0506 T V Cover cs · 2012-11-02 · TITLE V-A I NNOVATIVE PROGRAMS: 2005–2006 HISD R ESEARCH AND A CCOUNTABILITY 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE V, PART A INNOVATIVE P ROGRAMS 2005–2006

RESEARCHReport on an Educational Program

Houston Independent School District

Department of Research and Accountability

TITLE V-AINNOVATIVE PROGRAMS

2005–2006

Kevin H. Hoffman

Dianne Johnson

Natasha M. Kamrani

Lawrence Marshall

Abelardo SaavedraSUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

Carla StevensINTERIM ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT

DEPARTMENT OF RESEARCH AND ACCOUNTABILITY

HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTBoard of Education

Diana Dávila, PRESIDENT

Manuel Rodríguez, Jr., FIRST VICE PRESIDENT

Harvin C. Moore, SECOND VICE PRESIDENT

Arthur M. Gaines, Jr., SECRETARY

Greg Meyers, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

Naim UllahAPPLICATION SPECIALIST

Ngozi J. KamauRESEARCH SPECIALIST

Harry M. SeligRESEARCH MANAGER

TITLE V-A INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS: 2005–2006

1HISD RESEARCH AND ACCOUNTABILITY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TITLE V, PART AINNOVATIVE PROGRAMS

2005–2006

Program Description

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001

Public Law 107–110 reauthorized Title VI of the El-

ementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)

as Title V, Part A - State Grants for Innovative

Programs. The purpose of the program is to implement

promising educational reform and school improvement

programs based on scientifically-based research. The

grant allows school districts to design, fund, and

implement Title V-A Innovative Programs within twenty-

seven identified program areas, pursuant to the statu-

tory requirements listed in Section 5131 of the NCLB

Act. The programs must:

• Be tied to promoting challenging academic achieve-

ment standards;

• Improve student academic achievement; and

• Be a part of an overall education reform strategy

(U.S. Department of Education, 2002).

The United States Department of Education (DOE)

has categorized the twenty-seven approved Title V-A

Innovative Program areas under the following eight

program types for the purpose of planning, implement-

ing, and evaluating Title V-A programs:

• Educational Reform and School Improvement;

• Teacher Quality, Professional Development, and

Class Size Reduction (in accordance with Title II of

ESEA);

• Parental Options;

• Technology and Educational Materials;

• Students with Special Needs;

• Literacy, Early Childhood Education, and Adult

Education;

• Community Service/Community Involvement; and

• Health Services (TEA, 2005; U.S. Department of

Education, 2002):

Fundamentally, Title V-A Innovative Programs

provide a state-administered grant based on student

enrollment designed to improve the quality of educa-

tional programs for all students and to increase aca-

demic achievement. In HISD, the 2005–06 Title V-A

funding was centralized to improve academic achieve-

ment through five innovative programs based on com-

prehensive needs assessments of the district’s stu-

dent population.

Title V-A Innovative Programs

Each of the five Title V-A Innovative Programs that

operated in the district was required to provide services

consistent with at least one of the eight program

categories set forth by the DOE, satisfy the statutory

requirements, and target programs toward increasing

student achievement. The following are brief descrip-

tions of the 2005–06 Title V-A Innovative Programs

implemented in the district.

The Reading Coordination/Supplemental Reading

Programs (RC/SRP) is a comprehensive professional

development endeavor designed for all levels of read-

ing intervention and instruction to support the K–12

HISD CLEAR curriculum for reading and English lan-

guage arts. Preventive interventions, tutoring, instruc-

tional and curriculum support, and familial support

services were made available throughout the district.

Interpreter Services (IS), previously called Trans-

lation Services, provided interpretation and translation

assistance to non-English-speaking and limited En-

glish proficient students enrolled in the district, their

parents, and other community stakeholders.

The Private School Share (PSS) program provided

TEA-approved educational facilities throughout HISD

boundaries with supplemental funds for instructional

materials, equipment, and teacher training.


2 HISD RESEARCH AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Communities in Schools Houston (CISH) is a

nonprofit community-based organization that provided

a wide range of services designed to support and

encourage students to remain in school and graduate.

The program design offers an holistic approach through

personalized guidance and social services at the

campus level.

Student Advocacy - Connect with Kids is a charac-

ter education program that resulted from a partnership

between HISD, KTRK Channel 13, and Connect With

Kids. Half-hour television specials for students were

provided. In addition, nationally-recognized character

education trainers offered professional development

and instructional resources to district teachers to

develop the skills necessary to recognize and address

the social, emotional and academic student needs.

Findings

Reading Coordination /Supplemental Reading Programs

(RC/SRP)

• The RC/SRP program operated primarily in 97

elementary and middle schools across the district,

representing a 7.7% increase over 90 campuses

last year; a 4.3% increase over 93 campuses in

2003–04, and a 24.4% increase over 78 participat-

ing campuses in 2002–03.

• Professional development training was provided in

182 sessions to 1,053 instructional staff on in-

structional methods to improve reading achieve-

ment. This represented 95.7% more training

sessions than in 2004–05. However, incomplete

data showed that the 1,053 participants reflected a

23.4% reduction from last year, a 28.1% drop from

2003–04, and an 27.2% increase in participant

counts since the 2002–03 school year.

Interpreter Services (IS)

• Tracked by the IS database, there was an 84.1%

increase in the provision of translation and interpre-

tation services over the last four years, with a 6.2%

decrease in the number of services provided this

year compared to last year, due to a staff vacancy.

• The IS services provided most frequently were

web postings and announcements (including pub-

lications), interpretations, letters, and brochures.

Private School Share (PSS)

• Forty-one private schools received Title V-A funds.

This represented 1,486 (11.4%) fewer students

and four (8.9%) fewer schools than last year.

• Based on 38 program descriptions, the grant pri-

marily supported library services (n=29), extended-

day activities (n=22), computer-assisted instruc-

tion (n=22), professional development (n=19), in-

teractive technology (n=18), and tutoring (n=16).

Communities in Schools (CIS)

• Students at 64 HISD schools received CISH ser-

vices in 2005–06, with 30 of them (20 elementary,

6 middle, and 4 high schools) receiving Title V-A

funds, as compared to 80 district schools and 48

Title V-A-funded schools in 2004–05. This repre-

sented a 32% decline in district schools served

and a 41% decrease in Title V-A-funded CISH

schools since 2004–05.

• Program goals were assessed for the 2004–05

school year due to the availability of related data.

Two program goals (i.e. showing measurable aca-

demic, attendance, and behavioral improvements

at a rate of 85% and remaining in school at a rate

of 95%) were satisfied at a rate of 88% and 99%,

respectively. The third goal (graduating if eligible

at a rate of 90%) was not met, with participants

achieving a rate of 86% for 2004–05.

Student Advocacy - Connect With Kids (CWK)

• Forty-five middle and 37 high schools participated

in the Character Education and Life Skills Curricu-

lum component of CWK, serving nearly 2,700

middle and 2,400 high school teachers.

• Nine topics for half-hour television specials in-

cluded Expectation: Graduation, Civil Wars, Against

All Odds, When Nobody’s Looking, The Enemy

Inside, Affluenza, Bright Kids/Bad Grades, The

Biggest Generation, and The Trouble with Boys.

Summary of Districtwide TAKS Achievement

Outcomes

• Performance gains on the Texas Assessment of

Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) for all students from

spring 2005 to 2006 indicated a three to eight



percentage point increase on each subject except

social studies on the English version of TAKS.

Increases of two to five percentage points on each

subject tested were observed on the Spanish

version. The gains were apparent for all tests

taken as well.

• Students administered the Spanish version of

TAKS outperformed students administered the

English version by two to sixteen percentage

points in all categories tested except science.

Passing percentages were comparable (i.e., within

2 percentage points) only on the reading test.

• TAKS gains were achieved at all or most of the

individual grade levels on the English and Spanish

versions this year compared to last year, except in

social studies.

• Reductions were evident in the performance gaps

from 2005 to 2006 on the English version of TAKS

in reading/English language arts, mathematics,

and social studies.

• On the Spanish version of TAKS, the performance

gaps showed a decline on the reading/English

language arts, mathematics, and writing tests.

• The performance gaps between At-Risk and Non

At-Risk students receiving services through State

Compensatory Education programs such as CISH

on the English version of TAKS were greater than

the performance gaps between At-Risk and Non

At-Risk students taking the Spanish version of

TAKS, across subjects where data were provided.

Recommendations

1. To enhance program coordination and evaluation,

the Title V-A Supervisor should consider proactive

measures to provide administrative guidance to

program administrators and evaluators, early in the

school year. The provision of ongoing support to

ensure the alignment of HISD Title V-A Innovative

Programs with the specified criteria under the No

Child Left Behind Act concerning budget alloca-

tions, program implementation, coordination, and

assessment would be highly beneficial.

2. To support program-specific data collection and

evaluation methods, establish districtwide, sys-

tematic strategies to routinely track Title V-A

participants, services, activities, and outcomes as

related to national and programmatic guidelines

and goals - particularly regarding instructional

impact and academic achievement. A timeline of

the distinct program activities, including the sub-

mission of independent program evaluations will

facilitate the systematic and comprehensive evalu-

ation of Title V-A programming in the district.



TITLE V, PART A INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS

2005–2006

Program Description

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001

Public Law 107–110 reauthorized Title VI of the El-

ementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)

as Title V, Part A - State Grants for Innovative

Programs. The purpose of the program is to implement

promising educational reform and school improvement

programs based on scientifically-based research. The

grant allows school districts to design, fund, and

implement Title V-A Innovative Programs within twenty-

seven identified program areas, pursuant to the statu-

tory requirements listed in Section 5131 of the NCLB

Act. The programs must:

• Be tied to promoting challenging academic achieve-

ment standards;

• Improve student academic achievement; and

• Be a part of an overall education reform strategy

(U.S. Department of Education, 2002).

The United States Department of Education (DOE)

has categorized the twenty-seven approved Title V-A

Innovative Program areas under the following eight

program types for the purpose of planning, implement-

ing, and evaluating Title V-A programs:

• Educational Reform and School Improvement;

• Teacher Quality, Professional Development, and

Class Size Reduction (in accordance with Title II of

ESEA);

• Parental Options;

• Technology and Educational Materials;

• Students with Special Needs;

• Literacy, Early Childhood Education, and Adult

Education;

• Community Service/Community Involvement; and

• Health Services (TEA, 2005; U.S. Department of

Education, 2002):

Fundamentally, Title V-A Innovative Programs

provide a state-administered grant based on student

enrollment designed to improve the quality of educa-

tional programs for all students and to increase aca-

demic achievement. The statutory purposes of Title V-

A Innovative Programs were (1) to support local educa-

tion reform that is consistent with and supports state-

wide education reform, (2) to implement promising

education reform and school improvement programs

based on scientifically-based research, (3) to provide a

continuing source of innovation and educational im-

provement, including support for programs to provide

library services and instructional and media materials,

(4) to meet the educational needs of all students,

including at-risk youth, and (5) to develop and imple-

ment educational programs to improve school, stu-

dent, and teacher performance, including professional

development activities and class size reduction pro-

grams (TEA, 2005; U.S. Department of Education,

2002).

In HISD, the 2005–06 Title V-A funding was cen-

tralized to improve academic achievement through

innovative programs based on comprehensive needs

assessments of the district’s student population. Infor-

mation obtained from the Title V-A Program Supervisor

indicated that a districtwide Federal Programs Parents

Consultation Meeting on May 24, 2005, provided an

overview of Federal Programs for the 2005–06 school

year including Title I, Part A and Part C, Title II, Part A

and Part D, Title II, Title IV, Part A, and Title V, Part A.

Questions were answered and suggestions from par-

ents were solicited. Consistent with program guidance

from the U.S. Department of Education and the Texas

Education Agency (TEA), federal program administra-

tors in HISD informed parents that the district’s Title V-

A program strives to fulfill the following objectives:

• Provide library services and instructional and me-

dia materials;

• Meet the educational needs of all students; and



• Develop and implement educational programs to

improve school, student, and teacher performance

including professional development activities and

class size reduction programs.

The purpose of this Title V-A evaluation is to

summarize the assessed needs that pertain to Title V-

A programs, delineate program goals, activities and

services, report adherence to program criteria, de-

scribe the status and utilization of Title V-A funds, and

summarize outcomes of program-based evaluations

for Title V-A programming. Individual program impact

on student achievement is presented as available. An

overview of districtwide student academic achieve-

ment is also included in this report.

Title V-A Innovative Programs

Each of the five Title V-A Innovative Programs that

operated in the district was required to provide services

consistent with at least one of the eight program

categories set forth by the DOE, satisfy the statutory

requirements, and target programs toward increasing

student achievement. The programs contained unique

goals, reflecting specific constituent needs as indi-

cated in the departmental needs assessment that

supported each specialized program focus. The scope

of allowable Title V-A programming was broad, and the

district’s programs addressed authorized foci. The

following are brief descriptions of the 2005–06 Title V-

A Innovative Programs.

The Reading Coordination/Supplemental Reading

Programs (RC/SRP) is a comprehensive professional

development endeavor designed for all levels of read-

ing intervention and instruction to support the K–12

HISD CLEAR curriculum for reading and English lan-

guage arts. Preventive interventions, tutoring, instruc-

tional and curriculum support, and familial support

services were made available throughout the district.

The program included Success for All (SFA), the

Rodeo Institute for Teacher Excellence (RITE), Neuhaus

training, IBM Watch Me! Read and Reading One-to-

One programs. Some program adaptations for Spanish

and English as a Second Language (ESL) were pro-

vided.

Interpreter Services (IS), previously called Trans-

lation Services, provided assistance to non-English-

speaking and limited English proficient students who

were enrolled in the district, their parents, and other

community stakeholders. Specifically, the program

provided translation of official and unofficial communi-

cation to students, parents, and the community from

the HISD Superintendent, Board, schools, and various

administrative departments. Interpreter Services also

expanded its web-based English, Spanish and Viet-

namese articles and other student-related information.

The Private School Share (PSS) program provided

TEA-approved educational facilities throughout HISD

boundaries with supplemental funds for instructional

materials, equipment, and teacher training. Funds

were allocated for the provision of educational support

services to nonprofit, private schools. Through the

Title V-A grant, HISD provided 41 private schools with

funds to purchase resources to support student learn-

ing.

Communities in Schools Houston (CISH) is a

nonprofit community-based organization that provided

a wide range of services designed to support and

encourage students to remain in school and graduate.

The program design offers an holistic approach through

personalized guidance and social services at the

campus level. Primary program components included

individual and group counseling, crisis intervention,

pre-employment skills training, employment develop-

ment, tutorials, social service referrals, educational

enrichment, life skills training, teen parenting, parent

involvement activities, staff development for working

with students At-Risk of dropping out of school, and

extended day/week/year programs. CISH is one of the

district’s State Compensatory Education programs.

Student Advocacy - Connect with Kids is a pro-

gram that resulted from a partnership between HISD,

KTRK Channel 13 and Connect With Kids. Activities

were designed to prepare teachers to address the

social, emotional and academic needs of students.

Nationally-recognized character education trainers pro-

vided professional development and instructional re-

sources to district teachers to develop the skills

necessary to recognize and address the aforemen-

tioned student needs. Program components also

included parent, community and student informational

services including televised broadcasts.

The following section presents key findings con-

cerning the Title V-A Innovative Programs overall. The

findings provide information that is germane to deter-

mining Title V-A program implementation and impact

across the district.



Districtwide Title V-A Program Findings

According to program administrators, five of the

six programs included in the 2005–06 Summary of Title

V, Part A Funding Plans were implemented. Table 1

reveals that the number of programs implemented

under Title V-A decreased from eleven last year to five,

indicating a 54.5% reduction in programs this year. The

decline was greater than the 35.3% program reduction

the previous year, and resulted in an overall drop of

42.7% in program funding during the last two years,

with a 20.6% decrease this year. Two district programs

(Houston Teachers Institute and Rice Math Project)

which were funded under this Title last year, were not

funded this year and received Title II, Part A funding for

the 2005–06 school year.

The 2005–06 Title V-A Innovative Programs main-

tained 4 of the 11 programs from last year. The Student

Advocacy - Connect With Kids and the District Notifi-

cation System programs were new under this grant.

Subsequently, however, the District Notification Sys-

tem program was not implemented in 2005–06.

Figure 1 provides an overview of this year’s

program allocations and expenditures as of August

2006. Communities in Schools and Connect with Kids

utilized 100% of their program allocations, Reading

Coordination and Translation/Interpreter Services uti-

lized 95%, and the Private School Share program spent

91% of the allotted budget. Indirect Costs were not

reported in the August 2006 expenditure report. How-

ever, General Administration which was not included in

the planning budget was reported to have utilized nearly

$90,000 of Title V-A funds. Further, the Districtwide

Notification program was not implemented, negatively

impacting the rate of expenditures for the overall Title

V-A budget which was assessed at 69%, as reflected

in an August 2006 expenditure report as provided by the

HISD Finance, General Accounting Office.

According to the 2005–06 Title V-A Program De-

scriptions, the five Innovative Programs represented at

least one of the eight program categories set forth by

Title V-A of the NCLB Act, providing specialized

services to students, teachers, paraprofessionals,

Table 1: Title V-A Budget Allocations, 2003–04 through 2005–06.

��

��

��

��

�� "�#�& ��

��'�*� � �� +��<�> � �

��?��'�� ++�� @��

J�? �'��? �� @�� @��

X��Y�� ?��? @+��

� �� +�+�� +��

�#��

�?��?�� <��

Z��*��

[�?�� ?� ��

�� \*��

J ��]� �^�_��`�� >��@� �

�� ++� � �

�� Y�{�� @��>< +��+� �

|^X^�^J^ +�� @��+<� �

� ��Y��'��J�� @��

��?��?��Y�"�}~& � � +��

� �� Y��

|��?� � �� +�� @<+��@� �

��

*�? �� <�<>� +<��+

��!"��#��$��

��'�� ?^��'�� ^��*�? �� ??� ��^



��

��

�+��

��

��

��

��

�@�+��<��

�<��@

�+��

��@��<��@��

��

��@��

�<��@�

��

�+��

��

��

�<��

�@��

�@�+��

�@��

��

��

� ��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

J�

? �'

��

�? �

��

*��

��

��

��

�

��

��

�} ��

�~ ?

��

��

|�

��

?� � ��

� ��

� ��

�� ?�

��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

��'�� '��X��? ��

�

�

�

@ @ @

+

@ @

�

@

+

�

�

�

�?� � ��

��

��

��

��?

��

��

��

��?

��? �

?��

��

��

��

�\

��

��

��

��*�

��

��

�

��

��

��\

]��

'

��

��J�

��

�

��%��$�&�� "�'!�$��(�� !�

)!

�*

��

�+�

�

��

�

administrators, campus support staff, and/or parents.

Specifically, the major service goals were reported as

follows: one program addressed professional develop-

ment for teachers and administrators to impact im-

proved student achievement; one program targeted

health services through the expansion and improve-

ment of school-based mental services for students,

parents, and school personnel; one program focused

on students with special needs to improve the aca-

demic achievement of educationally disadvantaged

students; and two programs sought to provide technol-

ogy and educational materials through library services

and instructional materials, computer hardware and

software for instructional use, and/or the provision of

instructional or educational materials, including as-

sessments and curricular materials tied to increased

achievement.

According to the 2005–06 Title V-A Program De-

scriptions, the Innovative Programs provided a variety

of services to various HISD stakeholders within HISD

boundaries. Figure 2 summarizes the primary pro-

gram participants and targeted outcome measures for

Figure 1: Districtwide Title V-A Innovative Program allocations and expenditures are presented for 2005–06.

Figure 2: A summary of program targets is presented based on needs assessed and reported in Title V-A Program

Descriptions for the 2005–06 school year.



each Title V-A program as reported on the 2005–06

Title V-A Program Description. All programs imple-

mented programming directly targeting services to

student-participants. Additionally, three programs tar-

geted school administrators, four provided services to

teachers and one program included services for par-

ents. Further, one program expected the program to

impact standardized tests scores, one identified pre

and post assessments to measure the expected pro-

gram impact, and one program anticipated improve-

ments in participation/utilization rates since last year.

Individual program outcomes are included in the Find-

ings section of this report and in the individual program

summaries following this section.

An 11-item Title V-A Program Administrator Sur-

vey was administered to ascertain the extent to which

administrators reported fulfillment of program guide-

lines as articulated by the U. S. Department of Educa-

tion and TEA. Program administrators unanimously

indicated that program planning and implementation

had been consistent with seven (70.0%) of the ten

criteria including the following:

• Stakeholder consultation in program planning;

• Activities based on needs assessment;

• Program designed to support local and statewide

education reform efforts;

• Activities based on scientifically-based research;

• Program provided continuing innovation and edu-

cational improvement;

• Program met the needs of all students, including

At-Risk youth; and

• Program implemented to improve school, student

and teacher performance.

Four programs reported also adhering to the following

mandates:

• Activities promoted a challenging curriculum and

academic achievement;

• Activities were a part of an overall education reform

strategy; and

• Services and expenditures were described in the

Departmental Management Plan.

Fundamentally, the clear intention of this Title V-A

grant was to improve student academic achievement

across the district through innovative educational pro-

gramming. To provide a view of this year’s level of

academic achievement compared to last year’s dis-

trictwide performance, Figure 3 summarizes HISD’s

2004–05 and 2005–06 districtwide performance as

indicated by the passing percentages on the Texas

Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test for

all students on the English and Spanish versions of the

test. It is important to note that this year’s passing

criterion for grade eleven was higher than last year’s.

Specifically, the 2005 passing percent was based on

Panel Recommended, except 1 SEM for grade 11. The

2006 passing standard was the Panel Recommended

level, except 2 SEM for grade 8 science. Additionally,

the first administration of the eighth grade science test

occurred this year (HISD, 2006a).

The data in Figure 3 show 2006 gains of three to

eight percentage points on each subject except social

studies on the English version, and increases of two to

five percentage points on each subject tested on the

��

��

��

��

��

>>

<>

��

<�

��

+<

�<

�<�@

>� <�

>+

��

��

>�>�

�+

�@

��

>@

��

>>

�

@�

+�

��

��

��

��

>�

<�

��

@��

J�? �' _�� }� � �' �� ? � ��

��

.��"�/!*9�$��#��

�

$�

��

�

��

��#

;/

<==

+��X�'� �� +��X�'� �� +��

��

+��

Figure 3: Districtwide performance on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) is presented for all

students by subject and test verision for spring 2005 and spring 2006.



��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

<� <��

��

>><�<>

�<

<>

>@>�

�@

�<

��

�>

<+<� >�

��+��<>

��

�+ +>

�<

>�

��

>+ >@

�@�+��>�<��

@��

X�'� ��

+��

��J ��

X�'� ��

+��

��J ��

X�'� ��

J ��+��

X�'� ��

J ��+��

��

+��

��J ��

��

+��

��J ��

��

��J ��

+��

��

��J ��

+��

/!*9�$�?@��#��

�

$�

��

�

��

��#

;/

J�? �'\X[� _��

�� }� � �' �� ? �

Spanish version. Gains were apparent for all tests

taken as well. Students taking the Spanish version

outperformed students who took the English version of

TAKS by two to sixteen percentage points in all

categories tested in Spanish except science. Passing

percentages were comparable (i.e., within two percent-

age points) only on the English and Spanish versions

of the reading test. Additionally, Appendix E reveals

that TAKS gains were achieved at all or most of the

individual grade levels on each English and Spanish

version this year except social studies. To further

discern specific patterns of student academic achieve-

ment by grade level, student group, and educational

program, the reader can refer to the full text of the

source report (HISD, 2006a) that was used to develop

Figure 2 and Appendix G, as noted.

Figure 4 depicts districtwide TAKS performance

for students receiving services through State Compen-

satory Education programs such as CISH. The percent

passing and content area for Non At-Risk and At-Risk

students for the past two years are presented. Results

for 2006 indicate that Non At-Risk students passed the

English test version at a rate of 87% to 96% across

subjects, while At-Risk students’ passing percentages

ranged from 44% to 80% on the English test version.

This compared positively to the 2005 performance

when Non At-Risk students passed the English version

at a rate of 82% to 96% across subjects, while At-Risk

students’ passing percentages ranged from 33% to

79%.

Comparable findings on the Spanish version for

2006 indicated that Non At-Risk students passed the

Spanish test version at a rate of 87% to 96% across

subjects. At-Risk students’ passing percentages across

subjects ranged from 32% to 92% on the Spanish

version. This year’s performance on the Spanish

version also compared favorably to the 2005 perfor-

mance when Non At-Risk students passed the Spanish

version of TAKS at a rate of 58% to 95% across

subjects, while At-Risk students’ passing percentages

ranged from 27% to 90%.

Figure 5 depicts districtwide TAKS performance

gaps for students receiving services through State

Compensatory Education programs, showing the defi-

cit in percent passing by content area for At-Risk when

compared to Non At-Risk students for the past two

years. The graph reveals reductions in the perfor-

mance gaps from 2005 to 2006 on the English version

in reading/English language arts, mathematics, and

social studies. On the Spanish version, performance

gaps declined on the reading/English language arts,

mathematics, and writing tests. The performance

deficits for At-Risk students on the English version

were greater than the deficits for At-Risk students on

the Spanish test version of TAKS where data were

provided.

The following summary of key findings concerning

the Title V-A Innovative Programs will provide addi-

tional information that is germane to determining Title

V-A impacts in the district that are not necessarily

represented by a district-level analysis. Furthermore,

Title V-A programs included program-specific achieve-

ment benchmarks which were reportedly evaluated

independently. The reports were generally unavailable

Figure 4: Districtwide performance on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) is presented for At-

Risk and non At-Risk students by subject and test verision for spring 2005 and spring 2006.



��

�+�

��

�+�

��

�<

�+�

��

�+�

��

�@�

�>

�@�

�+�

�@�

��@

��

��

��

��

��

�+�

�+�

�@�

�@�

��

�

J�? �'\X[� _�� }� � �' ��

��

��? �

/!*9�$�?@��#��

#�J

Q�

W�Z

�+�

$��

��

��

$�

��

�

��

X�'� ��|��\��J ��

+��

�� |��\��J ��

+��

X�'� ��|��\��J ��

+��

�� |��\��J ��

+��

for this evaluation.

Individual Title V-A Program Findings

Reading Coordination /Supplemental Reading Programs

(RC/SRP)

• The RC/SRP program operated primarily in el-

ementary and middle schools across the district.

• Data submissions indicated that 97 distinct schools

participated in the Reading Coordination Program

this year. This revealed a 7.7% increase over 90

campuses last year; a 4.3% increase over 93

campuses in 2003–04 and a 24.4% increase over

78 participating campuses in 2002–03.

• Seventy-five of the 97 campuses (77.3%) imple-

mented one supplemental reading program, 18

(18.6%) implemented two and four campuses

(4.1%) implemented three supplemental reading

programs.

• Professional development training provided in-

structional methods to improve reading achieve-

ment in 182 training sessions. Partial data indi-

cated that a total of 1,053 instructional staff at-

tended the training. This represented 95.7%

more training sessions than last year, 116.7%

more than provided in 2003–04, and 506.7% more

than provided in the 2002–03 school year.

• Incomplete data showed a decline in the number of

training participants in 2005–06. The 1,053 partici-

pants indicated a 23.4% reduction from last year,

a 28.1% drop from 2003–04, and an 27.2% in-

crease in participant counts since the 2002–03

school year.

• In addition to formal professional development

training, instructional staff (many had been previ-

ously trained in the implementation of one or more

supplemental reading programs) also took part in

professional development activities such as site

visits, informational/resource emails and ongoing

consultations with trainers.

• Program-specific student achievement results were

not available for this report.

Interpreter Services (IS)

• Tracked by the IS in-house database, there was an

84.1% increase in the provision of translation and

interpretation services over the last four years,

with a 6.2% decrease in the number of services

provided this year compared to last year, due to a

staff vacancy.

• The IS services provided most frequently were

web postings and announcements (including pub-

lications), followed by interpretations, letters, bro-

chures and flyers.

• IS program consumers included the

Superintendent’s office, Board Services, Career

and Technology Education, Character Education,

Communication Services, Community Relations,

Curriculum, Early Childhood, Equal Employment

Figure 5: Districtwide performance gaps/deficits on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) are

presented for At Risk and Non At Risk students by subject and test version, spring 2005 and spring 2006.



Opportunity, Food Services, Health Services,

Magnet Department, Multilingual Department, Par-

ent Engagement, Press Office, School Adminis-

tration, Special Education, Student Services, Title

I, Workman’s Compensation, and various schools

throughout the district. Additionally, newly identi-

fied clients included the regional offices, Title III,

Student Engagement, and Federal and State Com-

pliance. The number of requests by client group

was not available.

• The primary program shortcomings were identified

as a (1) pressing need for one to three additional

staff members, and (2) the need to fully document

the time investments required for services deliv-

ered was sighted.

Private School Share (PSS)

• Forty-one private schools received Title V-A funds

through HISD. This represented 1,486 (11.4%)

fewer students and four (8.9%) fewer schools than

last year.

• Budgeted allocations included elementary and

middle schools (65.6%), combined-schools (5.1%)

and high schools (29.3%). A total of 81.6% of the

funds were budgeted for instructional materials

and supplies, and 18.4% was allotted for technol-

ogy.

• Catholic and Orthodox (C&O) elementary school

students (51%) comprised the largest group re-

ceiving PSS funds under this program in HISD,

followed by students in C&O high schools (29%),

Jewish schools (8%), Protestant elementary

schools (6%) and C&O combined-school students

(5%).

• Based on 38 Title V-A program descriptions, the

grant primarily supported programs for library ser-

vices (n=29), extended-day activities (n=22), com-

puter-assisted instruction (n=22), professional de-

velopment (n=19), interactive technology (n=18),

and tutoring (n=16).

Communities in Schools (CIS)

• Students at 64 HISD schools received CISH ser-

vices in 2005–06, with 30 of those schools (20

elementary, 6 middle, and 4 high schools) receiv-

ing CISH services supported with Title V-A funds,

as compared to 80 district schools and 48 Title V-

A-funded schools in 2004–05. This represented a

32% decline in district schools served and a 41%

decrease in Title V-A-funded CISH schools over

the years tracked.

• The most utilized services for districtwide and Title

V-A-supported schools were supportive guidance,

followed by academic enhancement, parent in-

volvement, and cultural enrichment.

• Program goals were assessed for the 2004–05

school year due to the availability of related data.

Two program goals (i.e. showing measurable aca-

demic, attendance, and behavioral improvements

at a rate of 85% and remaining in school at a rate

of 95%) were satisfied at a rate of 88% and 99%,

respectively. The third goal (graduating if eligible

at a rate of 90%) was not met, with participants

achieving a rate of 86% for 2004–05.

Student Advocacy - Connect With Kids (CWK)

• Forty-five middle and 37 high school campuses

participated in the Character Education and Life

Skills Curriculum component of the CWK program.

One to five teachers per campus received program

materials and training.

• Nearly 2,700 middle and 2,400 high school teach-

ers were trained and received CWK manuals and

VHS/CD videotapes.

• Student Advocacy training sessions ranged from

one to three hours and provided teachers with

insight on program targets, alignment with district

initiatives, and strategies for utilizing CWK mate-

rials.

• Nine topics for half-hour television specials in-

cluded Expectation: Graduation, Civil Wars, Against

All Odds, When Nobody’s Looking, The Enemy

Inside, Affluenza, Bright Kids/Bad Grades, The

Biggest Generation, and The Trouble with Boys.

• A televised Town Hall Meeting regarding the ex-

pectation: GRADUATION initiative and the Reach

Out to Dropouts campaign included panelists such

as HISD Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Saavedra,

Mayor Bill White, and Judge JoAnn Delgado.



Summary of Districtwide TAKS Achievement

Outcomes

• Performance gains on the Texas Assessment of

Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) for all students from

spring 2005 to 2006 indicated a three to eight

percentage point increase on each subject except

social studies on the English version of TAKS.

Increases of two to five percentage points on each

subject tested were observed on the Spanish

version. The gains were apparent for all tests

taken as well.

• Students administered the Spanish version of

TAKS outperformed students administered the

English version by two to sixteen percentage

points in all categories tested except science.

Passing percentages were comparable (i.e., within

2 percentage points) only on the reading test.

• TAKS gains were achieved at all or most of the

individual grade levels on the English and Spanish

versions this year compared to last year, except in

social studies.

• Reductions were evident in the performance gaps

from 2005 to 2006 on the English version of TAKS

in reading/English language arts, mathematics,

and social studies.

• On the Spanish version of TAKS, the performance

gaps showed a decline on the reading/English

language arts, mathematics, and writing tests.

• The performance gaps between At-Risk and Non

At-Risk students receiving services through State

Compensatory Education programs such as CISH

on the English version of TAKS were greater than

the performance gaps between At-Risk and Non

At-Risk students taking the Spanish version of

TAKS, across subjects where data were provided.

Recommendations

1. To enhance program coordination and evaluation,

the Title V-A Supervisor should consider proactive

measures to provide administrative guidance to

program administrators and evaluators, early in the

school year. The provision of ongoing support to

ensure the alignment of HISD Title V-A Innovative

Programs with the specified criteria under the No

Child Left Behind Act concerning budget alloca-

tions, program implementation, coordination, and

assessment would be highly beneficial.

2. To support program-specific data collection and

evaluation methods, establish districtwide, sys-

tematic strategies to routinely track Title V-A

participants, services, activities, and outcomes as

related to national and programmatic guidelines

and goals - particularly regarding instructional

impact and academic achievement. A timeline of

the distinct program activities, including the sub-

mission of independent program evaluations will

facilitate the systematic and comprehensive evalu-

ation of Title V-A programming in the district.

Reference

Houston Independent School District. (2006a). Texas

Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, Spring 2006.Houston, TX:HISD.

Houston Independent School District. (2006b). Compre-

hensive Education Programs 2005–06. Houston,TX:HISD.

Texas Education Agency (TEA). (May 2005). Title V, PartA Innovative Programs. [Online]. http://www.tea.state.tx.us/nclb/newpolicy/title5a.pdf

U. S. Department of Education. (August 2002). Guidancefor Title V, Part A of the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act, as reauthorized by the No Child LeftBehind (NCLB) Act (State Grants for Innovative Pro-grams).





TITLE V-A INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS: INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM SUMMARIES, 2005–06

______________________________________________________________________________ TITLE V-A INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS: 2005–2006

Program Description

Needs Assessment

Program Goals

Program Participants

Program Costs

The Reading Coordination program was a comprehensive professional development endeavor designed for teachers, tutors, administrators, and paraprofessionals to improve reading instruction and reading intervention to support the HISD CLEAR (Clarify Learning to Enhance Achievement Results) curriculum at all grade levels. Ongoing training encompassed four primary programs including Success For All (SFA), a research-based educational restructuring reading program for intensive intervention in language-rich and literature-rich environments for disadvantaged students (K–6) in elementary and middle school who have difficulty with the fundamentals of reading and writing. Early Learning, Kinder Roots/Corner, Reading Roots, Reading Wings, and Fast Track Phonics form the integrated approaches for SFA. Further, the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo developed the Rodeo Institute for Teacher Excellence (RITE), a training institute focused on specialized reading and classroom-management training. Completion of the RITE Institute resulted in the assignment of participating K–2 teachers to a RITE teacher-trainer for follow-up support. In an additional reading program, selected HISD teachers in grades one to twelve were trained to implement the research-based Reading One-to-One reading intervention tutorial program. It was one of the first reading initiatives undertaken in HISD. Finally, the IBM Watch Me! Read program was utilized in conjunction with structured activities for emerging K–2 readers who needed additional reading experience. Neuhaus programs were also available to teachers districtwide and provided proven, multi-sensory approaches to teaching the basic language skills of reading, writing, and spelling to all students, including those with language differences such as dyslexia. The HELP for KIDS program (formerly the UT Center for Improving the Readiness of Children and Education/CIRCLE was not implemented this year. Overall, thirty-nine elementary and two middle schools implemented SFA; 19 elementary schools implemented RITE; 18 elementary, one middle, and one high school implemented the Reading-One-To-One program and 42 elementary schools implemented Watch Me! Read (Appendix A). Some program adaptations for Spanish and English as a Second Language (ESL) were provided. The Reading Coordination Program provided preventive interventions, student tutorials, instructional guidance, curriculum support, and familial support struggling readers throughout the district.

• The district needs to improve student reading abilities and related academic achievement. • The district needs to provide training and collaborative activities to assist HISD teachers with instructional strategies and

interventions for reading. • The district needs to provide students with lessons that improve reading skills and encourage the continuation of

productive reading behavior.

• Provide comprehensive professional development training opportunities to improve reading and writing instruction and intervention to support the increased success of students, especially those who have fallen below grade level in reading.

• Increase student achievement in reading.

Population: HISD teachers, paraprofessionals, tutors, administrators, and the K–12 students enrolled in the selected schools.Grades: All grade levels.Location: Campuses throughout the district and varied training sites.

Program funding for the 2005–06 school year was $96,300. One position utilized 100% of the Title V-A grant to provide aReading Coordination Specialist to facilitate and coordinate the program. An August 2006 expenditure report revealed that 95% ofthe program’s budget had been utilized.

Reading Coordination/Supplemental Reading Programs

15 ______________________________________________________________________________________ HISD Research and Accountability

TITLE V-A INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS: 2005–2006 ______________________________________________________________________________

Findings

Discussion

Recommendation

Training Program

SFA^ 30 828 34 994 38 835 29 78RITE - - - - - - 37 463Reading One-to-One

- - 11 244 19 377 67 294

Watch Me Read

- - 20 90 31 139 49 218

HELP (CIRCLE)

- - 19 137 5 24 - -

Total 30 828 84 1,465 93 1,375 182 1,053

Number of *Participants

Supplemental Reading Programs: Training Sessions for 2002–03 to 2005–06

2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

*Participants include duplicated counts. - Data not available. ^Project GRAD data not available.


Number of Sessions

Number of Sessions

Number of Sessions

Number of Sessions



• Program services were designed to impact 24,724 elementary, 209 middle, and 25 senior high school students, districtwide. Over 1,050, teachers, 136 principals/assistant principals, and 56 reading tutors were to be program beneficiaries. Data were not sufficient for confirmation.

• Data submissions indicated that 97 distinct schools participated in the Reading Coordination Program this year. This represents a 7.7% increase over 90 campuses last year; a 4.3% increase over 93 campuses in 2003–04 and 24.4% increase over 78 participating campuses in 2002–03.

• Seventy-five (77.3%) of the 97 campuses implemented one supplemental reading program, 18 (18.6%) implemented two and four (4.1%) campuses implemented three supplemental reading programs.

• Project Grad monitored 36 SFA campuses and the HISD Reading Department monitored three campuses including thesummer school months. Additionally, Project Grad monitored two Reading One-to-One campuses and HISD monitored 18.

• Partial data available for this report indicated that the programs provided professional development training to improvereading achievement in at least 182 sessions, which represented 95.7% more than last year, 116.7% more than provided in2003–2004, and 506.7% more than provided in the 2002–2003 school year. This year’s incomplete data showed a declinein the number of participants. Roughly, 1,053 participants were identified, indicating a 23.4% reduction from 1,375participants last year, a 28.1% drop from 2003–2004, and an 27.2% increase in participant counts since the 2002–2003school year.

• SFA programming included Tutors and Family Support Teams to holistically support struggling readers. Formative, eight-week assessments were conduct. Program administrators reported improvements in fluency, writing, and comprehension.

• RITE training included 208 distinct teachers which comprised 24 prekindergarten teachers, 42 kindergarten, 46 first-grade,49 second-grade, and 47 middle school teachers.

• A total of 297 students (85.5% English-speaking) participated in 7,013 sessions with the Reading One-to-One program. • End of year reporting revealed that the Watch Me! Read program was actually utilized, but not fully implemented, by about

97 schools. Installation, historical, documentation, implementation, student evaluation and new development informationwas sent via email to approximately 500 HISD staff members.

The four supplemental reading programs implemented with the help of this grant seem to support an array of students. Thecomprehensive nature of this program allowed opportunities for the individual needs of many struggling readers to be addressed.Many administrators, trainers and teachers were engaged in the implementation of this program across district. However, acomprehensive picture of this program remains unclear due to incomplete implementation and outcome data. Administrativeassistance may be needed to improve program coordination and documentation. Complete documentation of achievementoutcomes may help to better demonstrate the breadth and full effects of the program.

1. Consider administrative staffing needs for effective, ongoing formative and summative assessments and heightenedcoordination for all programs.

2. Establish a centralized, HISD-based electronic database to analyze program-based student assessments, professionaldevelopment, tutoring services, and the number and type of family support services offered throughout the school year. Acentralized data collection system may allow each reading program to better document implementation efforts and providetargeted assessments of the program’s impact on student achievement.

HISD Research and Accountability ______________________________________________________________________________________ 16


Program Description

Needs Assessment

Program Goals


Communication TypesNewsletters 84 68 45 34 -39 -23 -11Brochures/ Flyers 98 92 110 172 12 18 62Letters 152 142 159 176 7 17 17Interpretations 220 235 390 350 170 155 -40Forms 78 91 70 44 -8 -21 -26Notices and News Releases - 32 11 10 11 -21 -1Web Postings/Announcements 214 169 596 820 382 427 224Curriculum 35 153 148 20 113 -5 -128Surveys 7 5 165 10 158 160 -155Norms/Procedures 10 19 62 32 52 43 -30Presentations 32 26 13 10 -19 -13 -3Depositions - 8 - - 0 -8 -Menus and Recipes - 130 55 27 55 -75 -28Glossaries - - 2 - 2 2 -2Miscellaneous - - - 7 - - 7

Total Services 930 1,170 1,826 1,712 896 656 -114

ChangeN

02–03 to 04–05

Change

03–04 to 04–05

ChangeN N04–05

N02–03

Type and Number (N) of Interpreter Services - June 1, 2002 to May 31, 2006

03–04 05–0604–05 to

05–06

Program Costs

The Office of Interpreter Services provided assistance to limited English proficient (LEP) and non English-speaking students, their parents, and other community stakeholders. The increasing number of non English-speaking and English as a Second Language (ESL) students in HISD necessitated an expansion in Interpreter Services to include more translators and services for those speaking Spanish, Vietnamese, and other languages. Interpreter Services provided the translation of official and unofficial communication to students, parents, and the community from the Superintendent, the HISD Board, schools, and various administrative departments. Translated items included federal and state-mandated documents, other official documents of importance, letters, notices, newsletters, articles, the CLEAR curriculum, districtwide norms and procedures, web postings, PowerPoint presentations, and brochures. The translation of home-language surveys and interpreter services during SIGHTS testing facilitated student placement into appropriate educational programs. High Frequency Word Lists in Spanish and Vietnamese were produced to support students in learning important concepts in reading skills development. The programming also incorporated interpretation services at official public functions, Board of Education and parent meetings, community outreach forums, determination hearings, and Admission Review Dismissal parents’ meetings. In addition, the program published a quarterly Vietnamese newsletter titled “Thong Tin”, which provided information about the district for Vietnamese-speaking parents. Additionally, the program supplied pertinent information and web-based articles in Spanish and Vietnamese. A great deal of time and careful attention were committed to the Spanish language website. Interpreter Services oversaw translation/interpreter services that were contracted outside of the district. The purpose of the program is to stimulate parent involvement and to contribute to student achievement gains.

• The district needs to facilitate communications of all types with LEP students, non-English-speaking parents and community members in the district.

• Translate and interpret instructional and other education-related materials to help increase student achievement on the TAKS assessment.

• Increase the number of translation services provided to constituents by 20% over last year, districtwide.

Population: Students, parents, administrators, teachers, and other instructional personnel in HISD.Grades: All grade levels.Location: Department of Communication Services and various HISD and community sites.

Interpreter Services received $55,000 in the 2005–2006 school year. Additional funding helped to maintain the program. Four full-time staff members, including a full-time coordinator and three translators conducted the program activities. Title V Funds were used for one full-time translator position. The coordinator's position was funded by the district and three full-time translators' positions were funded through the Multilingual Department. The program utilized 95% of its Title V-A budget by August 2006.

Interpreter Services



Findings

Discussion

Recommendations

• Interpreter Services experienced an 84.1% increase in the provision of translation and interpretation services over the last four years, with a 6.2% decrease in the number of services provided since last year. However, the number of staff hours required for translation due to the size and level of detail per activity is not considered in the current tracking method. The program administrator seeks to improve methods to more accurately measure the full extent of program activities.

• Tracked by the in-house Interpreter Services database, the services provided most frequently were web postings and announcements (including publications), followed by interpretations, letters, and brochures and flyers. This year all new services were included under “miscellaneous” communications.

• During a three-month Vietnamese Translator vacancy, no Vietnamese projects were handled. • Website activities continued to be a heightened focus. The program continued to increase its offering of Spanish web-based

communications. • Public relations interventions continued to include an array of interpreter services. • HISD departmental and other program consumers included: the Superintendent’s office, Board Services, Career and

Technology Education, Character Education, Communication Services, Community Relations, Curriculum, Early Childhood, Equal Employment Opportunity, Food Services, Health Services, Magnet Department, Multilingual Department, Parent Engagement, Press Office, School Administration, Special Education, Student Services, Title I, Workman's Compensation, and schools throughout the district. Additionally, newly identified clients included the regional offices, Title III, Student Engagement, and Federal and State Compliance. The number of requests by client group was not available.

• Only one department and one program served last year were not identified as service recipients this year.

Interpreter Services provided a broad range of translation resources to the district. The benefits in communication made available to HISD students and other stakeholders through Interpreter Services were extensive. Interpreter Services invested many hours in web postings, announcements, publications and interpretations. Public relations, including community outreach and mentoring functions continued this year, including translation for non English-speaking students and parents regarding heightened concerns about high-stakes standardized testing. District utilization of Interpreter Services has grown tremendously over the last four years with increased awareness of available services at both the level of individual schools and the Board of Education. However, Interpreter Services encountered another year in which it was not equipped to accommodate service demands. This was due to a shortage in staff, which was exacerbated by a vacant position for about one-third of the school year and an overall increase in requests, including requests for services in Mandarin, Urdu, and various African languages. The relocation of the central office complex further delayed translation activities. The continued growth in the type and number of program services, range of services, and languages provided indicates a strong, ongoing need for this program. Increases in requests for service are expected to continue. This growth may suggest that non English-speaking students, parents, and community members were able to participate in the education process more fully, through the availability of translation and interpretation services. It is difficult to assess the various degrees of intricacy, scope, time expended, and subject sensitivity that are involved in the different types of program services. This makes assessing service increases more difficult to gauge than what is reflected by mere numbers. The program administrator identified the primary program deficit as the need for at least one and as many as three additional staff members to handle current requests.

1. To help ensure the continuation of reliable, high quality translation and interpretation services as well as the production of pertinent and timely information to constituents, consider obtaining additional staff to provide greater support to program personnel in meeting the growing requests from districtwide administrative and instructional staff, non English-speaking students, parents, and community members in the educational process.

2. Expand the program database capacity to assess the number of services provided, primary service areas (i.e. instructional, professional development, student testing, parents), level of detail and time investment of services provided.



The purpose of this grant was to increase local flexibility, reduce administrative burdens, increase services to nonprofit private school students, and encourage innovative contributions to elementary and secondary educational programs in the private school sector. Grants were designated for non-secular, neutral, and non-ideological school benefits and services. The program was designed to support instruction through the use of educational materials and technology provided in library services. Innovative programs in participating schools provided materials, supplies, and technology to meet the needs of private school students in core subject areas. Funds were allocated for staff development training and supplemental instructional materials and equipment, including books, computers and other movable equipment. The Title V-A funds were targeted toward specific student populations such as immigrant students, limited English proficient students, and students identified as academically at-risk. Additionally, funds were allocated for the provision of education-support services to facilities for neglected and delinquent children. Participants met Title V-A guidelines and were approved by the Texas Education Agency (TEA). Forty-one schools participated in the program during the 2005–2006 school year.

Program Description

Needs Assessment

Program Goals


Program Costs

Private School Students and Allocations 2004–2005 2005–2006

Schools Grade Level Students $ Allocated Students $ Allocated Catholic & Orthodox Elementary/Middle (PK–8) 6,838 $34,190 5,925 $19,136

Combined (PK-12) 585 2,925 584 $1,887 High School (9–12) 3,292 16,460 3,386 $10,937 Jewish Elementary/Middle (PK–8) 913 4,565 952 $3,075

Combined (PK-12) - - - -

Protestant Elementary/Middle (PK–8) 758 3,790 694 $2,241 Combined (PK-12) 532 2,660 - -

Private & Episcopal Elementary/Middle (PK–8) 109 545 - - Total 13,027 $65,135 11,541 $37,276

Program Services Supplemental Services Provided Number of Campuses

Library Services and/or Materials

29

Computer-Assisted Instruction 22 Extended Day Activities 22

Professional Development for Staff 19 Interactive Technology 18 Tutoring 16 Extended-Year Activities 6 Take-Home Computer Programs 4 Reach-In Teacher 1

Based on Title V-A Program Descriptions for 38 of the 41 participating schools.

• The district must support the academic needs of TEA approved private school participants within HISD boundaries.

• Provide technology and educational materials for instructional use. • Support programs and activities for education reform and school improvement to advance student achievement.

Population: Students and teachers in TEA approved nonprofit private school facilities within the HISD boundaries.Grades: Pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade.Location: Nonprofit private schools.

Private School Share



Findings

Discussion

Recommendations

Program Costs (continued) 2005–2006 Private School Expenditures

Schools

Grade Level

Reading & Instructional

Materials

Contracted

Services

Technology Equipment

Catholic & Orthodox

Elementary/Middle (PK–8)

$18,466

0

$249

High School (9–12) $4,586 0 $6,351 Combined-school (PK-12) $1,886 0 $0

Jewish Elementary/Middle (K–8) $3,075 0 0

Protestant Elementary/Middle (K–8) $1,237 0 $0

Combined-school (PK-12) - - -

Private & Episcopal Elementary/Middle (K–8) - - -

Subtotals $29,250 $0 $6,600 Total $35,850 *Based on Title V-A Program Descriptions for 38 of the 41 participating schools.

• Forty-one private schools (Appendix B) received Title V-A funds through HISD. This represented 1,486 (11.4%) fewer students and four fewer schools than last year.

• The 2005–2006 allocation was based on $3.89 per student versus $5.31 per student the previous year. Funding decreased by 30.8% from last year. The actual allocation ($45,000) was 17.5% higher than the amount in the program’s planning budget ($37,277).

• An August 2006 expenditure report indicated that 92% of the program’s budget was utilized. • Catholic and Orthodox (C&O) elementary/middle (E/M) school students were the largest group supported by this grant

(51%), followed by C&O high school students (29%), Jewish E/M school students (8%), Protestant E/M school students (6%), and C&O combined-school (CS) students (5%).

• Total budgeted allocations included E/M schools (65.6%), combined-schools (5.1%) high schools (29.3%). • Based on 38 program descriptions representing $37,276 in allocations, 81.6% of the funds were to be used for reading

materials and 18.4% for technology. • Based on 38 program descriptions, the grant primarily supported programs for library services (n=29), extended-day

activities (n=22), computer-assisted instruction (n=22), professional development (n=19), interactive technology (n=18), and tutoring (n=16).

• Campus administrators reported targeting the following subjects for improvement as a result of Title V-A program services: reading and language arts (n=35), science (n=13), mathematics (n=11), social studies (n=8), writing (n=4), and other subjects (n=12).

• Campus administrators reported targeting the following outcome measures for improvement as a result of Title V-A program services: Stanford achievement test (n=14), TAKS or other standardized test (n=13), teacher-made assessments (n=14), PSAT or SAT (n=13), course grades (n=12), reading program assessments (n=10), other tests (n=8), surveys (n=4), library utilization statistics (n=4), and other assessments (n=8).

TEA-approved private, nonprofit schools within HISD boundaries utilized Title V-A funds to provide supplemental instructional materials and technological equipment to support a range of educational programs and services to be utilized by teachers and students. Consistent with funding guidelines, most activities targeted students who were behind in grade level, educationally at-risk, and/or all students. This year, five of the six types of programs that were funded under this grant provided services directly to students. Consistent with the current climate of high-stakes testing, standardized and other achievement tests and course grades were the primary measures identified to be used to gauge program outcomes.

1. To enhance program implementation and evaluation as well as to facilitate communication between the schools and the Title V-A Supervisor and grant evaluator, consider the development and implementation of unified systems to transmit implementation and end of year information concerning program descriptions, services, activities, participants, outcomes including test scores and expenditures of funds.



Needs Assessment

Program Goals

Program Costs The Title V-A CISH program allocation was $330,990. This grant was expended as budgeted for consultants and professional development services. An August 2006 expenditure report indicated that 100% of the CISH budget had been utilized.

Caseload DimensionsCaseload* 4,108 2,355 3,738 1,821Total Contacts 125,148 72,905 106,089 52,459Average Contacts 31 31 28 29Clients Served** 27,405 15,966 24,583 10,901Total Hours 310,966 188,443 266,155 101,061Number of Services Provided 336,599 209,539 271,353 120,631Total Number Schools 80 48 64 30*All students who received ongoing services.**All students who received services.

Communities in Schools - HISD Caseload2005–06

Title V SupportedAll Schools Served Title V Supported All Schools Served2004–05 2005–062004–05

Supportive Guidance

Health and Human Service Linkage

Parental Involvement

Cultural Enrichment

Academic Enhancement

Career Awareness

One-on-one and small group tutorials, college awareness activities and field trips, homework clubs and assistance, etc.Resume preparation, pre-employment skills training, job site visits, career fairs, job placements, interviewing skills training, career counseling, etc.

Core Service ComponentsGroup and individual guidance sessions, self esteem enhancement, leadership training, abuse prevention education, violence prevention education, etc.Referrals for medical and dental services, substance abuse prevention, health education, referrals for social services, etc.Parenting classes, family nights, GED classes, ESL classes, intergenerational activities, computer classes, field trips to college campuses, assistance with the college application process, career and health fairs, etc.Arts and crafts, field trips, diversity activities, community service projects, sporting activities, clubs, hobbies, etc.

• The district needs to provide professional, campus-based intervention and prevention services to those in need, including students at-risk of dropping out of school.

• Keep at-risk students in school to graduate. • Improve the academic achievement of educationally disadvantaged students.

Population: All students with particular attention students at-risk for school failure. Grades: K–12. Location: HISD Campuses.

Communities in Schools Houston (CISH) is a 27 year-old nonprofit community-based organization providing personalized guidance and social services at the campus-level to all students referred to the program. CISH was contracted through Project GRAD and is a State Compensatory Education Program, primarily funded through Title I. The unique, flexible model of service delivery offers support through CISH staff and service linkages with approximately 300 referral sources throughout Houston. Evaluated annually, CISH is a research-based, statewide education reform program. Contractual services with CISH connect many students with basic community and social support services to help reduce the dropout rate or increase parental involvement for students who are at the greatest risk for school failure. CISH’s holistic approach to service provision is based on six core services that create a safety net for students with needs, especially those who are at-risk. Thirty HISD campuses (Appendix C) received CISH services which included supportive guidance, health and human service linkage, parental involvement, cultural enrichment, academic enhancement, and career awareness. A tailored plan was created and adjusted for each student to meet his or her individual needs. Each caseload student was assessed in the areas of academics, attendance, behavior, and social service needs. Student progress in academics, attendance, and behavior was monitored throughout the school year. The primary program objective is to provide case management services to at-risk students on campuses where they are located.

Program Description

Communities In Schools




Program Dimensions Title V SupportedGuidance 95,161 81,051 52,731 32,218Health/Human Service Linkage 19,122 21,868 12,489 8,095Parental Involvement 50,260 49,472 28,629 19,285Cultural Enrichment 58,182 41,214 38,173 12,479Academic Enhancement 75,714 66,503 48,317 25,570Career Awareness 8,660 3,241 5,975 2,088Case Management 3,867 2,841 2,128 1,326Home Visits 7,261 5,371 4,725 2,717Crises 1,162 1,302 656 433Agency Referrals 4,411 3,218 2,657 1,237Total 323,800 276,081 196,480 105,448

2005–06Title V Supported

Communities in Schools 2005 and 2006 Service Provision2004–05

All Schools Served All Schools Served2004–05 2005–06

Discussion

Recommendation

• Students at 64 HISD schools received CISH services in 2005–06, with 30 of those schools (20 elementary, 6 middle, and 4 high schools) receiving CISH services supported with Title V-A funds (Appendix C), as compared to 80 district schools and 48 Title V-A-funded schools in 2004–05. This represented a 32% decline in district schools served and a 41% decrease in Title V-A-funded CISH schools over the years tracked.

• For 2005–06, this constituted 271,353 services provided districtwide to 24,583 students, with 120,631 of those services provided to 10,901 students with the support of Title V-A funds. Ongoing services were provided to 3,738 (15%) of all students served in HISD, and 1,821 (17%) of the students receiving Title V-A-funded services. This was comparable to the 2004–05 results at the district level and up about 2% from last year for students receiving Title V-A-funded services.

• Consistently, the most utilized services with respect to the number of service hours provided in 2004–05 and 2005–06 at both the district-level and Title V-A-supported schools were Supportive Guidance, followed by Academic Enhancement, Parental Involvement, Cultural Enrichment, and Health and Human Services.

• Program goals were assessed for 2003–04 and 2004–05 due to the availability of related data. Goals included showing measurable academic, attendance, and behavioral improvements at a rate of 85%, remaining in school at a rate of 95%, and graduating, if eligible, at a rate of 90%. Program administrators reported 2003–04 and 2004–05 outcomes, respectively, that revealed that for both years, 99% of students served by CISH remained in school. In each year, 88% of the students served showed measurable academic, attendance and behavioral improvements. Also, 89% of the students in 2003–04 versus 86% of the students in 2004–05 who were eligible to graduate did so.

• Student demographics for schools supported with Title V-A funds are provided in the HISD State Compensatory Education annual report (HISD, 2006b).

• Performance gaps between At-Risk and Non At-Risk students on the English version of TAKS were greater than the gaps between At-Risk and Non At-Risk students on the Spanish version of TAKS, across subjects where data were provided.

• Performance gap reductions were observed between Non At-Risk and At-Risk students from 2005 to 2006 on the English version in reading/English language arts, mathematics and social studies. On the Spanish version, performance gaps declined on the reading/English language arts, mathematics and writing tests between Non At-Risk and At-Risk students.

Comparative analyses of annual student participation and service utilization revealed declines from last year’sprogramming. CISH administrators reported the decreases as consequences of a reduction in total CISH funding, unrelated toTitle V-A funding which was identical over the last two years. Outcomes reported by district program administrators indicatedthe fulfillment of all program goals. However, due to lagging indicators, no specific outcome figures were available for the2005–06 school year at the time of this report. Comparative school retention and student achievement analyses were notavailable and are necessary to more completely assess the program's specific impact in educational achievement.

1. Consider identifying service gaps as potential means to intensify personalized social and academic-related interventions for all CISH participants, and at-risk participants, in particular.

2. Consider tracking and reporting students by the severity of needs addressed over time, to identify trends of student improvement or to highlight concerns that may be helpful to supporting students’ academic growth.

Findings



Program Description

Needs Assessment

Program Goals


Program Costs

HISD’s urban student population is the seventh largest in the nation. The district’s students are more likely to be from minority backgrounds, live in low socio-economic households and be at-risk of academic failure than many of their peers across the country. Researchers of educational reform argue that effective school reform begins with a focus on relational trust and the building of professional learning communities. They suggest that before academic achievement can be raised to its highest level, students’ social and emotional needs must be satisfied. HISD’s Student Advocacy – Connect With Kids (CWK) Program Initiative was designed to accomplish the objectives identified by these researchers. CWK is a research-based character education program that is built upon comprehensive principles that serve as the launching pad for campus-based decisions. CWK’s three major components included parent and community, Character Education and Life Skills, and teacher resource services. Through a partnership between the district, ABC-KTRK/Channel 13 and CWK, the HISD’s Character Education Program, professional development training was provided for the teachers, administrators, parents and community leaders who impact secondary school students, including students on District Alternative Education Program (DAEP) and Alternative Education Program (AEP) campuses, as outlined in the HISD Expectation Graduation: Graduate Profile. Program expectations included decreased disciplinary actions, improved attendance rates, continuous progress in students’ academic achievement and a reduced workload for campus staff whose work is affected by students’ social and emotional support needs. Nationally-recognized HISD Character Education trainers helped teach their peers how to recognize and address the social and emotional needs of students in the educational environment. CWK participants were given technical and professional training for utilizing the online Personal Graduation Plan and were taught ways to bring moral and ethical instruction to life so that secondary students receive the skills necessary to be successful in life. Grade-level materials provided by CWK offered teachers immediate access to a wealth of multi-dimensional resources designed to help organize Advocacy Class activities that allow students to engage in discussions of concern to them. The program began in early August 2005 and continued through late May 2006.

• The district needs to provide social and emotional support to students to help reduce and/or reverse the potential effects of drug abuse, suicide, teen pregnancy, and homicide to support increased academic achievement.

• Provide training and resources to prepare teachers to address the emotional and social support needs of secondary students.

• Improve the attendance and discipline rates of students at participating schools to support increases in the academic achievement of all students, especially the educationally disadvantaged and students who are at-risk.

Population: Secondary Students, Teachers, Administrators, Parents, and Community Members. Grades: 6–12. Location: Identified Middle and High School Campuses.

The Title V-A allocation was $250,000. Funds were budgeted for services contracted with CWK and related materials and supplies. To enhance program implementation, $10,000 in additional costs was approved by district administrators to replicate CDs following conversion from VHS to CD format. An August 2006 expenditure report revealed that 100% of the Title V-A CWK funds had been utilized.

Student Advocacy - Connect With Kids Program



Findings

Discussion

Recommendations

PROGRAM COMPONENT DESCRIPTION

Parent and Community Available in English and Spanish.Included eight half-hour specials and one Town Hall Meeting.Televised on ABC-KTRK/Channel 13.Directly related to HISD's expectation: GRADUATION Initiative.Addressed issues of health and the well-being of youth.Weekly family-focused news reports and public service announcements.

Character Education and Included a middle and high school series.Life Skills Curriculum Designed for All Secondary Grade Levels.

Contained 32 units - four activities and a video for each unit.

Teacher Resources

Provided assessment guidelines and rubrics.Correlated with state standards in language arts, social studies, and health.

Included teacher manuals, lesson plans, lesson story summaries, and discussion questions.

Videos designed exclusively for HISD, correlated with expectation:GRADUATION Initiative activities.

• Forty-five middle and 37 high school campuses participated in the Character Education and Life Skills Curriculum component of the program (Appendix D). One to five teachers per campus received program materials and training.

• Nearly 2,700 middle and 2,400 high school teachers were trained and received CWK manuals and VHS/CD videotapes (Appendix D). Counts for other program participants were not available for this report.

• Student Advocacy training sessions that ranged from one to three hours provided teachers with insight on program targets, alignment with district initiatives, and strategies for utilizing CWK materials.

• Nine half-hour television specials included expectation: GRADUATION, Civil Wars, Against All Odds, When Nobody’s Looking, The Enemy Inside, Affluenza, Bright Kids/Bad Grades, The Biggest Generation, and The Trouble with Boys.

• Due to technological limitations, some campuses did not have Channel One television access to view the video series as designed. Therefore, the program did not reach full implementation.

• Creative strategies to overcome limitations included sharing televisions, using LCD projectors, showing one month of the video series at one time, or the curriculum was utilized without video support. In addition, the VHS was converted into a CD format to capitalize on the teacher laptop computer program.

• In August 2005, CWK, ABC-KTRK/Channel 13, HISD, and Depelchin Children’s Center conducted one on-air Town Hall Meeting about expectation: GRADUATION and the Reach Out to Dropouts campaign. Panelists included Dr. Saavedra, HISD Superintendent of Schools; Mayor Bill White; Judge JoAnn Delgado; Dr. Bertie Simmons, Furr High School Principal; Debra Prince, Depelchin Children’s Center Counselor; and Roberta Cusack, HISD Director of Student Engagement.

This Title V-A program allocation supported a variety of professional development and character education services. Creative and responsive program administration resulted in the identification of a problem with technology and its resolution concerning implementation of the teacher resource component. Additionally, adjustments were planned for next year to address problems identified with the pre and post assessments for professional development components involving external evaluators. Program outcomes will be analyzed comprehensively by an external evaluator for future reporting of program impacts on district disciplinary infractions and attendance rates. It is not clear that workload reductions for campus staff whose work was affected by students’ social and emotional support needs were evident as anticipated by program administrators.

1. To assess the impact of professional development training and materials utilization by teachers, ensure the implementation of district and externally-based research strategies.




Appendix A

2005–06 SUPPLEMENTAL READING PROGRAMS: Campus Participation��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

!��

!��

!�"��

#��

#��$��

#��$��%��

#�&��

'��

'��

(��

(��&��

(&��)��

*��&+��

*(,-��(��!�.��*��

/��.0 ��

��.��

��0��

�&��

��0�

/��

1�2��3��"��

1&2�3�&��

��

%��

(��'��

/��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

4��&�

#��

#��&��0�

(��

/��5��

�

��

��

��"��$�

��6��1�2�

#��&��1&2�

'��1&2�

*��0��!��!��"#��"��$�

��

��

��

��&��

�&��

��

4��&��

4��&�

��%��

%�.��

(&��

(��"��

(��"��

*��&+��

*��0�

*��"��

/��.0�

��

��!��!�� "#��!��!��!�� "#��#��

��$��%��&��&��

��

��

��&�

��.��

��

��&��

��

��

��

��

��

4��

4��5��

4��

4��&�

��%��'��

��

��4��

��6��

��

��&��4��

��

��

!��&��

!��

#��4��

#��&��

��

��%��"��

)� ��

)�.��

%��

(��.��

(��

(��

(��

*��

/��,��"��0�

/��.0�

/��5��

/��

�



Appendix B

2005–06 PRIVATE SCHOOL SHARE PARTICIPANTS

'��(�!��) ��#�� *+�� #��

��+�� 787 899 ��:�� ;<< =9<

��0��&� 7<> 8;> ��/��(��0 <?> 77?<

��'�� ?87 ;>=> *��(�� (�� ;9< @7=

)��!��0��4��+� ;7@ =>8 *��0 7>? <8;

)��!��0��#��&� 7?8 9<> �� ,./ 13478.

)��#��#��0 7<7 8;<

��'�� 78> 89;

%�� 7;> <@@ �� #��

(��&.�� 8<< 7<AA ��0�!��B ;@ A>

(�� 8;9 7<=< #�&��!�� 7A> ?78

(�� ;>< ?9? )��%��&��!�� ;< =8

(��C� 7@@ ?>= )��(�"��!�� ;@< A78

(��&�� 7=? 9?@ '��&�!�� 7=> 98A

(��+�� ;8@ @>7 �� 9,; 1/4/;<

(��(�� 9>8 7?;@

(�� 7?? 9<?

(��#��0C� 7@> 9@7

(��'��+�� == ;8A

(��'��+�� @> ;9@

(��%��!�&� 7<? 8<A

(��*�� 7A> ?78

(��*��&��#�� 9=9 7@9=

(��5��'�� 8A? 7?>;

(�� 7?< 9;?

�� .4,/. 1<,4<39

'��(�!��) ��#�� '��(�!��) ��#��

��0�4�� A@ <7= ��/��&0 ;<7 =8?

(��#�� 8@? 79=> #��&�� 7?A 98?

�� .=; 1<4==8 (��&0 @>8 ;9A=

(��'��D ?=> ;7?8

(��*��&�� ?88 ;>@>

(�� @?@ ;@>8

�� 343=9 1<74,38

B��)��.��;>>9

�>��?��@��>��'�!!>�

�F��</��'!�$�?��'�!!>� �� '�!!>�



Appendix C

Communities In Schools Houston, 2005–06

�*��%*)��( ��%��!��( #�%*��E��(BB

�,(*��( ��4�!��4�*(��( '�� (

�(*��( �)44�#( %:��#(

!�� (��%BB �� ()��#( (�)**��(

,%%,(��( ��:��( (��%#��(

�%�/�)%��(BB �*�!(��( *�)#'()��(

��5�(��( �:�#( *,%��%��(

�)�()��( !))(��( /�(!�:��(

�)4��(BB #��()��( /�!!��#(�#(

�!�)*��( #�%(��!!�#( :�*�(��(�

<6��#:��(BB �%)(*��( #�!:��(

!�� #( 4�!!�4)(��(BB )�*�(��(

,%�� #( 4%�4-!��)!��( ',4��(

��4�-'%)��*��%:(�!�( ��%%�(��%��( %��4��(

�,!!��#( ��%()��( %)��()��(BB

��E�5�!��( ��%:�#(B��BB (��%)%),4��(

��:�#( �),(*)��( (�%)44��(��(

��(*/))��#:��( ��)/( ��( (#�*��)��#(

��()��#( �)��(��( *��%��(

�!�#��4�#( !�#�%��(� /�(��4*)��(

�)�5�!!��#( #�%�:�)!�(�#( /��*!�:��(

BB'��&��.0��&.��<7��;>>9��

/77.Q79�'��#��#��W��'��#��

B(��++�&��

/77.Q79�'��#��#��W��X��'��#��



Appendix D

Student Advocacy - Connect With Kids Program: Middle School TEACHER PARTICIPATION

�� 7> 7> 7>

�� ;> ;> ;>

��.�� ;9 ;9 ;9

�� ;9 ;9 ;9

8 8 8

�� ;9 ;9 ;9

��0 ;7 ;7 ;7

�� <> <> <>

�� ;9 ;= ;@

��&�� 79 79 79

�� ;9 ;9 ;9

��"�� ;> ;> ;>

4��0 79 79 79

;> ;> ;>

��&�� ;9 ;9 ;9

��+�� ? ? ?

��&�� ;9 ;9 ;9

��0 ;9 ;9 ;9

�� ;> ;> ;>

�� ;> ;> ;>

�� ;9 ;9 ;9

�� ;9 ;9 <>

; ; ;

�0 ;> ;> ;>

!�� ;9 ;9 ;9

; ; ;

!�� ;9 ;9 ;9

#�� ;9 ;9 ;9

#�%�0�� 79 79 ;<

)��$ 79 79 ;>

'�� ;9 ;9 ;9

'��)� ;> ;> ;>

; ; ;

%�"�� ;9 ;9 ;9

%�� ;@ ;@ ;8

%��*�� ;9 ;9 ;9

%0�� ;> ;> 7>

;9 ;9 ;9

79 79 79

(��"�� ;> ;> ;>

*��&�� 79 79 79

/�� ;9 ;9 <>

/�� ;9 ;9 ;<

/��&� 79 79 79

/�� ;> ;> ;9

��]�;.��

��]�� ==. ==8 ,77 /498/

��#��^��'��%��F��

��+�

4��0�!��

��&+��0�!��

��?��

(&��

(��+��

'��F��0��

!��&��

9�� 8�� =��



Appendix D - Continued

Student Advocacy - Connect With Kids Program: High School TEACHER PARTICIPATION

��?��

�� 8> <> ;> ;>

�� 8> <> <> <>

��5�� ? ? 9 ;

�� 8 8 8 ?

��0�� ? ? ? ?

��"�$ <> <> ;> ;>

��&��&+��0�!�� 9 9 9 9

�� 7 7 7 7

��"�� ;> ;> ;> ;>

�� 0��( @ @ @ @

��&0 8 8 8 8

�&+��&��'��+� 9

�� ;> ;> ;> ;>

��+��"� 8 8 8 8

�('5� 7> 7> 7> 7>

�� ;> ;> ;> ;>

�� ;8 ;< ;8 7@

��( <> <> <> <>

��&�� 7@ 7> A @

�0�)�64�� 8 ; ; ;

!�&�� <> <> ;> 7A

!��&��G��&�� 79 7> 7> 7>

!�� 8> <> <> ;>

#�� <9 <> ;9 ;9

#�� @ @ @ @

#�.0 <> ;> ;> ;>

%�� ;> ;> ;> ;>

(��.�� 79 7< 7< @

(��+�� <> ;> ;> 7>

(�� ;< 7? 78 A

/��+ ;9 ;9 ;9 ;@

/�� ;> ;> ;> ;>

/��.��0 ;> ;> ;> ;>

/�� <> ;9 ;9 ;9

/��0 ;> 7= 79 @

/�� 7@ 7? 78 7>

:�� ;9 ;9 ;9 ;9

��]�3=��

��]�� 873 97= .99 .<, /43,9

��

��#��^��'��%��F��

<<�� </��,�� <7��



Appendix E

TAKS Percent Passing at State Standard** and Percent Commendedfor All Students Tested: 2005 and 2006

Note: Source: Houston Independent School District. (2006). Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, Spring 2006.

* Results from the first administration for third and fifth grade reading and fifth grade math are presented.

** State passing standard for 2005 was the Panel Recommended level for grades 3-10 and 1 SEM for grade

11. The 2006 passing standard was Panel Recommended.

Eng=English-language version of TAKS; Span=Spanish-language version of TAKS.

Bold numbers reflect increased rates.

n/a means not available.

/779 /77. /779 /77. /779 /77. /779 /77.

�� j �� j �� j �� j %�� j %�� j

�� j�� '�� j�� '�� j�� '�� j�� '�� j�� '�� j�� '��

k3�� 7>�>>8 A�=@@ @; 3; @< ;A => /7 => 7=

k3�� 9�7@8 9�>9A =7 ;7 =A ;7 8; /< =7 7;

;�� 77�;=A 77�=@7 8; 78 => 7= 8; /3 ?A ;> =, 7= @@ 7@

;�� <�788 <�;?@ 8, /< =8 7= 8. /, =< ;= ,/ /= A> ;=

k.�� 7<�8A; 7<�?A@ 87 78 ?; 79 8; /, ?= 7A

k.�� -� ?>? 8< <. ?@ 7< .9 <. 8@ 7<

9�� 7;�8AA 7<�>A9 =/ ;9 =? ;? 93 <8 99 79

9�� <9 9= 8; << ?< A .< << 88 9

8 7;�@?; 7;�@9< =7 <3 =< 7; .8 8 8@ ? =9 /= @9 ;>

= 7;�;@7 7;�9@? 8, ;? =@ ;? .8 <7 8= A

, 78�8A= 7<�@8< =/ <; =9 77 8< A 88 A

<7 7>�=7; 7>�@77 8= , 99 < ;, = 88 =

<< @�=>? @�@>= == 7< @> 7< ?A <; ?A 77

/779 /77. /779 /77. /779 /77.

�� j ��q��#�q j ��q��#�q j �� j �� j

�� j�� '�� j�� '�� j�� '�� j�� '�� j�� '�� j�� '��

3�� 66 66 66 66

3�� 66 66 66 66

;�� 9= 9 9= ?

;�� 9; = ?> =

.�� 9. 7= 97 7= �-� �-� �-� �-�

.�� 3< 9 ;@ 8 �-� �-� 66 66

9�� 97 </ 97 77

9�� ;, 9 8> ;

8 .< ; 88 <

= 9= ? =? /7 =@ 78 8< 8 8< 8

, ;3 . 8; 8

<7 ;. 8 <= 9 =8 /< =8 7= 39 3 ;? 7

<< ?< 8 ?9 < A> /3 A> 7A 97 3 9; ;

Documents

0506 T V Cover cs · 2012-11-02 · TITLE V-A I NNOVATIVE PROGRAMS: 2005–2006 HISD R ESEARCH AND A CCOUNTABILITY 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE V, PART A INNOVATIVE P ROGRAMS 2005–2006