2011-2012 State Asian 21,759 41% 15,557 29% 7,634 14% 7,843 15% 52,793 African 58,438 31% 71,895 38% 33,900 18% 22,520 12% 186,753 Amer. Hispanic 188,423 28% 231,792 35% 147,808 22% 98,910 15% 666,933 White 140,945 30% 156,155 33% 101,009 22% 68,443 15% 466,552 Two/More 7,740 34% 7,524 34% 4,188 19% 2,993 13% 22,445 Asian 85 14% 140 23% 149 25% 226 38% 600 African 47 23% 68 34% 42 21% 44 22% 201 Amer. Hispanic 20,334 23% 35,119 39% 16,605 19% 17,570 20% 89,628 White 420 20% 624 30% 339 16% 698 34% 2,081 Two/More 15 17% 29 33% 9 10% 36 40% 89 Page 92
Table C4 State and Districts by Economically Disadvantaged Status PEIMS Code 0 # 0 % 1 # 1 % 2 # 2 % 3 # 3 % Total # 2008-2009 State Non-Econ. 221,325 34% 219,547 33% 123,294 19% 93,895 14% 658,061 Disadv. Econ.Disadv. 164,390 29% 211,788 37% 115,050 20% 75,051 13% 566,279 Non-Econ. 3,026 23% 4,103 31% 2,273 17% 3,757 29% 13,159 Disadv. Econ.Disadv. 17,554 27% 20,702 32% 13,986 22% 12,433 19% 64,675 2009-2010 State Non-Econ. 210,184 33% 210,125 33% 119,031 19% 97,368 15% 636,708 Disadv. Econ.Disadv. 164,501 27% 214,530 36% 133,716 22% 91,112 15% 603,859 Non-Econ. 107 19% 152 26% 75 13% 240 42% 574 Disadv. Econ.Disadv. 21,560 24% 29,360 33% 16,149 18% 21,442 24% 88,511 2010-2011 State Non-Econ. 229,091 34% 218,664 32% 121,409 18% 105,827 16% 674,991 Disadv. Econ.Disadv. 204,708 29% 250,561 35% 152,091 21% 105,837 15% 713,197 Non-Econ. 3,145 21% 5,158 34% 1,933 13% 5,032 33% 15,268 Disadv. Econ.Disadv. 18,359 24% 27,211 36% 14,463 19% 16,521 22% 76,554 2011-2012 State Non-Econ. 213,532 33% 216,359 33% 129,817 20% 95,996 15% 655,704 Disadv. Econ.Disadv. 205,789 28% 268,947 36% 166,294 22% 105,680 14% 746,710 Non-Econ. 2,948 20% 5,176 35% 2,527 17% 4,128 28% 14,779 Disadv. Econ.Disadv. 17,966 23% 30,832 40% 14,632 19% 14,469 19% 77,899 Page 93
APPENDIX D Table D1 Graduates for 2009, 2010, and 2011 (2012 data is pending release) 2009 2010 2011 Code # RHSP & DAP # RHSP & DAP # RHSP & DAP Grads DAP Grads DAP Grads DAP 0 1,910 1,522 (80%) 201 (11%) 2,015 1,681 (83%) 221 (11%) 2,311 1,922 (83%) 239 (10%) 1 4,374 3,711 (84%) 602 (14%) 4,645 4,137 (89%) 750 (16%) 5,418 4,878 (90%) 879 (16%) 2 3,152 2,734 (87%) 523 (17%) 3,543 3,165 (89%) 588 (17%) 3,356 2,982 (89%) 609 (18%) 3 6,416 5,738 (89%) 2,171 (34%) 6,895 6,710 (97%) 2,701 (39%) 7,205 6,965 (97%) 2,723 (38%) Total # 15,921 17,198 18,364 Graduates Total RHSP & 13,759 (86%) 15,775 (92%) 16,811 (92%) DAP Total DAP 3,484 (22%) 4,234 (25%) 4,452 (24%) STATE 2009 2010 2011 Code # RHSP & DAP # RHSP & DAP # RHSP & DAP Grads DAP Grads DAP Grads DAP 0 52,199 41,970 (80%) 8,234 (16%) 53,837 43,872 (81%) 9,045 (17%) 57,898 45,200 (78%) 9,136 (16%) 1 86,559 69,405 (80%) 7,477 (9%) 87,695 70,798 (81%) 7,834 (9%) 91,824 72,005 (78%) 9,072 (10%) 2 64,785 53,105 (82%) 5,922 (9%) 70,516 58,889 (84%) 6,706 (10%) 71,917 58,989 (82%) 7,022 (10%) 3 56,322 47,507 (84%) 8,645 (15%) 62,294 53,887 (87%) 10,157 (16%) 63,055 52,875 (84%) 10,559 (17%) Total # 261,072 275,785 285,807 Graduates Total RHSP & 212,646 (81%) 228,263 (83%) 229,662 (80%) DAP Total DAP 30,293 (12%) 33,759 (12%) 35,802 (13%) Page 94
APPENDIX E LEAD's 2014 Regional Data Report Table E1 TAKS Report 2008-2009 9 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas 0 78 88 56 69 1 79 86 56 62 2 83 89 62 68 3 91 92 78 75 Total 81 87 60 67 Table E2 TAKS Report 2008-2009 9 th Grade Percent Hispanic Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas 0 77 82 56 59 1 79 82 55 58 2 83 86 62 63 3 91 89 77 71 Total 80 83 59 60 Table E3 TAKS Report 2008-2009 9 th Grade Percent White Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas 0 94 96 76 84 1 89 93 77 76 2 95 94 87 78 3 97 95 90 81 Total 93 94 80 80 Table E4 TAKS Report 2008-2009 9 th Grade Percent Economically Disadvantaged Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas 0 76 81 54 58 1 78 82 54 56 2 83 85 61 61 3 91 88 77 69 Total 80 82 58 58 Page 95
Table E5 TAKS Report 2008-2009 9 th Grade Percent Limited English Proficient Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas 0 44 48 32 33 1 42 51 32 34 2 45 49 33 36 3 52 55 45 44 Total 44 50 33 35 Table E6 TAKS Report 2008-2009 10 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 81 88 58 69 83 90 50 69 1 85 86 59 61 86 88 54 61 2 89 89 68 66 91 91 60 67 3 93 91 76 71 94 92 71 71 Total 86 88 64 65 88 90 57 66 Table E7 TAKS Report 2008-2009 10 th Grade Percent Hispanic Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 80 82 58 58 83 85 48 55 1 85 82 58 55 86 85 52 52 2 88 86 67 61 90 88 58 58 3 92 88 75 65 94 90 69 62 Total 86 84 63 58 87 86 55 55 Table E8 TAKS Report 2008-2009 10 th Grade Percent White Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 95 95 78 82 96 97 81 86 1 97 92 76 74 95 94 80 79 2 96 92 82 74 96 95 84 80 3 96 94 91 78 98 96 91 82 Total 96 93 81 77 96 95 84 82 Page 96
Table E9 TAKS Report 2008-2009 10 th Grade Percent Economically Disadvantaged Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 81 82 59 57 83 84 48 53 1 84 81 57 53 86 84 52 50 2 88 85 67 59 90 87 58 57 3 92 87 74 63 94 89 68 61 Total 86 83 63 56 87 85 55 54 Table E10 TAKS Report 2008-2009 10 th Grade Percent Limited English Proficient Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 51 47 41 33 59 57 20 20 1 54 49 40 33 61 60 27 23 2 53 48 42 34 67 59 24 24 3 53 51 39 34 61 63 19 25 Total 52 48 41 33 61 59 23 22 Table E11 TAKS Report 2008-2009 11 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 81 92 69 82 89 96 68 85 1 86 90 71 76 92 95 71 80 2 90 92 79 80 94 96 77 84 3 96 94 88 85 98 97 88 88 Total 89 92 77 80 94 96 76 84 Table E12 TAKS Report 2008-2009 11 th Grade Percent Hispanic Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 80 86 68 73 88 93 67 75 1 85 86 70 71 92 93 70 73 2 90 90 78 76 94 95 76 79 3 95 93 87 82 98 97 88 84 Total 88 88 76 75 93 94 76 77 Page 97
Table E13 TAKS Report 2008-2009 11 th Grade Percent White Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 97 97 84 91 98 99 94 95 1 98 96 82 76 99 98 88 91 2 97 96 90 87 >98 98 93 92 3 >98 96 94 89 >98 98 97 93 Total 98 96 89 88 >99 98 93 93 Table E14 TAKS Report 2008-2009 11 th Grade Percent Economically Disadvantaged Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 82 86 70 72 90 93 68 75 1 86 86 71 69 92 92 71 73 2 90 89 80 75 95 94 77 78 3 96 92 88 81 98 96 88 83 Total 89 88 77 73 94 93 76 76 Table E15 TAKS Report 2008-2009 11 th Grade Percent Limited English Proficient Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 43 47 43 45 68 74 37 42 1 48 50 47 46 73 76 38 42 2 50 50 48 47 73 75 36 43 3 62 58 55 54 84 82 51 48 Total 48 50 47 47 73 76 39 43 Table E16 TAKS Report 2009-2010 9 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas 0 83 92 59 73 1 87 91 63 67 2 88 93 66 72 3 91 94 69 76 Total 87 92 63 71 Page 98
Table E17 TAKS Report 2009-2010 9 th Grade Percent Hispanic Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas 0 83 88 58 64 1 87 89 62 63 2 87 91 66 68 3 91 92 69 72 Total 86 89 63 65 LEAD's 2014 Regional Data Report Table E18 TAKS Report 2009-2010 9 th Grade Percent White Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas 0 93 97 70 85 1 92 96 78 79 2 >95 96 81 81 3 >95 97 79 82 Total 94 97 76 82 Table E19 TAKS Report 2009-2010 9 th Grade Percent Economically Disadvantaged Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas 0 82 87 59 63 1 87 88 62 61 2 87 90 65 66 3 90 91 68 69 Total 86 88 63 63 Table E20 TAKS Report 2009-2010 9 th Grade Percent Limited English Proficient Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas 0 52 57 35 40 1 60 63 44 43 2 55 63 36 45 3 60 63 41 47 Total 56 60 39 42 Page 99
Table E21 TAKS Report 2009-2010 10 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 83 90 67 76 87 93 59 76 1 87 89 70 71 89 91 64 70 2 90 91 78 76 93 93 72 75 3 93 93 82 79 95 94 77 79 Total 88 90 74 75 91 93 67 74 Table E22 TAKS Report 2009-2010 10 th Grade Percent Hispanic Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 83 86 67 69 86 90 58 66 1 87 86 69 67 89 89 63 63 2 90 89 78 72 93 92 71 69 3 93 91 81 76 95 94 76 73 Total 88 88 73 70 91 91 67 66 Table E23 TAKS Report 2009-2010 10 th Grade Percent White Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 >93 96 81 87 94 97 87 90 1 95 93 87 80 95 95 87 84 2 92 94 85 83 >93 96 90 85 3 93 95 91 84 95 96 90 86 Total 94 94 87 84 95 96 88 87 Table E24 TAKS Report 2009-2010 10 th Grade Percent Economically Disadvantaged Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 82 85 67 67 86 89 57 94 1 86 85 69 65 89 88 62 92 2 89 89 77 71 93 91 70 94 3 92 90 81 74 95 93 75 72 Total 87 87 73 68 90 90 66 65 Page 100
Table E25 TAKS Report 2009-2010 10 th Grade Percent Limited English Proficient Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 49 50 45 71 63 68 24 29 1 53 54 48 73 69 71 30 31 2 62 56 55 51 76 72 34 33 3 53 56 56 49 74 75 35 37 Total 53 53 49 44 69 70 29 31 Table E26 TAKS Report 2009-2010 11 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 81 93 79 88 92 97 78 91 1 85 91 80 85 93 96 81 88 2 90 93 86 88 95 97 85 90 3 94 95 93 91 98 98 92 93 Total 88 92 85 88 95 97 85 90 Table E27 TAKS Report 2009-2010 11 th Grade Percent Hispanic Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 81 88 78 83 92 95 77 84 1 85 88 80 81 93 94 81 83 2 90 91 86 86 94 96 84 87 3 94 93 92 89 98 97 92 91 Total 88 90 85 84 95 95 84 86 Table E28 TAKS Report 2009-2010 11 th Grade Percent White Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 >93 97 91 95 >95 99 >90 97 1 >95 96 92 92 >95 98 94 95 2 93 96 93 93 >95 98 >96 96 3 >97 96 97 94 >98 99 >97 96 Total 97 96 94 93 98 98 97 96 Page 101
Table E29 TAKS Report 2009-2010 11 th Grade Percent Economically Disadvantaged Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 83 87 81 82 93 94 79 84 1 84 87 81 81 93 94 81 83 2 90 90 86 85 95 96 85 87 3 94 93 93 88 98 97 92 90 Total 88 89 86 84 95 95 85 86 Table E30 TAKS Report 2009-2010 11 th Grade Percent Limited English Proficient Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 40 51 53 59 77 82 44 55 1 47 53 61 59 77 82 51 54 2 59 57 65 63 79 83 57 57 3 57 57 72 65 88 86 62 59 Total 50 54 62 60 79 83 53 56 Table E31 TAKS Report 2010-2011 9 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas 0 78 89 61 73 1 81 87 61 67 2 86 90 69 73 3 91 92 74 77 Total 82 89 64 71 Table E31 TAKS Report 2010-2011 9 th Grade Percent Hispanic Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas 0 78 84 61 64 1 81 84 61 63 2 86 87 69 68 3 90 89 73 72 Total 82 85 64 65 Page 102
Table E32 TAKS Report 2010-2011 9 th Grade Percent White Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas 0 93 96 76 85 1 90 94 77 78 2 >93 95 86 82 3 96 96 84 83 Total 93 95 80 82 LEAD's 2014 Regional Data Report Table E33 TAKS Report 2010-2011 9 th Grade Percent Economically Disadvantaged Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas 0 77 83 60 61 1 80 83 59 59 2 85 87 68 66 3 89 89 72 70 Total 81 84 62 62 Table E34 TAKS Report 2010-2011 9 th Grade Percent Limited English Proficient Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Texas Texas 0 47 51 41 40 1 49 56 39 42 2 52 57 38 46 3 58 60 51 50 Total 49 54 40 42 Table E35 TAKS Report 2010-2011 10 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 84 91 68 76 87 93 62 78 1 87 89 71 71 89 92 66 72 2 92 91 79 76 93 93 73 76 3 93 93 80 79 95 95 78 80 Total 89 91 74 75 91 93 69 75 Page 103
Table E36 TAKS Report 2010-2011 10 th Grade Percent Hispanic Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 84 87 68 69 87 90 62 68 1 87 87 70 67 89 90 65 65 2 92 90 78 73 93 92 72 70 3 93 91 79 75 95 93 77 74 Total 89 88 74 70 91 91 69 68 Table E37 TAKS Report 2010-2011 10 th Grade Percent White Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 90 96 74 87 93 97 76 90 1 92 93 79 80 >95 95 85 85 2 >91 94 77 82 >91 96 82 86 3 95 94 88 84 >96 97 90 88 Total 92 94 80 83 93 96 85 88 Table E38 TAKS Report 2010-2011 10 th Grade Percent Economically Disadvantaged Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 83 85 67 66 86 89 60 65 1 86 85 69 64 88 88 63 63 2 92 89 78 71 93 91 71 69 3 92 90 78 73 94 92 75 72 Total 88 87 73 67 90 90 67 66 Table E39 TAKS Report 2010-2011 10 th Grade Percent Limited English Proficient Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 51 53 45 43 67 71 29 33 1 57 58 53 46 70 74 36 34 2 66 60 56 53 76 75 32 34 3 60 57 58 50 76 72 40 37 Total 58 57 52 47 71 73 34 34 Page 104
Table E40 TAKS Report 2010-2011 11 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 86 94 82 90 93 98 80 91 1 87 93 81 87 95 97 79 87 2 90 95 87 90 96 98 85 90 3 97 96 94 93 99 99 92 93 Total 90 94 87 89 96 98 85 90 Table E41 TAKS Report 2010-2011 11 th Grade Percent Hispanic Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 86 91 82 86 93 96 80 86 1 87 90 81 84 94 96 79 83 2 90 93 87 89 96 97 85 88 3 96 95 94 92 99 98 92 91 Total 90 92 86 87 96 97 84 86 Table E42 TAKS Report 2010-2011 11 th Grade Percent White Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 >92 98 >92 95 >91 99 >91 97 1 >94 97 94 93 >97 99 >95 95 2 >96 97 >96 94 96 99 94 96 3 >98 98 >96 95 >98 99 >97 96 Total 98 97 96 94 98 99 97 96 Table E43 TAKS Report 2010-2011 11 th Grade Percent Economically Disadvantaged Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 84 89 81 83 93 84 78 1 86 89 79 82 94 85 78 2 89 92 87 87 96 86 84 3 96 94 94 90 98 88 92 Total 89 91 85 85 95 85 83 Page 105
Table E44 TAKS Report 2010-2011 11 th Grade Percent Limited English Proficient Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 46 51 61 60 80 84 49 53 1 48 54 61 63 82 85 48 54 2 54 56 66 67 85 86 58 56 3 61 60 74 71 89 88 56 60 Total 50 55 63 64 83 85 51 55 Table E45 TAKS Report 2011-2012 10 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 84 91 71 76 89 94 64 77 1 88 90 74 71 92 93 69 72 2 92 92 79 75 95 94 75 75 3 93 93 79 78 95 95 79 78 Total 89 91 76 74 93 94 71 75 Table E46 TAKS Report 2011-2012 10 th Grade Percent Hispanic Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 84 88 71 69 89 91 64 68 1 88 88 74 67 91 91 68 66 2 92 91 79 73 95 93 75 70 3 92 91 79 74 95 94 79 73 Total 89 89 75 70 92 92 71 68 Table E47 TAKS Report 2011-2012 10 th Grade Percent White Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 >91 96 75 86 >92 98 78 89 1 93 94 82 80 96 96 85 85 2 >92 94 86 81 >98 97 91 84 3 95 95 84 83 >94 97 87 86 Total 94 95 83 82 97 97 86 86 Page 106
Table E48 TAKS Report 2011-2012 10 th Grade Percent Economically Disadvantaged Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 83 86 70 65 89 90 63 64 1 87 87 73 65 91 90 67 63 2 91 89 78 70 94 92 73 67 3 92 90 78 72 95 93 77 71 Total 88 88 74 67 92 91 69 66 Table E49 TAKS Report 2011-2012 10 th Grade Percent Limited English Proficient Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 56 54 56 42 74 73 36 32 1 59 61 53 46 74 75 39 35 2 61 60 54 46 75 77 40 37 3 72 61 64 49 83 78 49 39 Total 59 59 54 46 75 75 39 35 Table E50 TAKS Report 2011-2012 11 th Grade Percent Overall Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 85 93 85 91 95 98 87 94 1 85 91 84 88 94 97 86 91 2 92 94 90 91 97 98 91 94 3 96 95 94 93 99 98 96 95 Total 89 93 88 90 96 98 90 93 Table E51 TAKS Report 2011-2012 11 th Grade Percent Hispanic Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 84 90 84 87 94 96 87 91 1 85 89 84 86 94 96 86 89 2 91 92 90 90 97 97 90 92 3 96 94 94 92 99 98 95 94 Total 89 91 88 88 96 97 90 91 Page 107
Table E52 TAKS Report 2011-2012 11 th Grade Percent White Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 >93 97 90 96 >92 99 >91 98 1 89 96 86 93 95 99 91 96 2 93 96 88 94 >93 99 92 97 3 96 97 96 95 >97 99 >95 98 Total 94 96 91 94 97 99 94 97 Table E53 TAKS Report 2011-2012 11 th Grade Percent Economically Disadvantaged Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 83 88 83 85 94 95 86 88 1 84 88 83 84 93 95 85 88 2 91 91 90 88 96 97 90 91 3 95 93 93 90 98 98 95 93 Total 88 90 87 87 95 96 89 90 Table E54 TAKS Report 2011-2012 11 th Grade Percent Limited English Proficient Passing Minimum Standards PEIMS Reading Math Social Studies Science Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 37 49 63 65 82 84 62 67 1 46 52 66 66 80 85 63 67 2 57 57 75 71 88 87 68 70 3 67 58 80 71 91 88 77 70 Total 48 53 69 68 83 85 65 68 STAAR TESTING Table E55 STAAR Report 2011-2012 All Students 9-12 Tested Percent Overall Passing Standards for English I PEIMS Phase-In Standard Minimum Phase-In Standard Satisfactory Recommended Standard Minimum Recommended Standard Satisfactory Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 55 78 45 70 34 61 25 50 1 64 75 52 65 42 54 30 42 2 68 78 58 68 47 57 35 44 3 80 82 73 73 62 63 51 50 Total 63 77 53 68 42 58 31 46 Page 108
PEIMS Table E56 STAAR Report 2011-2012 All Students 9-12 Tested Percent Hispanic 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 0 55 68 44 86 34 48 24 68 1 63 68 52 79 41 45 29 57 2 68 72 57 79 46 50 34 56 3 80 77 72 81 61 55 49 60 Total 62 69 52 82 41 48 30 61 PEIMS Table E57 STAAR Report 2011-2012 All Students 9-12 Tested Percent White Passing Standards for English I Phase-In Standard Minimum Phase-In Standard Satisfactory Recommended Standard Minimum Recommended Standard Satisfactory Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 78 91 70 86 59 79 52 68 1 81 87 75 79 64 70 55 57 2 88 86 79 79 73 69 63 56 3 87 88 82 81 76 72 66 60 Total 82 88 76 82 66 73 57 61 PEIMS Table E58 STAAR Report 2011-2012 All Students 9-12 Tested Percent Economic Disadvantaged Passing Standards for English I Phase-In Standard Minimum Phase-In Standard Satisfactory Recommended Standard Minimum Recommended Standard Satisfactory Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 52 66 42 56 31 45 22 33 1 61 67 50 56 38 43 26 31 2 66 70 55 60 44 47 32 35 3 77 74 69 64 87 52 45 39 Total 60 68 49 57 38 45 27 33 Page 109
PEIMS Table E59 STAAR Report 2011-2012 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 Recommended Standard Satisfactory Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 19 23 12 17 6 9 4 6 1 23 30 17 23 8 12 5 8 2 20 27 14 20 7 11 3 7 3 50 31 30 22 24 13 11 9 Total 21 27 15 20 7 11 4 7 PEIMS Table E60 STAAR Report 2011-2012 All Students 9-12 Tested Percent Overall Passing Standards for English II Phase-In Standard Minimum Phase-In Standard Satisfactory Recommended Standard Minimum Recommended Standard Satisfactory Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 86 74 82 77 60 71 52 1 81 65 76 70 49 61 41 2 77 70 70 57 54 49 45 3 71 66 65 57 51 46 42 Total 80 69 75 63 69 54 60 45 PEIMS Table E61 STAAR Report 2011-2012 All Students 9-12 Tested Percent Overall Passing Standards for English III Phase-In Standard Minimum Phase-In Standard Satisfactory Recommended Standard Minimum Recommended Standard Satisfactory Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 54 62 49 57 33 47 26 40 1 44 54 36 48 23 37 16 30 2 60 54 53 48 43 37 33 29 3 63 56 58 51 45 39 35 31 Total 51 56 45 50 32 39 23 32 Page 110
PEIMS Table E62 STAAR Report 2011-2012 All Students 9-12 Tested Percent Hispanic Passing Standards for Algebra 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 0 82 87 69 77 22 28 86 90 1 84 86 72 73 22 23 87 89 2 84 88 73 77 25 26 87 91 3 87 90 76 80 29 29 90 92 Total 83 87 71 76 23 26 87 90 PEIMS Table E63 STAAR Report 2011-2012 All Students 9-12 Tested Percent Hispanic Passing Standards for Algebra I Phase-In Standard Minimum Phase-In Standard Satisfactory Recommended Standard Minimum Recommended Standard Satisfactory Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 82 84 69 72 22 22 86 87 1 84 84 72 71 22 19 87 87 2 84 86 73 75 24 22 87 89 3 86 88 76 77 29 25 90 91 Total 83 85 71 72 23 21 87 88 PEIMS Table E64 STAAR Report 2011-2012 All Students 9-12 Tested Percent White Passing Standards for Algebra I Phase-In Standard Minimum Phase-In Standard Satisfactory Recommended Standard Minimum Recommended Standard Satisfactory Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 90 94 79 86 36 41 >92 95 1 85 91 73 82 35 32 90 93 2 >91 93 >83 83 43 34 >92 94 3 >85 93 81 86 31 36 >91 95 Total 88 92 78 84 36 36 93 94 Page 111
PEIMS Table E65 STAAR Report 2011-2012 All Students 9-12 Tested Percent Economic Disadvantaged Passing Standards for Algebra I Phase-In Standard Minimum Phase-In Standard Satisfactory Recommended Standard Minimum Recommended Standard Satisfactory Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 81 83 68 70 20 20 85 86 1 83 83 71 69 21 18 86 86 2 83 85 71 73 23 21 86 88 3 85 88 74 76 28 23 89 91 Total 82 84 70 70 22 20 86 87 PEIMS Table E66 STAAR Report 2011-2012 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 0 69 68 53 52 12 12 75 73 1 73 71 55 54 12 11 78 76 2 68 74 55 57 12 12 76 79 3 89 79 75 60 24 14 >91 83 Total 71 70 55 54 12 12 77 76 PEIMS Table E67 STAAR Report 2011-2012 All Students 9-12 Tested Percent Overall Passing Standards for Algebra II Phase-In Standard Minimum Phase-In Standard Satisfactory Recommended Standard Minimum Recommended Standard Satisfactory Texas Texas Texas Texas 0 84 85 74 77 48 53 38 45 1 77 75 63 62 29 34 22 27 2 70 74 54 60 20 28 12 20 3 71 76 54 62 21 29 17 20 Total 74 78 59 65 27 36 89 29 Page 112
Appendix F Chart F1 Breakdown of 2009 High School Graduates by Course Preparation 300000 Texas 2009 Graduates 250000 200000 150000 100000 3 2 1 0 50000 0 Other Hispanic White Total 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2009 Graduates Other Hispanic White Total 3 2 1 0 Table F1 Demographic Information on 2009 Texas and District High School Graduates % Female % Gifted % LEP % Female % Gifted % LEP Texas 0 50% 11% 14% 0 50% 18% 4% 1 47% 10% 11% 1 50% 10% 4% 2 45% 11% 9% 2 49% 10% 3% 3 53% 15% 4% 3 51% 10% 2% Total 49% 12% 8% Total 50% 11% 3% Page 113
Chart F2 Breakdown of 2010 High School Graduates by Course Preparation 300000 Texas 2010 Graduates 250000 200000 150000 100000 3 2 1 0 50000 0 Other Hispanic White Total 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2010 Graduates Other Hispanic White Total 3 2 1 0 Table F2 Demographic Information on 2010 Texas and District High School Graduates % Female % Gifted % LEP % Female % Gifted % LEP Texas 0 50% 7% 13% 0 49% 17% 3% 1 49% 8% 11% 1 50% 9% 4% 2 46% 9% 10% 2 49% 9% 3% 3 54% 14% 3% 3 51% 10% 2% Total 50% 10% 7% Total 50% 11% 3% Page 114
Chart F3 Breakdown of 2011 High School Graduates by Course Preparation 300000 Texas 2011 Graduates 250000 200000 150000 100000 3 2 1 0 50000 0 Other Hispanic White Total 20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2011 Graduates Other Hispanic White Total 3 2 1 0 Table F3 Demographic Information on 2011 Texas and District High School Graduates % Female % Gifted % LEP % Female % Gifted % LEP Texas 0 51% 7% 12% 0 50% 14% 4% 1 46% 8% 11% 1 50% 8% 4% 2 48% 9% 9% 2 50% 9% 3% 3 53% 15% 3% 3 51% 10% 2% Total 50% 11% 8% Total 50% 10% 3% Page 115