state compensatory education is the 2005–2006 evaluation report on the state compensatory...

MEMORANDUM February 16, 2007 TO: School Board Members FROM: Abelardo Saavedra Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: STATE COMPENSATORY EDUCATION CONTACT: Carla Stevens, 713-556-6700 Attached is the 20052006 evaluation report on the State Compensatory Education (SCE) program in the Houston Independent School District. The purpose of this report is to describe and evaluate the SCE-funded programs as indicated by state law. This information allows the state to determine the effectiveness of SCE programs in reducing the disparity in performance on the state assessment instruments and completion rates between students considered at-risk of dropping out of school and their not at-risk counterparts. Some of this years key findings are as follows. Overall, the passing rates of not at-risk students exceeded those for at-risk students on all

subtests of both the English and Spanish TAKS in 2006. District-wide student performance on the SDAA II indicated that, overall, the percent

meeting ARD expectations was higher for not at-risk students than for at-risk students. The achievement gap between at-risk and not at-risk students between 2005 and 2006

decreased at the majority of grade levels on all English and Spanish TAKS subtests except English writing and science, which remained the same.

There were increases in the reading and mathematics achievement gaps of at-risk compared to not at-risk students between 2005 and 2006 on the SDAA II, while there was a reduction in the gap on the writing test.

The completion rates for at-risk students decreased from 88.3% in 2004 to 82.7% in 2005, thus increasing the disparity between at-risk and not-at-risk students

Should you have any further questions, please contact my office or Carla Stevens in Research and Accountability at (713) 556-6700.

___ ___AS Attachment cc: Superintendents Direct Reports

Regional Superintendents Executive Principals Noelia Garza Bernadette Cardenas

RESEARCHReport on an Educational Program

STATE COMPENSATORY EDUCATION20052006

Houston Independent School District

D e p a r t m e n t of R e s e a r c h a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y

Abelardo Saavedra, Ph.D.SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

Carla StevensINTERIM ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT

DEPARTMENT OF RESEARCH AND ACCOUNTABILITY

HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTBoard of Education

Diana Dvila

Kevin H. Hoffman

Dianne Johnson

Lawrence Marshall

Manuel Rodrguez Jr., PRESIDENT

Harvin C. Moore, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT

Greg Meyers, SECOND VICE PRESIDENT

Arthur M. Gaines Jr., SECRETARY

Natasha M. Kamrani, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

Venita HolmesRESEARCH SPECIALIST

Michael SchroderRESEARCH SPECIALIST

Harry M. SeligRESEARCH MANAGER

RESEARCH

Journal of Educational Reports of State Compensatory Education Programs

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................. 1

State Compensatory Education Report ............................................... 7

Programs and ServicesAlternative Education Programs and Centers .............................. 17District-wide Initiative ................................................................... 25Student Support Services ............................................................ 27

At-Risk TAKS/SDAA II Performance and Completion Rate IndicatorsDistrict-wide ................................................................................. 31Regions

Central .................................................................................... 33East ....................................................................................... 147North ..................................................................................... 229South ..................................................................................... 361West ...................................................................................... 441Alternative and Charter Schools ........................................... 567

Schools Index .................................................................................... 615

Schools by Trustee District Index ....................................................... 619

20052006

PageReport Title

STATE COMPENSATORY EDUCATION: 20052006

HISD RESEARCH AND ACCOUNTABILITY 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AN EVALUATION OF STATE COMPENSATORY EDUCATION20052006

1. Is in prekindergarten, kindergarten, or grade 1, 2,or 3, and did not perform satisfactorily on a readi-ness test or assessment instrument administeredduring the current school year;

2. Is in grade 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 and did notmaintain an average equivalent to 70 on a scale of100 in two or more subjects in the foundationcurriculum during a semester in the preceding orcurrent school year or is not maintaining such anaverage in two or more subjects in the foundationcurriculum in the current semester;

3. Was not advanced from one grade level to thenext for one or more school years;

4. Did not perform satisfactorily on an assessmentinstrument administered to the student underSubchapter B, Chapter 39, and who has not in theprevious or current school year subsequentlyperformed on that instrument or another appropri-ate instrument at a level equal to at least 110percent of the level of satisfactory performanceon that instrument;

5. Is pregnant or is a parent;6. Has been placed in an alternative education pro-

gram in accordance with Section 37.006 duringthe preceding or current school year;

7. Has been expelled in accordance with Section37.007 during the preceding or current schoolyear;

8. Is currently on parole, probation, deferred pros-ecution, or other conditional release;

9. Was previously reported through the Public Edu-cation Information Management System (PEIMS)to have dropped out of school;

10. Is a student of limited English proficiency, asdefined by Section 29.052;

11. Is in the custody or care of the Department ofProtective and Regulatory Services or has, duringthe current school year, been referred to the

Program Description The State Compensatory Education (SCE) pro-

gram is designed to reduce the dropout rate andincrease the academic performance of students iden-tified as being at-risk of dropping out of school. SCEoperates as a funding source to supplement instruc-tional services and offer academic support to studentswho meet the SCE at-risk criteria established by thestate. Funds allocated under SCE law are to bechanneled toward programs and services that elimi-nate any disparity in performance on assessmentinstruments administered under Subchapter B, Chap-ter 39. Further, programs designated for SCE fundingshould reduce disparity in the rates of high schoolcompletion between students who are at-risk of drop-ping out of school and all other students. The TexasAssessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) servesas the state assessment measure. In order for SCEfunds to be allocated to a campus, the campus mustnot only meet the state criteria for students at-risk ofdropping out of school, but the services provided tostudents must be described in the district and/orcampus improvement plan.

As defined by law, SCE programs and/or servicesare designed to supplement the regular educationprogram that districts offer to students and funds mustprovide additional support for at-risk students. Supple-mental costs include costs for program and studentevaluation, instructional materials and equipment andother supplies required for quality instruction, supple-mental staff expenses, salary for teachers of at-riskstudents, smaller class size, and individualized in-struction (TEC 42.152(c))

State Criteria for Identifying At-Risk StudentsTEC 29.081 defines a student at-risk of dropping

out of school as each student who is under 21 years ofage and who:


2 HISD RESEARCH AND ACCOUNTABILITY

department by a school official, officer of thejuvenile court, or law enforcement official;

12. Is homeless, as defined by 42 U.S.C. Section11302, and its subsequent amendments; or

13. Resided in the preceding school year, or residesin the current school year, in a residential place-ment facility in the district, including a detentionfacility, substance abuse treatment facility, emer-gency shelter, psychiatric hospital, halfway house,or foster family group home.

Reporting and Auditing of SCE FundsAs directed by Texas law, the State Board of

Education develops and implements reporting andauditing guidelines for district and campus expendi-tures of SCE funds to ensure that SCE funds are spentonly to supplement the regular education program inaccordance with law (TEC 42.152(q)). The reportingrequirements must be managed electronically to mini-mize local administrative costs. The Commissioner ofEducation is also required to develop a system toidentify districts that are at high risk of having usedSCE funds other than in compliance with the law orhaving inadequately reported SCE expenditures (TEC42.152(q)). If a review of the report submitted by thedistrict using the risk-based system indicates that adistrict is not at high risk of having violated the law, thedistrict may not be required to perform a local audit ofSCE expenditures and may not be subject to on-sitemonitoring. If a review of the report is at high risk ofhaving misused SCE funds, the commissioner mustrequire the district to conduct a local audit of SCEexpenditures and/or order Texas Education Agency(TEA) staff to conduct on-site monitoring of the districtsSCE expenditures (TEC 42.152(q)).

The rules for reporting and auditing SCE expendi-tures adopted by the State Board of Education and theCommissioner of Education are located in the Finan-cial Accountability System Resource Guide, asamended December, 2004 (TEA, 2004) and wereadopted as the agencys official rule in the TexasAdministrative Code (TAC 109.41).

Major SCE Legal and Administrative ProvisionsTexas law requires that each school district uses

student performance data from the Texas Assess-ment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), and otherassessment instruments administered under Sub-chapter B, Chapter 39 of the Texas Educational Code,to design and implement appropriate compensatory,intensive, or accelerated instructional services for

students in the districts schools that enable the stu-dents to perform at grade level at the conclusion of thenext regular school term (TEC 29.081(a)). In addi-tion, HISD is required to provide accelerated instruc-tion to students who have not performed well on theexit-level TAKS and who are considered at-risk ofdropping out of school according to SCE criteria (TEC29.081(b)).

Additionally, the district must evaluate and docu-ment the effectiveness of instructional programs inreducing any disparity in performance on the TAKSand disparity in the rates of high school completionbetween students at-risk of dropping out of school andall other district students. The evaluations are re-quired annually. SCE resources must be redirectedwhen evaluations indicate that programs and/or ser-vices are unsuccessful in producing desired results forstudents at-risk of dropping out of school (TEA, 2004).

The Texas Education Code also requires eachschool district (including charter schools) to have adistrict and campus improvement plan. The SCEProgram must be described in the campus improve-ment plan if the program is implemented at the campuslevel or be described in the district improvement planif the SCE Program is implemented district-wide.

Program Cost and Funding SourceThe annual budget for SCE programs in HISD for

the 20052006 academic year was $93,647,880. Thisfigure included $50,163,137 of supplemental campus-based funds.

The money allocated for state-funded compen-satory education programs and/or services was basedon the number of economically disadvantaged stu-dents in the district. The number of economicallydisadvantaged students is determined by averagingthe best six months of enrollment for those who qualifyin the national school lunch program for free- orreduced-price lunches for the preceding school year.Districts are entitled to receive an additional annualallotment equal to the adjusted basic allotment multi-plied by 0.2 for each student who is academicallydisadvantaged and who does not have a disability.Students must reside in a residential placement facilityin a district in which their parent or legal guardian doesnot reside. Districts are also entitled to receive anannual allotment equal to the adjusted basic allotmentmultiplied by 2.41 for each full-time equivalent studentin a remedial and support program because the stu-dent is pregnant or a parent (TEC 29.081).



Purpose of the Evaluation ReportThe purpose of this report is to describe and

evaluate the SCE funded programs in HISD as indi-cated by law. As mentioned previously, HISD mustprovide information that allows the state to determinethe effectiveness of SCE programs in reducing thedisparity in performance on the state assessmentinstruments and completion rates between studentsconsidered at-risk of dropping out of school and theirnot at-risk counterparts. This evaluation reports stu-dent performance on the TAKS and SDAA II betweenstudents identified at-risk according to SCE criteriaand their not at-risk counterparts. As required by theTEA (2004), the percent of students passing the TAKSis reported for at-risk and not at-risk students for athree-year period. Differences in passing rates be-tween at-risk and not at-risk students are also reportedfor the past three years so that movement in reducingthe disparity in passing rates can be ascertained.

Secondly, as determined by agreement betweenthe supervisor of SCE programs for HISD and theTEA, results for at-risk and not at-risk students takingthe State Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA)and State Developed Alternative Assessment, Ver-sion II (SDAA II) for the past three years are nowincluded in the HISD SCE evaluation. Specifically, thepercent of at-risk and not at-risk students meetingAdmission Review and Dismissal (ARD) committeeexpectations and the differences in passing rates forthe two groups are reported.

In compliance with guidelines specified by theTEA (2004), high school completion rates are reportedfor at-risk and not at-risk students attending HISD. Aswill be discussed in more detail in the Methods sectionof this report, the completion rate includes studentswho graduate, receive a GED, or continue to beenrolled.

Finally, this evaluation provides a profile of theSCE programs and services offered to at-risk studentsin HISD during the 20052006 school year. For thepurpose of this report, programs and services weregrouped according to the following programmatic pur-poses:

Alternative Education Programs and Centers: KayOn-Going Education Center, HISD/CEP Schools,Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program(JJAEP), Kazi Shule, Mt. Hebron Academy, andNorth Alternative School;

District-wide Initiative: Excess Cost Model; and, Student Support Services: Communities In

Schools Houston (CISH) and Pregnancy-RelatedServices (PRS).

The evaluation of individual programs and ser-vices is summarized in the abstract that precedeseach set of profiles. Nine SCE programs and serviceswere profiled. Each profile includes a program de-scription, student demographics, budget allocations,staffing/funding, school improvement plan informa-tion, program-specific student outcomes, and an ex-ecutive summary.

Findings Of the 209,879 students attending HISD schools

in 20052006, 140,956 students (67.2%) wereidentified as being at-risk according to SCE crite-ria. More males were identified as at-risk thanfemales (52.2% vs. 47.8%, respectively).

The highest proportion of students considered at-risk according to SCE criteria were enrolled in thefirst grade (10.3%), and the second highest pro-portion were enrolled in the second grade (9.4%).

More students classified at-risk were consideredeconomically disadvantaged (based on qualifica-tion for free or reduced price lunch) than noteconomically disadvantaged (88.8% vs. 11.2%,respectively).

The ethnic composition of at-risk students con-sisted of 66.9% Hispanic, 27.3% African Ameri-can, and 3.9% White students. In addition, Asianscomprised 1.8% of at-risk students, while lessthan 1% of at-risk students were Native Ameri-cans.

Analysis of district-wide student performance onthe 2006 English TAKS indicated that the passingrates of not at-risk students exceeded the passingrates for at-risk students on all subtests and at allgrade levels by at least 11 percentage points.

On the English TAKS, there were overall gapreductions between at-risk and not at-risk stu-dents from 2005 to 2006 on the reading, math-ematics, and social studies subtests. The gapsbetween the groups in writing and science re-mained stable.



District-wide Spanish TAKS results revealed thatthe passing rates of not at-risk students exceededthe passing rates for at-risk students at all gradelevels and subtests by at least four percentagepoints in 2006.

On the Spanish TAKS, there were reductions inthe overall gaps between at-risk and not at-riskstudents from 2005 to 2006 on the reading, math-ematics, and writing subtests. Since all studentstested on the science subtest were considered atrisk, gap reductions could not be assessed on thissubtest. The social studies subtest is not admin-istered in Spanish.

Analysis of district-wide student performance onthe 2006 SDAA II indicated that the overall percentmeeting ARD expectations for not at-risk studentsexceeded the percent meeting ARD expectationsfor at-risk students on the reading and mathemat-ics subtests. On the writing subtest, the passingrates were comparable for at-risk and not at-riskstudents (73%).

From 2005 to 2006, the overall performance gapon the SDAA II increased between at-risk and notat-risk students on the reading and mathematicssubtests. At the same time, there was a reductionin the gap between these groups on the writingsubtest.

Completion rates for at-risk students declinedconsiderably from 88.3% in 2004 to 82.7% in2005, a difference of 5.6 percentage points. At thesame time, the disparity between completion ratesfor not at-risk and at-risk students increased sub-stantially by 7.5 percentage points.

Alternative education programs and centers re-ceiving SCE funds had a combined enrollment of1,608 students in 20052006, which representeda decrease of 1.7% from the 20042005 schoolyear. In 20042005, there were 1,636 studentsimpacted by SCE funds in these programs. Thetotal budget allocation for 20052006 was slightlyless than $20 million, with all of the programsreceiving a decrease in funds except the HISD/CEP schools and JJAEP.

Student Support Services served at-risk studentson multiple campuses. Direct and indirect supportservices included the management of school-related problems, counseling, crisis intervention,tutorials, pre-employment skills training, dropoutprevention, child care, home instruction, and preg-nancy-related services.

The Excess Cost Model was implemented to fundadditional instructional positions with the ultimategoals of reducing class sizes below district guide-lines. The total budget allocation for the 20052006 school year was $21,516,038 to fund 962.1full-time equivalents (FTEs). This amount reflectsa dramatic decrease from the 20042005 schoolyear, which was $35,671,962 to fund 853.1 FTEsof additional teacher support.

Recommendations:1. Program administrators of alternative education

programs and centers should implement scientifi-cally-based research strategies to appropriatelyaddress identified problem areas including stu-dent achievement, dropout, dropout recovery, andattendance rates. In addition, effective instruc-tional practices should be utilized to reduce thedisparities in performance on assessment instru-ments and high school completion rates betweenstudents at-risk and not at-risk of dropping out ofschool in the district.

2. SCE administrative staff should develop a longitu-dinal tracking, monitoring, and evaluation systemto measure progress of students receiving inter-ventions through alternative education programsand centers as they mainstream into the tradi-tional school setting. This will provide a moreaccurate assessment of the impact of alternativeinterventions on improving achievement, dropout,and attendance rates.

3. To increase student achievement and the gradu-ation rate, and reduce the risk of dropping out ofschool, HISD administrative staff should continueimplementation of the Excess Cost Model. Goalsand objectives of how schools utilize these fundsshould be documented in the school improvementplans. Campuses that have reduced class sizesneed to monitor the effect of SCE funds on studentachievement.



4. External Funding should consider reviewing theneed for additional funding for pregnancy-relatedservices to ensure that participating at-risk stu-dents do not drop out of school due to issuespertaining to day care or difficulty transitioningback to the classroom. Graduation rates of thesestudents should be monitored to determine impactof SCE interventions on completion rates.

5. SCE programs and services should continue todevelop strategies to improve progress on out-come indicators such as academic achievement,attendance rates, and completion rates. Improve-ment on these indicators has been theoreticallyand practically linked to improved graduation ratesand a reduction in dropout rates.



AN EVALUATION OF STATE COMPENSATORY EDUCATION20052006

Purpose: To describe the educational programs and schools that provided services forat-risk students based on State Compensatory Education (SCE) criteria in 20052006.

Design: A profile was developed for the programs and services offered during the20052006 school year. Each profile included a program description, demographicdata, budget allocations, staffing/funding, school improvement plan information,student outcomes, and an executive summary. Texas Assessment of Knowledgeand Skills (TAKS) and State Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA and SDAAII) performance data for at-risk and not at-risk students were provided for all SCE-funded schools and programs. Completion rate indicators were also provided for at-risk and not at-risk students in SCE-funded high schools.

Population: At-risk students enrolled in Houston Independent School District schoolsand programs receiving SCE funds.

Methods: Interviews with administrative staff were conducted to gather data on programcomponents. The percent of at-risk and not at-risk students passing the TAKS anddifferences in performance between the two groups were reported for a three-yearperiod for all schools and programs, where applicable. The same reporting mecha-nism was used for students meeting Admission Review and Dismissal (ARD)committee expectations on the SDAA II. Completion rate indicators were reported forat-risk and not at-risk students using the Texas Education Agency (TEA) definition.

Findings: Analysis of districtwide student performance on the English and SpanishTAKS indicated that the passing rates of not at-risk students exceeded those for at-risk students on all subtests of both instruments. Analysis of districtwide studentperformance on the SDAA II indicated that the percent meeting ARD expectationswas higher for not-at-risk students than for at-risk students. Furthermore, theachievement gap between at-risk and not-at-risk students between 2005 and 2006increased on all English and Spanish TAKS subtests except English writing andscience, which remained the same. There were reductions as well as increases in theachievement gap between at-risk and not-at-risk students between 2005 and 2006on the SDAA II, depending on the subject. On the other hand, the completion ratesfor at-risk students decreased from 88.3% in 2004 to 82.7% in 2005, thus increasingthe disparity between at-risk and not-at-risk students.

Conclusions: SCE programs and services should continue to develop strategies toimprove progress on outcome indicators such as academic achievement, atten-dance rates, and completion rates. Improvement on these indicators has beentheoretically and practically linked to better graduation rates and dropout outcomes.



Introduction

Program Description The State Compensatory Education (SCE) pro-

gram is designed to reduce the dropout rate andincrease the academic performance of students iden-tified as being at-risk of dropping out of school. SCEoperates as a funding source to supplement instruc-tional services and offer academic support to studentswho meet the SCE at-risk criteria established by thestate. Funds allocated under SCE law are to bechanneled toward programs and services that elimi-nate any disparity in performance on assessmentinstruments administered under Subchapter B, Chap-ter 39. Further, programs designated for SCE fundingshould reduce disparity in the rates of high schoolcompletion between students who are at-risk of drop-ping out of school and all other students. The TexasAssessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) servesas the state assessment measure. In order for SCEfunds to be allocated to a campus, the campus mustnot only meet the state criteria for students at-risk ofdropping out of school, but the services provided tostudents must be described in the district and/orcampus improvement plan.

As defined by law, SCE programs and/or servicesare designed to supplement the regular educationprogram that districts offer to students and funds mustprovide additional support for at-risk students. Supple-mental costs include costs for program and studentevaluation, instructional materials and equipment andother supplies required for quality instruction, supple-mental staff expenses, salary for teachers of at-riskstudents, smaller class size, and individualized in-struction (TEC 42.152(c))

State Criteria for Identifying At-Risk StudentsTEC 29.081 defines a student at-risk of dropping

out of school as each student who is under 21 years ofage and who:1. Is in pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, or grade 1, 2,

or 3, and did not perform satisfactorily on a readi-ness test or assessment instrument administeredduring the current school year;

2. Is in grade 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 and did not maintainan average equivalent to 70 on a scale of 100 intwo or more subjects in the foundation curriculumduring a semester in the preceding or currentschool year or is not maintaining such an averagein two or more subjects in the foundation curricu-lum in the current semester;

3. Was not advanced from one grade level to thenext for one or more school years;

4. Did not perform satisfactorily on an assessmentinstrument administered to the student under Sub-chapter B, Chapter 39, and who has not in theprevious or current school year subsequentlyperformed on that instrument or another appropri-ate instrument at a level equal to at least 110percent of the level of satisfactory performance onthat instrument;

5. Is pregnant or is a parent;6. Has been placed in an alternative education pro-

gram in accordance with Section 37.006 duringthe preceding or current school year;

7. Has been expelled in accordance with Section37.007 during the preceding or current schoolyear;

8. Is currently on parole, probation, deferred pros-ecution, or other conditional release;

9. Was previously reported through the Public Edu-cation Information Management System (PEIMS)to have dropped out of school;

10. Is a student of limited English proficiency, asdefined by Section 29.052;

11. Is in the custody or care of the Department ofProtective and Regulatory Services or has, duringthe current school year, been referred to thedepartment by a school official, officer of thejuvenile court, or law enforcement official;

12. Is homeless, as defined by 42 U.S.C. Section11302, and its subsequent amendments; or

13. Resided in the preceding school year, or residesin the current school year, in a residential place-ment facility in the district, including a detentionfacility, substance abuse treatment facility, emer-gency shelter, psychiatric hospital, halfway house,or foster family group home.

BackgroundSince the early 1960s, federal, state, and local

governmental agencies have demonstrated concernregarding the provision of equitable and appropriatelearning opportunities for economically disadvantagedyouth served in public educational institutions. Thegrowing number of disadvantaged students, particu-larly in large, urban school districts, helped fuel thecompensatory education movement. The underlyingassumption was that many students were at an edu-cational disadvantage because of circumstances as-sociated with their minority and/or poverty status which,ultimately, contributed to their low academic achieve-



passed Senate Bill 1, which served as a rewrite of thestate education code. Senate Bill 1 required the StateBoard of Education to repeal all board rules adoptedbefore May 30, 1995, including existing rules on SCE.In 1997, Senate Bill 1873 amended Section 42.152 ofthe Texas Education Code and placed new restric-tions on compensatory education. The bill requiredthat school districts develop reporting and auditingsystems to monitor the use of compensatory educa-tion funds. Specifically, funds were to be used forinstructional programs that improved or enhanced theregular educational program and to support programsthat were supplementary to the regular educationprogram. Additionally, the Texas Education Agency(TEA) received an interpretation of the legislativeintent concerning Senate Bill 1873, stating that alter-native education programs were intended to be supple-mental to the regular education program.

Senate Bill 702, which was passed in 2001 (TEC 29.081), amended the sections of the Texas Educa-tion Code that governed the SCE Program. First, thestatute required school districts to use student perfor-mance on basic skills assessment and achievementtests administered under Subchapter B, Chapter 39,to design and implement appropriate compensatory,intensive or accelerated instructional services for stu-dents at-risk of dropping out of school that wouldenable these students to perform at grade level at theconclusion of the subsequent regular school term.Senate Bill 702 also required each school district toevaluate and document the effectiveness of the SCEprogram in reducing any disparity in performance onassessment instruments administered under Sub-chapter B, Chapter 39, or any disparity in the rates ofhigh school completion between students at-risk ofdropping out of school and all other district students.The bill also allowed for the limited use of local criteriafor identifying students at-risk of dropping out of school;however, no local criteria have been adopted by theHouston Independent School District (HISD) to date.The bill also restricted the amount of SCE funds that adistrict may use to fund basic services for DisciplinaryAlternative Education Programs (DAEPs) to 18 per-cent of the total amount of SCE funds allotted to theschool district.

SCE legislation later expanded funding to covermentoring services to at-risk students (Senate Bill 16of the 78th Legislature), accelerated reading pro-grams, and programs helping students who havedyslexia or a related disorder (House Bill 1691 of the78th Legislature).

ment. Supporters of the movement maintained thatthese students should be provided extra assistance tocompensate for those disadvantages (Rossi andMontgomery, 1994).

Over the past couple of decades research hasbeen conducted to provide support for the passage offederal and state legislation authorizing the implemen-tation of compensatory education programs and ser-vices for delinquent, neglected, and at-risk youth. In areview of evaluation studies conducted on both thenational and local levels from 19651997, McDill andNatriello (1998) found that a variety of compensatoryeducation programs, especially comprehensive,schoolwide models, provided convincing evidence ofat least limited programmatic effectiveness. The au-thors concluded that the hallmarks of such modelswere clear goals, methods, and materials linked to thegoals, continuous assessment of student progress,well-specified programmatic components, materials,and professional development procedures; and dis-semination of results by organizations that focus onquality of implementation.

Additional research conducted by the U.S. De-partment of Education, Office of Elementary and Sec-ondary Education (1997) found the following: (1) alarge percentage of youth in the juvenile justice systemhad poor academic achievement; (2) a strong correla-tion existed between academic failure and involve-ment in delinquent activities; (3) dropout preventionprograms that address the educational needs of delin-quent youth helped reduce the dropout rate and in-volvement in delinquent activities; (4) many schoolsand correctional facilities failed to communicate, caus-ing students to return to school ill-prepared to meetcurriculum requirements; (5) schools were frequentlyreluctant to deal with students returning from correc-tional facilities and received no funds to deal with theirunique educational and social needs; (6) a continuingneed existed for activities and programs to reduce theincidence of school dropouts; (7) federal dropout pre-vention programs demonstrated effectiveness in keep-ing students in school; and (8) pregnant and parentingteens were at high risk for dropping out of school andshould be targeted by dropout prevention programs inorder for them to attain high level skills and supportsneeded to stay in school.

In 1975, Texas joined the compensatory educa-tion movement by enacting the first of a series of legaland administrative guidelines which, in amended form,shaped the complexion of compensatory educationprograms in Texas. In 1995, the Texas Legislature



In 2003, House Bill 3459 amended the Sections ofthe Texas Education Code that govern the SCE Pro-gram, enacting additional flexibility, and rescinding theannual requirement to submit an agreed-upon proce-dures report to TEA. This requirement was replacedby an electronic reporting and auditing system for useby TEA to assess risk factors for noncompliance and/or reporting deficiencies. The assessment of riskfactors by TEA is now the basis for directing certainschool districts or charter schools to have a local auditof SCE programs, in accordance with the provisions inthe Financial Accountability System Resource Guide.House Bill 3459 also retroactively amended the TexasEducation Code by adding subsection 42.152(c)(3),which allows use of the compensatory educationallotment to fund costs that are attributed to programsthat are specifically designed to serve students at-riskof dropping out of school, as defined by Texas Educa-tion Code Section 29.081. Thus, the addition ofSubsection 42.152(c)(3) provides flexibility in use ofthe SCE allotment for funding the basic costs ofprograms that are specifically designed to serve stu-dents at-risk of dropping out of school, as described indistrict and campus improvement plans, and charterschool instructional plans. The bill also lowered therequired threshold percentage for low income stu-dents on a campus to 40% (or greater), which wasexpected to permit expanded use of the SCE allotmentto supplement schoolwide components of federal NoChild Left Behind projects.

Reporting and Auditing of SCE FundsTexas law directs the State Board of Education to

develop and implement reporting and auditing guide-lines for district and campus expenditures of SCEfunds to ensure that SCE funds are spent only tosupplement the regular education program in accor-dance with law (TEC 42.152(q)). The reportingrequirements must be managed electronically to mini-mize local administrative costs. The Commissioner ofEducation is also required to develop a system toidentify districts that are at high risk of having usedSCE funds other than in compliance with the law orhaving inadequately reported SCE expenditures (TEC42.152(q)). If a review of the report submitted by thedistrict using the risk-based system indicates that adistrict is not at high risk of having violated the law, thedistrict may not be required to perform a local audit ofSCE expenditures and may not be subject to on-sitemonitoring. If a review of the report is at high risk ofhaving misused SCE funds, the commissioner must

require the district to conduct a local audit of SCEexpenditures and/or order TEA staff to conduct on-sitemonitoring of the districts SCE expenditures (TEC42.152(q)).

The rules for reporting and auditing SCE expendi-tures that have been adopted by the State Board ofEducation and the Commissioner of Education arelocated in the Financial Accountability System Re-source Guide, as amended December, 2004 (TEA,2004) and were adopted as the agencys official rule inthe Texas Administrative Code (TAC 109.41).

Major SCE Legal and Administrative ProvisionsUnder Texas law, each school district is required

to use student performance data from the TAKS, andother assessment instruments administered underSubchapter B, Chapter 39 of the Texas EducationalCode, to design and implement appropriate compen-satory, intensive, or accelerated instructional servicesfor students in the districts schools that enable thestudents to perform at grade level at the conclusion ofthe next regular school term (TEC 29.081(a)). HISDis also required to provide accelerated instruction tostudents who have not performed well on the exit-levelTAKS and who are considered at-risk of dropping outof school according to SCE criteria (TEC 29.081(b)).

Additionally, the district must evaluate and docu-ment the effectiveness of instructional programs inreducing any disparity in performance on the TAKSand disparity in the rates of high school completionbetween students at-risk of dropping out of school andall other district students. These evaluations arerequired annually. SCE resources must be redirectedwhen evaluations indicate that programs and/or ser-vices are unsuccessful in producing desired results forstudents at-risk of dropping out of school. (TEA Finan-cial Accountability Resource Guide, 2004).

The Texas Education Code also requires eachschool district (including charter schools) to have adistrict and campus improvement plan. The SCEProgram must be described in the campus improve-ment plan if the program is implemented at the campuslevel or be described in the district improvement planif the SCE Program is implemented districtwide. Adistrict/campus improvement plan is required by lawand is the primary record supporting expendituresattributed to the SCE Program. The district and/orcampus improvement plan must include the following:

Total amount of SCE Funds allocated for re-sources and staff,



Comprehensive needs assessment, Identified strategies, Supplemental financial resources for SCE, Supplemental Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) for

SCE,

Measurable performance objectives, Timelines for monitoring strategies, and Formative and summative evaluation criteria.

Finally, SCE resources must be redirected whenevaluations indicate that programs and/or servicesare unsuccessful in producing desired results forstudents at-risk of dropping out of school.

Program Cost and Funding SourceThe annual budget for SCE programs in HISD for

the 20052006 academic year was $93,647,880.This figure included $50,163,137 of supplementalcampus-based funds.

The money allocated for state-funded compen-satory education programs and/or services was basedon the number of economically disadvantaged stu-dents in the district. The number of economicallydisadvantaged students is determined by averagingthe best six months of enrollment for those whoqualify in the national school lunch program for free-or reduced-price lunches for the preceding schoolyear. Districts are entitled to receive an additionalannual allotment equal to the adjusted basic allot-ment multiplied by 0.2 for each student who is aca-demically disadvantaged and who does not have adisability. Students must reside in a residential place-ment facility in a district in which their parent or legalguardian does not reside. Districts are also entitled toreceive an annual allotment equal to the adjustedbasic allotment multiplied by 2.41 for each full-timeequivalent student in a remedial and support programbecause the student is pregnant or a parent (TEC29.081).

Purpose of the Evaluation ReportThe purpose of this report is to describe and

evaluate the SCE funded programs in HISD as indi-cated by law. As mentioned previously, HISD mustprovide information that allows the state to determinethe effectiveness of SCE programs in reducing thedisparity in performance on the state assessmentinstruments and completion rates between students

considered at-risk of dropping out of school and theirnot at-risk counterparts. This evaluation reports stu-dent performance on the TAKS and SDAA II betweenstudents identified at-risk according to SCE criteria andtheir not at-risk counterparts. As required by the TEA(2004), the percent of students passing the TAKS isreported for at-risk and not at-risk students for a threeyear period. Differences in passing rates between at-risk and not at-risk students are also reported for thepast three years so that movement in reducing thedisparity in passing rates can be ascertained.

Secondly, as determined by agreement betweenthe Supervisor of SCE programs for HISD and the TEA,results for at-risk and not at-risk students taking theState Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA) andState Developed Alternative Assessment, Version II(SDAA II) for the past three years are now included inthe HISD SCE evaluation. Specifically, the percent ofat-risk and not at-risk students meeting AdmissionReview and Dismissal (ARD) committee expectationsand the differences in passing rates for the two groupsare reported.

In compliance with guidelines specified by the TEA(2004), high school completion rates are reported forat-risk and not at-risk students attending HISD. As willbe discussed in more detail in the Methods section ofthis report, the completion rate includes students whograduate, receive a GED, or continue to be enrolled.

The Methods section of this report provides adetailed description of TAKS, SDAA, and completionrate indicators. The reader is encouraged to carefullyreview this discussion prior to interpreting results, asthe indicators are best understood in context with theirassociated methodological considerations.

Finally, this evaluation provides a profile of theSCE programs and services offered to at-risk studentsin HISD during the 20052006 school year. For thepurpose of this report, programs and services weregrouped according to the following programmatic pur-poses:

Alternative Education Programs and Centers: KayOn-Going Education Center, HISD/CEP Partner-ship Schools, Juvenile Justice Alternative Educa-tion Program (JJAEP), Kazi Shule, Mt. HebronAcademy, and North Alternative School;

District-wide Initiative: Excess Cost Model; and, Student Support Services: Communities In Schools

Houston (CISH) and Pregnancy-Related Services(PRS).



The evaluation of individual programs and ser-vices is summarized in the abstract that precedeseach set of profiles. Nine SCE programs and serviceswere profiled. Each profile includes a program de-scription, student demographics, budget allocations,staffing/funding, school improvement plan informa-tion, program-specific student outcomes, and an ex-ecutive summary.

Methods

Data CollectionStudent data were obtained using a variety of

sources. In HISD, the Public Education Informationand Management System (PEIMS) and School Ad-ministrative Student Information (SASI) databasesserve as the foundation from which students arematched and information is combined with othersources of data for analysis. PEIMS is a statewidedata collection and reporting system operated by theTEA, which includes extensive information on stu-dents, staffing and school budget/finances and servesas the fundamental database for many statewidereports on public education, such as the AcademicExcellence Indicator System (AEIS). PEIMS containsinformation from a fall snapshot of students taken onthe last Friday of October each academic year. Moststudent demographic information and at-risk statusare taken from the PEIMS October, 2005 snapshot.

The SASI database is a regularly updated sourceof student demographic, attendance, and performanceinformation which is maintained by the Region IVEducational Service Center. This database is dy-namic, and the information reported in it representsthe student and teacher population on the date andtime in which the information is drawn. Since SASI isdynamic in nature, the information is temporallydependent and does not lend itself well to staticcomparisons. Nevertheless, it is helpful in manyways. In the current report, SASI was used to helpverify that students served by CISH were eligible forSCE funded services.

The AEIS is an information management systemproduced by the Texas Education Agency for thepublic schools of Texas. While the data are extractedfrom PEIMS, the AEIS often disseminates data inunique ways. The AEIS was used to identify comple-tion rate indicators for at-risk and not at-risk students.

HISDs Federal and State Compliance Depart-

ment provided an electronic file from which atten-dance rates were extracted. And, student perfor-mance on the TAKS and SDAA II were extracted fromthe TAKS and SDAA II databases. Information formultiple years was extracted with the number of yearsdependent on state reporting requirements.

To obtain information about program operations,meetings were held with several program directorsand principals of SCE programs and schools. Addi-tional information pertaining to program goals, objec-tives, and guidelines was retrieved from programmanuals, previous SCE reports (Department of Re-search and Accountability, 2004), resource guides(Texas Education Agency, 2004), archives, and sec-ondary data sources of selected programs. Budgetaryinformation and campus descriptions were extractedfrom the State Compensatory Education Compensa-tory: Intensive, and Accelerated Instruction, Programsand Services Guide (Department of External Funding,2006).

Data AnalysisAt-Risk Status

Students were identified as being at-risk accord-ing to SCE criteria if they were labeled as such on thePEIMS data base. Students who were at-risk and notat-risk were matched to the spring 2004, 2005, and2006 English and Spanish TAKS database as well asthe SDAA II (2005, 2006) and SDAA (2004) database.

Attendance RateAttendance rate outcomes were calculated by

dividing the total number of students days present atthe educational program or service by the studentstotal number of days eligible to participate in theprogram or service for the 20032004 and the 20042005 school years. Attendance rates for specificprograms were analyzed by matching the electronicfile submitted by program personnel to the AverageDaily Attendance (ADA) database. Students in allgrades were included in the calculations with theexception of multiply impaired students. Attendancerates by campus for 20032004 were extracted fromthe 20042005 State Compensatory Education An-nual Report (Department of Research and Account-ability, 2005).

The attendance rate is a lagging indicator, mean-ing that information is only available to report one yearafter the completion of the previous academic year.Thus, attendance rate information is available only for20042005 and previous academic years.



Completion Rate IndicatorThe annual Academic Excellence Indicator Sys-

tem (AEIS) Report provides a completion rate indica-tor for individual campuses and districts in the state ofTexas. The formula used by the TEA was adopted forthis report.

The completion rate is calculated in the followingmanner. First, a cohort of students is identified at ninthgrade for the first time and tracked longitudinally forfour years. To become a member of the cohort, astudent must have attained one of the following finalstatuses: (i) graduated, (ii) received a GED by March1 of the completion year of interest, (iii) continued in aTexas public high school in the fall following thecompletion year of interest, or (iv) dropped out. All fourof these calculations use the number of ninth gradersin the longitudinal cohort, plus transfers in, minustransfers out. Students who complete all high schoolcourse work but fail to pass the TAKS by the spring ofthe completion year of interest are counted as trans-fers out. These four outcome indicators make up thedenominator of the rate calculation

For the numerator of the rate calculation, the firstthree of the above outcomes (high school diplomas,GEDs and continuing students) are summed. Thesethree indicators are then divided by the number ofstudents in the 9th grade cohort of interest (the sum ofall four outcome indicators).

There are several advantages and disadvantagesto the way the completion rate is calculated. On thepositive side, the longitudinal measure of success isconsistent with the publics understanding of what aschool completer is someone who enters high schooland during the next four of five years, either completesthe program or drops out. Additionally, because thestatus of a student is not determined until the end offour years, schools have up to four years to bringdropouts back to school, and there is time for studentsto complete a GED and be included in a completionrate (TEA, 2005 indexed). On the other hand, in thefour years between the time students enter ninth gradeand their class graduates, about 30% of each cohortwithdraws from the Texas public school system with-out being reported as a dropout or graduate (TEA,2005 indexed). There is some thought that this num-ber includes unreported dropouts. At-risk students,especially those who are homeless or are in thecustody of the Department of Protective and Regula-tory Services, may have a higher probability of beingreported as a withdrawal rather than a dropout.

Completion rate is a lagging indicator, meaningthat information is only available to report one yearafter the completion of the previous academic year.Thus, completion information is available only for20042005 and previous academic years.

TAKS Performance The report provides information pertaining to the

proportion of at-risk and not at-risk students passingthe English and Spanish TAKS for 2004, 2005, and2006, expressed as a percent (TAKS passing stan-dard). Differences in passing rates between at-riskand not at-risk students are also reported for the pastthree years so that movement in reducing the disparityin passing rates can be ascertained. Student perfor-mance was reported by district, administrative region,and school level.

State Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA II)The Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD)

committee has three assessment options for testingthe educational progress of special education stu-dents: The TAKS, a Locally Determined AlternateAssessment (LDAA), and the SDAA II. The SDAA II isa state-mandated testing program required by theTexas Education Code for special education studentswho receive instruction in the Texas Essential Knowl-edge and Skills (TEKS) curriculum off grade level.SDAA II is the new TAKS-aligned SDAA programdesigned for students who receive special educationservices and for whom the TAKS, even with allowableaccomodations, is not appropriate, as determined bythe students ARD committee. The SDAA II is onlyavailable in English and is appropriate for use withstudents in grades 310 who are assessed in readingand mathematics at their appropriate instructionallevels. Students are determined to have passed theSDAA II if they meet one of three possible achievementbenchmark options that is determined by the ARDcommittee. The three achievement levels correspondto the SDAA II scale score, which provides a numericvalue that can be used to evaluate a students annualgrowth. Students in grades 310 who take the SDAAII are assessed in reading and mathematics at theirappropriate instructional level. Students in grades 4,7, and 10 are assessed in writing at their appropriateinstructional level.

Beginning with this report, the number and percentof at-risk and not at-risk students who meet ARDcommittee expectations on the SDAA II and its prede-cessor SDAA will be reported for HISD overall and



each HISD school. Results are disaggregated by in-structional level, and the difference between the propor-tion of at-risk and not at-risk students passing is calcu-lated.

The reader should note that the 20042005 aca-demic year was the first year that the SDAA II was givento students. In 20032004, students took the SDAA,which is also a TEKS-based, off-grade level test but withfewer tested instructional levels and a different format.Thus, comparisons can only be made of performancebetween the current and the previous year.

Data LimitationsStudent databases that were provided by program

personnel for the Communities in Schools Houston(CISH) program were matched to the SASI database inorder to obtain demographic information. This wassubsequently matched to academic performance data-bases. At times, it was not possible to match all of thestudents provided by program personnel to the SASIdatabase. These students were excluded from thereport.

By relying on PEIMS for student enrollment informa-tion, it is also possible that students served by SCEprograms after the snapshot are not counted in theanalysis. High student mobility into and out of SCEfunded programs that are not on the traditional educa-tional campus (such as Disciplinary Alternative Educa-tion Centers), make it difficult to accurately count thenumber of students served on these campuses, render-ing some counts under-representations of the number ofstudents served. Whenever possible, alternative cam-puses and programs provided information on the totalnumber of students served, and PEIMS was only usedin instances where total enrollment information was notavailable.

Findings

Of the 209,879 students attending HISD schools,140,956 students (67.2%) were identified as being at-risk according to SCE criteria. The demographic char-acteristics of the at-risk students are presented in Table1. As shown in Table 1, more males were identified asat-risk than females (52.2% vs. 47.8% respectively).The highest proportion of students considered at-riskaccording to SCE criteria were enrolled in the first grade(10.3%), and the second highest proportion were en-rolled in the second grade (9.4%). In addition, morestudents classified at-risk were considered economi-cally disadvantaged (based on qualification for free or

reduced price lunch) than not economically disad-vantaged (88.8% vs. 11.2% respectively).

Analysis of districtwide results reveal that, over-all, the passing rates of not at-risk students ex-ceeded those for at-risk students on all subtests ofboth the English and Spanish TAKS in 2006. Dis-trictwide student performance on the SDAA II indi-cated that, overall, the percent meeting ARD expec-tations was higher for not at-risk students than forat-risk students. Furthermore, the achievementgap between at-risk and not at-risk students be-tween 2005 and 2006 decreased at the majority ofgrade levels on all English and Spanish TAKSsubtests except English writing and science, whichremained the same. There was a reduction in thewriting gap as well as increases in the reading andmathematics achievement gaps between at-riskand not at-risk students between 2005 and 2006 onthe SDAA II. On the other hand, the completion

Subgroup N % Grade EE 178 0.1 Prekindergarten 8,749 6.2 Kindergarten 8,703 6.2 First 14,462 10.3 Second 13,251 9.4 Third 11,417 8.1 Fourth 9,235 6.6 Fifth 10,062 7.1 Sixth 9,762 6.9 Seventh 9,664 6.9 Eighth 9,737 6.9 Ninth 12,824 9.1 Tenth 8,475 6.0 Eleventh 8,324 5.9 Twelfth 6,113 4.3 Gender Male 73,598 52.2 Female 67,358 47.8 Ethnicity African Am 38,549 27.3 Asian 2,588 1.8 Hispanic 94,266 66.9 Native Am 57



rates for at-risk students decreased from 88.3% in2004 to 82.7% in 2005, thus increasing the gap be-tween at-risk and not at-risk students.

Detailed findings are presented in the back sec-tion of this report. In particular, TAKS and SDAA IIresults and completion rates are presented at thedistrict, administrative region, and school levels. Atthe school level, results are presented for at-risk andnot at-risk students by grade. The back section of thereport also provides detailed information about theSCE-funded alternative education programs and cen-ters and sudent support services.

Discussion

While the state provides HISD with very specificguidelines about how to measure whether SCE-fundedprograms have been successful in reducing the drop-out rate for at-risk students, there are many instanceswhere the indicators are either unobtainable, unreli-able to due the nature in which the state requires thatthey be collected, or inappropriate measures for cer-tain programs. First, the temporary nature of manySCE-funded programs provides some unique chal-lenges. In accordance with state policy, TAKS andSDAA II results for students attending DisciplinaryAlternative Education Programs (DAEPs) are reported/attributed to students home campuses. Thus, TAKS/SDAA II scores are not appropriate indicators of pro-gram success. HISD currently has eight DAEPs,seven of which are funded by SCE dollars.

Completion rate indicators have similar prob-lems in SCE-funded programs that are meant to servestudents on a time-limited basis, as students are notlikely to attend the campus long enough to qualify aspart of the cohort that makes up part of the formula fordetermining the completion rate for these schoolsaccording to TEA criteria. (Please see the Methodssection of a more in-depth discussion of how comple-tion rates are calculated). A review of the completionrate indicators for CEP-SE, CEP-SW and JJAEPillustrates this point. Although these schools haveserved hundreds of students, only a handful havebeen attending these schools long enough to beincluded in the TEA-defined 9th-grade cohort . Addi-tionally, SCE-funded programs that focus on earlyintervention to elementary and middle school studentsconsidered at-risk of dropping out of school are notable to be assessed using completion rate indicators,which are only appropriate for high school students.

Another problem plaguing the evaluation of the

effectiveness of SCE-funded programs is the lack of acomparison group. Much of the reasoning behindlooking at TAKS/SDAA II performance and completionrate indicators for at-risk and not at-risk students isthat a comparison should be made between the twogroups. In fact, state law requires districts to demon-strate improvement in reducing the disparity in perfor-mance between at-risk and not at-risk students. Toachieve these goals, there must be a reasonably validcomparison group. Many of the SCE programs areattended by students who are all (or a high percentageof) at-risk students making it difficult to find a not at-riskcounterpart or a counterpart that is large enough formeaningful analysis. Other programs (such as Preg-nancy Related Services) serve students on severalcampuses, making it unclear who should be includedin a not at-risk counterpart.

These methodological limitations make it difficultfor HISD to demonstrate program effectiveness in anobjective and reliable manner for many of the special-ized programs that specifically address some of themost enigmatic risk factors, such as pregnancy anddelinquent behavior. Without acknowledging theselimitations, it is difficult to objectively assess theimpact of many district SCE programs and to appreci-ate the alternative indicators presented in this report.

Recommendations

1. Program administrators of alternative educationprograms and centers should implement scientifi-cally-based research strategies to appropriatelyaddress identified problem areas including stu-dent achievement, dropout, dropout recovery, andattendance rates. In addition, effective instruc-tional practices should be utilized to reduce thedisparities in performance on assessment instru-ments and high school completion rates betweenstudents at-risk and not at-risk of dropping out ofschool in the district.

2. SCE administrative staff should develop a longitu-dinal tracking, monitoring, and evaluation systemto measure progress of students receiving inter-ventions through alternative education programsand centers as they mainstream into the tradi-tional school setting. This will provide a moreaccurate assessment of the impact of alternativeinterventions on improving achievement, dropout,and attendance rates.



3. To increase student achievement and the gradu-ation rate, and reduce the risk of dropping out ofschool, HISD administrative staff should continueimplementation of the Excess Cost Model. Goalsand objectives of how schools utilize these fundsshould be documented in the school improvementplans. Campuses that have reduced class sizesneed to monitor the effect of SCE funds on studentachievement.

4. External Funding should consider reviewing theneed for additional funding for pregnancy-relatedservices to ensure that participating at-risk stu-dents do not drop out of school due to issuespertaining to day care or difficulty transitioningback to the classroom. Graduation rates of thesestudents should be monitored to determine impactof SCE interventions on completion rates.

5. SCE programs and services should continue todevelop strategies to improve progress on out-come indicators such as academic achievement,attendance rates, and completion rates. Improve-ment on these indicators has been theoreticallyand practically linked to improved graduation ratesand a reduction in dropout rates.

References

Department of External Funding (2006). State Compensa-tory Education: Compensatory, Intensive, and Accel-erated Instruction, Programs and Services Guide.Houston, TX: Houston Independent School District.

Department of Research and Accountability (2002b). Drop-out Analysis. Houston, TX: Houston IndependentSchool District.

Department of Research and Accountability (2004). StateCompensatory Education Annual Report. Houston,TX: Houston Independent School District.

Department of Research and Accountability (2005). StateCompensatory Education Annual Report. Houston,TX: Houston Independent School District.

McDill, G. & Natriello, E. L. (1998). The effectiveness of theTitle I Compensatory Education Program: 1965 1997. Journal of Education for Students Placed at-risk,3(4), 317335.

Rossi, R. & Montgomery, A. (Eds.) (1994). EducationalReforms and Students at-risk: A Review of the CurrentState of the Art. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, Office of Educational Research and Im-provements, Office of Research.

Texas Education Agency (2004). Compensatory educa-tion guidelines. Financial Accountability System Re-source Guide. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Texas Education Agency (2005, indexed). Policy Re-search Report prr8, pm6.5. [On-line]. Available: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/research/pdfs/prr8.pdf

U. S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary andSecondary Education. (1997, November). Preventionand intervention programs for children and youth whoare neglected, delinquent, or at-risk of dropping out:Guidance, State agency programs (Part D, Subpart 1),Local agency programs (Part D, Subpart 2) Part D,Subparts 1 and 2 of Title I, Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act of 1965 as amended by the ImprovingAmericas School Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-382)[On-line]. http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/CEP/nord3.html


1HISD RESEARCH AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Programs and Services20052006

Alternative Education Programs and CentersKay On-Going Education Center ...................................................................................................... 18HISD/Community Education Partnership SchoolsSE ..................................................................... 19HISD/Community Education Partnership SchoolsSW .................................................................... 20Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program (JJAEP) ................................................................ 21Kazi Shule ....................................................................................................................................... 22Mt. Hebron Academy ....................................................................................................................... 23North Alternative School .................................................................................................................. 24

District-wide InitiativeExcess Cost Model ......................................................................................................................... 26

Student Support ServicesCommunities In Schools Houston, Inc. (CISH) ................................................................................28Pregnancy-Related Services (PRS) ................................................................................................29

State Compensatory Education: 200203

17HISD RESEARCH AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Alternative Education Programs and Centers

Purpose: To evaluate alternative education programs and centers that received StateCompensatory Education (SCE) funds during the 20052006 academic year relativeto their attainment of SCE program outcomes.

Design: Evaluative.Population: HISD students who were eligible for State Compensatory Education

services during the 20052006 academic year.Methods: The following indicators theoretically and practically linked to risks of dropping

out of school were reported as appropriate: attendance rates, TAKS and SDAA IIperformance data for at-risk and not at-risk students, graduate counts, CompletionII indicators and program-specific outcomes.

Findings: Alternative education programs and centers had a combined enrollment of1,608 students in 2006. This figure reflects a decrease of 1.7% from the previousyears enrollment. The total budget allocation for these programs was nearly $20million in 2006, which was down by about 1.3% from 2005. The combined budget forHISD/CEP programs and JJAEP was increased, while the remaining programsreceived slight to moderate decreases from the previous to the current year.

Conclusions: The transitions in enrollment of targeted students in many of thealternative programs make current SCE academic performance indicators unreliablemeasures of program effectiveness. In addition, since assessment results areattributed to the home campuses of participating students, then academic achieve-ment progress can not be ascertained. Therefore, program administration shouldconsider individually monitoring alternative programs to assess impact of SCEfunding on student achievement. Program administrative staff should also continuedeveloping research-based instructional practices that improve academic perfor-mance and increase attendance rates for targeted students. Moreover, strategies toensure that all students, particularly those at-risk, successfully graduate from highschool need to be developed. These strategies should be outlined in the schoolimprovement plans at affected campuses.

Abstract

Affiliated Programs

Kay On-Going HSLinda Bundage, PrincipalHISD/CEP Partnership SchoolLuis Gavito, Principal

Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program (JJAEP)Luis Gavito, PrincipalKazi ShuleBobbie Frazier, Principal

Mt. Hebron AcademyBobbie Frazier, PrincipalNorth Alternative SchoolMichael Bledsoe, Principal

Kay On-Going Education CenterOrg. #30 / #70Program Description

The mission of Kay On-Going Education Center for Pregnant Teens is to provide an alternative setting for at-risk pregnant teenagers who desire to continue their education in a positive, safe, and supportive learning environment. The program also assists targeted students in developing as productive, caring, and responsible citizens. Kay is the only school in the Houston Independent School District that provides services solely to this population. Academic courses for pregnant/parenting teens are offered in grades 612. Kay students must be pregnant upon enrollment and can remain until the end of the school year. If students are seniors, then they have the opportunity to participate in all of their home schools graduating activities including prom, senior trip, and commencement exercises. The diplomas of participating students are awarded by the home school. One hundred percent of students at Kay On-Going are categorized as at-risk according to state criteria since all of them are pregnant or have recently given birth. Compensatory Education funds support the regular education program by providing enrichment and remediation services. Services include a quality instructional program, credit recovery lab, health and fitness classes, nutritious meals, counseling services, adapted P.E. classes, social services, career and technology courses, extra-curricular activities, attendance incentives, community involvement, and a visiting teacher program. Other supportive activities are provided on campus to assist students in preparing for a productive future.

Executive Summary The Kay On-Going Education Center will be closed and relocated to a more centralized, existing HISD school, effective in the 20062007 school year. Instructional and counseling services will continue to be provided to students at the new location. In the current year, 20052006, enrollment at the school decreased moderately by 13.4% from the previous academic year. Hispanic students continued to be the predominant ethnic group, increasing from 62.0% to 66.0% of the population over the two years. Although there was a decline in the percentage of African American students in 2006, they remained the second largest group at 32%. Further, in the 20052006 school year, the allocation of State Compensatory Education funds decreased from $960,630 to $307,343 (68.0%); thus, reducing FTEs by 14.5 from the previous year. Program effectiveness was measured using four outcome indicators: attendance rate, graduate count, TAKS/SDAA II performance, and completion rate. Attendance rates, graduate count, and completion rates were collected over a two-year period so that the presence or absence of progress on these indicators could be ascertained. Also, TAKS/SDAA II performance data were collected over a three-year period. As shown in the student outcomes, the attendance rate increased from 63.1% to 66.8% from 2004 to 2005, a difference of nearly four percentage points. TAKS/SDAA II and completion rates are located in the Alternative District section of this report. Since all students at Kay On-Going are considered at-risk according to SCE criteria, comparative TAKS/SDAAII results cannot be reported for a not-at-risk cohort of students. Kay On-Going is a temporary alternative campus for pregnant and parenting teens. The average length of stay at Kay is approximately four months with less than 5% of the student body enrolled for the entire academic year. Indicators, such asTAKS/SDAA II performance data, completion rates, and graduate counts should be understood in this context. However, it isrecommended that the program administration continue efforts to improve attendance rates, as attendance is vital for students to getthe most out of their brief stay at Kay and for students to avail themselves of the supportive services provided there.

Student Demographics

164Total Served

Female 100Male 0

African American 36Asian 0

Gender

Race/Ethnicity

Hispanic 62Native American 0White 2

At-Risk 100

%%

%%%%%%

142

1000

320

6602

%%

%%%%%

100 %

20062005

Student Outcomes

63.1 66.8Attendance Rate (%)2004 2005

Staffing/FundsFTEs Allocation

20052006

18.54

$960,630$307,343

Year

The utilization of SCE funds was documented.

School Improvement Plan

TAKS/SDAA Performance and Completion Rates

See school level data: Alternative District

HISD Research and Accountability ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________18

HISD/CEP Partnership School-SoutheastOrg. #316Program Description

Community Education Partners (CEP) is a privately managed Discipline Alternative Education Program (DAEP) for middle and highschool students with behavioral problems. The school enrolls disruptive students who are performing below grade level and devises a curriculum and an educational progress plan that is formulated to meet each students needs. Upon successful completion of theprogram, students are returned to a regular school setting. The expected outcomes include development of grade-appropriate academic and social skills necessary to be successful upon returning to the home school campuses. There are two HISD/CEP campuses that provided services for districtwide schools, which are Southeast and Southwest. This report focuses on CEP Southeast (CEP-SE).

Executive Summary HISD/CEP Partnership Schools Southeast (CEP-SE) offered educational instruction and support services to 670 students during the 20052006 school year. The enrollment figure reflected an increase of 2.4% over the past two years. Sixty-eight percent of the students were males and 32% were females in 2006, indicating a slight decline of two percentage points in the male population fromthe previous year. Eighty-six percent (86%) of the students were considered at-risk according to SCE criteria, which is lower than the 20042005 school year by 11 percentage points. The budget allocation reflects funds distributed at the CEP Southeast and the Southwest campuses. The total funds allocated to both campuses increased by 2.3% from 2005 to 2006. Program effectiveness was measured using two outcome indicators including attendance rate and completion rate. Attendance and completion rates were provided for the current and past years so that progress on these indicators could be ascertained. Attendance rates are reflected on this report, while the completion rates are located in the Alternative District section of this report. As shown in the student outcomes, the attendance rate decreased slightly from 83.2% to 83.0% for CEP-SE. TAKS/SDAA II performance data were collected for a three-year period. However, in accordance with Texas Mandates regarding Discipline Alternative EducationPrograms (DAEPs), results were reported to the students home campuses. Based on these findings, it is recommended that the program administration continue efforts to improve attendance rates and continue to introduce instructional strategies that reflect best practices for improving academic performance, GED completion and graduation rates. The academic performance of CEP-SE students should be monitored by program staff to assess program impactin targeted areas.


654Total Served

Female 30Male 70

African American 42Asian

HISD/CEP Partnership School-SouthwestOrg. #303Program Description

Community Education Partners (CEP) is a privately managed Discipline Alternative Education Program (DAEP) for middle and highschool students with behavioral problems. The school enrolls disruptive students who are performing below grade level and devises a curriculum and an educational progress plan that is formulated to meet each students needs. Upon successful completion of theprogram, students are returned to a regular school setting. The expected outcomes include development of grade-appropriate academic and social skills necessary to be successful upon returning to the home school campuses. There are two HISD/CEPcampuses that provided services for districtwide schools, which are Southeast and Southwest. This report focuses on CEP Southwest (CEP-SW).

Executive Summary HISD/CEP Partnership Schools-Southwest (CEP-SW) offered educational instruction and support services to 570 students duringthe 20042005 academic year. The enrollment figure in 20052006 of 624 students reflected an increase of 9.5 percentage pointsfrom the previous year. In addition, the ratio of males to females changed slightly over the past two years. Specifically, thedemographics depict 68% males to 32% females in 20052006 compared to 70% males to 30% females in 20042005. Students classified as at-risk, according to SCE criteria, dropped by 16 percentage points in 2006, from 97% to 81% at-risk. The budget allocation for HISD/CEP campuses increased from approximately 15.7 million to approximately 16 million dollars. This figure represents the combined total budget allocation for both CEP-SE and CEP-SW. Separate information for the facilities is not available. Program effectiveness was measured using two outcome indicators including the attendance and completion rates. Attendance and completion rates were reported over a two-year period so that progress on these indicators could be ascertained. The attendance rates are reflected on this report, while the completion rates are located in the Alternative District section of the report. Student outcomes show that the attendance rate increased from 83.3% in 2004 to 84.0% in 2005. TAKS/SDAA II performance data werecollected over a three-year period. However, in accordance with Texas mandates regarding Discipline Alternative Education Programs (DAEPs) results were reported to the students home campuses. Based on these findings, it is recommended that the program administration continue efforts to improve attendance rates anddevelop instructional strategies to improve academic performance, GED completion, and graduation rates.


570Total Served

Female 30Male 70

African American 31Asian

Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program/Excel Academy (JJAEP)Org. #320Program Description

The Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program/Excel Academy (JJAEP) is a state-mandated non-residential program for youth who have been expelled from school for committing criminal offenses. Placement is mandatory for students expelled from their regular school for engaging in criminal conduct including, but not limited to, weapons possession, murder, aggravated assault, arson,and kidnapping. Discretionary placement can occur when students are expelled by the district for using, selling, providing, or delivering controlled substances, delivering volatile chemicals, or for engaging in serious or persistent misbehavior that violates thedistricts student code of conduct while enrolled in a Discipline Alternative Education Program (DAEP). Further, placement of a student in the JJAEP may be made by the school district for committing an offense described in the HISD Code of Student Conduct under Level V offenses. Students may also be placed by a juvenile court with written consent of the school district after a studenthas been adjudicated as delinquent, or has been released from a residential adjudication facility. Major goals of the JJAEP are: (1)to provide a continuum of educational services to students who have been expelled from the traditional school setting; (2) to establish consistency, predictability, and appropriateness of student placement following expulsions from regular schools or disciplinary alternative education programs; (3) to impress upon youth that there are progressive sanctions for misconduct in the public school setting; and (4) to provide educational and placement options for the juvenile courts.

Executive Summary JJAEP provided instructional and support services to 122 students in 20052006. This figure reflects a decrease of 18.1% from 20042005. There has been no change in the percentage of female and male students served over the past two years. However, there has been a slight increase in the percentage of African American students served by 2 percentage points and a moderate decrease in the percentage of Hispanic students served by seven percentage points. A lower percentage of students were classified as at-risk in 20052006 compared to 20042005, reflecting a significant drop of 11 percentage points. In spite of the decline in students served in JJAEP, the budget amount awarded to the program increased from $2,829,484 in 20042005 to $3,063,916 in 20052006, a difference of $234,432. Program effectiveness was measured using attendance rates and completion rates as outcome indicators. These measures were reported over a two-year period to provide evidence of the presence or absence of progress. The attendance rates for the 2004 and 2005 years are shown on this report, while the completion rates are located in the Alternative District section of this report. As notedin this report, there was an increase in the attendance rate of JJAEP students from 83.0% in 2004 to 85.0% in 2005. While the completion rate was calculated for JJAEP, the somewhat temporary nature of the program resulted in only three students beingcounted in the JJAEP longitudinal cohort for 2004. The other students may have been counted in the cohort on other campuses. Ofthe three students in the JJAEP cohort, none graduated or received a GED. TAKS/SDAA II performance data were collected over athree-year period. However, in accordance with Texas mandates regarding Discipline Alternative Education Programs (DAEPs), results were reported to the students home campuses. Based on these findings, it is recommended that the program administration continue efforts to improve attendance rates anddevelop instructional strategies to improve academic performance, GED completion and graduation rates.


149Total Served

Female 22Male 78


Gender

Race/Ethnicity


At-Risk 95

%%

%%%%%%

122

2278

411

5305

%%

%%%%%

84 %

20062005

Student Outcomes

83.0 85.0Attendance Rate (%)2004 2005


20052006

ContractContract

$2,829,484$3,063,916

Year

A school improvement plan was not required of this program.



TAKS and SDAA II results were reported to the students' home campuses


Kazi ShuleOrg. #335Program Description

Kazi Shule is a community-based disciplinary alternative education program for students in grades 36 in need of behavioral intervention and/or modification. The program incorporates a curriculum that focuses on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) curriculum using computer-assisted learning. A program goal is to improve student social interaction through use of asocialization program with strong parental involvement and a course in life skills management. The primary expected outcomes were to increase student attendance and to maximize parental involvement. Kazi Shule originally opened as a middle school, but itreorganized as an elementary school in 20012002. The program employs HISD teachers.

Executive Summary Although this report indicates that Kazi Shule offered alternative instructional services to four students in 20052006, a total of 16 students attended the school at different times during the year. Of the four students, three were male, one female. In addition, half were considered at-risk by SCE criteria. Seventy-five percent of the students were African American and 25.0% were Hispanic. The budget allocation for Kazi Shule decreased in 20052006 from the previous year from $128,920 to $104,776, or approximately 18.7%. Kazi Shule will be allowed to restructure as an external HISD charter school effective with the 20062007 school year, and the per-student allocation will be negotiated as part of the charter-school contract. Program effectiveness was measured using the attendance rate indicator, which was provided for a two-year period so that progress on these indicators could be assessed. As shown above, the attendance rate decreased from 93.6% in 2004 to 88.5% in 2005, a difference of 5.1 percentage points. HISD does not report TAKS/SDAA II test results for student groups of less than five.However, in accordance with Texas mandates regarding Discipline Alternative Education Programs (DAEPs), TAKS/SDAA II results were reported to the students home campuses. Based on these findings, it is recommended that the programs administrative staff implement strategies to increase enrollment, sothat academic achievement levels can be assessed. Additional efforts should be made by program administrators to improve attendance rates.


4Total Served

Female 0Male 100


Gender

Race/Ethnicity


At-Risk 75

%%

%%%%%%

4

2575

750

2500

%%

%%%%%

50 %

20062005

Student Outcomes

93.6 88.5Attendance Rate (%)2004 2005


20052006

5.05.0

$128,920$104,776

Year

The utilization of SCE funds was documented.



TAKS and SDAA II results were reported to the students' home campuses


North Alternative SchoolOrg. #339 / #366Program Description

The North Alternative School is an alternative education center designed to provide early intervention for elementary and middleschool students whose behavior prevents them from succeeding in a regular classroom. It is an outgrowth of a United States Department of Education Safe Schools grant awarded to HISD Safe School Initiative-North District in Feb

state compensatory education is the 2005–2006 evaluation report on the state compensatory...

Documents