cep evaluation

8/9/2019 CEP evaluation

1/26

Performance Evaluation for Schools Operated by

Community Education Partners

for the Houston Independent School District

Roger D. Goddard, Ph.D.

with

Robert J. Miller, Ph.D.

June 1, 2010


2/26

2

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract

Executive Summary 4

Scope of Work 4

Population Served 4

Data Sources 4

Summary of Findings 5

CEP site visits 5

Principal surveys 5

Quantitative indicators 6

Site Visit and Survey Findings 8

Qualitative Description of CEP Site Visits 8

Principal Survey Findings 10

Quantitative Indicator Findings 13

Student Performance on State Assessment Instrument 13Pre- and Post-Assessment Results and

Academic Advancement Guarantee 1

Middle School Promotion and Retention Rates 17High School Credit Completion Rates 18

Disciplinary Action Rates 21

Attendance Rates and Leaver Status 24


3/26

3

Abstract

Observations of CEP schools indicated that both CEP campuses were wellorganized to

effectively manage behavior and deliver instruction with clear goals. CEP referrals also

reportedly have a positive impact on the behavioral and learning climate of home schools.Importantly, CEP exceeded the standards for most quantitative contract indicators. For

example, results indicate that CEP exceeded performance expectations relative to the state

assessment (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills), pre and postassessment, middle

school promotion rates, and leaver status. Where standards were not met, specifically fordisciplinary action rates and attendance, two facts should be observed. First, for both

disciplinary action rates and attendance, the contract called for examining the performance

of students who attended CEP for 120 days or more, thus focusing these analyses on less

than 10% of the student population served by CEP; CEP would have met these standards

had the entire population of students served been considered. Second, the contractprovides CEP with an opportunity to remedy any performance issues noted in its

evaluation. In sum, the vast majority of data gathered and analyzed for this evaluationindicates that CEP performed well relative to expectations.


4/26

4

Executive Summary

This summary first describes the scope of work and the data sources utilized to conduct the

evaluation. Next, the findings from the site visits, principal surveys, and quantitativeanalysis of contract indicators are summarized.

Scope of Work

The purpose of this work is to provide an evaluation of the performance of Community

Education Partners (CEP) regarding the disciplinary alternative education programs they

operate for the Houston Independent School District (HISD). The evaluation was designed

in collaboration with HISD and CEP to be multifaceted. It includes reports based on original

data collected by the third party evaluator as agreed upon by HISD and CEP and an analysisof internal records obtained from both HISD and CEP. The scope of requests for data from

both HISD and CEP were substantial.

Population Served

In an effort to place this evaluation in context, it is important to understand that CEP serves

students who face a series of unique and unusual challenges. Students referred to CEP may

exhibit one or more of the following characteristics: unusually disruptive behavior; high

mobility; low attendance; high rates of suspensions, expulsions, and/or alternative

placements; performance at least two years or more below grade level in reading and

math; failing two or more subjects; low performance on statemandated assessments; one

or more grades repeated.

Data Sources

Both HISD and CEP officials agreed that the third party evaluator should engage in twoindependent data collection activities as part of the evaluation work. First, all parties

agreed that the evaluator would visit both CEP campuses to qualitatively report on thebehavioral and learning environment. Second was the administration of a survey to

principals in more than 50 HISD middle and high schools that referred students to CEP

during the 20082009 school year.

This evaluation also included an extensive quantitative analysis of CEPs performance

relative to its contract with HISD. Specifically, the third party evaluator was tasked withaddressing the technical aspects of the agreement between HISD and CEP, including

sections 4.1: AF and section 4.2. Data were obtained from the HISD Department of

Research and Accountability and from the central administrative offices of CEP.


5/26

5

Summary of Findings

This section summarizes the findings of the site visits, principal surveys, and quantitative

contract indicator analysis.

CEP Site Visits

In order to put into perspective the technical aspects of this work, we provide here a brief

description of what we observed during onsite CEP campus visits, with a more thoroughdescription included in the next section of this report. We believe it is helpful to present

this description so that the reader can understand the context in which the technical data

are situated. The purpose of site visits was to view the schools layout, experience the

climate and culture of the schools, meet key staff, and observe instruction and behavior.

In sum, the facilities were welcoming, clean, and colorful, with student work displayed

prominently. The schools were arranged into small learning communities, with studentsseparated by middle/high school and by gender, with the exception of a learning

community designed specifically for advanced classes. Learning Community Instructional

Leaders were observed working with teachers, counseling, and generally attending to the

needs of those in their assigned learning communities. Arrival procedures were observed

in one school. Safety and security were apparent, as was student compliance. Staff are

trained in positive behavior management and deescalation, and have participated in

professional development related to the character education curriculum used in the

schools as well as instructional improvement. In the event that disciplinary action was

required, both schools had defined procedures in place. Behavior was wellmanaged during

the site visits and learning objectives were apparent in all classrooms observed; notably, a

majority of classrooms were randomly selected for observation by the evaluator. The thirdparty evaluator also accessed student files and examined several randomly. Students who

were assigned to CEP met the criteria as students who should be assigned to a disciplinary

alternative education program (DAEP). Additionally, high school students graduation planswere observed and in place for the records sampled. The evaluator also met with several

parents/guardians who spoke positively about communications from CEP. Computer labsand HISD textbooks were used regularly, TAKS standards were apparent in lesson plans,

and aspects of a character education program were observed during instruction.

Principal Surveys

We surveyed HISD principals of schools that refer students to CEP campuses. The responserate was 79%.

Several common themes were identified and are summarized briefly in this section. First,

85% of the principals believe that the ability to refer students to CEP has positive

consequences for the behavioral and learning climate of the home school. Second, the

majority disagreed that CEP referrals facilitate academic success for the students referred.

Some of this concern may be rooted in the assumption that these students perform poorly


6/26

6

on the TAKS assessment and have high grade retention rates. However, this report shows

that CEP students met both the TAKS and promotion standards. Further, the survey

provided no opportunity for principal respondents to consider the role of length of stay in

their response to this question. A third theme to emerge was that principals were mixed in

their reports of whether students referred to CEP experience improved behavior after they

return to their home school; these findings were so mixed as to be inconclusive. Fourth,most principals indicated that CEP maintains communication with the home school

principal or a designee.

When asked to explain their views on whether CEP is an appropriate placement fordisruptive students, responses yielded several themes: a) CEP serves an important purpose

for the district; b) among those who suggested that CEP is not an appropriate placement, an

alternative school operated by HISD was suggested; and c) the need for a referral to CEP

depends on the student and HISD should maintain an option for highly disruptive students.

Principals were also asked to provide some beneficial feedback to CEP. The responses to

this question were quite varied, but some dominant themes emerged. The most commontheme across responses involved advice aimed at the need for improvement in the

instructional program at CEP. Notably, observations and interviews at both CEP campuses

conducted in the evaluation revealed CEP is currently taking steps to improve instruction.

Another common type of advice addressed a perceived need for instructional

accountability at CEP, most especially related to TAKS testing, clearly reflecting a district

priority.

Quantitative Indicators

This section summarizes the findings of CEPs performance relative to indicators specified

in the performance contract between HISD and CEP.

1. Student Performance on State Assessment Instrument

Students attending CEP who met enrollment criteria were required to pass at least50% of all TAKS tests taken using the Alternative Education Accountability

Standards. The CEP Program met this standard under the Texas Projection Measure.

2. Pre- and Post-Assessment Results and Academic Advancement Guarantee

Pre and postassessment results. The contract requires that 70% of all studentsdemonstrate academic improvement on the assessment instrument. Approximately

99% of students showed some level of improved performance in reading and

mathematics skill level. Academic advancement guarantee. Students attending CEP for 175 or more days are

guaranteed at least 1.5 years of academic advancement in both mathematics and

reading skill performance. Students attending CEP for 120 days or more are

guaranteed to demonstrate at least a 1.0 year advancement in skill performance in

reading and math. Overall, across these attendance length categories and subjects,

93% to 95% of CEP students met or exceeded the advancement standards based on

their reported pre and posttest scores and days of attendance.


7/26

7

3. Middle School Promotion and Retention Rates

CEP was required to meet a promotion standard at the middle school level callingfor 60% of CEP enrolled students to advance to the next grade.Provided that

promotion by committee decision is given equal consideration to students meetingestablished promotion standards, the CEP program me the requirement of 60% or

more students advancing in grade. Moreover, the promotion rate appears to remain

stable at around 70% regardless of time spent in the CEP program.

4. High School Credit Completion Rates

CEP was required to have at least 70% of students meet course requirements andattain credits in the core academic and elective courses in which they were enrolled.

More than 70% of high school CEP students earned some academic credit across the

courses taken in either semester. More specifically, over 80% of students enrolled inCEP for full semesters had success in earning credits in at least some of their

coursework and 6070% earned credit in at least half of all classes.

5. Disciplinary Action Rates

The CEP Program did not meet the standard of 70% of students enrolled for 120days or more showing a reduction in behavioral issues as measured by fewer

referrals, inschool suspensions, outofschool suspensions, and serious infractions.

This group of 229 students represents less than 10% of the total number of students

assigned to the CEP Program.

For allstudents enrolled in the CEP Program, regardless of length of assignment,there was a 75% reduction in total referrals, a 71% reduction in inschool

suspensions, an 87% reduction in outofschool suspensions and 76% reduction in

serious infractions (i.e., misdemeanors, felonies). The total number of most discipline actions is largely dependent on the school

(home or CEP) in which the student spent most of the school year. The school in

which students spent the majority of their time showed higher referral numbers.

Regardless of the attendance category employed, students at CEP showed a largereduction in the number of serious disciplinary actions as compared to the homeschool.

6. Attendance Rates and Leaver Status

Students enrolled for 120 or more days during the 20082009 school yearconstituted only 8 percent of all CEP assigned students. This group of students had an

estimated average attendance rate of 75% with an adjusted rate of 76%. This fallsshort of the 80% goal for the target group of students by 4 percent. However, the

remaining 92 percent of all CEP students would have met or exceeded the 80%

standard under the adjusted attendance rate (see p. 24 for explanation ofadjusted

rate).

Leaver status. HISD and CEP agreed that 85% of students leaving before or aftercompleting CEP exit criteria should return to Houston ISD or another academic


8/26

8

institution, excluding those students graduating from the CEP program. The data

analyzed indicate that CEP exceeded this standard.

Site Visit and Survey Findings

This section of the report describes the CEP learning environment qualitatively and reportsthe findings of HISD principal surveys on issues related to CEP.

Qualitative Description of CEP Site Visits

In order to put into perspective the technical aspects of this work, we provide here a

description of what we observed during onsite school visits. The purpose of site visits was

to view the schools layout, experience the climate and culture of the schools, meet key

staff, and observe classrooms.

The evaluators visited the two CEP sites in Houston: Ferndale and Beechnut. The facilities

at both schools were welcoming, clean, and colorful. Computer labs were in constant useduring the tours. Student work was displayed prominently. Notably, the hallway to one

learning community was decorated with artwork that protruded from the walls. These

were studentcreated projects that had hung for months without being destroyed by

students. Student recognitions and awards were openly displayed. Also, a teacher pulled

one evaluator aside to present a photo album dedicated to an academic unit on black

women who had impacted our society in significant ways. Although students in these

schools are transient, teachers and staff take apparent pride in the schools and students

work. Evaluators were told that one of the schools goals was to find at least one staff

member with whom each student could connect and feel comfortable.

The schools were arranged in small learning communities, with middle school and highschool students separated. Learning communities were also separated by gender, with the

exception of one high school learning community in which students taking advanced

classes were mixed by gender. Each learning community was led by a learning communityinstructional leader (LCIL). Evaluators observed LCILs engaged in the observation of

instruction, counseling with students, and highly attentive to the flow of the classrooms intheir learning communities.

Upon entry to CEP schools, students are provided a 5day, structured orientation duringwhich time they review HISD and CEP policies and student responsibilities, meet CEP staff,

and complete a variety of paperwork designed to guide selfreflection and set personal

goals. This paperwork is kept in student files, to which one of the evaluators had access.Students set personal behavioral and academic goals. The evaluator pulled files randomly

and viewed students plans. CEP staff indicated that all students orientation paperwork

was reviewed carefully and when concerns arose, students were referred to student

services and/or one of the 12 external agencies with which CEP works. CEP staff included

the rooms where external agency staff meet with students as part of the school tours and

one evaluator observed a staff member walking to a room with a student.


9/26

9

Principals described high expectations for teachers to maintain regular contact with

students parents or guardians, including calling home regularly to report good news about

students progress. One evaluator met with parents or guardians of students from different

campuses who spoke positively about the communication they had received from CEP

teachers and staff.

HISD provided bus transportation. One evaluator observed arrival procedures as students

entered the CEP school. Safety measures and security procedures were implemented

consistently. Student compliance was evident as was a high number of staff, who were all

attentive to the process.

As verified by a review of school rosters and random selection of students files to examine

in depth, students assigned to the CEP schools met the criteria described in the agreement

as students who should be assigned to CEP. CEP maintains students records. Staff indicated

that student data are input into HISDs data management system and transmitted to HISDdaily, per their agreement.

Instruction followed TAKS standards as indicated by teachers lesson plans; and, teachers

used HISD textbooks and curricular materials. Staff indicated that they communicate with

HISD referring principals and teachers to ensure that students remain on pace with the

HISD curriculum, to the extent possible. High school students graduation plans were

readily available in students folders and CEP provided teachers and online coursework so

that high school students had access to courses required for graduation. In addition to HISD

curriculum, CEP implements a character education curriculum daily in each classroom.

Banners related to this curriculum were displayed in common hallways and evaluators

observed instances of the curriculum being taught in classrooms.

In addition to professional development related to positive behavior management and deescalation, staff received professional development related to the character education

curriculum. Principals indicated that CEP teachers were invited to participate in HISD

professional development. Additionally, they said that professional development wasreciprocal in that HISD staff were invited to participate in professional development held at

CEP schools.

In the event that disciplinary action was required, both schools had defined procedures in

place. The evaluators noted that when entering the schools, in hallways, in common areaswithin the learning communities, and in classrooms, student misbehavior was not

apparent. In one school, there was an incident in an adjacent learning community. Routine

signals were given and all available staff moved quickly and quietly to the classroom. Theevaluator observed a student who was visibly upset but physically calm being escorted out

of the learning community by a staff member who had a hand placed gently on the

students shoulder. This incident served as evidence to support principals statements that

CEP staff are trained to respond effectively to behavioral incidents and to diffuse

misbehavior quickly.


10/26

10

Principal Survey Findings

For this part of the evaluation, HISD and CEP agreed that a large portion of the principals of

schools referring students to CEP campuses would be offered the opportunity to respond to

a survey containing questions related to CEP. Principals were promised that their

responses would be reported only in summary form. Although the response rate was 79%,the respondents themselves were not randomly selected, and thus their responses cannot

be assumed to be strictly representative of all principals in the district. In fact, because the

reasons for nonresponse are potentially nonrandom, the attitudes of the 21% who did not

respond to any set of questions could feasibly differ sharply from those who did. In thepresence of this possibility, results of the survey should be interpreted with caution and

viewed more as a qualitative lens that sheds light on general attitudes, with the caveat that

some views may not be represented in this analysis.

To understand better the variability across survey responses, we conducted psychometricanalyses to test pools of items that were linked to common big ideas. The goal was to

examine whether response patterns provided evidence sufficient to indicate that severalquestions had statistical support for tapping measures of school organization and climate.

This analysis led to the identification of several common themes with conceptual and

statistical support for reporting. These themes are described here.

Do Referrals to CEP Have a Positive Impact on the Behavioral and Learning Climate of theHome School?

Questions in this pool asked principals the extent to which they agreed with

assertions that referrals to CEP have a positive impact on the behavioral and learning

climate of their school. There was a high degree of commonality across the responses of

principals to questions in this category. Across all of the items, on average 85% of therespondents reported agree or strongly agree while an average of 8% reported

disagree or strongly disagree; the remaining 7% reported neutral. Here, the majority

opinion seems to be that the ability to refer students to CEP has positive consequences forthe behavioral and learning climate of the home school.

Do Referrals to CEP Facilitate Academic Success for the Students Referred?

Questions in this set of items asked principals the extent to which they agreed withassertions that referral to CEP fostered academic improvement for referred students. There

was a high degree of convergence among the responses of principals to questions in this

category. On average, 13% of the respondents reported agree or strongly agree, 25%reported neutral, and 62% reported disagree or strongly disagree. The majority of

respondents did not agree with the assertion that referrals to CEP facilitate academic

success for the students referred. Notably, however, 25% of the responses were neutral.

One reason for this may be that questions did not ask respondents to consider whether

length of placement had any bearing on academic success. That said, in some ways the

responses are not surprising in light of the pre and postassessment results discussed in

detail in the next section. Specifically, although the vast majority of students met or


11/26

11

exceeded the academic advancement guarantee standards, and 99% of all students showed

some gain, the relatively low pretest scores mean many of these students would still

return, on average, below grade level, despite their growth.

Do Students Who are Referred to CEP Experience Improved Behavior After They Return to

Their Home School?The questions in this scale asked principals the extent to which they agreed that

students who are referred to CEP are less disruptive and better behaved after they return

to their home school. On average, 36% of respondents reported agree or strongly agree,

35% reported neutral, and 29% reported disagree or strongly disagree. Here, thefindings are clearly mixed. We report these mixed findings, however, because they serve to

triangulate the findings reported below, in which disciplinary action rates were analyzed.

As demonstrated later in this report, the degree to which the majority of students

experienced disciplinary action rate reductions was largely dependent on the length of

their enrollment at CEP. Because the survey questions did not specify an enrollment lengthas a point of reference, it is understandable in light of the disciplinary action rate analysis

that responses were mixed.

Does CEP Maintain Communication with the Home School Principal?

Questions in this area asked principals the extent to which they agreed with

statements asking whether they had been contacted by CEP or whether they had visited or

toured a CEP campus. Responses across the items provided adequate support for the

presence of a measure representing contact between CEP and the home school. On average,

65% of the respondents reported agree or strongly agree, 5% reported neutral, and

30% reported disagree or strongly disagree. Just under twothirds of the respondents

agreed that CEP does have communication with the home school principal or a designee,

with under onethird reporting that this was not the case.

Open-Ended Responses

Two questions were employed on the survey to prompt principals to 1) explain their viewson whether CEP is an appropriate placement for disruptive students and 2) provide some

beneficial feedback to CEP. Given the nature of the questions, the responses were notsubjected to psychometric analysis but rather were grouped thematically. Prevailing

themes identified through this analysis are summarized below.

Explanation of views on whether CEP is an appropriate placement for disruptive students.

A. CEP Serves an Important Purpose for the DistrictAmong respondents, the most common sentiment expressed was that CEP serves an

important function by removing disruptive students and/or providing a more controlled

environment for them. These were typically responses offered to explain that CEP is an

appropriate placement for disruptive students. Observations of CEP schools are consistent

with the sentiments that the learning environment was controlled.


12/26

12

B. An Alternative School Operated by HISD

The second most common type of response involved some reference to the possibility that

HISD should consider running its own alternative school, alternative placement option, or

DAEP. This sentiment was the most common among those respondents who suggested CEP

was not an appropriate placement.

C. Referral to CEP Depends on Individual Circumstances and Severity of Behavior

Several respondents also suggested that the need for a referral depends on the student, and

that there should be an option for highly disruptive students.

Suggestions for CEP

In response to the question asking for beneficial feedback for CEP, responses were quite

varied; however, a few dominant themes did emerge. Further, as is typical for openended

questions, a great variety of responses were provided. Prevailing themes identified through

this analysis are summarized below.

A. Instructional and Academic Improvement at CEPThe most common theme across the responses involved advice aimed at the need for

instructional improvement. Comments included the need for a stronger academic program,

a better focus on instructional improvement, and a focus on academic rigor. Notably,

observations and interviews at both CEP campuses revealed CEP is currently taking steps

to improve instruction. For example, principals with experience in this area were recently

hired for each campus. Strategies described included frequent classroom observations and

expectations that classroom lessons explicitly address TAKS objectives. Evidence of

instruction that addressed TAKS objectives was observed in classrooms randomly visited.

This is not to say that instructional improvement is not a need. Rather it is to communicate

an apparent emphasis on instructional improvement seen during the observations.

B.Accountability for Students Academic Progress and Reporting

The second most common type of advice expressed addressed a perceived need for

instructional accountability at CEP. This theme is related to the first theme identified, butresponses included here specifically addressed the need for instructional accountability,

most especially pertinent to the TAKS test.


13/26

13

Quantitative Indicator Findings

This section of the report describes detailed quantitative evaluation findings relative to

indicators specified in the performance contract between HISD and CEP.

1. Student Performance on State Assessment Instrument

District Name: Houston ISD

Campus Names: CEPSoutheast and CEPSouthwest (Community Education Partners)

Campus Types: Disciplinary Alternative Education ProgramGrade Span: 0612

% AtRisk: 91%

Table 1.1

CEP 2008-2009 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) (Grades 6-12)

AtRiskAll

StudentsAfrican

American Hispanic WhiteEcon

DisadvCEP

90+ daysCEP

120+ days

(n =

494)

(n =

546)

(n = 217) (n =

312)

(n = 456) (n = 308) (n = 194)

Analysis Groups

Evaluated

X X X X X X X

200809 TX Projection

Measure (TPM)

# Tests Met Standard 509 585 252 313 0 492 242 172

# Tests 848 946 409 510 0 796 517 317

% Met Standard 60% 62% 62% 61% 0% 62% 56% 54%

200809 Progress

Measure

# Tests Met Standard 418 488 195 267 0 401 229 137

# Tests 1,097 1,207 480 688 0 1,023 676 426

% Met Standard 38% 40% 41% 39% 0% 39% 34% 32%

Student Group % 91% 100% 40% 57% 0% 83% 56% 35%

The CEP/HISD agreement calls for the CEP Program to be evaluated on the Texas

Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) performance of students who wereadministered the TAKS assessment at CEP and who were enrolled in CEP at the time of the

PEIMS snapshot date (last Friday in October). The agreement also calls for students CEP

enrollment term to be taken into consideration. The data were analyzed using theAlternative Education Accountability (AEA) Standards. As part of the most recent AEA

standards, the 2009 TAKS administration marked the first year of the Texas Projection

Measure (TPM) designed to assess and predict students achievement growth based partly

on students performance on other TAKS assessment areas. The TPM calculation is also

based on schoollevel achievement results.


14/26

14

The Texas Education Agency does not recommend that DAEP programs be assessed on

aggregate achievement as part of the school accountability system. Instead, all results of

DAEP students are included with their respective home school data. Further, the TPM

calculations are based in part on the school mean averages of home schools even for

students enrolled in a DAEP program at the time of TAKS testing. As such, the results

presented in this evaluation should not be viewed as completely comparable toconventional TAKS school reports and accountability ratings.

Applying the AEA standards for TAKS progress, Table 1.1 shows that the CEP Program met

the standard of students passing at least 50% of all tests taken under the Texas ProjectionMeasure. This outcome pattern was consistent across all disaggregated groups specified by

the TAKS AEA system.

Specifically, under the TPM and among all CEP students, 62% of tests taken were passed

and each disaggregated group (atrisk, economically disadvantaged, African Americans,and Hispanics) was equal to, or within one to two percentage points of that mark. The

analysis also called for consideration to be given for length of time enrolled in CEP. Table1.1 shows that students enrolled at CEP for 90 days or more met standards for 56% of all

TAKS tests taken and students enrolled 120 or more days met standards 54% of TAKS

taken under the TPM. Because not all students had the necessary number of tests for TPM

calculations, and due to the absence of TAKS writing results available for analysis, the total

number of tests for the TPM analysis is lower in comparison to the number of all TAKS tests

taken by students under the progress measure standards.

In sum, the AEA guidelines state that schools can meet TAKS progress requirements by

meeting the student passing standard ormeeting the Texas Projection Measure (TPM). CEPachieved this objective by meeting the TPM standards.

2. Pre- and Post-Assessment Results and Academic Advancement Guarantee

CEP agreed to conduct pre and postassessments of all students enrolled in the CEPProgram, and for this evaluation the results for students enrolled 90 or more days in CEP

across the 20072008 and 20082009 academic years were reviewed. Indicator 4.1.B statesthat 70% of these students should demonstrate academic improvement on the assessment

instrument. This pre and postassessment is also related to the Academic Advancement

Guarantee (indicator 4.2), which assures minimum levels of advancement for students inreading and mathematics based on attendance. Specifically, students attending CEP for 175

or more days are guaranteed at least 1.5 years of academic advancement in both

mathematics and reading skill performance. Students attending CEP for 120 days or moreare guaranteed at least a 1.0 year advancement in skill performance in reading and math.

Students not meeting the standard were to receive continued services until meeting the

guaranteed performance level at no cost to the Houston ISD.

Pre and postassessment is based on the Plato Learning Fastrack Advantage Assessments

and Tests instruments and courseware employed by CEP. Skill level is assessed in terms of

grade equivalent scores matching each students assessed ability relative to performance


15/26

15

expected at a given grade level. As such, it does not matter that a student is behind in skill

level for their age, it only matters whether academic progress is made relative to their

grade equivalent starting point.

Pre PostAssessment Performance

The pretest scores of the CEP students suggest that most enrolled students begin at CEP

significantly behind in grade level skills in both reading and mathematics. On average,

students started at 3.76 grade equivalents in reading and 2.71 grade equivalents in

mathematics. The results indicate that, on average, students enrolled in the range of 90+days demonstrate a 3 grade equivalent improvement in reading and they improve about

3.25 grade equivalents in mathematics (Table 2.1). The assessment results suggest that by

the end of CEP assignment, these students obtained grade equivalent scores at roughly the

7th grade level in reading and about at the 6th grade equivalent in mathematics. Table 2.1

also shows that students enrolled for 120 days or more improved by roughly an additional.60 grade equivalents in both reading and mathematics skill compared to CEP students

with shorterterm assignments.

Calculations were also made to determine the amount ofweeklygrowth students exhibited

in both reading and mathematics skill performance. Again, students enrolled for 90 to 120

days or more showed very similar advancement in both reading and math by growing, on

average, approximately .11 grade equivalents per week of CEP enrollment. Although the

students enrolled for 175 days or more showed the highest overall grade equivalent gains,

weekly growth was somewhat lower with an average of .09 grade equivalents

advancement demonstrated.

Table 2.1

CEP Average Academic Advancement in Mathematics and Reading

Enrollment Length 90+ days

(n = 596)

120174 days

(n = 183)

175+ days

(n = 190)

Reading Gain 3.09

(SD = 2.24)3.01

(SD = 2.23)3.79

(SD = 2.41)Math Gain 3.24

(SD = 1.67)3.23

(SD = 1.67)3.87

(SD = 1.64)Avg. Weekly Gain Reading .11

(SD = .06)

.11

(SD = .06)

.09

(SD = .04)

Avg. Weekly Gain Math .11(SD = .08)

.11

(SD = .08)

.09

(SD = .06)

Overall, only 9 students showed no improvement in reading skill and 7 students

demonstrated no gain in mathematics. This means that approximately 99% of students

showed some level of improved performance in reading and mathematics skill level, well

above the 70% threshold established in the CEP/HISD agreement. The level of performance

improvement for the 90+ days enrollment group is not specified; therefore, students

showing any improvement still counted positively toward the performance standard.


16/26

16

Academic Advancement Guarantee

Notably, the language of the CEP/HISD agreement specifies the use of attendance rather

than enrollment for determining the CEP student groups covered under the Academic

Advancement Guarantee, indicator 4.2. For this reason, results for this indicator are basedon the days of attendance reported for CEP students, and displayed for students in

attendance for 120174 days and 175 days or more, respectively. Overall, across the

attendance categories and subjects, 93% to 95% of CEP students met or exceeded the

advancement standards for reading and mathematics based on their reported pre andposttest scores and days of attendance. It is not clear whether the guarantee standard is

tracked to ensure that students get an opportunity for extended academic services if they

fail to meet the standard.

Table 2.1 shows that most but not all students met the guarantee objectives. In the 120174day category, 183 students were enrolled with 122 of these students actually reported to

have attended 120+ days. Of those, 115 (94%) made 1.0 or more years of advancement inboth reading and mathematics based on their reported pre and posttest scores.

Of the 190 students enrolled for 175+ days, 103 were reported to have actually attended

175+ days. Of these, 96 (93%) met the 1.5 year advancement goal for reading and 98

(95%) met the goal for mathematics. Although a relatively small number, some students

did not reach the guarantee objectives and it is not known whether skills remediation

occurred.

Table 2.2

CEP Academic Advancement Guarantee in Mathematics and Reading1.0 year advancement 1.5 year advancement

120174 days

enrolled

(n = 183)

120174 days

attended

(n = 122)

175+ days

enrolled

(n = 190)

175+ days

attended

(n = 103)

Met Advancement

Guarantee Reading 159 115 168 96

Met Advancement

Guarantee Mathematics 164 115 176 98

Although the contract calls for evaluation based on the number of days of actual attendance

and not enrollment, given that differences between the number of days of reported

attendance and enrollment in both the 120174 day and 175+ day categories, we also

report results based on the total days of enrollment in Table 2.2. Among the 183 students

enrolled 120174 days, 159 (87%) met the advancement guarantee in reading and 164(90%) met the guarantee in mathematics. Among the 190 student enrolled for at least 175

days, 168 (88%) met the guarantee in reading while 176 (93%) met the guarantee inmathematics. Thus, if the more stringent standard based on enrollment were to be applied,


17/26

17

the percent of students meeting the guarantee across enrollment categories and subjects

would range from 8893%.

3. Middle School Promotion and Retention Rates

CEP was required to meet a promotion standard at the middle school level calling for 60%of CEP enrolled students to advance to the next grade.The CEP staff had a promotion

decision responsibility for any student enrolled in the program for at least 120 days

provided that a student was matriculated for at least the last six weeks of the fall semester

and the full spring semester. For the 20082009 academic year, the Chancery databasesystem yielded 1,764 records, but only 1,026 cases had full information on middle school

students with a final promotion decision and an indicator that CEP was the promotion

standard attendance site. Of this group, only 120 middle school students appear to have

spent 120 days or more enrolled in the CEP program.

Below we report two separate analyses on the promotion and retention rates of CEP

enrolled students. Table 3.1 is limited to middle school students for whom full promotiondecision information was available and Table 3.2 shows the basic promotion outcome for

all 1,764 middle school students reported in the Chancery system. All tables show

information for all students, those enrolled for 90 or more days, and the target group at

120 or more days.

By HISD policy, students may be promoted on the basis of meeting HISD established

promotion standards or by the decision of a promotion committee. Further, students have

an opportunity to attend summer school to complete course requirements if they fail to

meet all requirements during the regular academic year. Retention occurs when students

fail to meet the promotion standards or a promotion committee decides not to advance a

student to the next grade. At the time of this evaluation, CEP did not operate summerschool and most promotions resulting from a committee decision were rendered by the

home attendance school. In addition to the general promotion rate, Table 3.1 also shows

the percentage of students advanced on the basis of meeting promotion standards and thepercentage of students advancing by committee decision. Table 3.2 only provides data on

whether students were reported to be advanced to the next grade (or higher), thus,promotion is assumed.

Table 3.1CEP Middle School Promotion and Retention Rates (2008-2009) - Full Information

All CEP

(N = 1,026)

90 or more days

(N = 298)

120 or more

days (N = 120)Students Promoted (71%) (70%) (68%)

Promotion Standards 168 (16.4%) 38 (13%) 13 (11%)Committee Decision 559 (54.5%) 171 (57%) 69 (57%)

Students Retained (29%) (30%) (32%)Promotion Standards 298 (29%) 89 (30%) 38 (32%)Committee Decision 1 (0.1%) 0 0


18/26

18

Table 3.2

CEP Middle School Promotion and Retention Rates (2008-2009) - Partial InformationAll CEP

(N = 1,764)90 or more days

(N = 446)

120 or more

days (N = 161)

Students Promoted (76%) (76%) (69%)

Students Retained (24%) (34%) (31%)

Table 3.1 shows data for middle school students with full record information. We see that

71% of students attending CEP at some point in the 20082009 school year advanced in

grade, while 29% of students were retained at the current middle school level. Table 3.1

also shows that among the promoted students, 54.5% (n = 559) were advanced by

committee decision while 16.4% (n = 168) advanced based on meeting academicpromotion standards. A total of 298 students (29%) were retained as a result of not

meeting promotion standards while just one student was not advanced as a result of a

committee decision. For students enrolled 90 days or more (n= 298), Table 3.1 indicates a

general promotion rate of 70% with 13% of students promoted on the basis of meeting

HISD standards and 57% advancing by committee decision. The remaining 30% wereretained.

The target group of middle school students enrolled in the CEP program for 120 or more

days (n = 120) advanced to the next grade at an overall rate of 68%. Of this group, Table 3.1

shows that 11% of students advanced in grade by meeting promotion standards, while

committee decisions granted promotion to 57% of these students. About 32% of students

attending the CEP program for 120 or more days in the 20082009 school year did not

advance and were retained at the current grade level.

Table 3.2 shows data for all general middle school promotions without the promotion

campus or final decision fields identified. 76% of students attending CEP at some point

during the 20082009 school year advanced in grade. For students enrolled 90 days or

more there was again a general promotion rate of 76%, and the students enrolled for 120

or more days were promoted at a rate of 69%.

Provided that promotion by committee decision is given equal consideration to students

meeting established promotion standards, the CEP program exceeds the requirement of

60% or more students advancing in grade. The reported promotion rate of 6869% may

actually be higher, but is not demonstrated here because of data limitations in preciselyidentifying middle school students for whom CEP has a direct promotion decision.

4.High School Credit Completion Rates

The purpose of the high school credit completion rate analysis was to determine whether

students enrolled in CEP on a semester basis passed their coursework and attained course


19/26

19

credits in both core and elective subjects by satisfying all requirements. The CEP/HISD

evaluation agreement states that 70% of CEP students will meet course requirements and

attain credits in core academic subjects and electives, but it does not explicitly address

whether students are expected to earn 100% of all credits attempted to meet the

satisfactory standard or whether earning at least some core and elective credit satisfies

the requirement. Additionally, this analysis does not include a review of studentsindividualized graduation plans to determine whether credit accrual maintained or

exceeded credit completion objectives and goals.

The evaluation is limited to CEP students enrolled for complete semesters. Although otheranalyses in the CEP evaluation provide data on allstudents enrolled in CEP as well as for

the target analysis group, the technical challenges of narrowing and filtering credit

information prohibited such reporting here. This is especially true for elective courses as it

is not feasible for CEP to offer the comprehensive range of electives students may have

received at the home school site. Therefore, we limit this analysis to the specific outline ofthe CEP/HISD agreement.

Students do not enroll in the same number of courses per semester but all CEP courses

award the same level of credit (.5 credits per course). In this analysis we focus on the

completion of core subjects and examine courses passed and total credits earned, including

elective subjects. Below, credit completion is examined separately by the fall and spring

semesters occurring during the 20082009 academic year. We first examine mean

descriptive statistics showing course load patterns and average attainment of credits.

CEP Credit Completion Rates

On average, students took a course load of approximately 5 total subjects during the fall

term and averaged 5.5 courses in the spring term (see Table 4.1). During the fall term, CEPstudents (n = 101) averaged taking just above 4 core courses and 65 students also enrolled

in about 2 elective courses. The CEP spring semester students (n = 156) attempted an

average of 5 core courses and 66 of those students enrolled in approximately 1 electiveclass.In the core academic areas, the fall term students passed an average of 2.53 corecourses (SD = 1.65) while the spring term students passed an average of about 3 corecourses (SD = 2.15). On average, fall term students successfully passed 1.23 elective

courses (SD = .79) while their spring term peers were successful passing an average of

nearly 1 elective course (SD = .66).

If all fall term students earned full credit across all core courses, the average for these CEP

students would be slightly above 2 credits while the spring term group would have anaverage of around 2.5 credits. In the fall of 2008, CEP high school students averaged about

1.25 credits in the core areas and the Spring 2009 students earned an average of almost 1.5

credits. This means that CEP students earned credits (on average) in over half (60%) of all

core academic courses attempted, whether enrolled in the fall and/or spring semester.


20/26

20

Table 4.1

CEP Course Load and Average Credit Completion Fall 2008 & Spring 2009

Course Load and Credits Fall 2008 (n = 101) Spring 2009 (n = 156)

Total Courses Enrolled 5.29(SD = 1.07)

5.54(SD = .95)

Core Courses Enrolled 4.18(SD = .79)

5.02(SD = 1.05)

Core Courses Passed 2.53(SD = 1.65)

2.99(SD = 2.15)

Electives (n = 65) (n = 66)

Elective Courses Enrolled 1.72(SD = .48)

1.23(SD = .42)

Elective Courses Passed 1.23

(SD = .79)

0.89

(SD = .66)

To estimate the overall progress of CEP students towards earning course credits in a

semester, we examined the percentage of courses in which students successfully passed

and attained available credits. Table 4.2 shows the percentage of awarded credits by CEP

students across all core courses, while Table 4.3 shows results for overall credits earned

across both core and elective subjects for students enrolled in CEP in the Fall 2008 and

Spring 2009 semesters.

Table 4.2

CEP Core Courses Credit Completion Rate Percentage- Fall 2008 Spring 2009

Fall 2008 (n = 101) Spring 2009 (n = 156)No Credits Earned 17 (17%) 28 (18%)1% 25% Credits Earned 13 (13%) 20 (13%)

26% 49% Credits Earned 1 (1%) 14 (9%)50% 74% Credits Earned 20 (20%) 19 (12%)75% 99% Credits Earned 17 (17%) 24 (16%)100% All Credits Earned 33 (33%) 50 (32%)

As Table 4.2 displays, about 83% of all CEP fall term students and 82% of all spring term

students earned at least some academic credit in core academic courses. Table 4.2 alsoshows that most CEP students do not succeed in earning 100% of core credits from

attempted courses, but 60% (Spring 2009) to 70% (Fall 2008) succeeded in earning credits

in half or more of courses taken during a complete semester at CEP. About 33% of all CEPstudents in the fall of 2008 were awarded full credit for all core courses taken, and 32% of

students enrolled in the spring 2009 semester had the same level of success. The data alsoshow that 17% of fall enrolled students and 18% of spring enrolled students failed to earn

credits in the core academic areas. Notably, it is possible for a student to earn a passing


21/26

21

grade average of 70 or better in a course but not earn credit by failing to meet other

requirements for credit completion (e.g., attendance). Based on state standards, this is true

for all students enrolled in HISD and throughout the state.

Table 4.3 presents the results for overall credit completion including both core and elective

courses. Once again 84% of all fall enrolled CEP students and 83% of all spring enrolledstudents earned at least some credits from coursework passed. In the fall we see that 70%

of CEP students passed courses and earned credits in at least half of all classes taken. In the

spring, 63% of CEP students passed courses and earned available credits for half or more

classes. About 32% of fall enrolled students and 31% of spring enrolled students succeededin passing all enrolled courses and earning all available credits. The data also show that

16% (fall) to 17% (spring) of CEP students failed to earn any semester credits.

Table 4.3

CEP All Courses Credit Completion Rate Percentage- Fall 2008 Spring 2009

Fall 2008 (n = 101) Spring 2009 (n = 156)No Credits Earned 16 (16%) 26 (17%)1% 25% Credits Earned 11 (11%) 13 (8%)

26% 49% Credits Earned 3 ( 3%) 18 (12%)50% 74% Credits Earned 25 (25%) 26 (17%)75% 99% Credits Earned 13 (13%) 24 (15%)100% All Credits Earned 33 (32%) 49 (31%)

The HISD/CEP agreement is vague regarding whether 70% of CEP students were to earncredits for allcourses taken in any semester to meet the contract standard. If so, CEP would

not have met this standard. However, well over 80% of students enrolled in CEP for fullsemesters did have success in earning credits in at least some of their coursework and 60

70% earned credit in at least half of all classes.

5. Disciplinary Action Rates

The CEP/HISD evaluation agreement calls for a review of students disciplinary records to

determine whether behavior patterns among CEP students improve as a result of

enrollment in the CEP Program. CEP students were to show evidence of improved behavior

in terms of decreased referrals, in and outofschool suspensions and arrests as compared

to each students home school referral documentation. The goal was for at least 70% of CEPstudents enrolled for 120 days or more to show a reduction in behavioral issues. In

addition to the target group of CEP students assigned for 120 or more days, below we also

discuss the disciplinary records of all students enrolled in the CEP Program at any point

during the 20082009 academic year.


22/26

22

Overview of Disciplinary Action Rates

Table 5.1 presents the mean rates of discipline actions comparing CEP discipline records to

home school discipline records in the categories of (1) total referrals, (2) inschool

suspensions, (3) outofschool suspensions, and (4) serious infractions. The CEP/HISD

agreement specified comparisons on arrests, but data do not allow us to confirm whetherarrests of students were actually involved. Instead, we use the PEIMS disciplinary reason

codes to record incidents that constitute misdemeanors and felonies. Notably, the

proportion of disciplinary actions resulting from these most serious offenses is fewer than

20% percent of all incidents resulting in assignment to the DAEP program. Depending ongrade level, violations of student conduct (reason code 21) account for 70% to 80% of all

referral actions.

Table 5.1

CEP Referral Disciplinary Action Rates 2008-2009

Disciplinary Action All CEP(n = 2,839)

90 or moredays

(n = 651)

120 or moredays

(n = 229)

Home School Total referrals 4.58

(SD = 3.70)

3.39

(SD = 3.11)

1.84

(SD = 2.45)

CEP Program Total referrals 1.40

(SD = 2.36)

2.91

(SD = 3.43)

4.12

(SD = 4.11)Home School Inschool suspensions 1.62

(SD = 2.26)

1.12

(SD = 1.72)

.43

(SD = .95)

CEP Program Inschool suspensions .62

(SD = 1.59)

1.45

(SD = 2.43)

2.15

(SD = 3.04)

Home School Outofschoolsuspensions

2.16(SD = 1.93)

1.56(SD = 1.56)

.95(SD = 1.34)

CEP Program Outofschool

suspensions

.33

(SD = 0.80)

.77

(SD = 1.20)

.98

(SD = 1.44)

Home School Serious infractions* .43

(SD = 0.88)

.44

(SD = 0.90)

.32

(SD = 0.78)

CEP Program Serious infractions * .08

(SD = 0.35)

.12

(SD = 0.44)

.14

(SD = 0.41)*Disciplinary infraction on the level of a felony or misdemeanor as described by PEIMS Disciplinary

Action Reason Codes

Data were available on 2,839 students who were assigned to the CEP Program for variouslengths of enrollment during the 20082009 school year. The information in Table 5.1

allows us to compare the mean discipline rates between allCEP enrolled students (n =

2,839), those CEP students enrolled for 90 or more days (n = 651), and the target groupenrolled in CEP for 120 or more days (n = 229). One of the most striking results shown in

Table 5.1 is that the number of discipline actions is largely dependent on the school in

which the student spent most of the school year. Students spending the majority of the year

at their home campus had higher numbers of referrals and suspensions there than they had


23/26

23

enrolled in the CEP Program. The pattern is reversed for students spending most of the

school year enrolled in the CEP Program. For instance, we see that among all CEP

students, the mean home school referral rate is 4.58, but the same students average only

1.40 referrals during their time at the CEP campus. On the other hand, students enrolled for

120 or more days at a CEP site averaged 4.12 referrals at CEP, but during their time in

residence at the home school they averaged just 1.84 referrals. This pattern holds true forboth inschool and outofschool suspensions as well. The one exception is the category of

serious infractions. Although reports of serious of infractions average only .32 to .44 during

home school attendance for these students, the CEP Program sites average just .08 to .14

for these major offenses in conduct. In this case, the rates of the most serious infractionsappear to depend partly on the campus of enrollment, with students enrolled at CEP

averaging fewer referrals for felonies or misdemeanors than those enrolled at HISD,

regardless of which of the three enrollment categories are compared.

Decreases in Disciplinary Action Rates

The CEP/HISD agreement calls for an evaluation based on decreases in referral rates andother disciplinary actions for students enrolled in CEP for 120 days or more. Table 5.2

shows that the CEP Program did not meet the standard of 70% of students recording fewer

referrals, inschool suspensions, outofschool suspensions, and serious infractions. Again,

with the exception of serious infractions, the category of greatest improvement, the pattern

is mostly related to whether students were enrolled for the majority of the year at CEP or

home school. Had the comparison been based on all CEP students regardless of assignment

period, the 70% standard would have been met as 75% of all students had fewer referrals,

71% had fewer inschool suspensions, 87% had fewer outofschool suspensions, and 76%

recorded fewer serious infractions. Instead, low percentages of students enrolled for 120

days or more at CEP had fewer referrals (31%), inschool suspensions (19%), outofschool

suspensions (47%), and serious infractions (55%).

Table 5.2

CEP Decreases in Disciplinary Action Rates 2008-2009*

Disciplinary Action All CEP 90 or more days 120 or more

days

Total Referrals 75%

(n = 2,839)

56%

(n = 651)

31%

(n = 229)

Inschool suspensions 71%

(n = 1,942)

44%

(n = 488)

19%

(n = 167)Outofschool suspensions 87%

(n = 2,392)

65%

(n = 430)

47%

(n = 163)Serious infractions** 76%

(n = 753)

79%

(n = 105)

55%

(n = 62)


24/26

24

* The number of valid cases (n) fluctuates for the presented groups as some students had

no in or outofschool suspension or serious infractions at either the home school or CEP

site. These students are omitted.

**Disciplinary infraction on the level of a felony or misdemeanor as described by PEIMS

Disciplinary Action Reason Codes

6. Attendance Rates and Leaver Status

The agreement between HISD and CEP called for CEP to maintain an attendance rate of80% for students enrolled in the CEP Program for 120 or more days. Additionally, 85% of

students withdrawing from CEP before or after completing the exit criteria were expected

to return to HISD or another academic institution excluding students graduating from CEP.

Notably, the data we were provided for analysis indicated that less than 10% of the

students who were in enrolled at CEP during 20082009 were enrolled for 120 days ormore. Below we compare attendance rates based on time enrolled in the CEP Program and

discuss the patterns among students withdrawing from the CEP Program and Houston ISD.

Attendance Rates

During the 20082009 academic year, the data we were provided indicate 2,913 students

were enrolled in the CEP Program for varying assignment lengths. Attendance rates are

drawn from PEIMS records; however, these records do not account for the differences

between the days students were enrolled and actively attending CEP. Therefore, as agreed

by CEP and HISD, an adjustment of three days was made to the calculation of the

attendance rates reported below due to the CEP orientation cycle, which begins once

weekly. Table 6.1 shows the raw attendance data from PEIMS records and Table 6.2

includes the threeday adjustment calculation. Notably, the adjustment applies to the daysabsentand not the dayspresentas reported in PEIMS.

Table 6.1

CEP Program Attendance Rates 2008-2009 PEIMS UnadjustedCEP Days of Enrollment Average Attendance Rate Standard DeviationAll Days (n = 2,913) 79% 19%90 or more days (n = 664) 78% 15%120 or more days (n = 239) 75% 15%


25/26

25

Table 6.2

CEP Program Attendance Rates 2008-2009 PEIMS AdjustedCEP Days of Enrollment Average Attendance Rate Standard DeviationAll Days (n = 2,913) 84% 19%

90 or more days (n = 664) 80% 15%120 or more days (n = 239) 76% 16%

On average, CEP students were enrolled for about 61 days (SD = 37), with a meanattendance of about 48 days (SD = 31), thus being absent an average of 13 days (SD = 14).

As shown in Table 6.1, the average rate of attendance for allCEP students was 79%, but theadjusted rate is 84% (Table 6.2). Reviewing attendance for students enrolled at CEP for 90

or more days, 664 students averaged 116 days of enrollment (SD = 22), with an average

attendance of 91 days (SD = 23) and average absences of about 26 days (SD = 19). Table 6.1indicates an average attendance rate of 78% for this group, with the adjusted rate (Table

6.2) at 80% attendance.

The evaluation of attendance patterns by the HISD/CEP agreement focuses on CEP students

enrolled for 120 or more days during the 20082009 school year. As noted earlier, thistarget group represents just 8 percent of all CEP assigned students. This group of 239

students was enrolled in the CEP Program for an average of about 141 days (SD = 16).

These students were present for an average of 106 days (SD = 26) and absent an average of

36 days (SD = 22). This provides an estimated average attendance rate of 75% with an

adjusted rate of 76%. This falls short of the 80% goal for the target group of students by

four to five percent. However, 92 percent of all CEP students would meet or exceed the

80% standard under the adjusted attended rate.

Leaver Status

HISD and CEP agreed that 85% of students leaving before or after completing CEP exitcriteria should return to Houston ISD or another academic institution, excluding those

students graduating from the CEP program. As reported in Table 6.3, CEP met the leaverstandard with 91% of all students, 90% of those enrolled 90 days or more, and 86% of

those enrolled 120 days or more classified as nonleavers from CEP in PEIMS. Importantly,

among those classified as leaving, several reason codes indicate withdrawal for

educational reasons that may not include dropping out. Therefore, we report a breakdown

of the leaver codes in Table 6.3.

Reasons students were classified as leaving include returning to home countries,participating in home schooling, enrolling in private schools in Texas, and enrolling in

schools outside Texas. Such categories should likely be excluded from any dropout analysis

as these represent circumstances beyond the direct control of either CEP or Houston ISD.

Surprisingly, there was no PEIMS category representing students who enrolled in anotherTexas public school district. The broadest leaver category in PEIMS was labeled other.

This category may include dropouts but might also include students enrolling in another

Texas public school district. The total number of students classified as other ranges from


26/26

5% for all students attending CEP to 10% for those enrolled 120 days or more. Based on

this analysis, CEP met the leaver standard with more than 85% of students not classified as

leaving for unacceptable reasons.

Table 6.3

Leaver Status by PEIMS Reason Code CEP Program (2008-2009)

Total Number of CEP Students

All CEP

2913

90 days or more

664

120 days or

more

239

Total Number nonLeavers1 2642 (91%) 597 (90%) 206 (86%)

Leavers by Reason Code

Return to Home Country 30 (1%) 8 (1%) 4 (2%)

Home Schooling 13 (

cep evaluation

Documents