6. |
DISTRICT AND CAMPUS PERFORMANCE |
One of the major objectives of the Texas Education Agency is to support the accomplishment of the state's goals for public education by recognizing, rewarding, sanctioning, and intervening with school districts and campuses to ensure excellence and equity for all students.
Accountability ratings for 1996 showed that more Texas school districts and campuses received high performance ratings, and fewer were rated low-performing (see Table 6.1). The number of exemplary schools increased from 255 in 1995 to 394 in 1996, and the number of recognized schools increased from 1,004 in 1995 to 1,309 in 1996. Both figures are record marks in the four-year history of the state's school accountability system, required by legislation enacted in 1993.
| Campus Ratings | 1995 | 1996* |
| Exemplary | 255 | 394 |
| Recognized | 1,004 | 1,305 |
| Acceptable | 4,345 | 4,131 |
| Low-performing | 267 | 108 |
| District Ratings | 1995 | 1996* |
| Exemplary | 14 | 37 |
| Recognized | 137 | 209 |
| Accredited/Acceptable | 860 | **790 |
| Accredited Warned/Academically | 34 | **8 |
| Academically Unacceptable | **8 | |
| *as of October 16, 1996 | ||
| **Two districts were lowered, by action of the commissioner, from academically acceptable to academically unacceptable in March and April 1996, respectively. These actions revise the numbers issued by the Agency's Office of Policy Planning and Research to 788 and 10. | ||
District accreditation ratings showed similar improvements: in 1996, 37 districts received exemplary ratings, compared to 14 in 1995, while 209 districts received recognized ratings, compared to 137 in 1995.
Even though the standard for the percentage of students passing the TAAS increased in 1996, the number of low-performing campuses and districts decreased from 1995 to 1996. The number of campuses rated low-performing decreased from 267 in 1995 to 108 in 1996. In 1995, 34 districts were rated accredited warned; only 8 districts were rated academically unacceptable in 1996. In addition, two districts were lowered by action of the commissioner of education from academically acceptable to academically unacceptable, bringing the total number of academically unacceptable districts to 10.
In 1995, districts were rated exemplary, recognized, accredited, or accredited warned. However, district ratings for 1996 reflect the new terminology required by Senate Bill 1, 74th Texas Legislature, 1995. In 1996, districts were rated exemplary, recognized, academically acceptable, or academically unacceptable. Standards for academically acceptable and acceptable ratings changed between 1995 and 1996. For a district or campus to be rated academically acceptable/acceptable in 1995, 25 percent of all students and each student population group (African American, Hispanic, White, and economically disadvantaged students) must pass the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS). However, in 1996, the standard for academically acceptable/acceptable ratings increased to 30 percent of all students and each student population group passing the TAAS. A dropout rate of six percent or less for all students and each student group was required for districts and campuses, but a single group dropout waiver was applicable in some instances in 1996.
The agency has implemented an optional alternative accountability system, developed in 1994-95, for alternative campuses that serve long-term students (those in attendance 18 weeks or longer). The system provides for rating alternative campuses based on student performance on TAAS, dropout rates, attendance, General Education Development (GED) completion, course/credit completion, and/or dropout recovery rates. The system also provides for on-site evaluations by peer review teams for those alternative campuses that fail to meet targeted campus performance objectives. In 1996, 309 campuses were rated through the alternative accountability system. Of those, 46 campuses are scheduled for peer review accreditation visits during the 1996-97 school year.
The accreditation status for districts and the performance ratings for campuses are based on the academic excellence indicators required by law and adopted by the State Board of Education. In 1995, 34 districts were designated as accredited warned, with 86 low-performing campuses. An additional 182 low-performing campuses were located in 119 other districts. However, the performance rating for one campus, Levelland High School in Levelland ISD, was changed in January 1996 from low-performing to acceptable based on the recommendation of the on-site peer review team. Therefore, the total number of low-performing campuses in 1995 was 267.
*Indicates the district is rated accredited warned for the
second consecutive year.
Abilene ISD
Aldine ISD
Alief ISD
Alto ISD
Alvarado ISD
Amarillo ISD
Arlington ISD
Athens ISD
Austin ISD
Bay City ISD
Beaumont ISD
Beeville ISD
Belton ISD
Brenham ISD
Brooks ISD
Brownfield ISD
Brownwood ISD
Bryan ISD
Bullard ISD
Calhoun County ISD
Calvert ISD
Canutillo ISD
Center ISD
Clear Creek ISD
Cleburne ISD
Cleveland ISD
Coldspring-Oakhurst Consolidated ISD
Columbia-Brazoria ISD
Conroe ISD
Corpus Christi ISD
Corsicana ISD
Cotulla ISD
Crockett County Consolidated ISD
Dallas ISD
Detroit ISD
Dickinson ISD
Donna ISD
Ector County ISD
Edinburg Consolidated ISD
Edna ISD
El Paso ISD
Elgin ISD
Ennis ISD
Fabens ISD
Fort Bend ISD
Fort Worth ISD
Galena Park ISD
Galveston ISD
Garland ISD
Garrison ISD
George West ISD
Goliad ISD
Grand Prairie ISD
Greenville ISD
Hale Center ISD
Harlandale ISD
Hays Consolidated ISD
Hemphill ISD
Hempstead ISD
Hereford ISD
Hillsboro ISD
Hondo ISD
Houston ISD
Huntsville ISD
Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD
Jacksonville ISD
Jim Hogg County ISD
Katy ISD
Kenedy ISD
Kerrville ISD
Kirbyville ISD
La Joya ISD
La Marque ISD
La Porte ISD
La Pryor ISD
La Vega ISD
Lamar Consolidated ISD
Lamesa ISD
Lewisville ISD
Liberty ISD
Little Elm ISD
Livingston ISD
Lubbock ISD
Lufkin ISD
Mabank ISD
Marble Falls ISD
Mart ISD
McAllen ISD
Midland ISD
Muleshoe ISD
Nacogdoches ISD
Natalia ISD
Navasota ISD
New Braunfels ISD
North East ISD
North Forest ISD
Orange Grove ISD
Ore City ISD
Palestine ISD
Pampa ISD
Paris ISD
Pasadena ISD
Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD
Pittsburg ISD
Plainview ISD
Port Arthur ISD
Presidio ISD
Ramirez CSD
Raymondville ISD
Rio Grande City ISD
Roma ISD
Royal ISD
Rusk ISD
San Antonio ISD
San Benito Consolidated ISD
San Diego ISD
San Elizario ISD
San Saba ISD
Santa Maria ISD
Sealy ISD
Seminole ISD
Shepherd ISD
Slaton ISD
Smithville ISD
Spring Branch ISD
Tahoka ISD
Taylor ISD
Temple ISD
Terrell ISD
Texas City ISD
Tornillo ISD
Trinity ISD
Tyler ISD
Union ISD
United ISD
Victoria ISD
Waco ISD
Waller ISD
Waskom ISD
Waxahachie ISD
West Rusk ISD
Wharton ISD
Whitesboro ISD
Wichita Falls ISD
Willis ISD
Wilmer-Hutchins ISD
Woodville ISD
Yoakum ISD
* Indicates the campus is rated low-performing for the second consecutive year.
** Indicates the campus is rated low-performing for the third consecutive year.
Efforts to Improve Performance
Of the 34 districts rated accredited warned in 1995, 32 (94 percent) showed sufficient progress to receive an academically acceptable rating in 1996. Of the 267 campuses listed as low-performing in 1995, 240 (90 percent) showed sufficient progress to receive an acceptable rating in 1996. Five of the six campuses rated low-performing for the second consecutive year in 1995 (83 percent) were acceptable in 1996. All nine campuses rated low-performing for the third consecutive year in 1995 (100 percent) were acceptable in 1996.
Peer review teams visited accredited warned districts and low- performing campuses. However, hearings for campuses rated low-performing for the third consecutive year determined that restructuring efforts and assigned state intervention were sufficient on five campuses to defer the on-site peer review accreditation visit. Each team analyzed district and campus performance on the academic excellence indicators and developed a specific set of recommendations that provided clear direction for local restructuring and improvement initiatives.
In 1995-96, the TEA implemented an abbreviated review process for districts and campuses rated accredited warned or low-performing solely due to high dropout rates. The effectiveness of the abbreviated visits is evident in the analysis of the 1996 ratings. Twenty-five districts were accredited warned due to a high dropout rate in 1995; of those, only two were rated academically unacceptable in 1996, one due to TAAS and one due to dropout. Only five of the 115 campuses that received an abbreviated dropout visit in 1995-96 continued to be low-performing in 1996 due to dropout. Ten other campuses that had abbreviated visits in 1995 were rated low-performing due to low TAAS scores in 1996.
State intervention exercised by the commissioner to improve student performance includes the following:
Lakeview ISD was assigned a monitor on May 8, 1995, as a result of an on-site accreditation visit in April that revealed concerns about the school improvement decision-making process and concerns in five other broad areas impacting student performance. The monitor was removed on April 19, 1996.
Runge ISD was assigned an instructional team from the Region III Education Service Center on July 1, 1993, subsequent to an on-site accreditation visit in April that revealed the district's failure to adequately meet the needs of all student groups. Quality planning was needed to address the equity gap and differences in student performance. The team was withdrawn on July 19, 1996.
San Antonio ISD was assigned a monitor on May 26, 1995, following an on-site accreditation visit earlier in the year that revealed serious concerns at individual campuses. The monitor was directed to work with a district intervention team in efforts to improve student performance at five low-performing campuses. The monitor was removed on August 26, 1996.
Santa Maria ISD was assigned a technical support team from the Region I Education Service Center on September 16, 1994, following an on-site accreditation visit to review the Grade 12 program in the district's newly established high school. The visit revealed problems in four broad areas that impacted student performance. The team was withdrawn on July 1, 1996.
Texarkana ISD was assigned a campus intervention team on January 26, 1995, to assist in improving performance at Dunbar Elementary School. This action followed an on-site peer review visit in November 1994 that revealed concerns about conditions that were inhibiting efforts to improve student performance. The team was withdrawn on July 1, 1996.
Van Vleck ISD was assigned an instructional team from the Region III Education Service Center on June 1, 1994, pursuant to an on-site accreditation visit to the district in February that revealed the need for staff development in leadership training, instructional strategies, and site-based decision making. Other needs included instructional leadership at the district level, a united planning process, better communication, and improved discipline. The team was withdrawn on July 19, 1996.
Wilmer-Hutchins ISD was assigned a monitoring team on April 12, 1996, to assist the district in the areas of student performance, governance, and finances. The monitoring team was upgraded to a management team on June 6, 1996.
The agency has developed a framework for multi-year sanctions and interventions for first-, second-, third- and fourth-year academically unacceptable districts and low-performing campuses.
For second-year academically unacceptable districts, interventions and sanctions include the following: issue of public notice and public hearing by the local board of trustees; improvement plan submitted for state review; and an on-site peer review. Additional sanctions or interventions may include Education Service Center (ESC) support; a hearing before the commissioner or designee; or assignment of a master, monitor, or management team.
For second-year low-performing campuses, interventions and sanctions include the following: issue of public notice and public hearing by the local board of trustees; improvement plan submitted for state review; and an on-site peer review. When possible, the members of the peer review team that visited the campus the previous year will visit the campus the second year. Additional sanctions or interventions may include ESC support; assignment of an intervention team; a hearing before the commissioner or designee; or appointment of a board of managers.
For third-year low-performing campuses, interventions and sanctions include the following: issue of public notice and public hearing by the local board of trustees; improvement plan submitted for state review; and a hearing before the commissioner or designee. Results of the hearing will determine the need for additional sanctions and interventions.
Eight districts were designated as academically unacceptable in 1996 due to low performance on TAAS and/or a high dropout rate. There were 13 low-performing campuses in the academically unacceptable districts. An additional 95 low-performing campuses were located in 58 other districts. On-site peer review accreditation visits are scheduled for these districts and campuses.
* Indicates the district is rated academically unacceptable for the second consecutive year.
Alamo Heights ISD
Amarillo ISD
Athens ISD
Austin ISD
Bastrop ISD
Beaumont ISD
Boerne ISD
Bovina ISD
Brownsville ISD
Bryan ISD
Center ISD
Chapel Hill ISD (Smith County)
Cleveland ISD
Coldspring-Oakhurst Consol. ISD
Comfort ISD
Cotulla ISD
Crockett ISD (Houston County)
Dallas ISD
Del Valle ISD
Denton ISD
Dilley ISD
Edgewood ISD (Bexar County)
El Campo ISD
Ennis ISD
Fort Worth ISD
Gainesville ISD
Galveston ISD
Hempstead ISD
Hitchcock ISD
Houston ISD
Huntsville ISD
Jefferson ISD
Kemp ISD
La Joya ISD
La Marque ISD
Longview ISD
Lufkin ISD
Madisonville Consolidated ISD
Marlin ISD
Mason ISD
Midland ISD
Mount Pleasant ISD
Nacogdoches ISD
North East ISD
North Zulch ISD
Olton ISD
Paris ISD
Royal ISD
San Angelo ISD
San Antonio ISD
Silsbee ISD
Sulphur Springs ISD
Taft ISD
Texarkana ISD
Trinity ISD
Union ISD
United ISD
Van ISD
Waco ISD
Waller ISD
Waxahachie ISD
West Orange-Cove CISD
Willis ISD
Wilmer-Hutchins ISD
Winona ISD
Wylie ISD (Collin County)
* Indicates the campus is rated low-performing for the second consecutive year.
** Indicates the campus is rated low-performing for the third consecutive year.
Twenty-six of the above listed campuses are second-year low-performing, and one is third-year low-performing. These figures represent 24.1 percent and less than .01 percent of all low-performing campuses, respectively.
During the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school years, eleven school districts were assigned monitors or masters, or received alternative interventions (see Table 6.2 for a history of interventions in each district).
| Region | District | Change From | Change To | Date of Change |
| 20 | Asherton | Accredited | Acad. Unaccept. /Monitor | 03/21/96 |
| 05 | Beaumont | Accredited | Accredited/Monitors | 01/11/93 |
| Accredited/Monitors | Accredited | 01/18/96 | ||
| 02 | Benavides | Acad. Accept. | Acad. Accept. /Monitor | 09/23/96 |
| 07 | Chapel Hill | Acad. Accept. | Acad. Accept. /Monitor | 09/05/96 |
| 16 | Lakeview | Accredited | Warned | 07/28/93 |
| Warned | Warned | 08/01/94 | ||
| Warned | Warned/Monitor | 05/08/95 | ||
| Warned/Monitor | Accredited/Monitor | 08/01/95 | ||
| Accredited/Monitor | Accredited | 04/19/96 | ||
| 02 | Runge | Accredited | Accredited/Alt. Inter | 07/01/93 |
| Accredited/Alt. Inter | Acad. Accept. | 07/19/96 | ||
| 20 | San Antonio | Accredited | Accredited/Monitor | 05/26/95 |
| Accredited/Monitor | Warned/Monitor | 08/01/95 | ||
| Warned/Monitor | Acad. Accept. /Monitor | 08/01/96 | ||
| Acad. Accept. /Monitor | Acad. Accept. | 08/26/96 | ||
| 01 | Santa Maria | Accredited | Accredited/Alt. Inter | 09/16/94 |
| Accredited/Alt. Inter | Acad. Accept. | 07/01/96 | ||
| 08 | Texarkana | Accredited | Accredited/Alt. Inter | 01/26/95 |
| Accredited/Alt. Inter | Acad. Accept. | 07/01/96 | ||
| 03 | Van Vleck | Accredited | Accredited/Alt. Inter | 06/01/94 |
| Accredited/Alt. Inter | Acad. Accept. | 07/19/96 | ||
| 10 | Wilmer-Hutchins | Acad. Unaccept. | Acad. Unaccept. /Monitors | 04/12/96 |
| Acad. Unaccept. /Monitors | Acad. Unaccept. /Mgt. Team | 06/06/96 |
As of October 1, 1996, seven of the eleven districts are academically acceptable (Beaumont ISD, Lakeview ISD, Runge ISD, San Antonio ISD, Santa Maria ISD, Texarkana ISD, and Van Vleck ISD), three are academically acceptable with monitors (Asherton ISD, Benavides ISD, and Chapel Hill ISD), and one is academically unacceptable with a management team (Wilmer-Hutchins ISD).
The Texas School Improvement Initiative targets for improvement those districts and campuses that do not satisfy the performance standards as defined by the commissioner. Performance standards are directly tied to the public education academic goals listed in the Texas Education Code, Section 4.002.
Linda G. Mora, Associate Commissioner for Accountability, (512) 463-8998.
For an explanation of the accountability system, see 1996 Accountability Manual, published by the Division of Performance Reporting.
For the most current information on accreditation interventions and sanctions, see Status Report on the Accreditation, Interventions, and Sanctions of School Districts, included in the agenda for each State Board of Education meeting.