03 04 SCE Cover cs...tive Assessment (SDAA) and State Developed Alter-native Assessment, Version II (SDAA II) for the past three years are now included in the HISD SCE evalu-ation

RESEARCH��

��

��

��

Karla Cisneros

Kevin H. Hoffman

Lawrence Marshall

Greg Meyers

Abelardo SaavedraSUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

Karen K. SoehngeCHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICER

Kathryn SánchezASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT

DEPARTMENT OF RESEARCH AND ACCOUNTABILITY

HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTBoard of Education

Dianne Johnson, PRESIDENT

Diana Dávila, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT

Manuel Rodríguez, Jr., SECOND VICE PRESIDENT

Arthur M. Gaines, Jr., SECRETARY

Harvin C. Moore, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

Michael SchroderRESEARCH SPECIALIST

Maureen CroftRESEARCH SPECIALIST

Harry 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 Services ............................................................................Alternative Education Programs and Centers ............................. 17Districtwide Initiative ................................................................... 24Student Support Services. ........................................................... 25

At-Risk TAKS/SDAA II Performance and Completion Rate IndicatorsDistrictwide .................................................................................. 29Region Central................................................................................................31 East. ...................................................................................... 145 North ..................................................................................... 225 South ..................................................................................... 353 West ...................................................................................... 429 Alternative/Charter ................................................................ 553 Closed Schools...............................................................................601

2004–05

PageReport Title

��

�� 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AN EVALUATION OF STATE COMPENSATORY EDUCATION2004–2005

age 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 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 of

Program Description The purpose of the State Compensatory Educa-

tion (SCE) program is to reduce the dropout rate andincrease the academic performance of students iden-tified as being at-risk of dropping out of school. SCEis essentially a funding mechanism whereby studentsidentified as being at-risk according to state criteriacan receive supplemental services and assistance.Specifically, money allocated under SCE law is to beused to fund programs and services designed toeliminate any disparity in performance on assessmentinstruments administered under Subchapter B, Chap-ter 39 or disparity in the rates of high school completionbetween students who are at-risk of dropping out ofschool and all other students. The Texas Assessmentof Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) serves as the in-tended assessment measure. In order for SCE fundsto be allocated to a campus, the campus must havestudents who meet the state criteria for students at-risk of dropping out of school, and the services pro-vided to these students must be described in thedistrict and/or campus improvement plan, as appropri-ate.

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 of

��

� ��

Protective 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.

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 (TEC§42.152(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 district’sSCE expenditures (TEC §42.152(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 agency’s 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 TexasAssessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), andother assessment instruments administered under

Subchapter B, Chapter 39 of the Texas EducationalCode, to design and implement appropriate compen-satory, intensive or accelerated instructional servicesfor students in the district’s 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. 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 StateCompensatory Education Program must be describedin the campus improvement plan if the program isimplemented at the campus level or be described inthe district improvement plan if the State Compensa-tory Education Program is implemented districtwide.A district/campus improvement plan is required by lawand is the primary record supporting expendituresattributed to the State Compensatory Education Pro-gram. The district and/or campus improvement planmust include the following:

• Total amount of State Compensatory EducationFunds allocated for resources and staff,

• Comprehensive needs assessment,• Identified strategies,• Supplemental financial resources for State Com-

pensatory Education,

• Supplemental Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) forState Compensatory Education,

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

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

the 2004–05 academic year was $73,309,448. This

��

�� 3

figure included $45,935,421 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 State Compensatory Education pro-grams for HISD and the TEA, results for at-risk and notat-risk students taking the State Developed Alterna-tive Assessment (SDAA) and State Developed Alter-native Assessment, Version II (SDAA II) for the pastthree years are now included in the HISD SCE evalu-ation beginning with the 2004 –05 (current) academicyear. Specifically, the percent of at-risk and not at-risk

students meeting Admission Review and Dismissal(ARD) committee expectations and the differences inpassing rates for the two groups are reported.

In compliance with guidelines specified by theTEA (2004), high school completion rates are re-ported for at-risk and not at-risk students attendingHISD. As will be discussed in more detail in theMethods section of this report, the completion rateincludes students who graduate receive a GED orcontinue 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 2004–05 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 Central District AlternativeElementary School;

• Districtwide Initiative: Excess Cost Model; and,• Student Support Services: Communities In

Schools (CIS), Community Youth Services (CYS),and Pregnancy Related Services (PRS).

The evaluation of individual programs and ser-vices is summarized in the abstract that precedeseach set of profiles. Ten 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 208,454 students attending HISD schools,

131,279 students (63.0%) were identified as be-ing at-risk according to SCE criteria. More maleswere identified as at-risk than females (52.8% vs.47.2%, 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 (9.2%).

• More students classified at-risk were consideredeconomically disadvantaged (based on qualifica-tion for free or reduced price lunch) than their notat-risk counterparts (90.5% vs. 69.8% respec-tively).

• Analysis of districtwide student performance onthe 2005 English and Spanish TAKS indicatedthat the passing rates of not at-risk studentsexceeded the passing rates for at-risk students onall subtests and at all grade levels.

• Analysis of districtwide student performance onthe 2005 SDAA II indicated that the percent meet-ing ARD expectations for not at-risk studentsexceeded the percent meeting ARD expectationsfor at-risk students on all subtests and at all gradelevels.

• The districtwide achievement gap between at-riskand not at-risk students on the English and Span-ish TAKS failed to decrease between 2004 and2005 with the exception of the performance gapon the English writing portion, which remained thesame.

• The State Developed Alternative Assessment(SDAA) was given to at-risk and not at-risk specialeducation students in 2004. It was replaced by theSDAA II in 2005. The two tests were not compa-rable. It was, therefore, not possible to ascertainwhether the achievement gap between at-risk andnot at-risk students decreased between 2004 and2005.

• Completion rates for at-risk students increasedconsiderably from 83.5% in 2003 to 88.3% in2004, a difference of 4.8%. Nevertheless, thedisparity between completion rates for not at-riskand at-risk students did not decrease. In 2003, thecompletion rate for at-risk students was 5.3%lower than the completion rate for not at-riskstudents. In 2004, the completion rate for at-riskstudents was 6.3% lower than the completion rate

for not at-risk students.

• Alternative Education Programs and Centers re-ceiving SCE funds had a combined enrollment of1,636 students in 2005, which represented a 25%increase form the 1,314 students in 2004. Thetotal budget allocation for these programs was alittle more than $20 million, with two of the sixprograms receiving increased funding from theprevious year.

• 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 2004–05school year was $35,671,962 which was dis-persed throughout the district, providing an addi-tional 853.1 full-time equivalents (FTEs) of addi-tional teacher support.

Recommendations:1. As Alternative Education Programs and Centers

establish goals program administrators shoulddevelop more effective strategies that addressspecific problem areas including student achieve-ment, dropout, dropout recovery, and attendancerates to reduce the disparity in performance onassessment instruments and rates in high schoolcompletion between students at-risk of droppingout of school and all other district students.

2. To increase student achievement and the gradu-ation rate, and decrease the risk of dropping out ofschool, HISD administration should continue imple-mentation of the Excess Cost Model. Goals andobjectives should be documented in the DistrictImprovement Plan.

3. External Funding should consider reviewing theneed for additional funding for Pregnancy RelatedServices to ensure that at-risk students stay in

��

�� 5

school and do not drop out due to issues pertain-ing to daycare or difficulty transitioning back to theclassroom.

4. 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 better dropout outcomes.

��

! ��

��

�� 7

AN EVALUATION OF STATE COMPENSATORY EDUCATION2004–2005

Purpose: To describe the educational programs and schools that provided services forat-risk students based on State Compensatory Education (SCE) criteria in 2004–05.

Design: A profile was developed for the programs and services offered during the2004–05 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 SCEfunded 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 HISD schools and programs receiving SCEfunds.

Methods: Interviews with program personnel were conducted, and observations weremade of selected program components. The percent of at-risk and not at-riskstudents passing the TAKS and differences in performance between the two groupswere reported for a three year period for all schools and programs where applicable.The same reporting mechanism was used for students meeting Admission Reviewand Dismissal (ARD) committee expectations on the State Developed AlternativeAssessment II (SDAA II). Completion rate indicators were reported for at-risk and notat-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 2004 and 2005increased on all English and Spanish TAKS subtests except English writing, whichremained the same. The achievement gap between at-risk and not-at-risk studentsbetween 2004 and 2005 also increased on the SDAA II. On the other hand, thecompletion rates for at-risk students increased from 83.3% in 2003 to 88.3% in 2004.

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 dropout outcomes.

��

" ��

Introduction

Program Description The purpose of the State Compensatory Educa-

tion (SCE) program is to reduce the dropout rate andincrease the academic performance of students iden-tified as being at-risk of dropping out of school. SCEis essentially a funding mechanism whereby studentsidentified as being at-risk according to state criteriacan receive supplemental services and assistance.Specifically, money allocated under SCE law is to beused to fund programs and services designed toeliminate any disparity in performance on assessmentinstruments administered under Subchapter B, Chap-ter 39 or disparity in the rates of high school completionbetween students who are at-risk of dropping out ofschool and all other students. The Texas Assessmentof Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) serves as the in-tended assessment measure. In order for SCE fundsto be allocated to a campus, the campus must havestudents who meet the state criteria for students at-risk of dropping out of school, and the services pro-vided to these students must be described in thedistrict and/or campus improvement plan, as appropri-ate.

As defined by law, SCE programs and/or servicesare designed to supplement the regular educationprogram that districts offer to students, and fundsmust provide additional support for at-risk students.Supplemental costs include costs for program andstudent evaluation, instructional materials and equip-ment and other supplies required for quality instruc-tion, supplemental staff expenses, salary for teachersof at-risk students, smaller class size, and individual-ized instruction (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 the

next for one or more school years;4. Did not perform satisfactorily on an assessment

instrument 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-

��

�� 9

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 Legislaturepassed 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 statecompensatory education. In 1997, Senate Bill 1873amended Section 42.152 of the Texas EducationCode and placed new restrictions on compensatoryeducation. The bill required that school districts de-velop reporting and auditing systems to monitor theuse of compensatory education funds. Specifically,funds were to be used for instructional programs thatimproved or enhanced the regular educational pro-gram and to support programs that were supplemen-tary to the regular education program. Additionally,the Texas Education Agency (TEA) received an inter-pretation of the legislative intent concerning SenateBill 1873, stating that alternative education programswere intended to be supplemental to the regulareducation program.

Senate Bill 702, which was passed in 2001 (TEC§ 29.081), amended the sections of the Texas Educa-tion Code that governed the State CompensatoryEducation Program. First, the statute required schooldistricts to use student performance on basic skillsassessment and achievement tests administered un-der Subchapter B, Chapter 39, to design and imple-ment appropriate compensatory, intensive or acceler-ated instructional services for students at-risk of drop-ping out of school that would enable these students toperform at grade level at the conclusion of the subse-quent regular school term. Senate Bill 702 alsorequired each school district to evaluate and docu-ment the effectiveness of the SCE program in reduc-ing any disparity in performance on assessment in-struments administered under Subchapter B, Chapter39, or any disparity in the rates of high school comple-tion between students at-risk of dropping out of schooland all other district students. The bill also allowed forthe limited use of local criteria for identifying studentsat-risk of dropping out of school; however, no localcriteria have been adopted by HISD to date. The billalso restricted the amount of SCE funds that a districtmay use to fund basic services for Disciplinary Alter-native Education Programs (DAEPs) to 18 percent ofthe total amount of state compensatory educationfunds allotted to the school district.

cational disadvantage because of circumstances as-sociated with their minority and/or poverty status which,ultimately, contributed to their low academic achieve-ment. Supporters of the movement maintained thatthese students should be provided extra assistance to“compensate” 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 1965-1997, 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-

��

#� ��

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)

In 2003, House Bill 3459 amended the Sections ofthe Texas Education Code that govern the StateCompensatory Education Program, enacting addi-tional flexibility, and rescinding the annual require-ment to submit an agreed-upon procedures report tothe Texas Education Agency. This requirement wasreplaced by an electronic reporting and auditing sys-tem for use by the TEA to assess risk factors fornoncompliance and/or reporting deficiencies. Theassessment of risk factors by TEA is now the basis fordirecting certain school districts or charter schools tohave a local audit of state compensatory educationprograms, in accordance with the provisions in theFinancial Accountability System Resource Guide.HB3459 also retroactively amended the Texas Educa-tion Code by adding subsection 42.152(c)(3), whichallows use of the compensatory education allotment tofund costs that are attributed to programs that arespecifically designed to serve students at-risk of drop-ping out of school, as defined by Texas EducationCode Section 29.081. Thus, the addition of Subsec-tion 42.152(c)(3) provides flexibility in use of the statecompensatory education allotment for funding thebasic costs of programs that are specifically designedto serve students at-risk of dropping out of school, asdescribed in district and campus improvement plans,and charter school instructional plans. The bill alsolowered the required threshold percentage for lowincome students on a campus to 40% (or greater),which was expected to permit expanded use of thestate compensatory education allotment to supple-ment schoolwide components of federal No Child LeftBehind 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 to

identify districts that are at high risk of having usedSCE funds other than in compliance with the law orhaving inadequately reported SCE expenditures (TEC§42.152(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 district’sSCE expenditures (TEC §42.152(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 agency’s 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 TexasAssessment of Knowledge and Skills (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 district’s 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 a

��

�� 11

district and campus improvement plan. The StateCompensatory Education Program must be describedin the campus improvement plan if the program isimplemented at the campus level or be described inthe district improvement plan if the State Compensa-tory Education Program is implemented districtwide.A district/campus improvement plan is required by lawand is the primary record supporting expendituresattributed to the State Compensatory Education Pro-gram. The district and/or campus improvement planmust include the following:

• Total amount of State Compensatory EducationFunds allocated for resources and staff,

• Comprehensive needs assessment,• Identified strategies,• Supplemental financial resources for State Com-

pensatory Education,

• Supplemental Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) forState Compensatory Education,

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

Finally, State Compensatory Education resourcesmust be redirected when evaluations indicate thatprograms and/or services are unsuccessful in produc-ing desired results for students at-risk of dropping outof school.

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

the 2004–05 academic year was $73,309,448. Thisfigure included $45,935,421 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 does

not 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 as at-risk according to SCE criteriaand their not at-risk counterparts. As required by theTEA Financial Accountability Resource Guide (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 is 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 State Compensatory Education pro-grams for HISD and the TEA, results for at-risk and notat-risk students taking the State Developed Alterna-tive Assessment (SDAA) and State Developed Alter-native Assessment, Version II (SDAA II) for the pastthree years are now included in the HISD SCE evalu-ation beginning with the 2004 –05 (current) academicyear. Specifically, the percent of at-risk and not at-riskstudents meeting Admission Review and Dismissal(ARD) committee expectations and the differences inpassing rates for the two groups are reported.

In compliance with guidelines specified in the TEAFinancial Accountability Resource Guide (2004), highschool completion rates are reported for at-risk andnot at-risk students attending HISD. As will be dis-cussed in more detail in the Methods section of thisreport, the completion rate includes students whograduate as well as those receiving a GED.

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 their

��

#� ��

associated methodological considerations.Finally, this evaluation provides a profile of the

SCE programs and services offered to at-risk studentsin HISD during the 2004–05 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 District Alternative Elemen-tary School;

• Districtwide Initiative: Excess Cost Model; and,• Student Support Services: Communities In

Schools (CIS), Community Youth Services (CYS),and Pregnancy Related Services (PRS).

The evaluation of individual programs and ser-vices is summarized in the abstract that precedeseach set of profiles. Ten 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 theTexas Education Agency, which includes extensiveinformation on students, staffing and school budget/finances and serves as the fundamental database formany statewide reports on public education, such asthe Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS).PEIMS contains information from a “fall snapshot” ofstudents taken during the last week of October eachacademic year. Most student demographic informa-tion and at-risk status are taken from the PEIMSOctober, 2004 snapshot.

The SASI database is a regularly updated source

of 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 Communities in Schools(CIS) and Community Youth Services (CYS) wereeligible for SCE funded services.

The Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS)is an information management system produced bythe Texas Education Agency for the public schools ofTexas. While the data are extracted from PEIMS, theAEIS often disseminates data in unique ways. TheAEIS was used to identify completion rate indicatorsfor at-risk and not at-risk students.

HISD’s 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 State Compensatory Education (SCE)programs and schools. Additional information pertain-ing to program goals, objectives, and guidelines wasretrieved from program manuals, previous SCE re-ports (Department of Research and Accountability2003 and 2004), resource guides (Texas EducationAgency, 2004), archives, and observations of se-lected programs. Budgetary information and campusdescriptions were extracted from the State Compen-satory Education Compensatory: Intensive, and Ac-celerated Instruction, Programs and Services Guide(Department of External Funding, 2005).

Data Analysis

At-Risk StatusStudents 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 2003, 2004 and2005 English and Spanish TAKS database as well as

��

�� 13

the SDAA II (2005) and SDAA (2003 and 2004)database.

Attendance RateAttendance rate outcomes were calculated by

dividing the total number of students’ days present atthe educational program or service by the students’total number of days eligible to participate in theprogram or service for the 2002–03 and the 2003–04school years. Attendance rates for specific programswere analyzed by matching the electronic file submit-ted by program personnel to the Average Daily Atten-dance (ADA) database. Students in all grades wereincluded in the calculations with the exception ofmultiply impaired students. Attendance rates by cam-pus for 2002–03 were extracted from the 2003–04State Compensatory Education Annual Report (De-partment of Research and Accountability, 2004).

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 for2003–04 and previous academic years.

Completion Rate Indicator��

��

�� !��

��!�"��#��$��%��"��&��"�� $� ��!�"��'��"��$��

��(�)� ��*��+��$��

�� "�� !�"� ��

��$�� "��"��$��$��!��"��!��&� ��,�� "��&��

#��$�� "��$(�)��"��

��%��"��

��"��"��!��-��$��"��

��

��!�� .��"��!��!��"��"��$��"��$� �� $� �� "�� &��$��(�)�� $�/001��-��$�� !��"��"��$�� 203��!��!�� !�� "� ��"�� $/001��"�� &��$��

�� !��

��)��4��"��$��"�� "��!��!��

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 for2003–04 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 2003, 2004 and2005, 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 regionand school level.

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

mittee has three assessment options for testing theeducational progress of special education students:The TAKS, a Locally Determined Alternate Assess-ment (LDSS) and the State-Developed AlternativeAssessment II (SDAA II). The SDAA II is a state-mandated testing program required by the Texas

��

#� ��

Education Code for special education students whoreceive instruction in the Texas Essential Knowledgeand Skills (TEKS) curriculum off grade level. SDAA II isthe new TAKS-aligned SDAA program designed forstudents who receive special education services and forwhom the TAKS, even with allowable accomodations, isnot appropriate, as determined by the student’s Admis-sion, Review and Dismissal (ARD) committee. TheSDAA II is only available in English and is appropriate foruse with students in instructional levels corresponding togrades 3 –10. Students are determined to have passedthe SDAA II if they meet one of three possible achieve-ment benchmark options that is determined by the ARDcommittee. The three achievement levels correspond tothe SDAA II scale score, which provides a numeric valuethat can be used to evaluate a student’s annual growth.Students in grades 3 –10 who take the SDAA II areassessed in reading and mathematics at their appropri-ate instructional level. Students in grades 4, 7 and 10 areassessed in writing at their appropriate instructionallevel.

Beginning with this report, the number and percent ofat-risk and not at-risk students who meet ARD committeeexpectations on the SDAA II and its predicessor SDAAwill be reported for HISD overall and each HISD school.Results are disaggregated by instructional level, and thedifference between the proportion of at-risk and not at-risk students passing is calculated.

The reader should note that the 2004–05 academicyear was the first year that the SDAA II was given tostudents. Previously, students took the SDAA, which isalso a TEKS based, off-grade level test but with fewertested instructional levels and a different format. Thus,while multiple years are presented in the current report,comparisons of performance between the years will notproduce meaningful results.

Data LimitationsStudent databases that were provided by program

personnel for the Communities in Schools (CIS) andCommunity Youth Services (CYS) programs werematched to the SASI database in order to obtain demo-graphic information. This was subsequently matched toacademic performance databases. At times, it was notpossible to match all of the students provided by programpersonnel to the SASI database. These students wereexcluded from the report.

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 SCE

funded programs that are not on the traditionaleducational campus (such as Disciplinary Alterna-tive Education Centers), make it difficult to accu-rately count the number of students served on thesecampuses, rendering some counts under-repre-sentations of the number of students served. When-ever possible, alternative campuses and programsprovided information on the total number of stu-dents served, and PEIMS was only used in in-stances where total enrollment information was notavailable.

Findings

Of the 208,454 students attending HISD schools,131,297 students (63.0%) were identified as beingat-risk according to SCE criteria. More males wereidentified as at-risk than females (52.8% vs. 47.2%respectively). The highest proportion of studentsconsidered at-risk according to SCE criteria wereenrolled in the first grade (10.3%), and the secondhighest proportion were enrolled in the secondgrade (9.2%). And, more students classified at-riskwere considered economically disadvantaged(based on qualification for free or reduced pricelunch) than their not at-risk counterparts (90.5% vs.69.8% respectively).

Analysis of districtwide student performanceon the 2005 English and Spanish TAKS indicatedthat the passing rate of not at-risk students ex-ceeded the passing rate for at-risk students on allsubtests and at all grade levels. The districtwideachievement gap between at-risk and not at-riskstudents on the English and Spanish TAKS failed todecrease between 2004 and 2005 with the excep-tion of the English writing portion, which remainedthe same. Furthermore, analysis of districtwidestudent performance on the 2005 SDAA II indicatedthat the percent meeting ARD expectations for notat-risk students exceeded the percent meeting ARDexpectations for at-risk students on all subtests andat all grade levels. The State Developed AlternativeAssessment (SDAA) was given to at-risk and not at-risk special education students in 2004. It wasreplaced by the SDAA II in 2005. The two tests werenot comparable. It was therefore not possible toascertain whether the achievement gap betweenat-risk and not at-risk students decreased between2004 and 2005.

Completion rates for at-risk students increased

��

�� 15

considerably from 83.5% in 2003 to 88.3% in 2004, adifference of 4.8%. Nevertheless, the disparity be-tween completion rates for not at-risk and at-riskstudents did not decrease. In 2003, the completionrate for at-risk students was 5.3% lower than thecompletion rate for not at-risk students. In 2004, thecompletion rate for at-risk students was 6.3% lowerthan the completion rate for 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 level. At theschool level, results are presented for at-risk and notat-risk students by grade. The back section of thereport also provides detailed information about theSCE funded Alternative Education Programs andCenters and Student 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 theeffectiveness 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 theselimitation, it is difficult to objectively assess the impactof many district SCE programs and to appreciate thealternative indicators presented in this report.

Recommendations

1. As Alternative Education Programs and Centersestablish goals program administrators shoulddevelop more effective strategies that addressspecific problem areas including student achieve-ment, dropout, dropout recovery, and attendancerates to reduce the disparity in performance onassessment instruments and rates in high schoolcompletion between students at-risk of droppingout of school and all other district students.

2. To increase student achievement and the gradu-ation rate, and decrease the risk of dropping out ofschool, HISD administration should continue imple-mentation of the Excess Cost Model. Goals andobjectives should be documented in the DistrictImprovement Plan.

��

#! ��

3. External Funding should consider reviewing theneed for additional funding for Pregnancy RelatedServices to ensure that at-risk students stay inschool and do not drop out due to issues pertain-ing to daycare or difficulty transitioning back to theclassroom.

4. 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 better dropout outcomes.

References

Department of External Funding (2005). 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 (2002a). StateCompensatory Education Annual Report. 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 (2003). State

Compensatory Education Annual Report. Houston,TX: Houston Independent School District.

Department of Research and Accountability (2004). 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), 317–335.

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 ImprovingAmerica’s School Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-382)[On-line]. http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/CEP/nord3.html

��

STATE COMPENSATORY EDUCATION: 2002–03

��

Programs and Services��

Alternative Education Programs and Centers ......................................................Kay On-Going Education Center ...................................................................................................... 17HISD/Community Education Partnership Schools–SE ..................................................................... 18HISD/Community Education Partnership Schools–SW .................................................................... 19Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program (JJAEP) ................................................................ 20Kazi Shule ....................................................................................................................................... 21Mt. Hebron Academy ....................................................................................................................... 22North District Alternative Elementary School ................................................................................... 23

Districtwide Initiative ...............................................................................................Excess Cost Model ......................................................................................................................... 24

Student Support Services ......................................................................................Communities In Schools, Inc. (CIS) ................................................................................................. 25Community Youth Services (CYS) ................................................................................................... 26Pregnancy Related Services (PRS) ................................................................................................. 27

��

��

Alternative Education Programs and Centers

Purpose: To evaluate Alternative Education Programs and Centers that received StateCompensatory Education (SCE) funds during the 2004–05 academic year relative totheir attainment of SCE program outcomes.

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

during the 2004–05 academic year.Methods: The following indicators theoretically and practically linked to risk 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, Completion IIindicators and program-specific outcomes.

Findings: Alternative Education Programs and Centers had a combined enrollment of1,636 students in 2005, which represented a 25% increase from the 1,314 studentsserved in 2004 The total budget allocation for these programs was a little more than$20 million, with two of the six programs receiving increased funding from the previousyear.

Conclusions: The temporary nature of many of these programs makes traditional SCEoutcomes inappropriate or unrealiable measures of effectiveness. Completion rates,as defined by the TEA, require four years of attendance for students to be counted aspart of the competion cohort. TAKS/SDAA scores are attributed to the home campus.Program administrative staff need to develop instructional strategies to improveacademic performance and increase attendance rates. Moreover, strategies to ensurethat all students, particularly those at-risk, successfully graduate from high schoolneed to be developed. These strategies should be reflected in the school improvementplans.

Abstract

Affiliated Programs

Kay On-Going HS–Linda Bundage, PrincipalHISD/CEP Partnership School–Luis Gavito, Principal

Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program (JJAEP)–Luis Gavito, PrincipalKazi Shule–Bobbie Frazier, Principal

Mt. Hebron Academy–Bobbie Frazier, PrincipalNorth District Alternative Elementary School–Robert Adams, Principal

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

Kay On-Going Education Center is a registered alternative education campus that offers academic courses for pregnant andparenting teens in grades 6-12. It is the only school in the Houston Independent School District that provides services solely to thispopulation. The majority of students remain at Kay On-Going for the duration of their pregnancy plus up to six weeks ofconfinement, during which they receive homebound instruction, prior to returning to their home campuses. Nevertheless, studentsare allowed to continue their education at Kay On-Going until the end of the school year. As a temporary education alternative, KayOn-Going does not offer a full high school program, nor does it offer a high school diploma. Students who are able to graduate do sofrom their home campuses. One-hundred percent of the students at Kay On-Going are categorized as “at-risk” according to statecriteria because all of them are pregnant or have recently given birth.

Compensatory Education funds supported the regular education program by providing enrichment and remediation services. Theprogram allowed students to continue their education in a safe, caring environment. The goals of the program were to meet theacademic, social, medical, and emotional needs of the pregnant student, and to assist the student and her family in planning for herunborn infant. Services included free transportation, a free or reduced-price healthy breakfast and lunch program, counseling, on-site day care, access to the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, parenting and child development classes, vocationalcourses, and adapted physical education and health classes, specifically designed for pregnant teens.

Executive Summary

Kay-On-Going Education Center provided instructional and counseling services to 164 female students during the 2004-05 academicyear. This reflects a 25% increase in enrollment since 2003–04. Hispanic students represented the predominant racial/ethnicgroup (62%) followed by students of African American descent (36%). During 2004-05, the allocation of State CompensatoryEducation funds more than doubled, increasing from $404,000 in 2004 to $960,630 in 2005.

Program effectiveness was measured using four outcome indicators: attendance rate, graduate count, TAKS/SDAA II performanceand completion rate. Attendance rates, graduate count, and completion rates were collected over a two-year period so that thepresence or absence of progress on these indicators can be ascertained. TAKS/SDAA II performance data were collected over athree-year period. As shown in the outcomes section on this page, the attendance rate increased from 62.6% to 63.1% from 2003to 2004. During the current academic year, 24 students graduated from Kay, a 33% increase from the previous year during which 18students graduated. TAKS/SDAA II and completion rates are located in the Alternative District section of this report. Students inthe Kay On-going cohort had a completion rate of 55.2%. Since all students at Kay On-going are considered at-risk according toSCE criteria, TAKS/SDAA II 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 time spent at Kay isapproximately four months with less than 5% of the student body enrolled for an entire academic year. Indicators, such asTAKS/SDAA 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 time at Kay and for students to avail themselves of the supportive services provided at Kay.

Student Demographics

131Total Served

Female 100Male 0

African American 52Asian 0

Gender

Race/Ethnicity

Hispanic 45Native American 0White 3

At-Risk 100

%%

%%%%%%

164

1000

360

6202

%%

%%%%%

100 %

20052004

Student Outcomes

62.6 63.1Attendance Rate (%)2003 2004

Staffing/FundsFTEs Allocation

20042005

7.718.5

$404,000$960,630

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 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________17

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 takes disruptive students who are performing below grade level and devises acurriculum and an educational progress plan that is formulated to meet each student’s needs. Upon successful completion of theprogram, students are returned to a regular school setting. The expected outcomes are that students would develop grade-appropriate academic and social skills necessary to their success upon returning to their home school campuses. There are twoHISD/CEP campuses that provided services for districtwide schools: Southeast and Southwest. This report focuses on CEPSoutheast (CEP-SE).

Executive Summary

HISD/CEP Partnership Schools-Southeast offered educational instruction and support services to 654 Students during the 2004–05academic year. The enrollment figure reflected an increase of 138 students (27%). Seventy percent of the students enrolled weremales, and 97% were considered at-risk according to SCE criteria. The budget allocation for HISD/CEP campuses decreased fromapproximately $15.9 million in 2003–04 to approximately $15.7 million in 2004–05. This figure represents the combined total budgetallocation for both CEP-SE and CEP-SW because separate information for the facilities was not available from the budgetdepartment.

Program effectiveness was measured using two outcome indicators: attendance rate and completion rate. Attendance andcompletion rates were collected over a two-year period so that the presence or absence of progress on these indicators could beascertained. As shown on the outcomes portion of this page, the attendance rate decreased from 85.5% during 2003 to 83.2% in2004. Completion rates are located in the Alternative District section of this report. Only eight students were counted in the CEP-SE cohort as having completed high school. This is probably because the setting is relatively temporary, and few students would beexpected in the 9th grade longitudinal cohort. All of the students attending CEP-SE were considered at risk. In accordance with TEApractice, information is not reported for disaggregated categories containing less than five students. TAKS/SDAA II performancedata were collected for a three-year period. However, in accordance with Texas mandates regarding Discipline AlternativeEducation 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.


516Total Served

Female 30Male 70

African American 39Asian

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 takes disruptive students who are performing below grade level and devises acurriculum and an educational progress plan that is formulated to meet each student’s needs. Upon successful completion of theprogram, students are returned to a regular school setting. The expected outcomes were that the students would develop grade-appropriate academic and social skills necessary to their success upon returning to their home school campuses. There were twoHISD/CEP campuses that provided services for districtwide schools, Southeast and Southwest. This report focuses on CEPSouthwest (CEP-SW).

Executive Summary

HISD/CEP Partnership Schools-Southwest offered educational instruction and support services to 570 students during the 2004-05academic year. The enrollment figure reflected an increase of 49 students (9%). Seventy percent of the students enrolled weremales, and 97% were considered at-risk according to SCE criteria. The budget allocation for HISD/CEP campuses decreased fromapproximately 15.9 million to approximately 15.7 million dollars. This figure represents the combined total budget allocation for bothCEP-SE and CEP-SW because separate information for the facilities is not available from the budget department..

Program effectiveness was measured using two outcome indicators: attendance rate and completion rate. Attendance andcompletion rates were collected over a two-year period so that the presence or absence of progress on these indicators could beascertained. As shown on the outcomes portion of this page, the attendance rate decreased from 85.5% during the 2002–03academic year to 83.3% during the 2003–04 academic year. Completion rates are located in the Alternative District section of thisreport. Only 9 students were counted in the CEP-SW cohort as having completed high school. This is probably because the schoolsetting is relatively temporary, and few students would be expected in the longitudinal 9th grade cohort. All of the students attendingCEP-SW were considered at-risk. In accordance with TEA practice, information is not reported for cells with less than five students.TAKS/SDAA II performance data were collected over a three-year period. However, in accordance with Texas mandates regardingDiscipline 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.


521Total Served

Female 30Male 70

African American 35Asian

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 youthexpelled from school for committing criminal offenses. Placement is mandatory for students expelled from their regular school forengaging in criminal conduct including, but not limited to, weapons possession, aggravated assault, arson, and kidnapping.Discretionary placement can occur when students are expelled by the district for using, selling, providing, or delivering controlledsubstances or volatile chemicals or for engaging in serious or persistent misbehavior that violates the district’s student code ofconduct while enrolled in a in a Discipline Alternative Education Program (DAEP). Placement of students is often initiated by theschool district or by the juvenile courts. Expected outcomes are that students develop age-appropriate academic and social skills tosucceed upon returning to their home campuses.

Executive Summary

During the 2004–05 academic year, JJAEP provided instructional and support services to 149 students. This represented a 43%increase from the previous year. Seventy-eight percent of the students were male, which was up slightly from 72% the previousyear, and 95% of the students were considered at-risk according to SCE criteria. Alternatively, the budget amount awarded to JJEPdecreased 5% from $2,990,050 in 2003–04 to $2,829,484 in 2004–05.

Program effectiveness was measured using two outcome indicators: attendance rate and completion rate. Attendance andcompletion rates were collected over a two-year period so that the presence or absence of progress on these indicators could beascertained. As shown on the outcomes portion of this page, the attendance rate increased from 77.9% in 2003 to 83.0% in 2004.Completion rates are located in the Alternative District section of this report. While the completion rate was calculated for JJAEP,the somewhat temporary nature of the program resulted in only three students being counted in the JJAEP longitudinal cohort for2004. The other students may have been counted in the cohort on other campuses. Of the three students in the JJAEP cohort,none graduated or received a GED. TAKS/SDAA II performance data were collected over a three-year period. However, inaccordance with Texas mandates regarding Discipline Alternative Education Programs (DAEPs), results were reported to thestudents’ 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.


104Total Served

Female 28Male 72

African American 39Asian 0

Gender

Race/Ethnicity

Hispanic 59Native American 0White 2

At-Risk 100

%%

%%%%%%

149

2278

390

6001

%%

%%%%%

95 %

20052004

Student Outcomes

77.9 83.0Attendance Rate (%)2003 2004

Staffing/FundsFTEs Allocation

20042005

ContractContract

$2,990,050$2,829,484

Year

A school improvement plan was not required of this program.

School Improvement Plan

TAKS/SDAA Performance and Completion Rates

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

HISD Research and Accountability ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________20

Documents

03 04 SCE Cover cs...tive Assessment (SDAA) and State Developed Alter-native Assessment, Version II (SDAA II) for the past three years are now included in the HISD SCE evalu-ation