Performance Analysis for Colleges of Education - depts.ttu.edu · Performance Analysis for Colleges of Education ... Jeanne Burns Associate ... Performance Analysis for Colleges of

Texas Tech University

PACE 2012 Performance Analysis for

Colleges of Education

Center for Research, Evaluation and

Advancement of Teacher Education

www.createtx.org

YEAR 6 Released October 2012

CREATE Center for Research, Evaluation and Advancement

of Teacher Education

PACE 2012 Performance Analysis for

Colleges of Education

CREATE COORDINATING COMMITTEE

CREATE ADVISORY COUNCIL

Robert McPherson

Dean, College of Education

University of Houston

Jeanne Burns

Associate Commissioner for Teacher Initiatives

Governor’s Office of Education /

Louisiana Board of Regents

Genevieve Brown


Sam Houston State University

Jill Burk


Tarleton State University

Charles Coble

Partner

The Third Mile Group, LLC

Jeanne Gerlach


University of Texas at Arlington

Lois Adams-Rogers

Chief Operating Officer

Council of Chief State School Officers

Ed Crowe

Senior Adviser

Woodrow Wilson National

Fellowship Foundation

Sabrina Laine

Vice President

American Institutes for Research and

Director, National Comprehensive Center

for Teacher Quality

Linda Mora

Deputy Superintendent

Curriculum & Instruction

Northside Independent School District

Nancy Pelz-Paget

Director of Education & Society Program

Aspen Institute

Rosanne Stripling

Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs

Texas A&M University – Texarkana

Johnny Veselka

Executive Director

Texas Association of School Administrators

Perry Moore

Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

The Texas State University System

Pedro Reyes

Executive Vice Chancellor for

Academic Affairs

The University of Texas System

John J. Antel

Sr. Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

The University of Houston System

Frank Ashley, Chair

Vice Chancellor for Recruitment & Diversity

The Texas A&M University System

CREATE MEMBER SYSTEMS AND INSTITUTIONS

OPERATING PARTNERS

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Prairie View A&M University

Tarleton State University

Texas A&M International University

Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University-Central Texas

Texas A&M University-Commerce

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

Texas A&M University-Kingsville

Texas A&M University-San Antonio

Texas A&M University-Texarkana

West Texas A&M University

TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Lamar State College-Orange

Lamar University

Sam Houston State University

Sul Ross State University

Sul Ross State University-Rio Grande

Texas State University-San Marcos

UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON SYSTEM

University of Houston

University of Houston-Clear Lake

University of Houston-Downtown

University of Houston-Victoria

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM

University of Texas-Arlington

University of Texas-Austin

University of Texas-Brownsville

University of Texas-Dallas

University of Texas-El Paso

University of Texas-Pan American

University of Texas-Permian Basin

University of Texas-San Antonio

University of Texas-Tyler

PROGRAM PARTNERS

Abilene Christian University

Angelo State University

Austin College

Baylor University

East Texas Baptist University

Hardin-Simmons University

Howard Payne University

McMurry University

Midwestern State University

Our Lady of the Lake University

Southwestern University

St. Edward’s University

St. Mary’s University

Stephen F. Austin State University

Texas Christian University

Texas Lutheran University

Texas Southern University


Texas Woman’s University

University of Mary Hardin-Baylor

University of North Texas

University of St. Thomas

University of the Incarnate Word

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Performance Analysis for Colleges of Education

(PACE)

Overview

Purpose and Objectives of PACE ..............................................................................................1

CREATE Assumptions about the Professional Influence and Impact of Colleges of

Education ...................................................................................................................................3

The Proximal Zone of Professional Impact (PZPI): A Contextual Framework for

Assessing Long-Term Influence and Impact of Colleges of Education ....................................4

Data Sets Used in the PACE Report ..........................................................................................5

How to Use and Apply the PACE Report ..................................................................................6

PACE Reports

I. Educational Trends in University’s Proximal Zone of Professional

Impact

A. Descriptive Reports on the Characteristics of Public Schools in the Proximal

Zone of Professional Impact ....................................................................................7

A.1. Summary of Public School Enrollment in the Proximal Zone of Professional

Impact ................................................................................................................9

A.2. Public School Enrollment by District in the Proximal Zone of Professional

Impact (Sample)...............................................................................................10

A.3. Public School Listings in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact

(Sample) ...........................................................................................................11

B. Educational Trend Reports on Public Schools in the Proximal Zone of

Professional Impact ................................................................................................12

B.1. Student Enrollment Trends in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact ......14

B.2. Student Achievement Trends in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact

B.2.a. Percentage Passing Mathematics TAKS, 2008-2011 .........................16

B.2.b. Percentage Passing English Language Arts/Reading TAKS,

2008-2011 ............................................................................................17

ii

B.2.c. Variability of TAKS Achievement Rates by Ethnicity, 2008-2011

Figure 1: High School Mathematics ...................................................18

Figure 2: Middle School Mathematics ................................................19

Figure 3: Elementary School Mathematics .........................................20

Figure 4: High School Language Arts/Reading ..................................21

Figure 5: Middle School Language Arts/Reading ..............................22

Figure 6: Elementary School Language Arts/Reading .......................23

B.2.d. Highest and Lowest Achieving Schools in Mathematics by Level, 2011

Table 1: 30 Highest-Achieving High Schools in Mathematics .........24

Table 2: 30 Lowest-Achieving High Schools in Mathematics ..........25

Table 3: 30 Highest-Achieving Middle Schools in Mathematics ......26

Table 4: 30 Lowest-Achieving Middle Schools in Mathematics ......27

Table 5: 30 Highest-Achieving Elementary Schools in

Mathematics ........................................................................28

Table 6: 30 Lowest-Achieving Elementary Schools in

Mathematics ........................................................................29

B.2.e. Highest and Lowest Achieving Schools in Reading by Level, 2011

Table 1: 30 Highest-Achieving High Schools in Reading ................30

Table 2: 30 Lowest-Achieving High Schools in Reading .................31

Table 3: 30 Highest-Achieving Middle Schools in Reading .............32

Table 4: 30 Lowest-Achieving Middle Schools in Reading ..............33

Table 5: 30 Highest-Achieving Elementary Schools in Reading ......34

Table 6: 30 Lowest-Achieving Elementary Schools in Reading .......35

II. University and Teacher Education Trends

C. University and Teacher Production Reports ........................................................36

C.1. Five-Year University Production Trends .........................................................37

C.2. Teacher Production Trends for University Completers ...................................38

C.3. Teacher Production by Race/Ethnicity ............................................................39

C.4. Initial Certification Production by Level .........................................................40

C.5. Other Producers of Teachers in Proximal Zone of Professional Impact .........41

iii

D. Professional Impact Trend Reports ......................................................................42

D.1. Teacher Hiring in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact

D.1.a: High Schools ...................................................................................43

D.1.b: Middle Schools ................................................................................44

D.1.c: Elementary Schools .........................................................................45

D.2. Percentage of Newly-Certified Teachers Employed Inside and Outside the

Proximal Zone of Professional Impact ............................................................46

D.3. District Hiring Patterns of University-Prepared Teachers in PZPI (Sample) ..47

D.4. Percentage of University Completers in the Proximal Zone of Professional

Impact

D.4.a. High Schools ........................................................................................48

D.4.b. Middle Schools ....................................................................................49

D.4.c. Elementary Schools .............................................................................50

D.5. Comparison of Teacher Retention Trends

D.5.a. Five-Year Retention of First-Year Teachers ........................................51

D.5.b. Five-Year Retention of First-Year Teachers by School Level:

High School .........................................................................................52

D.5.c. Five-Year Retention of First-Year Teachers by School Level:

Middle School ......................................................................................53

D.5.d. Five-Year Retention of First-Year Teachers by School Level:

Elementary School ...............................................................................54

III. University Benchmarks to Guide Improvement

E. University Comparison Reports ............................................................................55

E.1. Comparison of Teacher Production in Nearby Geographic Area ....................56

E.2. Five-Year Teacher Production of Consortium Universities ............................57

E.3. Comparison of Longitudinal Certificate Production Trends ...........................59

E.4. Teacher Retention Comparison .......................................................................60

Changes Made to the 2012 Reports .........................................................................................61

Information Regarding Data Correction and Data Requests ...................................................61

iv

IV. Attachments

Attachment 1: Public School Enrollment in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact

Attachment 2: Public School Listings in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact

Attachment 3: District Hiring Patterns of University-Prepared Teachers in the

Proximal Zone of Professional Impact

V. Source Data for 2011 PACE Reports

Section A: AEIS 2010-2011, TEA; PZPI, CREATE

Section B: AEIS 2010-2011, TEA; PZPI, CREATE

Section C: IPEDS Fall 2010; ICUT Fall 2010

Teacher certification files 2010-2011, TEA;

THECB Accountability System, Prep Online, 2010-2011

Section D: Teacher certification, 2010-2011, TEA (PEIMS)

Teacher assignment and employment from PEIMS, 2011-2012, TEA

AEIS 2010-2011, TEA

PZPI, CREATE

Section E: Teacher certification, 2010-2011, TEA

Teacher employment from PEIMS, 2011-2012, TEA

PACE 2012 1

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS FOR COLLEGES OF EDUCATION

(PACE)

Purpose and Objectives of PACE

As a consortium of universities devoted to on-going analysis and continuous quality

improvement of university-based teacher preparation, the Center for Research,

Evaluation and Advancement of Teacher Education (CREATE) seeks to develop

planning and information systems that can assist universities in professional analysis of

their teacher preparation initiatives, particularly as these practices relate to long-term

teacher influence and effect.

The preparation of effective teachers for Texas public schools is of paramount

importance in assuring sound economic footing and an enhanced quality of life for all

Texans. To this end, university-based teacher preparation is of great public significance

in the state, worthy of careful attention, and an important subject of continuous quality

improvement.

PACE is offered in support of the teacher preparation programs associated with the

CREATE consortium. PACE presents a useful reporting system for universities and their

Colleges of Education centered on public schools. Reports are intended to be used as a

planning and resource tool that can assist teacher education leaders in assessing needs,

targeting refinements in their preparation programs, and evaluating organizational effects

over time.

PACE reports are intended to address the following objectives:

1. Present a system which describes and charts a Proximal Zone of Professional

Impact (PZPI) for each CREATE institution, within which to consider long-

term program interventions and measure effectiveness of university teacher

preparation programs.

2. Provide a school-centered tool that can assist in the continuous quality

improvement of university-based teacher preparation programs.

3. Provide information that will enable university and public school leaders to

track long-term trends related to public schools in their immediate area.

4. Provide information that will enable university and public school leaders to

track long-term trends related to teacher supply in relation to regional demand.

5. Furnish a structured format that will enable university and public school

leaders to engage in systematic analysis of achievement and staffing patterns

in their immediate vicinity.

PACE 2012 2

As an information system, the PACE reports are a work in progress and subject to

continuous quality improvement. For Year 6, the core reports have been retained;

modifications have been minor. While these reports offer a structure for data that can

assist all consortium members in establishing a school-centered planning focus, PACE

data must be augmented with university program information in order to thoroughly

answer critical evaluation questions about each institution’s teacher preparation

programs. In this regard, PACE is offered as a common data platform that will hopefully

encourage users to integrate local university information systems to inform teacher

preparation practices at the campus and regional level.

It is also important to note that PACE reports are derived from Texas state data sources.

Large files of this size and scope are always subject to variability and standard degree of

error. To this end, it is imperative that PACE users verify and authenticate these reported

data prior to final analysis and interpretation. In efforts to refine the data, CREATE staff

stand ready to assist in answering questions or clarifying issues regarding data quality. A

summary of changes made to the 2012 PACE reports and information about whom to

contact regarding data requests and data errors can be found on page 61.

PACE 2012 3

CREATE Assumptions about the Professional Influence and Impact

of Colleges of Education

The PACE system is based upon key assumptions that are central to CREATE’s mission

and program of work. CREATE assumes the following with regard to the professional

influence and impact of Colleges of Education.

A. Colleges of Education are an integral component of a system of public education

and, as such, have a professional obligation to contribute to the continuous quality

improvement of public school teaching and student learning.

B. Colleges of Education can and do influence continuous quality improvement of

public school teaching and student learning through their core functions of:

• teacher preparation

• research and development

• service to the profession

C. To optimize professional influence, Colleges of Education leaders must regularly

assess the status of public school teaching and student learning, and based upon

identified needs, work with their public school partners to develop and implement

program interventions that support measured improvement over time.

D. The College of Education’s long-term effects on public school teaching and

student learning can best be assessed through:

• on-going analysis of the College’s teacher production, placement and

retention trends

• faculty and graduate student research and development activities

• faculty and staff service to the local profession as implemented in

a Proximal Zone of Professional Impact (PZPI)

E. Faculty and public school involvement in planning, implementing and/or

assessing educational interventions in the PZPI should be actively encouraged

within every College of Education.

PACE 2012 4

The Proximal Zone of Professional Impact (PZPI):

A Contextual Framework for Assessing Long-Term Influence and

Impact of Colleges of Education

To facilitate consistent long-term assessment of institutional impact, and afford

comparative analysis, CREATE has established a Proximal Zone of Professional Impact

(PZPI) for CREATE institutions. The Proximal Zone of Professional Impact is

comprised of the university and all school districts and campuses within a seventy-five

mile radius of the university. This proximal zone describes a “P-16” professional

community in the immediate vicinity of each university, and provides each College of

Education a professional laboratory setting in which to collaboratively design and

implement program improvements over time and to gauge their long-term success.

While this Proximal Zone of Professional Impact does not convey the complete impact

scenario of the university’s teacher preparation programs, it does provide a common and

consistent setting in which the university may measure program effects over time.

From CREATE’s perspective, the PZPI offers the following advantages:

A. It presents a useful frame of reference for Colleges of Education to utilize in

assessing teaching and learning trends over time in the particular geographic area

nearest their institution.

B. It provides Colleges of Education a field laboratory for research and development

activities related to planned instructional interventions.

C. It establishes parameters of a professional community that are consistently

defined across the CREATE consortium, enabling long-term program

benchmarking and institutional comparisons.

D. It provides geographic boundaries that correlate to the university’s primary

admission centers.

E. It affords a structure for long-term regional networking and professional

partnerships among public and higher education institutions in the zone.

PACE 2012 5

Data Sets Used in the PACE Report

The data used to compile the PACE reports are based on the following data sets, listed in

alphabetical order:

Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS). This data is available from the TEA website

(http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/) and includes data on students, staff, finances,

accountability ratings, test scores, and non-test score information related to student achievement and

dropouts. The data is available for every public school in Texas since 1993. Newly created schools

are not included in the system until at least one year after they have opened.

Independent Colleges and Universities of Texas (ICUT). This data set, downloaded at

http://www.icut.org/publications.html, provides institutional level data on a variety of variables for

private universities including information on enrollment and degree awards.

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). This data set comes from data

collected by The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) on key variables from every

institution of higher education that participates in the federal student financial aid programs. Data

can be downloaded through the IPEDS Data Center (http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter).

Proximal Zone of Professional Impact (PZPI). This data set, produced by CREATE, contains a

list of the K-12 public schools and districts within a 75-mile radius of each university in the

CREATE consortium offering teacher preparation.

Teacher Assignment Data Set. This data set, provided by TEA, includes the specific course and

subject area assignments by percentage of full-time equivalent (FTE) for every teacher of record in

every Texas public school. The data matches each teacher to the district and school or schools in

which he or she teaches. The data set is available from the mid-1980s to the current year. The

Teacher Assignment Data Set for each academic year is made available in March of that academic

year.

Teacher Certification Data Set. This data set, provided by TEA, includes each Texas teaching

certificate obtained by a qualified applicant as well as the date the individual received the teaching

certificate. The data matches individuals to the program recommending certification and is available

from FY1994 through the current year. These data do not distinguish between middle and high

school certificates, but do differentiate elementary and secondary certificates. The data include the

race/ethnicity, gender, and age of each individual. Finally, the Teacher Certification Data Set is a

dynamic data set in that changes are made on a daily basis. Thus, any analysis based on a Teacher

Certification Data Set purchased in one month will likely differ somewhat from an analysis based on

a data set purchased in another month.

Texas Higher Education Accountability System. This data is used to track performance on

critical measures that exemplify higher education institutions' missions. An interactive website

(http://www.txhighereddata.org/Interactive/Accountability/) provides information related to four

success goals of the Texas Higher Education Closing the Gaps plans within Texas: student

participation, student success, excellence, and research. Mathematics, biological sciences, and

physical science degree awards were downloaded from the THECB Prep Online site

(http://www.txhighereddata.org/Interactive/PREP_New/).

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/

http://www.icut.org/publications.html

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter

http://www.txhighereddata.org/Interactive/Accountability/

http://www.txhighereddata.org/Interactive/PREP_New/

PACE 2012 6

How to Use and Apply the PACE Report

PACE is intended as a tool to assist universities, their Colleges of Education, and their

leadership teams in analyzing teaching and learning trends within their institutions and

within the public schools of the surrounding area. PACE offers a structure to monitor and

gauge long-term professional improvement. The data included in this report are important,

therefore, only to the degree that each university chooses to address them in a systematic

and continuous manner. It is hoped that the PACE reports will be used as planning tools

that universities will use to create institutional mechanisms for the on-going refinement of

their teacher preparation programs, as well as other educational programs. Based on this

intended use, we recommend the following actions associated with the PACE reports:

1. Organize and empower a teacher preparation leadership team which includes both

university and public school partners (a standing work committee) to analyze and

interpret these data as well as recommend organizational improvements based on

the needs identified.

2. Verify and validate the state data sets to be certain that they are relatively consistent

with comparable data reported by the university. Extend and augment the data in

the PACE reports with university data bases and programmatic information

available only at your institution.

3. Develop an institutional report which identifies regional teaching and learning

needs. Disseminate this report extensively within and outside the institution.

4. Plan, implement and evaluate program improvements intended to address regional

teaching and learning needs. Encourage experimental research and development

projects based on these planned interventions.

5. Build regional collaboratives based on the needs identified and the organizational

interventions pursued.

How CREATE Can Assist

CREATE will continue to refine the PACE reports and data sets for annual distribution.

However, for member institutions that seriously pursue the recommended steps

above, CREATE will make every effort to deliver additional support and technical

assistance to university/school leadership teams by:

1. Developing customized reports for active university teams

2. Consulting with leadership teams regarding analysis and interpretation of data

3. Facilitating meetings and other local events that employ these data in a

systematic manner for program improvement

4. Evaluating university-based initiatives to design and implement program

improvements

I.

Educational Trends in

University’s Proximal Zone of

Professional Impact

A.

Descriptive Reports on the Characteristics

of Public Schools in the Proximal Zone

of Professional Impact

7

SECTION A: Descriptive Reports on the Characteristics of Public Schools

in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact

Section A consists of descriptive reports regarding the characteristics of public and charter schools

located within a 75-mile radius of the target university. The data sources and definitions used to

generate the various reports are discussed below. The source data for each report can be found in

the lower right-hand corner of each document. The description of the source data for the 2012

PACE reports can be found in the Table of Contents on page iv.

A.1: Summary of Public School Enrollment in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact

(PZPI).

This report provides a summary of enrollment within the PZPI by various subpopulations of

students. The data include the number and percent by school level for race/ethnicity, economically

disadvantaged, special education, bilingual, and LEP students. Percentages of students in special

categories will NOT add up to 100% because different denominators are used to calculate level

percentages. The definitions of the subpopulations are described below:

Economically Disadvantaged: Economically disadvantaged students are those coded as

eligible for free or reduced price lunch or eligible for other public assistance. See also

Campus Group and Total Students. (Source: PEIMS, Oct. 2005, Oct. 2004; and TEA

Student Assessment Division).

Limited English Proficient (LEP): These are students identified as limited English

proficient by the Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC) according to

criteria established in the Texas Administrative Code. Not all pupils identified as LEP

receive bilingual or English as a second language instruction, although most do. For

more information see Campus Group and TAKS/SDAA II/TAKS-I Participation

(Source: PEIMS, Oct. 2005).

Special Education: This refers to the population served by programs for students with

disabilities. (Source: PEIMS, Oct. 2005, Oct. 2004, and TEA Student Assessment

Division).

A.2: Public School Enrollment by District in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact.

This report shows the first page of a supplemental document (See Attachment 1 for a full inventory)

showing public school enrollment in the PZPI in different ways. The first seven columns give an

alphabetical listing of all district and charter schools in the target university’s PZPI and shows

student enrollment by school level (elementary, middle, high, and elementary/ secondary). The next

eleven columns show student enrollment by ethnicity and enrollment of selected student

subpopulations for the same districts by level.

A.3: Public School Listing in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact.

This report is the first page of a supplemental document (See Attachment 2 for a full inventory)

listing all public schools (including charter schools) by district within the university’s PZPI. The

listing includes the district name, campus code and campus name, school type (elementary, middle,

high, and elementary/secondary) school size and accountability rating. The campus accountability

rating uses the following system:

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2006/glossary.html#cg

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2006/glossary.html#totalstudents

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2006/glossary.html#cg

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2006/glossary.html#takspart

8

E=Exemplary

R=Recognized

A=Academically Acceptable

L=Academically Unacceptable

In rare occasions, a campus may not have an accountability rating. The campus may include no students

enrolled higher than kindergarten, have insufficient data due to small numbers, or was designated a Juvenile

Justice Alternative Program. In those circumstances the following system is used:

1=AEA: Academically Acceptable

2=AEA: Academically Unacceptable

3=AEA: Not Rated - Other

X=AEA: Not Rated - Other

Requirements for each rating system can be found in the 2011 Accountability Manual on the TEA

website at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2011/manual/ch04.pdf or

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2011/masking.html.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2011/manual/ch04.pdf

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2011/masking.html

Texas Tech University2010‐2011

Summary of Public School Enrollment in Proximal Zone of Professional Impact

Traditional Districts 61

Charter Schools 2

District Types in the PZPI

96.8

3.2

N %

Total 63 100.0

LevelNumber

ofSchools

African AmericanN %

HispanicN %

WhiteN %

AsianN %

Native AmericanN %

Total

Number of Students

ELEM 98 2,914 7.4 23,367 12,024 30.5 408 1.0 135 0.3 39,41059.3

MS 46 1,109 6.9 9,048 5,389 33.7 165 1.0 72 0.4 16,01156.5

HS 68 1,402 7.0 10,721 7,348 36.7 205 1.0 80 0.4 20,04553.5

EL/SEC 30 119 2.2 2,637 2,513 46.9 5 0.1 22 0.4 5,35649.2

Total 242 5,544 6.9 45,773 27,274 33.7 783 1.0 309 0.4 80,82256.6

Students in Special CategoriesAt-RiskLevel

Numberof

SchoolsEco Disadvantaged

N %Special Education

N %Bilingual

N %LEP

N % N %

34.913,772ELEM 98 27,035 68.6 3,683 2,710 6.9 2,778 7.09.3

36.85,886MS 46 9,707 60.6 1,738 415 2.6 466 2.910.9

45.59,116HS 68 10,229 51.0 2,465 369 1.8 414 2.112.3

38.02,036EL/SEC 30 3,180 59.4 558 358 6.7 375 7.010.4

Source Data9Page

A.1AEIS, TEAPACE 2012

District Name School Level EL MS HS El/Sec Total Afro‐Amer

His‐panic

White Asian Native Amer

Total Eco Dis SpecEduc

Bilingual

LEP At‐Risk

SAMPLE DOCUMENT: To view the Total School Listing for Your Proximal Zone of Professional Impact Refer to Attachment 1


Public School Enrollment by District in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact

ABERNATHY ISD ELEM 1 0 0 1 4065 256 141 0 20 264 30 12 12 178HS 0 0 2 2 2064 97 102 0 00 86 33 0 0 71MS 0 1 0 1 1734 87 79 0 10 95 19 3 3 65Total 1 1 2 4 78513 440 322 0 30 445 82 15 15 314

AMHERST ISD EL/SEC 0 0 0 1 17311 130 32 0 01 142 28 20 21 77HS 0 0 1 1 50 5 0 0 00 5 0 2 2 4Total 0 0 1 2 17811 135 32 0 01 147 28 22 23 81

ANTON ISD ELEM 1 0 0 1 1375 101 30 0 00 120 13 6 6 63HS 0 0 2 2 1074 55 44 0 00 74 11 4 4 43Total 1 0 2 3 2449 156 74 0 00 194 24 10 10 106

BORDEN COUNTY ISD EL/SEC 0 0 0 1 2270 41 165 0 31 72 10 5 5 35Total 0 0 0 1 2270 41 165 0 31 72 10 5 5 35

BROWNFIELD ISD ELEM 3 0 0 3 98835 753 182 3 50 839 68 84 88 388HS 0 0 2 2 43824 296 113 3 10 248 53 11 16 223MS 0 1 0 1 37715 282 72 0 40 296 28 9 11 216Total 3 1 2 6 1,80374 1,331 367 6 100 1,383 149 104 115 827

COTTON CENTER ISD EL/SEC 0 0 0 1 1200 70 49 0 01 88 12 9 9 31Total 0 0 0 1 1200 70 49 0 01 88 12 9 9 31

CROSBYTON CISD EL/SEC 0 0 0 1 30 2 1 0 01 1 3 0 1 2ELEM 1 0 0 1 1986 136 50 0 00 155 11 3 3 53HS 0 0 1 1 1104 78 26 0 10 85 19 0 0 51MS 0 1 0 1 874 52 29 0 10 66 2 1 1 28Total 1 1 1 4 39814 268 106 0 21 307 35 4 5 134

DAWSON ISD EL/SEC 0 0 0 1 1630 102 61 0 01 81 10 13 14 58Total 0 0 0 1 1630 102 61 0 01 81 10 13 14 58

DENVER CITY ISD ELEM 1 0 0 1 8442 626 203 2 60 495 55 205 206 435HS 0 0 1 1 3893 278 105 0 20 179 29 24 24 196MS 0 1 0 1 2980 225 70 0 10 174 15 20 21 105Total 1 1 1 3 1,5315 1,129 378 2 90 848 99 249 251 736

DIMMITT ISD ELEM 1 0 0 1 5329 457 64 1 00 503 26 147 152 336

Source Data10Page

A.2AEISPACE

District Name Campus Code Campus Name School Type School SizeAccountability

Rating

SAMPLE DOCUMENT: To view the Total School Enrollment by District for Your Proximal Zone of Professional Impact Refer to Attachment 2Texas Tech University

2010‐2011Public School Listings in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact

ABERNATHY ISD 95901003 ABERNATHY DAEP HS 3 XABERNATHY ISD 95901001 ABERNATHY H S HS 203 AABERNATHY ISD 95901041 ABERNATHY J H MS 173 AABERNATHY ISD 95901101 ABERNATHY EL EL 406 RAMHERST ISD 140901002 P E P HS 5 1AMHERST ISD 140901001 AMHERST SCHOOL MULTI 173 LANTON ISD 110901001 ANTON H S HS 104 AANTON ISD 110901002 ANTON P E P HS 3 1ANTON ISD 110901101 ANTON EL EL 137 ABORDEN COUNTY ISD 17901001 BORDEN COUNTY SCHOOL MULTI 227 EBROWNFIELD ISD 223901005 BROWNFIELD EDUCATION CENTER HS 14 1BROWNFIELD ISD 223901001 BROWNFIELD H S HS 424 LBROWNFIELD ISD 223901041 BROWNFIELD MIDDLE MS 377 ABROWNFIELD ISD 223901103 BRIGHT BEGINNINGS ACADEMIC CENTER EL 164 XBROWNFIELD ISD 223901101 COLONIAL HEIGHTS EL EL 290 LBROWNFIELD ISD 223901102 OAK GROVE EL EL 534 LCOTTON CENTER ISD 95902001 COTTON CENTER SCHOOL MULTI 120 LCROSBYTON CISD 54901001 CROSBYTON H S HS 110 ACROSBYTON CISD 54901041 CROSBYTON MIDDLE MS 87 ACROSBYTON CISD 54901101 CROSBYTON EL EL 198 ACROSBYTON CISD 54901200 SP ED CO-OP MULTI 3 XDAWSON ISD 58902001 DAWSON SCHOOL MULTI 163 RDENVER CITY ISD 251901001 DENVER CITY H S HS 389 ADENVER CITY ISD 251901041 WILLIAM G GRAVITT JR HIGH MS 298 RDENVER CITY ISD 251901101 KELLEY/DODSON EL EL 844 RDIMMITT ISD 35901001 DIMMITT H S HS 296 ADIMMITT ISD 35901041 DIMMITT MIDDLE MS 371 A

Source Data11Page

A.3AEISPACE 2012

B.

Educational Trend Reports on

Public Schools in the Proximal Zone

of Professional Impact

12

SECTION B: Educational Trend Reports on Public Schools in

the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact

Section B describes the trends within the PZPI for student enrollment and student achievement

from 2008 to 2011. All of the data in this section come from the AEIS data files which can be

downloaded at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis.

B.1: Student Enrollment Trends in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact.

This two-page analysis describes the trends in student enrollment within the PZPI from 2008 to

2011. The data are presented by school level and includes information by student racial/ethnic

categories as well as other student subpopulations. The analysis provides the change in the

number of students within the PZPI and the percentage change in student enrollment over the

same time period. Data are depicted graphically by ethnicity and by students in special

categories.

B.2: Student Achievement Trends in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact.

B.2.a: and B.2.b: Percentage Passing Mathematics TAKS and Percentage Passing English

Language Arts/Reading TAKS.

These analyses provide trend data on the percentage of students passing the Mathematics and

English Language Arts/Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) at all grade

levels from 2008 to 2011. The pass rates on TAKS for schools within the PZPI are compared to

schools that are not in the PZPI. Within each school group, the percent of students passing the

exam each year are provided, as well as the change in pass rates over time. The analyses supply

information by student racial/ethnic subpopulations and for economically disadvantaged

students.

B.2.c: Variability of TAKS Achievement Rates by Ethnicity.

Figures 1 through 6 provide information about the percentage of subpopulations of students at

each school level passing ALL TAKS for Mathematics and Language Arts/Reading from 2008 to

2011. Only schools with a regular accountability rating at the same school level all 4 years were

included in the analysis. The data were calculated using the following definitions:

“Percent Passing” was calculated by dividing the number of students achieving passing on the

respective TAKS subject by the number of students tested in the subject.

“Percent Commended” was calculated by dividing the number of students achieving commended

performance on the respective TAKS subject by the number of students tested in the TAKS

subject.

B.2.d and B.2.e: 30 Highest and Lowest Achieving Schools in Mathematics and Reading by

Level.

This section includes a list of the 30 highest- and lowest-performing schools in the PZPI on the

TAKS Mathematics and TAKS Language Arts/Reading examinations, by level (high school,

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis

13

middle school, elementary school). Language Arts/Reading has been shortened to Reading in

this set of reports. Please note that the AEIS data base incorporates intermediate schools into the

elementary school listings, but the PACE data separates them.

The first six reports show results for mathematics. The tables list the district and campus names,

the respective campus code, the campus enrollment, the percentage of all students passing the

Mathematics TAKS at the campus, the percentage of all students passing the Reading TAKS at

the campus, the percentage of economically disadvantaged students enrolled at the campus, and

the percentage of minority students (African American, Hispanic, or Native American) enrolled

at the campus.

The rankings for the highest performing schools on Mathematics TAKS show the highest

ranking school first and then show scores in descending order. The rankings for the lowest

performing schools on Mathematics TAKS show the lowest performing school first and then

show scores in ascending order. There is the possibility if the number of schools in the PZPI is

small that some schools would end up on both lists.

The last six analyses show results for Language Arts/Reading TAKS. The tables list the district

and campus names, the respective campus code, the campus enrollment, the percentage of all

students passing the Reading TAKS at the campus, the percentage of all students passing the

Mathematics TAKS at the campus, the percentage of student enrollment who are economically

disadvantaged and the percentage of economically disadvantaged students enrolled at the

campus, and the percentage of minority students (African American, Hispanic, or Native

American) enrolled at the campus.

The highest performing schools for Reading are listed first and then ranked in descending order.

The rankings for lowest performing schools for Reading list the lowest performing school first

and then show rankings in ascending order. There is the possibility if the number of schools in

the PZPI is small that some schools would end up on both lists.

2012 ACCOUNTABILITY AND BEYOND

The TAKS accountability system reporting was retired; the 2011 reports are the final ones

under the TAKS system. A new performance index is being developed. More information

about the new accountability system can be found at

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html.

The new test, STAAR, was given in spring 2012. No ratings will be assigned for 2012.

However, under federal (AYP) accountability, schools and districts will be assigned a status of

Meets AYP, Missed AYP or Not Evaluated. (Downloaded on 9/5/2012 from

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/faq.html).

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/faq.html).

Fiscal YearStudent Enrollment Trends in Proximal Zone of Professional Impact

2008‐2011Texas Tech University

Total

2008 2009 2010 201178,131 78,642 79,971 80,822

6,383 6,421 6,526 5,544

41,377 42,055 43,310 45,773

29,282 29,061 28,963 27,274

792 831 895 783

297 274 277 309

45,955 47,212 49,566 50,151

9,335 8,729 8,617 8,444

3,508 3,606 3,671 3,852

3,971 3,960 3,954 4,033

Headcount - Fall of

Fiscal Year

Elementary

2008 2009 2010 2011All 37,320 38,285 39,178 39,410

African American 3,238 3,392 3,526 2,914

Hispanic 20,888 21,464 22,168 23,367

White 12,662 12,913 12,911 12,024

Asian 419 417 468 408

Native American 113 99 105 135

Economically Disadvantaged

24,750 25,693 26,958 27,035

Special Education 3,781 3,630 3,658 3,683

Bilingual 2,433 2,545 2,602 2,710

LEP 2,650 2,716 2,739 2,778

Middle

2008 2009 2010 201114,966 15,323 15,642 16,011

1,207 1,240 1,230 1,109

7,874 8,159 8,496 9,048

5,675 5,712 5,688 5,389

156 161 177 165

54 51 51 72

8,649 8,958 9,500 9,707

2,138 1,933 1,875 1,738

370 415 424 415

457 472 482 466

High School

2008 2009 2010 201120,547 19,841 19,843 20,045

1,723 1,620 1,596 1,402

10,102 9,929 10,070 10,721

8,446 7,977 7,868 7,348

208 245 241 205

68 70 68 80

9,566 9,553 9,933 10,229

2,742 2,595 2,486 2,465

387 330 331 369

502 425 384 414

Both Elem/Second

2008 2009 201120105,298 5,193 5,308 5,356

215 169 174 119

2,513 2,503 2,576 2,637

2,499 2,459 2,496 2,513

9 8 9 5

62 54 53 22

2,990 3,008 3,175 3,180

674 571 598 558

318 316 314 358

362 347 349 375

Pct Change

Net Change

2,691 3.4

-839 -13.1

4,396 10.6

-2,008 -6.9

-9 -1.1

12 4.0

4,196 9.1

-891 -9.5

344 9.8

62 1.6

Middle School %72 0.4

165 1.0

5,389 33.7

9,048 56.5

1,109 6.9

16,011 100.0

African American

Asian

Hispanic

Native American

White

Middle School

African American

Asian

Hispanic

Native American

White

High School

African American

Asian

Hispanic

Native American

White

Elementary SchoolElementary School

%EthnicityEthnic Comparisons by Level 2011

135 0.3Native American

408 1.0Asian

12,024 30.5White

23,367 59.3Hispanic

2,914 7.4African American

39,410 100.0All

High School %80 0.4

205 1.0

7,348 36.7

10,721 53.5

1,402 7.0

20,045 100.0

EthnicityOther Trends and Distributions

Net Change2008-2011

12Native American

-9Asian

-2,008White

4,396Hispanic

-839African American

2,691All

‐5000

0

5000 African American

Asian

Hispanic

Native American

White

Net Change in Zone Enrollment byEthnicity

Year AmountEco. Disadvantaged

45,9552008

47,2122009

49,5662010

50,1512011

93-Yr. Change 44000

46000

48000

50000

52000 2008

2009

2010

2011

Economically Disadvantaged Year AmountBilingual

3,5082008

3,6062009

3,6712010

3,8522011

103-Yr. Change 3400

3600

3800

4000 2008

2009

2010

2011

Bilingual

Source Data14Page

B.1AEIS, TEAPACE 2012

Economically Disadvantaged

Special Education

Student Enrollment Trends in Proximal Zone of Professional Impact (Continued)2011


Elementary School

%

27,035 68.6Eco. Disadv.

12,375 31.4Others

39,410 100.0Total

EconomicallyDisadvantaged

Others

Elementary SchoolMiddle School %

9,707 60.6

6,304 39.4

16,011 100.0


Others

Middle SchoolHigh School %

10,229 51.0

9,816 49.0

20,045 100.0


Others

High School

Elementary School

%

35,727 90.7Others

3,683 9.3SPED

39,410 100.0TotalOthers

SpecialEducation

Elementary SchoolMiddle School %

14,273 89.1

1,738 10.9

16,011 100.0Others

SpecialEducation

Middle SchoolHigh School %

17,580 87.7

2,465 12.3

20,045 100.0Others

SpecialEducation

High School

Source Data15Page

B.1AEIS, TEAPACE 2012

Percentage Passing Mathematics TAKSStudent Achievement Trends in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact


Districts in University's PZPI

All StudentsSchoolLevel 2008 2009 2010 2011

86.7 87.1 86.9 87.4Elem84.4 83.4 82.6 81.1Middle68.9 72.7 75.9 74.9High80.1 81.0 80.8 81.9El/Sec81.0 82.3 82.9 82.7Total

Other School Districts in State87.1 87.9 88.5 89.3Elem83.3 84.0 84.6 84.7Middle69.2 73.1 78.0 78.2High70.7 72.6 76.1 77.6El/Sec81.1 82.8 84.6 85.1Total

Change

0.7‐3.36.01.81.7

2.21.49.06.94.0


African American Students2008 2009 2010 2011

77.6 77.7 77.5 74.268.0 66.4 66.6 66.148.2 50.8 60.0 55.237.3 54.6 58.3 63.366.4 68.2 70.4 67.5

Other School Districts in State78.5 80.0 81.5 82.672.8 74.0 75.2 75.554.1 59.5 66.6 66.955.6 61.1 65.6 69.069.8 72.5 75.6 76.3

Change

‐3.4‐1.97.026.01.1

4.12.712.813.46.5


Hispanic Students2008 2009 2010 2011

82.6 83.0 83.6 84.778.9 78.1 77.4 76.058.4 63.3 67.8 68.071.9 71.4 73.6 74.475.2 76.6 78.0 78.4


Change

2.1‐2.99.62.53.2

3.22.913.38.05.6


White StudentsSchoolLevel 2008 2009 2010 2011



Change

0.2‐2.93.20.20.6

0.4‐0.24.63.21.6


Asian Students2008 2009 2010 2011

99.1 98.4 98.5 99.098.5 96.2 99.2 100.094.8 89.5 91.0 92.1

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐97.7 94.8 96.4 97.3


Change

‐0.11.5‐2.7

‐‐0.4

0.80.83.22.61.5


Native American Students2008 2009 2010 2011

‐ ‐ ‐ 100.0100.0 83.0 91.5 79.372.1 92.4 64.8 56.985.4 88.9 93.0 ‐82.1 89.5 84.1 69.3


Change

‐‐20.7‐15.2

‐‐12.8

0.7‐0.84.718.03.3


Economically SchoolLevel 2008 2009 2010 2011


Other School Districts in State

antaged Students2008 2009 2010 2011

82.8 83.7 84.8 86.176.4 77.6 78.8 79.257.6 63.3 70.2 70.865.3 67.7 71.8 73.475.5 77.6 80.0 80.9

DisadvChange

1.4‐3.58.81.92.2

Change

3.32.813.28.15.4

Source Data16Page

B.2.aAEISPACE 2012

Percentage Passing English Language Arts/Reading TAKSStudent Achievement Trends in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact



All StudentsSchoolLevel 2008 2009 2010 2011



Change

‐3.4‐6.81.5‐2.2‐2.7

‐1.2‐4.02.4‐0.1‐0.8


African American Students2008 2009 2010 2008

87.5 85.4 84.1 78.888.8 88.0 80.5 81.078.0 85.9 87.5 85.369.8 82.6 82.4 85.584.7 86.1 84.2 81.0


Change

‐8.7‐7.87.315.7‐3.7

‐1.1‐5.03.52.0‐0.5


Hispanic Students2008 2009 2010 2011

88.3 86.8 85.9 84.791.5 89.3 83.9 82.785.6 88.0 88.3 88.086.3 86.7 85.6 84.388.1 87.6 86.1 85.0


Change

‐3.6‐8.82.4‐2.0‐3.1

‐0.7‐4.44.3‐0.1‐0.2


White StudentsSchoolLevel 2008 2009 2010 2011



Change

‐1.3‐2.70.4‐2.4‐1.2

‐1.5‐2.50.6‐1.6‐1.1


Asian Students2008 2009 2010 2011

99.1 100.0 98.3 99.196.4 99.3 99.1 100.092.4 94.6 91.3 93.0

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐96.5 97.9 96.4 97.6


Change

0.03.60.6‐

1.1

‐0.3‐1.10.90.8‐0.2


Native American Students2008 2009 2010 2011

‐ ‐ ‐ 100.0100.0 89.2 91.5 79.3100.0 100.0 100.0 89.5100.0 94.0 100.0 ‐100.0 94.9 98.4 87.6


Change

‐‐20.7‐10.5

‐‐12.4

‐4.7‐4.70.5‐1.7‐2.0


Economically SchoolLevel 2008 2009 2010 2011


Other School Districts in State

antaged Students2008 2009 2010 2011

86.7 86.7 86.1 85.888.5 87.6 84.2 83.782.8 86.1 88.1 87.083.1 84.5 83.8 83.486.2 86.7 86.1 85.6

DisadvChange

‐4.2‐9.23.2‐2.2‐3.6

Change

‐0.9‐4.84.20.3‐0.6

Source Data17Page

B.2.bAEISPACE 2012

High School Mathematics

Figure 1:

1


2008‐2011

Student Achievement Trends in the Proximal Zone of Professional ImpactVariability of TAKS Achievement Rates by Ethnicity

Percen

t

Spring of Academic Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2008 2009 2010 2011

African American Commend Pct African American Pass Pct Hispanic Commend Pct

Hispanic Pass Pct White Commend Pct White Pass Pct

2008 2009 2010 2011Pass Commend Pass Commend Pass Commend Pass Commend48.2 50.8 60.0 55.2African American 5.2 5.5 5.8 5.7

58.4 63.3 67.8 68.0Hispanic 10.3 11.6 10.6 10.5

84.4 87.4 89.4 87.6White 29.9 31.8 30.1 29.7

3‐Yr ChangePass Commend7.0 0.5

9.6 0.2

3.2 ‐0.2

Only schools with a regular accountability rating at the same school level all 4 years were included in the analysis.1

Source Data18Page

B.2.cAEIS, TEAPACE 2012

Middle School Mathematics

Figure 2:

1


2008‐2011


Percen

t


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2008 2009 2010 2011




78.9 78.1 77.4 76.0Hispanic 16.0 15.8 14.1 14.7

94.6 93.4 92.5 91.7White 39.0 39.0 36.2 37.4

3‐Yr ChangePass Commend‐1.9 ‐2.2

‐2.9 ‐1.3

‐2.9 ‐1.6


Source Data19Page


Elementary School Mathematics

Figure 3:

1


2008‐2011


Percen

t


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2008 2009 2010 2011




82.6 83.0 83.6 84.7Hispanic 22.7 27.7 24.5 24.9

94.5 95.3 93.9 94.7White 43.9 54.1 48.6 47.3


2.1 2.2

0.2 3.4


Source Data20Page


High School Language Arts/Reading

Figure 4:

1


2008‐2011


Percen

t


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2008 2009 2010 2011




85.6 88.0 88.3 88.0Hispanic 15.4 15.3 15.4 15.8

95.7 96.8 96.5 96.1White 35.3 33.9 36.6 35.3

3‐Yr ChangePass Commend7.3 ‐2.6

2.4 0.4

0.4 0.0


Source Data21Page


Middle School Language Arts/Reading

Figure 5:

1


2008‐2011


Percen

t


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2008 2009 2010 2011




91.5 89.3 83.9 82.7Hispanic 31.3 28.2 22.1 23.2

97.7 97.5 95.2 95.0White 58.7 55.2 50.7 51.6


‐8.8 ‐8.1

‐2.7 ‐7.1


Source Data22Page


Elementary School Language Arts/Reading

Figure 6:

1


2008‐2011


Percen

t


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2008 2009 2010 2011




88.3 86.8 85.9 84.7Hispanic 20.4 24.1 23.6 25.5

96.9 96.9 96.4 95.6White 46.2 51.7 49.2 52.7


‐3.6 5.1

‐1.3 6.5


Source Data23Page


District Name Campus Code Campus Name% PassRead

% StudentsEco Disadv

% StudentsMinority

Achieving

% PassMath

30 Highest‐ High Schools inMathematics

Enrollment

Texas Tech University2011

Student Achievement Trends in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact

Table 1:

SUNDOWN ISD 110907001 SUNDOWN H S 99.0 32.5 48.199.0160PLAINS ISD 251902001 PLAINS H S 96.0 57.7 65.593.0142SUDAN ISD 140908001 SUDAN H S 95.0 55.1 46.893.0158SHALLOWATER ISD 152909001 SHALLOWATER H S 98.0 25.3 33.992.0431ABERNATHY ISD 95901001 ABERNATHY H S 97.0 41.4 50.789.0203IDALOU ISD 152910001 IDALOU H S 93.0 28.4 40.489.0292WHITEFACE CISD 40902001 WHITEFACE H S 93.0 73.3 44.789.0150NEW DEAL ISD 152902001 NEW DEAL H S 97.0 49.8 51.688.0215LUBBOCK‐COOPER ISD 152906001 LUBBOCK‐COOPER HIGH SCHOOL 96.0 38.5 42.188.0910ROOSEVELT ISD 152908001 ROOSEVELT H S 96.0 64.1 55.488.0298FRENSHIP ISD 152907001 FRENSHIP H S 95.0 27.7 41.286.01,824SMYER ISD 110906001 SMYER H S 93.0 45.6 49.084.0149MULESHOE ISD 9901001 MULESHOE H S 91.0 79.4 80.384.0335DENVER CITY ISD 251901001 DENVER CITY H S 93.0 46.0 73.081.0389PETERSBURG ISD 95904001 PETERSBURG H S 88.0 75.9 80.581.0282POST ISD 85902001 POST H S 93.0 46.8 55.080.0218LITTLEFIELD ISD 140904001 LITTLEFIELD H S 92.0 60.6 68.780.0383FLOYDADA ISD 77901001 FLOYDADA H S 89.0 60.3 76.380.0219TULIA ISD 219903001 TULIA H S 89.0 67.2 66.079.0259SPRINGLAKE‐EARTH ISD 140907001 SPRINGLAKE‐EARTH HS 82.0 53.5 58.877.0114LUBBOCK ISD 152901022 LUBBOCK H S 91.0 51.2 72.776.02,030HALE CENTER ISD 95903001 HALE CENTER H S 96.0 66.3 72.375.0166LOCKNEY ISD 77902001 LOCKNEY HIGH SCHOOL 92.0 58.2 72.174.0165LEVELLAND ISD 110902001 LEVELLAND H S 91.0 52.7 62.674.0706PLAINVIEW ISD 95905001 PLAINVIEW HIGH SCHOOL 90.0 54.6 78.874.01,358O'DONNELL ISD 153903001 O'DONNELL HIGH SCHOOL 84.0 67.6 71.274.0139DIMMITT ISD 35901001 DIMMITT H S 87.0 75.3 84.573.0296ANTON ISD 110901001 ANTON H S 94.0 68.3 57.772.0104OLTON ISD 140905002 OLTON H S 90.0 61.8 73.372.0191SLATON ISD 152903001 SLATON H S 96.0 60.7 70.671.0326

420.4 92.5 54.9 61.581.8AVERAGE

Source Data24Page

B.2.dAEISPACE 2012

District Name Campus Code Campus Name

Achieving30 Lowest‐ High Schools inMathematics

% PassRead


% StudentsMinority

% PassMathEnrollment



Table 2:

LUBBOCK ISD 152901011 MATTHEWS LRN CTR/NEW DIRECTIONS 77.0 71.3 93.129.087LEVELLAND ISD 110902003 ACE HS 47.0 74.1 72.433.058LUBBOCK ISD 152901021 ESTACADO H S 86.0 88.1 96.653.0763FRENSHIP ISD 152907002 REESE EDUCATIONAL CTR 95.0 61.9 61.953.084KRESS ISD 219905001 KRESS H S 80.0 66.1 77.160.0109BROWNFIELD ISD 223901001 BROWNFIELD H S 90.0 57.3 74.360.0424PLAINVIEW ISD 95905002 HOUSTON SCHOOL 75.0 68.5 89.061.073LAMESA ISD 58906001 LAMESA H S 91.0 62.5 80.262.0429LORENZO ISD 54902001 LORENZO H S 86.0 84.7 80.565.0118LUBBOCK ISD 152901023 MONTEREY H S 87.0 44.4 61.667.02,107HART ISD 35902001 HART JR‐SR H S 88.0 75.5 100.067.0110MORTON ISD 40901001 MORTON H S 88.0 80.5 80.568.0113CROSBYTON CISD 54901001 CROSBYTON H S 90.0 77.3 76.468.0110RALLS ISD 54903001 RALLS H S 88.0 69.5 78.670.0131LUBBOCK ISD 152901020 CORONADO H S 91.0 34.0 47.170.02,165TAHOKA ISD 153904001 TAHOKA H S 86.0 52.2 56.571.0161SLATON ISD 152903001 SLATON H S 96.0 60.7 70.671.0326OLTON ISD 140905002 OLTON H S 90.0 61.8 73.372.0191ANTON ISD 110901001 ANTON H S 94.0 68.3 57.772.0104DIMMITT ISD 35901001 DIMMITT H S 87.0 75.3 84.573.0296O'DONNELL ISD 153903001 O'DONNELL HIGH SCHOOL 84.0 67.6 71.274.0139PLAINVIEW ISD 95905001 PLAINVIEW HIGH SCHOOL 90.0 54.6 78.874.01,358LEVELLAND ISD 110902001 LEVELLAND H S 91.0 52.7 62.674.0706LOCKNEY ISD 77902001 LOCKNEY HIGH SCHOOL 92.0 58.2 72.174.0165HALE CENTER ISD 95903001 HALE CENTER H S 96.0 66.3 72.375.0166LUBBOCK ISD 152901022 LUBBOCK H S 91.0 51.2 72.776.02,030SPRINGLAKE‐EARTH ISD 140907001 SPRINGLAKE‐EARTH HS 82.0 53.5 58.877.0114TULIA ISD 219903001 TULIA H S 89.0 67.2 66.079.0259FLOYDADA ISD 77901001 FLOYDADA H S 89.0 60.3 76.380.0219LITTLEFIELD ISD 140904001 LITTLEFIELD H S 92.0 60.6 68.780.0383

449.9 86.9 64.2 73.766.9AVERAGE

Source Data25Page

B.2.dAEISPACE 2012


Achieving30 Highest‐ Middle Schools inMathematics

% PassRead


% StudentsMinority




Table 3:

SUNDOWN ISD 110907041 SUNDOWN J H 98.0 28.9 45.297.0135PLAINS ISD 251902041 PLAINS MIDDLE 97.0 66.4 64.397.0140LUBBOCK ISD 152901024 SCHOOL FOR YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS 99.0 58.6 68.396.0227FRENSHIP ISD 152907041 FRENSHIP MIDDLE SCHOOL 97.0 22.2 34.896.0883LEVELLAND ISD 110902042 LEVELLAND MIDDLE 87.0 69.0 74.096.0423TAHOKA ISD 153904041 TAHOKA MIDDLE 91.0 60.1 63.695.0143SHALLOWATER ISD 152909041 SHALLOWATER MIDDLE 96.0 33.9 32.394.0440LUBBOCK ISD 152901066 IRONS M S 97.0 18.6 31.092.0699FRENSHIP ISD 152907042 TERRA VISTA MIDDLE SCHOOL 96.0 48.3 60.092.0813LUBBOCK ISD 152901065 HUTCHINSON M S 95.0 44.5 64.792.0881TULIA ISD 219903041 TULIA J H 91.0 76.1 64.491.0205DENVER CITY ISD 251901041 WILLIAM G GRAVITT JR HIGH 90.0 58.4 76.591.0298LUBBOCK ISD 152901064 EVANS M S 93.0 35.1 40.289.0772MULESHOE ISD 9901041 WATSON J H 85.0 81.0 79.089.0315PLAINVIEW ISD 95905042 ESTACADO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 95.0 67.3 80.688.0391LUBBOCK‐COOPER ISD 152906041 LUBBOCK‐COOPER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 90.0 41.5 38.787.0879ABERNATHY ISD 95901041 ABERNATHY J H 87.0 54.9 54.383.0173NEW DEAL ISD 152902041 NEW DEAL MIDDLE 94.0 60.4 56.482.0227HALE CENTER ISD 95903103 CARR MIDDLE SCHOOL 89.0 69.9 73.282.0209IDALOU ISD 152910041 IDALOU MIDDLE 85.0 46.1 43.282.0280ROOSEVELT ISD 152908041 ROOSEVELT J H 85.0 75.9 55.681.0261CROSBYTON CISD 54901041 CROSBYTON MIDDLE 85.0 75.9 66.779.087LOCKNEY ISD 77902041 LOCKNEY JR HIGH 77.0 69.2 75.979.0133OLTON ISD 140905041 OLTON J H 81.0 76.4 81.978.0144POST ISD 85902041 POST MIDDLE 86.0 66.9 68.777.0163PLAINVIEW ISD 95905041 CORONADO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 81.0 68.8 82.277.0426RALLS ISD 54903041 RALLS MIDDLE 79.0 73.5 73.577.0117FLOYDADA ISD 77901041 FLOYDADA J H 77.0 71.7 83.277.0191BROWNFIELD ISD 223901041 BROWNFIELD MIDDLE 79.0 78.5 80.974.0377LUBBOCK ISD 152901067 MACKENZIE M S 83.0 62.1 65.873.0562

366.5 88.8 58.7 62.686.1AVERAGE

Source Data26Page

B.2.dAEISPACE 2012


Achieving30 Lowest‐ Middle Schools inMathematics

% PassRead


% StudentsMinority




Table 4:

LUBBOCK ISD 152901060 ALDERSON M S 67.0 92.5 96.452.0307MORTON ISD 40901041 MORTON J H 72.0 88.4 83.258.095LUBBOCK ISD 152901068 SLATON M S 75.0 78.9 88.759.0673LUBBOCK ISD 152901061 ATKINS M S 81.0 85.9 91.561.0504SEAGRAVES ISD 83901041 SEAGRAVES J H 74.0 70.0 80.065.0110PLAINVIEW ISD 95905101 ASH 6TH GRADE LEARNING CENTER 77.0 74.1 82.169.0429DIMMITT ISD 35901041 DIMMITT MIDDLE 84.0 81.1 88.169.0371LAMESA ISD 58906041 LAMESA MIDDLE 85.0 72.2 81.070.0399LUBBOCK ISD 152901069 SMYLIE WILSON M S 81.0 77.1 76.471.0533LUBBOCK ISD 152901062 CAVAZOS M S 77.0 88.2 96.072.0629LITTLEFIELD ISD 140904041 LITTLEFIELD J H 85.0 73.5 69.572.0321LUBBOCK ISD 152901063 DUNBAR M S 85.0 92.2 96.572.0371SLATON ISD 152903042 SLATON J H 81.0 79.5 72.873.0268LUBBOCK ISD 152901067 MACKENZIE M S 83.0 62.1 65.873.0562BROWNFIELD ISD 223901041 BROWNFIELD MIDDLE 79.0 78.5 80.974.0377FLOYDADA ISD 77901041 FLOYDADA J H 77.0 71.7 83.277.0191RALLS ISD 54903041 RALLS MIDDLE 79.0 73.5 73.577.0117PLAINVIEW ISD 95905041 CORONADO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 81.0 68.8 82.277.0426POST ISD 85902041 POST MIDDLE 86.0 66.9 68.777.0163OLTON ISD 140905041 OLTON J H 81.0 76.4 81.978.0144LOCKNEY ISD 77902041 LOCKNEY JR HIGH 77.0 69.2 75.979.0133CROSBYTON CISD 54901041 CROSBYTON MIDDLE 85.0 75.9 66.779.087ROOSEVELT ISD 152908041 ROOSEVELT J H 85.0 75.9 55.681.0261IDALOU ISD 152910041 IDALOU MIDDLE 85.0 46.1 43.282.0280HALE CENTER ISD 95903103 CARR MIDDLE SCHOOL 89.0 69.9 73.282.0209NEW DEAL ISD 152902041 NEW DEAL MIDDLE 94.0 60.4 56.482.0227ABERNATHY ISD 95901041 ABERNATHY J H 87.0 54.9 54.383.0173LUBBOCK‐COOPER ISD 152906041 LUBBOCK‐COOPER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 90.0 41.5 38.787.0879PLAINVIEW ISD 95905042 ESTACADO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 95.0 67.3 80.688.0391MULESHOE ISD 9901041 WATSON J H 85.0 81.0 79.089.0315

331.5 82.1 73.1 75.474.3AVERAGE

Source Data27

B.2.dAEISPagePACE 2012


Achieving30 Highest‐ Elementary Schools inMathematics

% PassRead


% StudentsMinority




Table 5:

SUNDOWN ISD 110907101 SUNDOWN EL 99.0 40.4 57.699.0361FRENSHIP ISD 152907104 CRESTVIEW EL 98.0 22.6 29.999.0482FRENSHIP ISD 152907108 OAK RIDGE EL 99.0 15.6 35.298.0546LUBBOCK‐COOPER ISD 152906104 LUBBOCK‐COOPER WEST EL SCHOOL 99.0 19.9 25.098.0752LUBBOCK ISD 152901166 HONEY EL 98.0 16.6 30.198.0452FRENSHIP ISD 152907103 NORTH RIDGE EL 98.0 34.9 50.497.0794FRENSHIP ISD 152907107 BENNETT EL 96.0 39.0 35.797.0779IDALOU ISD 152910101 IDALOU EL 95.0 45.3 44.297.0382PLAINVIEW ISD 95905106 HILLCREST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 90.0 89.2 87.097.0461LUBBOCK ISD 152901189 WILSON EL 94.0 25.2 43.596.0503ROOSEVELT ISD 152908101 ROOSEVELT EL 98.0 76.4 57.595.0529LUBBOCK‐COOPER ISD 152906101 LUBBOCK‐COOPER SOUTH ELEMENTARY S 96.0 53.0 43.595.0685FRENSHIP ISD 152907105 WESTWIND EL 95.0 62.0 63.795.0708PLAINVIEW ISD 95905103 EDGEMERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 95.0 81.3 79.195.0459SLATON ISD 152903103 WEST WARD EL 94.0 79.3 77.695.0492LEVELLAND ISD 110902105 SOUTH EL 91.0 78.1 74.895.0333LUBBOCK ISD 152901173 MURFEE EL 98.0 6.5 18.094.0355LUBBOCK ISD 152901179 SMITH EL 95.0 31.8 41.394.0680SHALLOWATER ISD 152909101 SHALLOWATER EL 92.0 49.3 35.294.0304SHALLOWATER ISD 152909102 SHALLOWATER INT 92.0 42.3 35.594.0307MULESHOE ISD 9901103 DILLMAN EL 90.0 87.9 83.594.0478MULESHOE ISD 9901101 MARY DESHAZO EL 90.0 87.4 83.194.0350PLAINS ISD 251902101 PLAINS EL 78.0 69.9 58.494.0219WHITEFACE CISD 40902101 WHITEFACE EL 95.0 41.3 47.193.0138LUBBOCK‐COOPER ISD 152906103 LUBBOCK‐COOPER NORTH ELEMENTARY S 94.0 50.8 47.293.0805LUBBOCK ISD 152901164 HAYNES EL 93.0 45.8 47.993.0288PLAINVIEW ISD 95905102 COLLEGE HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 86.0 79.3 76.693.0368PLAINVIEW ISD 95905105 HIGHLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 86.0 83.3 90.293.0449LUBBOCK ISD 152901187 WHITESIDE EL 96.0 28.5 32.792.0569LUBBOCK ISD 152901178 RUSH EL 93.0 62.4 52.591.0423

481.7 93.8 51.5 52.895.1AVERAGE

Source Data28

B.2.dAEISPagePACE 2012


Achieving30 Lowest‐ Elementary Schools inMathematics

% PassRead


% StudentsMinority




Table 6:

HART ISD 35902101 HART ELEMENTARY 58.0 90.7 97.358.0182LUBBOCK ISD 152901165 HODGES EL 69.0 90.2 96.863.0533BROWNFIELD ISD 223901101 COLONIAL HEIGHTS EL 71.0 80.7 83.164.0290BROWNFIELD ISD 223901102 OAK GROVE EL 71.0 84.5 80.764.0534LUBBOCK ISD 152901175 PARKWAY EL 66.0 97.9 98.168.0470LUBBOCK ISD 152901156 BEAN EL 77.0 95.9 98.468.0516LORENZO ISD 54902102 LORENZO EL 78.0 87.3 81.271.0197LUBBOCK ISD 152901190 WOLFFARTH EL 79.0 94.2 92.072.0327LUBBOCK ISD 152901174 OVERTON EL 77.0 84.6 78.773.0371MORTON ISD 40901102 MORTON EL 78.0 91.9 85.574.0248LUBBOCK ISD 152901158 BOZEMAN EL 73.0 93.5 97.876.0370LAMESA ISD 58906103 NORTH EL 80.0 78.8 83.576.0448LAMESA ISD 58906105 SOUTH EL 80.0 83.1 85.876.0590LUBBOCK ISD 152901180 STEWART EL 85.0 74.5 71.576.0369LUBBOCK ISD 152901159 BROWN EL 78.0 90.7 91.877.0473LUBBOCK ISD 152901184 WESTER EL 91.0 77.1 73.177.0442LUBBOCK ISD 152901160 DUPRE EL 74.0 93.8 93.578.0324SMYER ISD 110906101 SMYER EL 77.0 69.4 58.979.0209LUBBOCK ISD 152901182 TUBBS EL 88.0 87.1 96.779.0241SLATON ISD 152903101 AUSTIN EL 81.0 79.7 75.580.0192LUBBOCK ISD 152901155 BAYLESS EL 82.0 90.0 91.080.0652ANTON ISD 110901101 ANTON EL 76.0 87.6 78.181.0137LUBBOCK ISD 152901185 WHEATLEY EL 83.0 93.7 99.181.0347PLAINVIEW ISD 95905108 LA MESA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 83.0 70.8 70.082.0496LUBBOCK ISD 152901193 ROY W ROBERTS EL 95.0 65.8 72.682.0620LUBBOCK ISD 152901168 JACKSON EL 80.0 96.8 97.683.0339CROSBYTON CISD 54901101 CROSBYTON EL 83.0 78.3 74.784.0198SPRINGLAKE‐EARTH ISD 140907101 SPRINGLAKE‐EARTH ELEM/MIDDLE SCHO 84.0 71.2 66.884.0274LUBBOCK ISD 152901167 ILES EL 92.0 89.9 95.784.0276LUBBOCK ISD 152901161 GUADALUPE EL 93.0 91.1 96.084.0202

362.2 79.4 85.4 85.475.8AVERAGE

Source Data29Page

B.2.dAEISPACE 2012


Achieving30 Highest‐ High Schools inReading

% PassMath


% StudentsMinority

% PassReadEnrollment



Table 1:

SUNDOWN ISD 110907001 SUNDOWN H S 99.0 32.5 48.199.0160SHALLOWATER ISD 152909001 SHALLOWATER H S 92.0 25.3 33.998.0431ABERNATHY ISD 95901001 ABERNATHY H S 89.0 41.4 50.797.0203NEW DEAL ISD 152902001 NEW DEAL H S 88.0 49.8 51.697.0215PLAINS ISD 251902001 PLAINS H S 93.0 57.7 65.596.0142LUBBOCK‐COOPER ISD 152906001 LUBBOCK‐COOPER HIGH SCHOOL 88.0 38.5 42.196.0910ROOSEVELT ISD 152908001 ROOSEVELT H S 88.0 64.1 55.496.0298HALE CENTER ISD 95903001 HALE CENTER H S 75.0 66.3 72.396.0166SLATON ISD 152903001 SLATON H S 71.0 60.7 70.696.0326SUDAN ISD 140908001 SUDAN H S 93.0 55.1 46.895.0158FRENSHIP ISD 152907001 FRENSHIP H S 86.0 27.7 41.295.01,824FRENSHIP ISD 152907002 REESE EDUCATIONAL CTR 53.0 61.9 61.995.084ANTON ISD 110901001 ANTON H S 72.0 68.3 57.794.0104IDALOU ISD 152910001 IDALOU H S 89.0 28.4 40.493.0292WHITEFACE CISD 40902001 WHITEFACE H S 89.0 73.3 44.793.0150SMYER ISD 110906001 SMYER H S 84.0 45.6 49.093.0149DENVER CITY ISD 251901001 DENVER CITY H S 81.0 46.0 73.093.0389POST ISD 85902001 POST H S 80.0 46.8 55.093.0218LITTLEFIELD ISD 140904001 LITTLEFIELD H S 80.0 60.6 68.792.0383LOCKNEY ISD 77902001 LOCKNEY HIGH SCHOOL 74.0 58.2 72.192.0165MULESHOE ISD 9901001 MULESHOE H S 84.0 79.4 80.391.0335LUBBOCK ISD 152901022 LUBBOCK H S 76.0 51.2 72.791.02,030LEVELLAND ISD 110902001 LEVELLAND H S 74.0 52.7 62.691.0706LUBBOCK ISD 152901020 CORONADO H S 70.0 34.0 47.191.02,165LAMESA ISD 58906001 LAMESA H S 62.0 62.5 80.291.0429PLAINVIEW ISD 95905001 PLAINVIEW HIGH SCHOOL 74.0 54.6 78.890.01,358OLTON ISD 140905002 OLTON H S 72.0 61.8 73.390.0191CROSBYTON CISD 54901001 CROSBYTON H S 68.0 77.3 76.490.0110BROWNFIELD ISD 223901001 BROWNFIELD H S 60.0 57.3 74.390.0424FLOYDADA ISD 77901001 FLOYDADA H S 80.0 60.3 76.389.0219

491.1 79.5 53.3 60.893.4AVERAGE

Source Data30Page

B.2.eAEISPACE 2012


Achieving30 Lowest‐ High Schools inReading

% PassMath


% StudentsMinority




Table 2:

LEVELLAND ISD 110902003 ACE HS 33.0 74.1 72.447.058PLAINVIEW ISD 95905002 HOUSTON SCHOOL 61.0 68.5 89.075.073LUBBOCK ISD 152901011 MATTHEWS LRN CTR/NEW DIRECTIONS 29.0 71.3 93.177.087KRESS ISD 219905001 KRESS H S 60.0 66.1 77.180.0109SPRINGLAKE‐EARTH ISD 140907001 SPRINGLAKE‐EARTH HS 77.0 53.5 58.882.0114O'DONNELL ISD 153903001 O'DONNELL HIGH SCHOOL 74.0 67.6 71.284.0139LUBBOCK ISD 152901021 ESTACADO H S 53.0 88.1 96.686.0763LORENZO ISD 54902001 LORENZO H S 65.0 84.7 80.586.0118TAHOKA ISD 153904001 TAHOKA H S 71.0 52.2 56.586.0161LUBBOCK ISD 152901023 MONTEREY H S 67.0 44.4 61.687.02,107DIMMITT ISD 35901001 DIMMITT H S 73.0 75.3 84.587.0296HART ISD 35902001 HART JR‐SR H S 67.0 75.5 100.088.0110MORTON ISD 40901001 MORTON H S 68.0 80.5 80.588.0113RALLS ISD 54903001 RALLS H S 70.0 69.5 78.688.0131PETERSBURG ISD 95904001 PETERSBURG H S 81.0 75.9 80.588.0282TULIA ISD 219903001 TULIA H S 79.0 67.2 66.089.0259FLOYDADA ISD 77901001 FLOYDADA H S 80.0 60.3 76.389.0219BROWNFIELD ISD 223901001 BROWNFIELD H S 60.0 57.3 74.390.0424CROSBYTON CISD 54901001 CROSBYTON H S 68.0 77.3 76.490.0110OLTON ISD 140905002 OLTON H S 72.0 61.8 73.390.0191PLAINVIEW ISD 95905001 PLAINVIEW HIGH SCHOOL 74.0 54.6 78.890.01,358LAMESA ISD 58906001 LAMESA H S 62.0 62.5 80.291.0429LUBBOCK ISD 152901020 CORONADO H S 70.0 34.0 47.191.02,165LEVELLAND ISD 110902001 LEVELLAND H S 74.0 52.7 62.691.0706LUBBOCK ISD 152901022 LUBBOCK H S 76.0 51.2 72.791.02,030MULESHOE ISD 9901001 MULESHOE H S 84.0 79.4 80.391.0335LOCKNEY ISD 77902001 LOCKNEY HIGH SCHOOL 74.0 58.2 72.192.0165LITTLEFIELD ISD 140904001 LITTLEFIELD H S 80.0 60.6 68.792.0383POST ISD 85902001 POST H S 80.0 46.8 55.093.0218DENVER CITY ISD 251901001 DENVER CITY H S 81.0 46.0 73.093.0389

468.1 68.8 63.9 74.686.4AVERAGE

Source Data31Page

B.2.eAEISPACE 2012


Achieving30 Highest‐ Middle Schools inReading

% PassMath


% StudentsMinority




Table 3:

LUBBOCK ISD 152901024 SCHOOL FOR YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS 96.0 58.6 68.399.0227SUNDOWN ISD 110907041 SUNDOWN J H 97.0 28.9 45.298.0135PLAINS ISD 251902041 PLAINS MIDDLE 97.0 66.4 64.397.0140FRENSHIP ISD 152907041 FRENSHIP MIDDLE SCHOOL 96.0 22.2 34.897.0883LUBBOCK ISD 152901066 IRONS M S 92.0 18.6 31.097.0699SHALLOWATER ISD 152909041 SHALLOWATER MIDDLE 94.0 33.9 32.396.0440FRENSHIP ISD 152907042 TERRA VISTA MIDDLE SCHOOL 92.0 48.3 60.096.0813LUBBOCK ISD 152901065 HUTCHINSON M S 92.0 44.5 64.795.0881PLAINVIEW ISD 95905042 ESTACADO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 88.0 67.3 80.695.0391NEW DEAL ISD 152902041 NEW DEAL MIDDLE 82.0 60.4 56.494.0227LUBBOCK ISD 152901064 EVANS M S 89.0 35.1 40.293.0772TAHOKA ISD 153904041 TAHOKA MIDDLE 95.0 60.1 63.691.0143TULIA ISD 219903041 TULIA J H 91.0 76.1 64.491.0205DENVER CITY ISD 251901041 WILLIAM G GRAVITT JR HIGH 91.0 58.4 76.590.0298LUBBOCK‐COOPER ISD 152906041 LUBBOCK‐COOPER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 87.0 41.5 38.790.0879HALE CENTER ISD 95903103 CARR MIDDLE SCHOOL 82.0 69.9 73.289.0209LEVELLAND ISD 110902042 LEVELLAND MIDDLE 96.0 69.0 74.087.0423ABERNATHY ISD 95901041 ABERNATHY J H 83.0 54.9 54.387.0173POST ISD 85902041 POST MIDDLE 77.0 66.9 68.786.0163MULESHOE ISD 9901041 WATSON J H 89.0 81.0 79.085.0315IDALOU ISD 152910041 IDALOU MIDDLE 82.0 46.1 43.285.0280ROOSEVELT ISD 152908041 ROOSEVELT J H 81.0 75.9 55.685.0261CROSBYTON CISD 54901041 CROSBYTON MIDDLE 79.0 75.9 66.785.087LITTLEFIELD ISD 140904041 LITTLEFIELD J H 72.0 73.5 69.585.0321LUBBOCK ISD 152901063 DUNBAR M S 72.0 92.2 96.585.0371LAMESA ISD 58906041 LAMESA MIDDLE 70.0 72.2 81.085.0399DIMMITT ISD 35901041 DIMMITT MIDDLE 69.0 81.1 88.184.0371LUBBOCK ISD 152901067 MACKENZIE M S 73.0 62.1 65.883.0562OLTON ISD 140905041 OLTON J H 78.0 76.4 81.981.0144PLAINVIEW ISD 95905041 CORONADO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 77.0 68.8 82.281.0426

387.9 85.3 59.5 63.489.7AVERAGE

Source Data32Page

B.2.eAEISPACE 2012


Achieving30 Lowest‐ Middle Schools inReading

% PassMath


% StudentsMinority




Table 4:

LUBBOCK ISD 152901060 ALDERSON M S 67.0 92.5 96.452.0307MORTON ISD 40901041 MORTON J H 72.0 88.4 83.258.095SEAGRAVES ISD 83901041 SEAGRAVES J H 74.0 70.0 80.065.0110LUBBOCK ISD 152901068 SLATON M S 75.0 78.9 88.759.0673PLAINVIEW ISD 95905101 ASH 6TH GRADE LEARNING CENTER 77.0 74.1 82.169.0429LUBBOCK ISD 152901062 CAVAZOS M S 77.0 88.2 96.072.0629FLOYDADA ISD 77901041 FLOYDADA J H 77.0 71.7 83.277.0191LOCKNEY ISD 77902041 LOCKNEY JR HIGH 77.0 69.2 75.979.0133BROWNFIELD ISD 223901041 BROWNFIELD MIDDLE 79.0 78.5 80.974.0377RALLS ISD 54903041 RALLS MIDDLE 79.0 73.5 73.577.0117LUBBOCK ISD 152901061 ATKINS M S 81.0 85.9 91.561.0504LUBBOCK ISD 152901069 SMYLIE WILSON M S 81.0 77.1 76.471.0533SLATON ISD 152903042 SLATON J H 81.0 79.5 72.873.0268PLAINVIEW ISD 95905041 CORONADO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 81.0 68.8 82.277.0426OLTON ISD 140905041 OLTON J H 81.0 76.4 81.978.0144LUBBOCK ISD 152901067 MACKENZIE M S 83.0 62.1 65.873.0562DIMMITT ISD 35901041 DIMMITT MIDDLE 84.0 81.1 88.169.0371LAMESA ISD 58906041 LAMESA MIDDLE 85.0 72.2 81.070.0399LITTLEFIELD ISD 140904041 LITTLEFIELD J H 85.0 73.5 69.572.0321LUBBOCK ISD 152901063 DUNBAR M S 85.0 92.2 96.572.0371CROSBYTON CISD 54901041 CROSBYTON MIDDLE 85.0 75.9 66.779.087ROOSEVELT ISD 152908041 ROOSEVELT J H 85.0 75.9 55.681.0261IDALOU ISD 152910041 IDALOU MIDDLE 85.0 46.1 43.282.0280MULESHOE ISD 9901041 WATSON J H 85.0 81.0 79.089.0315POST ISD 85902041 POST MIDDLE 86.0 66.9 68.777.0163ABERNATHY ISD 95901041 ABERNATHY J H 87.0 54.9 54.383.0173LEVELLAND ISD 110902042 LEVELLAND MIDDLE 87.0 69.0 74.096.0423HALE CENTER ISD 95903103 CARR MIDDLE SCHOOL 89.0 69.9 73.282.0209LUBBOCK‐COOPER ISD 152906041 LUBBOCK‐COOPER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 90.0 41.5 38.787.0879DENVER CITY ISD 251901041 WILLIAM G GRAVITT JR HIGH 90.0 58.4 76.591.0298

334.9 74.8 73.1 75.881.7AVERAGE

Source Data33Page

B.2.eAEISPACE 2012


Achieving30 Highest‐ Elementary Schools inReading

% PassMath


% StudentsMinority




Table 5:

SUNDOWN ISD 110907101 SUNDOWN EL 99.0 40.4 57.699.0361FRENSHIP ISD 152907108 OAK RIDGE EL 98.0 15.6 35.299.0546LUBBOCK‐COOPER ISD 152906104 LUBBOCK‐COOPER WEST EL SCHOOL 98.0 19.9 25.099.0752FRENSHIP ISD 152907104 CRESTVIEW EL 99.0 22.6 29.998.0482LUBBOCK ISD 152901166 HONEY EL 98.0 16.6 30.198.0452FRENSHIP ISD 152907103 NORTH RIDGE EL 97.0 34.9 50.498.0794ROOSEVELT ISD 152908101 ROOSEVELT EL 95.0 76.4 57.598.0529LUBBOCK ISD 152901173 MURFEE EL 94.0 6.5 18.098.0355LUBBOCK ISD 152901188 WILLIAMS EL 90.0 54.3 61.997.0396FRENSHIP ISD 152907107 BENNETT EL 97.0 39.0 35.796.0779LUBBOCK‐COOPER ISD 152906101 LUBBOCK‐COOPER SOUTH ELEMENTARY S 95.0 53.0 43.596.0685LUBBOCK ISD 152901187 WHITESIDE EL 92.0 28.5 32.796.0569IDALOU ISD 152910101 IDALOU EL 97.0 45.3 44.295.0382FRENSHIP ISD 152907105 WESTWIND EL 95.0 62.0 63.795.0708PLAINVIEW ISD 95905103 EDGEMERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 95.0 81.3 79.195.0459LUBBOCK ISD 152901179 SMITH EL 94.0 31.8 41.395.0680WHITEFACE CISD 40902101 WHITEFACE EL 93.0 41.3 47.195.0138LUBBOCK ISD 152901193 ROY W ROBERTS EL 82.0 65.8 72.695.0620LUBBOCK ISD 152901189 WILSON EL 96.0 25.2 43.594.0503SLATON ISD 152903103 WEST WARD EL 95.0 79.3 77.694.0492LUBBOCK‐COOPER ISD 152906103 LUBBOCK‐COOPER NORTH ELEMENTARY S 93.0 50.8 47.294.0805KRESS ISD 219905101 KRESS EL 88.0 77.0 63.994.0122LUBBOCK ISD 152901164 HAYNES EL 93.0 45.8 47.993.0288LUBBOCK ISD 152901178 RUSH EL 91.0 62.4 52.593.0423FRENSHIP ISD 152907106 WILLOW BEND ELEMENTARY 89.0 76.8 60.293.0578LUBBOCK ISD 152901161 GUADALUPE EL 84.0 91.1 96.093.0202SHALLOWATER ISD 152909101 SHALLOWATER EL 94.0 49.3 35.292.0304SHALLOWATER ISD 152909102 SHALLOWATER INT 94.0 42.3 35.592.0307DENVER CITY ISD 251901101 KELLEY/DODSON EL 91.0 58.6 75.992.0844TULIA ISD 219903101 TULIA HIGHLAND EL 89.0 86.1 68.992.0331

496.2 93.5 49.3 51.095.3AVERAGE

Source Data34Page

B.2.eAEISPACE 2012


Achieving30 Lowest‐ Elementary Schools inReading

% PassMath


% StudentsMinority




Table 6:

HART ISD 35902101 HART ELEMENTARY 58.0 90.7 97.358.0182LUBBOCK ISD 152901175 PARKWAY EL 68.0 97.9 98.166.0470LUBBOCK ISD 152901165 HODGES EL 63.0 90.2 96.869.0533BROWNFIELD ISD 223901101 COLONIAL HEIGHTS EL 64.0 80.7 83.171.0290BROWNFIELD ISD 223901102 OAK GROVE EL 64.0 84.5 80.771.0534LUBBOCK ISD 152901158 BOZEMAN EL 76.0 93.5 97.873.0370LUBBOCK ISD 152901160 DUPRE EL 78.0 93.8 93.574.0324PLAINVIEW ISD 95905109 THUNDERBIRD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 86.0 91.0 94.075.0468DIMMITT ISD 35901102 RICHARDSON EL 90.0 94.5 88.075.0532ANTON ISD 110901101 ANTON EL 81.0 87.6 78.176.0137LUBBOCK ISD 152901156 BEAN EL 68.0 95.9 98.477.0516LUBBOCK ISD 152901174 OVERTON EL 73.0 84.6 78.777.0371SMYER ISD 110906101 SMYER EL 79.0 69.4 58.977.0209LORENZO ISD 54902102 LORENZO EL 71.0 87.3 81.278.0197MORTON ISD 40901102 MORTON EL 74.0 91.9 85.578.0248LUBBOCK ISD 152901159 BROWN EL 77.0 90.7 91.878.0473PLAINS ISD 251902101 PLAINS EL 94.0 69.9 58.478.0219LUBBOCK ISD 152901190 WOLFFARTH EL 72.0 94.2 92.079.0327LUBBOCK ISD 152901153 ARNETT EL 90.0 94.2 93.479.0121LAMESA ISD 58906103 NORTH EL 76.0 78.8 83.580.0448LAMESA ISD 58906105 SOUTH EL 76.0 83.1 85.880.0590LUBBOCK ISD 152901168 JACKSON EL 83.0 96.8 97.680.0339RALLS ISD 54903102 RALLS EL 86.0 85.4 78.980.0308SLATON ISD 152903101 AUSTIN EL 80.0 79.7 75.581.0192LUBBOCK ISD 152901155 BAYLESS EL 80.0 90.0 91.082.0652LUBBOCK ISD 152901163 HARWELL EL 86.0 88.0 98.482.0490LUBBOCK ISD 152901185 WHEATLEY EL 81.0 93.7 99.183.0347PLAINVIEW ISD 95905108 LA MESA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 82.0 70.8 70.083.0496CROSBYTON CISD 54901101 CROSBYTON EL 84.0 78.3 74.783.0198SPRINGLAKE‐EARTH ISD 140907101 SPRINGLAKE‐EARTH ELEM/MIDDLE SCHO 84.0 71.2 66.884.0274

361.8 77.5 86.6 85.676.9AVERAGE

Source Data35Page

B.2.eAEISPACE 2012

II.

University and Teacher

Education Trends

C.

University and Teacher

Production Reports

36

SECTION C: University and Teacher Production Reports

Section C provides data on the university production trends, university teacher and certificate

production, as well as data regarding other producers of teachers in the PZPI. Please see Section

V in the Table of Contents for a complete listing of data sources used to complete the Section C

reports.

C.1: Five-Year University Production Trends.

This report shows five-year trend data (FY2007-2011) describing university enrollment, degrees

awarded and the number of teachers produced. Each section shows the timeframe in which the

data was collected. The Teachers Produced by Pathway section shows teacher production for all

university pathways.

C.2: Teacher Production Trends for University Completers.

This analysis provides the total number of teachers produced from FY2001 through FY2011 for

all university pathways. Teacher production is defined as the total number of individuals

(unduplicated) receiving any type of teacher certification from a program during the complete

academic year (fiscal year) from September 1st through August 31

st. For example, the 2011

production counts include university completers from all university pathways who obtained

certification from September 1, 2010 through August 31, 2011.

It is important to note that certification cohorts are not graduation cohorts. A program typically

graduates more individuals than those who actually obtain certification in that year. Individuals

often graduate and obtain certification in a subsequent academic year.

The formula used to calculate the one-year change as a percent is: 2011-2010/2010 x 100%. To

calculate the five-year percent change, data from years: 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009,

2009-2010, 2010-2011 was used in the formula: 2011-2006/2006 x 100%.

C.3: Teacher Production by Race/Ethnicity.

This analysis provides the number and percentages of individuals obtaining certification by

race/ethnicity from FY2001 through FY2011. The race/ethnicity of the individual is self-

reported.

C4: Initial Certification Production by Level.

This analysis shows initial standard certificate production broken down by level over a ten-year

period (2002-2011). During any certification year, the number of certificates is greater than the

number of teachers produced since many teachers obtain more than one certificate. A 5-year

average certificate production is calculated. See page 61 for a list of changes made to this report.

Certification data are based upon when the individual initially applies for certification. For

example, a person can complete a program in AY 2003, yet decide not to obtain certification

until AY 2006. Such an individual would be included in the 2006 certification cohort rather than

the 2003 certification cohort. TEA generally uses the date of the initial application as the date of

certification.

C.5: Other Producers of Teachers in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact.

This report shows the ten-year production trends for other suppliers of teachers in the same PZPI

as the target university sorted from highest to lowest producer.

University Production

5‐Year Inc/Dec

Degrees Awarded (Spring of academic year)

Enrollment (Fall of fiscal year)

Total enrollment also includes doctoral level students.Total degrees awarded also includes doctoral level degrees.

12

Teachers Produced by Pathway (End of fiscal year)


Five‐Year University Production Trends

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

Program numbers may not add up to Total because of missing data.3

Enrollment for private universities is projected fromearly fall estimates from IPEDs.4

27,996 28,260 28,422 30,097 32,149Total 1,4 14.8%

22,851 23,021 23,107 24,311 26,008Undergraduate 13.8%

2,394 2,494 2,604 2,769 3,113Masters 30.0%

6,144 6,328 5,902 6,151 6,378Total 2 3.8%

4,622 4,777 4,460 4,476 4,605Baccalaureate Degrees ‐0.4%

29 40 33 24 27Mathematics ‐6.9%

214 217 181 173 178Biological Science ‐16.8%

35 42 43 47 54Physical Science 54.3%

1,093 1,093 1,034 1,222 1,300Masters 18.9%

614 569 491 497 535Total 3 ‐12.9%

0 0 0 0 0ACP Certified 0.0%

210 156 127 121 127Post‐Baccalaureate Certified ‐39.5%

404 413 364 376 408Traditional Undergraduate Certified 1.0%

Source Data37Page

C.1THECB Accountability System, PREP Online, ICUT,

IPEDS (Private Universities Only)PACE 2012

Total Teachers Produced by Fiscal YearTotal

1‐Year Change

5‐Year Change

Texas Tech UniversityFY 2001‐2011

Teacher Production Trends for University Completers

2010‐2011 2006‐20112001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

1

2No. of C

ompleters

Fiscal Year

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Experience Post Bacc Standard

462 522 551 497 535 524 614 569 491 497 535 5,797 7.6% 2.1%

1 Number of university completers is the unduplicated number of individuals obtaining certification through the university.2 Certificate year equals fiscal year (September 1 ‐ August 31).

Source Data38Page

C.2Teacher Certification Data, TEAPACE 2012

3-Year Change

5-Year Change


Teacher Production by Race/Ethnicity

2008-2011 2006-2011

Fiscal Year

1

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

2Num

ber

Fiscal Year

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

White Unknown Other Hispanic African American

8African American 7 8 11 6 8 18 4 13 13 5 1 ‐3

42Hispanic 51 44 61 50 63 68 69 67 61 64 ‐5 1

5Other 11 8 12 5 5 8 3 10 8 10 7 5

0Unknown 0 7 3 2 2 5 11 2 3 2 ‐9 0

407White 453 484 410 472 446 515 482 399 412 454 ‐28 8

462 522 551 497 535 524 614 569 491 497 535TOTAL

Source Data39Page

C.3Teacher Certification Files, TEA

1 Race/ethnicity is self‐reported.2 Certification year equals fiscal year (September 1 ‐ August 31).

PACE 2012

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal YearCertificate2007-2011

5‐YearAverage


Initial Certification Production by Level 12

Bilingual Spanish 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 2 0 0.4ELEMENTARY (EC-4 and EC-6)

Bilingual Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 3 ESL Generalist 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 16 1 0 3.4 ESL Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 4 Generalist 2 147 206 229 225 281 251 220 206 216 234.8 Other 283 88 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 5 Subtotal 285 235 214 234 228 281 251 236 209 216 238.6

Bilingual Generalist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0MIDDLE SCHOOL (4-8)

ESL Generalist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0ESL Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 6 Generalist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0ELA/Reading 0 1 10 4 6 10 9 3 0 6 5.6 ELA/Reading/Social Studies 0 13 9 28 24 31 20 17 23 20 22.2Mathematics 0 16 24 19 22 9 1 4 6 13 6.6 Mathematics/Science 0 0 0 0 2 32 18 13 14 26 20.6 Science 0 0 2 3 8 1 4 2 4 4 3.0 Social Studies 0 4 8 10 5 4 3 1 5 13 5.2 Subtotal 0 34 53 64 67 87 55 40 52 82 63.2

Career & Technology Applications 0 0 0 2 9 8 40 29 34 39 30.0HIGH SCHOOL (6-12, 7-12 and 8-12)

7 Chemistry 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 Computer Science 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Dance 2 2 1 0 0 4 2 3 2 5 3.2ELA/Reading 0 11 37 31 29 29 31 27 37 32 31.2 History 40 30 17 28 23 31 31 19 30 27 27.6 Journalism 2 0 1 1 3 2 1 1 0 3 1.4 Life Sciences 0 0 6 7 2 6 3 5 4 2 4.0 Mathematics 9 14 18 24 23 7 16 15 19 15 14.4 Physical Science 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Physical Sc/Math/Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.2Physics 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Physics/Mathematics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.2 Science 9 12 11 7 10 7 6 8 9 7 7.4 Secondary French 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0.4 Secondary German 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0.6 Secondary Latin 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Secondary Spanish 14 10 10 11 12 9 6 6 1 1 4.6 Social Studies 6 10 8 6 11 4 2 6 5 7 4.8 Speech 2 4 7 1 2 9 2 4 0 1 3.2 Technology Applications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0Subtotal 89 96 123 122 126 119 142 125 144 141 134.2

American Sign Language 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0ALL LEVEL (EC-12 and PK-12)

ESL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0Fine Arts 20 41 29 41 39 43 69 53 38 50 50.6 8 Health and Phy Education 17 18 40 25 58 61 39 42 44 29 43.0 LOTE - French 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 LOTE - German 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0LOTE - Latin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 LOTE - Spanish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 11 3.0 Special Education 19 17 14 25 19 30 21 31 32 23 27.4 9 Technology Applications 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 2 1 3 1.8Subtotal 56 76 83 91 120 136 130 128 119 117 211.2

Bilingual 1 0 0 0 1 6 8 4 5 8 6.2SUPPLEMENTALS

ESL 4 1 1 1 4 9 5 9 32 44 19.8 Gifted/Talented 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0Special Education 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.4 9 Subtotal 6 2 1 2 5 16 13 13 37 53 26.41 Individual candidates may receive multiple certificates.2 Certificate year equals fiscal year (Sept. 1 ‐ Aug. 31).3 Includes all other elementary bilingual ESL and bilingual certificates.4 Includes all other elementary ESL certificates.5 Includes all other 1‐6, 1‐8, and PK‐6 self contained certificates no longer issued.6 Includes all other 4‐8 and 6‐12 ESL certificates.

7 Includes certificates issued in agriculture science and technology, business education including secretarial, driver education, family/consumer science, health science technology education, home economics, hospitality, nutrition and food science, human development/family studies, marketing education, office education, technology education and trade industrial.8 Includes certificates issued in art, music, theatre, and theatre arts.9 Includes certificates issued in special education, deaf and hard of hearing and teacher of students with visual impairment.

Source Data40Page

C.4Teacher Certification Files, TEAPACE 2012

Production Entity Total


Other Producers of Teachers in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

12

535 5,797497491569614524535497551522462Texas Tech University98 1,2381211451141201431161171117380Wayland Baptist University83 880818574699910786746953Lubbock Christian University

1 Number of university completers is the unduplicated number of individuals obtaining standard or provisional certification.2 Certificate year equals fiscal year (September 1 ‐ August 31).

716 7,915699721757803766758700736664595TOTAL

Source Data41Page

C.5Teacher Certification Files, TEA, AEISPACE 2012

D.

Professional Impact Trend Reports

42

SECTION D: Professional Impact Trend Reports

Section D includes information regarding employment and district hiring patterns, concentration of

university completers in the PZPI, as well as teacher retention and attrition data.

D.1 a-c: Teacher Hiring in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact. This section consists of

charts comparing school district hiring patterns in the PZPI. This report shows the supply of new

teachers provided by a preparation program by subject area and school level. The category “Teachers

Supplied” is defined as the number of newly-hired teacher Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) in the PZPI

who obtained probationary or standard certification from the preparation program in FY2011 with no

prior teaching experience. The category “District Hires” is defined as the number of newly-hired

teacher Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) employed in the PZPI in AY 2011-2012. A hiring ratio was

calculated to represent the impact of university teacher production in the PZPI. The data capture

teachers new to the PZPI as well as any new teacher increase due to increased student enrollment.

D.2: Percentage of Newly-Certified Teachers Employed Inside and Outside the Proximal Zone

of Professional Impact. This analysis shows the percentage of the university’s newly-certified

teachers (those obtaining a standard certificate with no prior teaching experience) who are employed

within a seventy-five mile radius of the university.

D.3: District Hiring Patterns of University-Prepared Teachers in the Proximal Zone of

Professional Impact. Two charts provide information regarding the highest employing districts of

the university’s teachers. The first chart provides information about teachers from all university

pathways who received a standard certificate in 2010-2011. The second chart shows all target

university-prepared teachers employed by a district from 1995-2012. See Attachment 3 to view full

hiring pattern report.

D.4 a-c: Percentage of University Completers in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact by

Level. This set of analyses provides information about the percentage of Full Time Equivalents

(FTEs) certified through the university’s preparation program since 1995 who are employed at a

campus within the PZPI by level. The first four columns provide the name of the district, campus code,

percent of school students classified as economically disadvantaged, and campus name, respectively.

The “# School FTEs” column shows the total number of FTEs for all teachers of record working at the

campus. The “# Univ FTEs” and the “% Univ FTEs” column provides the total number and percent of

FTEs employed at that campus who obtained certification from the target university’s preparation

program from 1995 through 2011.

D.5: Comparison of Teacher Retention Trends. D.5.a: Five-Year Retention of First-Year Teachers.

The table and corresponding graphic displays the five-year teacher retention and attrition rates for

individuals obtaining a standard or probationary certificate in 2006-2007 who became employed in a

Texas public school in the 2007-2008 academic year with no prior teaching experience. The retention

rate for spring 2008 is always 100% in each analysis because the analysis starts with all cohort

members employed in Texas public schools in the 2007-2008 academic years. Retention has been

broken down comparing the target university with CREATE public and private universities, profit and

nonprofit ACPs, and the state total. D.5.b-d: Five-Year Retention of First-Year Teachers by School

Level. These analyses further augment the five-year retention trends by showing retention rates and

five-year attrition rates for selected groups by high, middle, and elementary school level. Numbers

less than 10 are not graphically represented.

High Schools

Subject Area English Total FTEsMathe‐matics

Science Social Studies

Foreign Language

Fine Arts PE / Health Computer Science

Voc / Bus Education

Special Education

Bilingual / ESL

Other Assign

Teacher Hiring in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact


Newly‐Hired Teachers in PZPI in FY 2011‐2012

Hiring Ra

tio

Subject Area

39

29.2

37.1

22.1

39.2

28.9

17.4

0

16.4

12.7

100

21.7

26.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

English

Mathematics Science

SocialStudies

ForeignLanguage

Fine Arts PE/Health ComputerScience

Voc/BusEducation

SpecialEducation

ESL Other Total FTEs

4.8Teachers Supplied 4.0 3.9 1.5 3.1 1.1 1.6 0.0 2.1 1.6 0.5 1.0 25.21

12.3District Hires 13.7 10.5 6.8 7.9 3.8 9.2 0.1 12.8 12.6 0.5 4.6 94.82

1 Includes number of newly‐hired FTEs from university preparation programs who obtained standard or probationary certification in FY 2011 with no prior teaching experience.

2 The number of newly‐hired teacher FTEs in the PZPI in AY 2011‐2012.

3 Newly‐hired university FTEs divided by number of newly‐hired district FTEs in the PZPI.

39.0%Hiring Ratio 29.2% 37.1% 22.1% 39.2% 28.9% 17.4% 0.0% 16.4% 12.7% 100.0% 21.7% 26.6%3

Source Data43Page

D.1.aTeacher Assignment and Certification Files, TEAPACE 2012

Middle Schools

Subject Area English Total FTEsMathe‐matics

Science Social Studies

Foreign Language

Fine Arts PE / Health

Computer Science

Voc / Bus Education

Special Education

Bilingual / ESL

Other Assign

Self‐Contained




Hiring Ra

tio

Subject Area

26.8 27.5 28.2

34.8

0

75

31.2

0 0

50

24.6

31.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

English Mathematics Science SocialStudies

ForeignLanguage

Fine Arts PE/Health ComputerScience

Voc/BusEducation

SpecialEducation

Other Total FTEs

Teachers Supplied 4.5 3.3 4.0 2.3 0.0 4.8 3.4 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.4 25.70.01

District Hires 16.8 12.0 14.2 6.6 3.9 6.4 10.9 0.6 0.2 4.0 0.0 5.7 81.40.02




26.8%Hiring Ratio 27.5% 28.2% 34.8% 0.0% 75.0% 31.2% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 24.6% 31.6%0.0%3

Source Data44Page

D.1.bTeacher Assignment and Certification Files, TEAPACE 2012

Elementary Schools

Subject Area Non‐CoreSubjects

TotalFTEs

SpecialEducation

Bilingual/ESL

CoreSubjects




4 5

Hiring Ra

tio

Subject Area

31

17.4

14

41.7

26.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Core Subjects Non‐Core Subjects Special Education Bilingual/ESL Total

6.9 1.4 2.0 43.032.6Teachers Supplied 1

39.6 10.0 4.8 159.6105.3District Hires 2

4 Core subjects are subjects that are TAKS tested.

5 Non‐core subjects are all subjects not TAKS tested.




17.4%Hiring Ratio 14.0% 41.7% 26.9%31.0%3

Source Data45Page

D.1.cTeacher Assignment and Certification Files, TEAPACE 2012

New Teachers Employed

% Change

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Percentage of Newly‐Certified Teachers Employed Inside and Outsidethe Proximal Zone of Professional Impact


2010‐2012

2010 2011 2012

2010 to 2012

Percen

t of New

Teachers Em

ploy

ed


41.1 41.4 39.3

58.9 58.6 60.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

2010 2011 2012

Not in the Zone In the Zone

In the Zone 123 41.1 121 41.4 107 39.3 ‐1.8

Not in the Zone 176 58.9 171 58.6 165 60.7 1.8

Total 299 100.0 292 100.0 272 100.0 0.0

Source Data46Page

D.2Teacher Assignment and Certification Files

TEAPACE 2012

All Teachers Certified

SAMPLE DOCUMENT: To view the Full Hiring Patterns Report Refer to Attachment 3

District Hiring Patterns of University‐Prepared Teachers in PZPI


Teachers Newly‐Certified in FY 2010‐20111

Employing District% University Newly-

Certified Compared to New Teachers Employed

University-Prepared Employed by District in

2011-2012

New Teachers Employed by District in 2011-2012

AMHERST ISD 1 1 100.0NEW DEAL ISD 3 3 100.0BROWNFIELD ISD 5 7 71.4CROSBYTON CISD 2 3 66.7PETERSBURG ISD 2 3 66.7MORTON ISD 1 2 50.0ROOSEVELT ISD 1 2 50.0WELLMAN-UNION CISD 1 2 50.0LAMESA ISD 5 12 41.7LUBBOCK ISD 50 141 35.5ANTON ISD 1 3 33.3TULIA ISD 1 3 33.3FRENSHIP ISD 8 28 28.6SLATON ISD 2 7 28.6DENVER CITY ISD 3 11 27.3

Employing District Percent of Univ-Prepared Teachers in District

University-Prepared (1995-2011) Employed by District

in 2011-2012

Total Teachers Employed by District in 2011-2012

SOUTH PLAINS 4 10 40.0LUBBOCK ISD 739 1,944 38.0AMHERST ISD 7 19 36.8NEW DEAL ISD 20 58 34.5RALLS ISD 16 49 32.7ROOSEVELT ISD 28 87 32.2SOUTHLAND ISD 6 19 31.6TAHOKA ISD 18 58 31.0LUBBOCK-COOPER ISD 78 254 30.7MEADOW ISD 7 23 30.4CROSBYTON CISD 12 40 30.0DAWSON ISD 6 21 28.6O'DONNELL ISD 9 33 27.3RISE ACADEMY 4 15 26.7WILSON ISD 4 15 26.71. Includes standard certificates from all university pathways.

Source Data47Page

D.3Teacher Certification and Employment Files

TEAPACE 2012

District Name Campus Code Campus Name# Campus

FTEs# UnivFTEs

% UnivFTEs

% School Econ Disadvantaged 2 3 4


1Percentage of University Completers in High Schools in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact

RALLS ISD 54903002 RECOVERY EDUCATION CAMPUS 1.0 1.0 100.075.0BROWNFIELD ISD 223901005 BROWNFIELD EDUCATION CENTER 2.3 1.0 43.535.7LUBBOCK ISD 152901022 LUBBOCK H S 119.2 46.9 39.451.2LUBBOCK ISD 152901020 CORONADO H S 131.4 50.9 38.834.0IDALOU ISD 152910001 IDALOU H S 27.3 10.2 37.328.4CROSBYTON CISD 54901001 CROSBYTON H S 16.4 5.8 35.877.3TAHOKA ISD 153904001 TAHOKA H S 21.5 7.7 35.652.2ROOSEVELT ISD 152908001 ROOSEVELT H S 30.6 9.7 31.664.1LUBBOCK ISD 152901023 MONTEREY H S 120.7 36.5 30.344.4SOUTH PLAINS 152803001 SOUTH PLAINS ACADEMY 15.8 4.7 30.083.1RALLS ISD 54903001 RALLS H S 18.2 5.3 29.369.5LUBBOCK ISD 152901021 ESTACADO H S 70.3 19.8 28.188.1NEW DEAL ISD 152902001 NEW DEAL H S 22.2 5.6 25.449.8LAMESA ISD 58906004 LAMESA SUCCESS ACADEMY 4.0 1.0 25.064.7ANTON ISD 110901001 ANTON H S 15.3 3.7 24.168.3LUBBOCK‐COOPER ISD 152906001 LUBBOCK‐COOPER HIGH SCHOOL 74.3 17.9 24.038.5SLATON ISD 152903001 SLATON H S 41.2 9.8 23.960.7FRENSHIP ISD 152907001 FRENSHIP H S 135.1 30.8 22.827.7LITTLEFIELD ISD 140904001 LITTLEFIELD H S 30.3 6.8 22.560.6LUBBOCK ISD 152901011 MATTHEWS LRN CTR/NEW DIRECTIONS 19.5 4.2 21.871.3HART ISD 35902001 HART JR‐SR H S 14.3 3.0 21.075.5LEVELLAND ISD 110902001 LEVELLAND H S 68.5 14.0 20.452.7BROWNFIELD ISD 223901001 BROWNFIELD H S 40.4 8.2 20.357.3LOCKNEY ISD 77902001 LOCKNEY HIGH SCHOOL 20.6 4.2 20.258.2OLTON ISD 140905002 OLTON H S 23.3 4.7 20.161.8ABERNATHY ISD 95901001 ABERNATHY H S 24.5 4.9 19.941.4LORENZO ISD 54902001 LORENZO H S 20.5 4.0 19.584.7

Listing includes both charter and public schools. Only the first 25 campuses are listed.Number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) employed by the campus.Number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) employed by the campus from the university.Percent of University FTEs employed by the campus.

1234

Source Data48Page

D.4.aAEIS, TEAPACE 2012

1


Percentage of University Completers in Middle Schools in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact


FTEs# UnivFTEs

% UnivFTEs


LUBBOCK ISD 152901024 SCHOOL FOR YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS 15.5 9.0 58.158.6TAHOKA ISD 153904041 TAHOKA MIDDLE 13.5 7.1 52.660.1LUBBOCK ISD 152901063 DUNBAR M S 32.9 15.9 48.292.2LUBBOCK ISD 152901066 IRONS M S 45.1 20.0 44.318.6LUBBOCK ISD 152901061 ATKINS M S 33.4 14.1 42.285.9LUBBOCK ISD 152901069 SMYLIE WILSON M S 35.8 15.0 41.877.1LUBBOCK ISD 152901064 EVANS M S 49.4 20.6 41.735.1LUBBOCK ISD 152901062 CAVAZOS M S 42.2 15.8 37.488.2LUBBOCK ISD 152901060 ALDERSON M S 29.9 11.0 36.992.5LUBBOCK ISD 152901065 HUTCHINSON M S 52.2 18.5 35.544.5SUNDOWN ISD 110907041 SUNDOWN J H 13.2 4.6 35.028.9CROSBYTON CISD 54901041 CROSBYTON MIDDLE 9.2 3.2 34.475.9FRENSHIP ISD 152907042 TERRA VISTA MIDDLE SCHOOL 66.6 21.3 31.948.3NEW DEAL ISD 152902041 NEW DEAL MIDDLE 18.7 5.5 29.560.4LUBBOCK ISD 152901068 SLATON M S 43.2 12.7 29.478.9LITTLEFIELD ISD 140904041 LITTLEFIELD J H 20.7 6.1 29.373.5LAMESA ISD 58906041 LAMESA MIDDLE 31.9 9.2 28.872.2FLOYDADA ISD 77901041 FLOYDADA J H 18.6 5.1 27.371.7SLATON ISD 152903042 SLATON J H 24.7 6.7 26.979.5LOCKNEY ISD 77902041 LOCKNEY JR HIGH 12.6 3.3 26.669.2LUBBOCK ISD 152901067 MACKENZIE M S 34.2 8.9 26.062.1FRENSHIP ISD 152907041 FRENSHIP MIDDLE SCHOOL 71.5 17.5 24.522.2ABERNATHY ISD 95901041 ABERNATHY J H 17.0 4.1 24.254.9PLAINS ISD 251902041 PLAINS MIDDLE 14.2 3.1 22.266.4BROWNFIELD ISD 223901041 BROWNFIELD MIDDLE 33.3 6.8 20.478.5IDALOU ISD 152910041 IDALOU MIDDLE 23.8 4.8 20.446.1LEVELLAND ISD 110902042 LEVELLAND MIDDLE 30.0 6.0 20.069.0


1234

Source Data49Page

D.4.bAEIS, TEAPACE 2012


1Percentage of University Completers in Elementary Schools in the Proximal Zone of Professional Impact


FTEs# UnivFTEs

% UnivFTEs


LUBBOCK ISD 152901153 ARNETT EL 10.1 6.1 60.594.2LUBBOCK ISD 152901177 RAMIREZ CHARTER SCHOOL 34.2 20.2 59.182.2LUBBOCK ISD 152901155 BAYLESS EL 40.6 22.0 54.290.0LUBBOCK ISD 152901193 ROY W ROBERTS EL 35.6 18.0 50.565.8LUBBOCK ISD 152901168 JACKSON EL 23.9 12.0 50.396.8LUBBOCK ISD 152901188 WILLIAMS EL 27.1 12.9 47.554.3LUBBOCK ISD 152901192 CENTENNIAL EL 35.4 16.5 46.767.4LUBBOCK ISD 152901158 BOZEMAN EL 23.7 10.9 45.793.5LUBBOCK ISD 152901190 WOLFFARTH EL 21.1 9.6 45.394.2LUBBOCK ISD 152901163 HARWELL EL 31.4 14.0 44.588.0NEW DEAL ISD 152902101 NEW DEAL EL 22.1 9.3 42.261.0LUBBOCK ISD 152901184 WESTER EL 27.0 11.3 41.877.1LUBBOCK‐COOPER ISD 152906104 LUBBOCK‐COOPER WEST EL SCHOOL 54.6 22.7 41.619.9LUBBOCK ISD 152901159 BROWN EL 29.3 12.0 40.990.7LUBBOCK ISD 152901179 SMITH EL 41.9 17.0 40.531.8LUBBOCK ISD 152901176 PARSONS EL 26.3 10.6 40.472.8POST ISD 85902101 POST EL 35.0 14.0 40.078.3LUBBOCK ISD 152901160 DUPRE EL 22.8 9.0 39.493.8LUBBOCK ISD 152901169 MCWHORTER EL 23.5 9.0 38.391.3LUBBOCK ISD 152901165 HODGES EL 32.0 12.0 37.590.2LUBBOCK‐COOPER ISD 152906101 LUBBOCK‐COOPER SOUTH ELEMENTARY S 56.1 21.0 37.453.0FRENSHIP ISD 152907108 OAK RIDGE EL 36.2 13.2 36.515.6LUBBOCK ISD 152901191 WRIGHT EL 11.0 4.0 36.480.4LUBBOCK ISD 152901164 HAYNES EL 19.4 6.9 35.445.8LUBBOCK ISD 152901170 MAEDGEN EL 25.9 9.0 34.874.2LUBBOCK ISD 152901162 HARDWICK EL 31.8 11.0 34.668.4LUBBOCK ISD 152901185 WHEATLEY EL 24.8 8.6 34.693.7


1234

Source Data50Page

D.4.cAEIS, TEAPACE 2012

Percent Retained in Spring of Academic Year AttritionRate

Number Teachers

Entity/Organization

1,2


Comparison of Teacher Retention TrendsFive‐Year Retention of First‐Year Teachers

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Percen

t Retaine

d

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Texas Tech University CREATE Private Universities CREATE Public Universities

For Profit ACPs Non‐Profit ACPs State Total

100.0 93.0 89.3Texas Tech University 83.7 77.8441 22.2

100.0 92.9 89.7CREATE Public Universities 85.2 80.28498 19.8

100.0 93.2 89.5CREATE Private Universities 82.5 78.6650 21.4

100.0 89.3 83.7For Profit ACPs 76.7 71.26157 28.8

100.0 88.8 81.0Non-Profit ACPs 74.4 68.64574 31.4

100.0 90.7 85.6State Total 79.6 74.421272 25.61 Includes teachers obtaining a standard or probationary certificate in 2006‐2007 with no prior teaching experience.Texas data only tracks public school employment.2

Source Data51Page

D.5.aTeacher Certification and Assignment Files, AEIS,

TEAPACE 2012


Number Teachers

Entity/Organization

High SchoolTexas Tech University

2008‐2012

Comparison of Teacher Retention Trends

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

1,2Five‐Year Retention of First‐Year Teachers by School LevelPe

rcen

t Retaine

d

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012






100.0 86.7 80.6For Profit ACPs 73.2 67.42002 32.6

100.0 86.0 76.4Non-Profit ACPs 69.5 63.11254 36.9


Source Data52Page

D.5.bTeacher Certification and Assignment Files, AEIS,

TEAPACE 2012


Number Teachers

Entity/Organization

Middle School

2008‐2012



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


rcen

t Retaine

d

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012






100.0 89.9 83.6For Profit ACPs 76.6 71.41977 28.6

100.0 89.6 82.5Non-Profit ACPs 75.6 70.11226 29.9


Source Data53Page

D.5.cTeacher Certification and Assignment Files, AEIS,

TEAPACE 2012


Number Teachers

Entity/Organization

Elementary School

2008‐2012



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


rcen

t Retaine

d

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012






100.0 91.5 86.8For Profit ACPs 80.5 75.31982 24.7

100.0 90.3 83.4Non-Profit ACPs 77.2 71.61918 28.4


Source Data54Page

D.5.dTeacher Certification and Assignment Files, AEIS,

TEAPACE 2012

III.

University Benchmarks to

Guide Improvement

E.

University Comparison Reports

55

SECTION E: University Comparison Reports

Section E contains comparison information among universities regarding teacher and certificate

production, and teacher retention.

Comparison universities were systematically selected for a target university by choosing the two

closest universities in proximity to the target university. The data associated with each

university represents that university’s Proximal Zone of Professional Impact. If there were more

than two universities in the target university’s PZPI, the two having the highest correlation based

on student enrollment in the PZPI were chosen as the comparison universities. When there were

no universities in the PZPI, a panel, consisting of CREATE staff, used professional judgment to

determine the comparison universities.

E.1: Comparison of Teacher Production.

This analysis describes teacher production over a 10-year time period between the target

university and the comparisons and a ten-year average is computed. The 10-year total

production data is graphically represented.

E.2: Five-Year Teacher Production of Consortium Universities.

This report compares the five-year teacher production and averages of all CREATE consortium

institutions from 2007-2011 by quintiles.

E.3: Comparison of Longitudinal Certificate Production Trends.

The data for this comparison come from individual university data found in C.4.

E.4: Teacher Retention Comparison.

The data for this comparison includes only teachers who obtained a standard certificate in FY

2007 who became employed in a Texas public school in AY 2007-2008 with no prior teaching

experience. The data in this comparison does not include individuals who have obtained a

probationary certificate and should not be compared to data found in report D.5.a. The column

labeled Attrition Rate is calculated by subtracting the 2012 retention rate from 100%.

AcademicYear

TotalPreparation Programs


Comparison of Teacher Production

Texas Tech University University of Texas ‐ El Paso University of North Texas

5,335 6,538 7,51210‐Year Total 19,385

522 552 7642002 1,838

551 822 9592003 2,332

497 761 7992004 2,057

535 603 6522005 1,790

524 568 7142006 1,806

614 649 7212007 1,984

569 639 7832008 1,991

491 684 7482009 1,923

497 699 7042010 1,900

535 561 6682011 1,764

533.5 653.8 751.210‐Year Avg 1,938.5

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Texas Tech University University of North Texas University of Texas ‐ El Paso

Source Data56Page

E.1Teacher Certification Data, TEAPACE 2012

Five‐Year Teacher Production of Consortium Universities2007‐2011

5‐Year Average

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

Quintile 1 (500+)

Quintile 2 (300‐499)



Texas State University‐San Marcos 872.0 884.0 912.0 923.0 744.0 867.00

University of North Texas 721.0 783.0 748.0 704.0 668.0 724.80

Texas A&M University 808.0 770.0 674.0 651.0 637.0 708.00

Texas A&M University ‐ Commerce 656.0 710.0 688.0 624.0 625.0 660.60

University of Texas ‐ El Paso 649.0 639.0 684.0 699.0 561.0 646.40

Texas Tech University 614.0 569.0 491.0 497.0 535.0 541.20

Sam Houston State University 471.0 497.0 538.0 526.0 529.0 512.20

University of Texas ‐ San Antonio 595.0 565.0 468.0 433.0 451.0 502.40

Stephen F. Austin State University 494.0 452.0 444.0 475.0 523.0 477.60

University of Texas ‐ Pan American 562.0 558.0 508.0 381.0 299.0 461.60

University of Texas ‐ Austin 444.0 418.0 398.0 372.0 398.0 406.00

West Texas A&M University 399.0 360.0 353.0 385.0 378.0 375.00

University of Houston 367.0 338.0 386.0 346.0 313.0 350.00

University of Texas ‐ Arlington 369.0 328.0 353.0 338.0 321.0 341.80

Texas Woman's University 315.0 323.0 365.0 369.0 330.0 340.40

Tarleton State University 350.0 397.0 318.0 300.0 316.0 336.20

Texas A&M University ‐ Corpus Christi 319.0 306.0 277.0 293.0 231.0 285.20

University of Texas ‐ Brownsville 279.0 299.0 262.0 247.0 230.0 263.40

Texas A&M University ‐ Kingsville 274.0 269.0 251.0 272.0 243.0 261.80

Texas A&M International University 280.0 293.0 291.0 250.0 142.0 251.20

University of Houston ‐ Clear Lake 231.0 242.0 210.0 217.0 230.0 226.00

University of Houston ‐ Downtown 171.0 173.0 201.0 217.0 206.0 193.60

University of Texas ‐ Tyler 164.0 171.0 198.0 229.0 170.0 186.40

University of Texas ‐ Dallas 211.0 174.0 179.0 168.0 152.0 176.80

Lamar University 230.0 202.0 153.0 152.0 142.0 175.80

University of Houston ‐ Victoria 181.0 162.0 160.0 204.0 139.0 169.20

Angelo State University 180.0 180.0 165.0 157.0 146.0 165.60

Lamar State College ‐ Orange 195.0 195.0 152.0 116.0 105.0 152.60

Baylor University 155.0 141.0 167.0 149.0 140.0 150.40

Texas A&M University ‐ Texarkana 142.0 133.0 133.0 130.0 131.0 133.80

University of Texas ‐ Permian Basin 164.0 112.0 136.0 132.0 120.0 132.80

Midwestern State University 150.0 125.0 113.0 144.0 125.0 131.40

Texas Christian University 149.0 129.0 125.0 114.0 99.0 123.20

Prairie View A&M University 147.0 153.0 88.0 85.0 63.0 107.20

Source Data57Page


Five‐Year Teacher Production of Consortium Universities2007‐2011

5‐Year Average

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

Quintile 5 (below 99)University of Mary Hardin‐Baylor 109.0 75.0 79.0 85.0 99.0 89.40

Abilene Christian University 92.0 111.0 100.0 95.0 47.0 89.00

Sul Ross State University ‐ Rio Grande 93.0 91.0 105.0 72.0 53.0 82.80

McMurry University 64.0 60.0 75.0 82.0 49.0 66.00

Hardin‐Simmons University 77.0 80.0 58.0 58.0 44.0 63.40

University of the Incarnate Word 56.0 63.0 78.0 66.0 46.0 61.80

Our Lady of the Lake University 72.0 69.0 75.0 48.0 30.0 58.80

Texas Southern University 55.0 65.0 58.0 38.0 47.0 52.60

East Texas Baptist University 58.0 55.0 45.0 43.0 45.0 49.20

Sul Ross State University ‐ Alpine 54.0 57.0 45.0 39.0 36.0 46.20

Howard Payne University 48.0 36.0 39.0 43.0 30.0 39.20

Texas Lutheran University 40.0 49.0 36.0 27.0 44.0 39.20

St. Edward's University 26.0 41.0 29.0 44.0 33.0 34.60

St. Mary's University 36.0 34.0 35.0 27.0 26.0 31.60

University of St. Thomas 32.0 26.0 27.0 24.0 30.0 27.80

Austin College 29.0 17.0 22.0 22.0 17.0 21.40

Southwestern University 9.0 12.0 13.0 10.0 6.0 10.00

Texas A&M University ‐ San Antonio 22.0 4.40

Source Data58Page


CertificateFiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year

Comparison of Longitudinal Certificate Production TrendsFY 2007-2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Texas Tech University University of Texas - El Paso University of North Texas

12

Bilingual Spanish 0 0 0 2 0 112 112 108 126 98ELEMENTARY (EC-4 and EC-6)

27 24 37 38 35Bilingual Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0ESL Generalist 0 0 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 32 33 45 83ESL Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 6 5 1Generalist 281 251 220 206 216 160 130 125 129 114 274 299 292 255 199Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0Subtotal 281 251 236 209 216 272 242 233 255 212 323 359 368 343 318

Bilingual Generalist 0 0 0 0 0 24 17 18 19 7 3 2 3 3 0MIDDLE SCHOOL (4-8)

ESL Generalist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 5 1ESL Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0Generalist 0 0 0 0 0 87 77 73 53 34 44 61 55 50 21ELA/Reading 10 9 3 0 6 8 8 10 7 14 0 0 0 0 8ELA/Reading/Social Studies 31 20 17 23 20 5 3 11 6 14 0 0 0 0 0Mathematics 9 1 4 6 13 11 6 10 20 20 0 0 0 4 15Mathematics/Science 32 18 13 14 26 14 18 24 12 20 0 0 0 0 0Science 1 4 2 4 4 2 4 5 1 3 0 0 0 0 7Social Studies 4 3 1 5 13 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 5Subtotal 87 55 40 52 82 152 133 152 120 112 47 67 64 62 57

Career & Technology Applications 8 40 29 34 39 24 18 16 11 3 60 51 34 41 39HIGH SCHOOL (6-12, 7-12 and 8-12)

Chemistry 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 2Computer Science 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Dance 4 2 3 2 5 1 3 3 2 1 0 1 1 4 1ELA/Reading 29 31 27 37 32 41 20 35 32 31 33 40 34 37 28History 31 31 19 30 27 6 3 5 3 1 29 31 26 24 26Journalism 2 1 1 0 3 3 1 2 5 1 7 3 0 5 4Life Sciences 6 3 5 4 2 6 0 0 0 0 11 12 7 10 7Mathematics 7 16 15 19 15 43 26 28 24 22 11 12 8 28 23Physical Science 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 2 2 0 1Physical Sc/Math/Engineering 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Physics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Physics/Mathematics 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1Science 7 6 8 9 7 18 13 14 19 20 1 1 1 1 2Secondary French 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 3 4 0 2 2 1 1 3Secondary German 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 1Secondary Latin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Secondary Spanish 9 6 6 1 1 18 8 16 14 4 7 7 6 12 8Social Studies 4 2 6 5 7 18 30 23 45 25 20 13 21 17 20Speech 9 2 4 0 1 1 2 3 6 1 7 5 3 7 3Technology Applications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0Subtotal 119 142 125 144 141 181 124 149 166 110 193 186 151 192 169

American Sign Language 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ALL LEVEL (EC-12 and PK-12)

ESL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Fine Arts 43 69 53 38 50 26 35 24 39 31 8 89 93 108 82 85Health and Phy Education 61 39 42 44 29 31 25 25 25 32 26 34 32 28 27LOTE - French 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0LOTE - German 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LOTE - Latin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LOTE - Spanish 0 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0Special Education 30 21 31 32 23 38 45 39 42 38 9 60 45 61 64 62Technology Applications 2 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Subtotal 136 130 128 119 117 95 105 88 107 108 175 172 201 174 176

Bilingual 6 8 4 5 8 0 1 3 3 9 0 0 0 0 0SUPPLEMENTALS

ESL 9 5 9 32 44 3 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 4 24Gifted/Talented 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0Special Education 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0Subtotal 16 13 13 37 53 3 3 5 5 11 1 0 1 4 241 Individual candidates may receive multiple certificates.2 Certificate year equals fiscal year (Sept. 1 ‐ Aug. 31).3 Includes all other elementary bilingual ESL and bilingual certificates.4 Includes all other elementary ESL certificates.5 Includes all other 1‐6, 1‐8, and PK‐6 self contained certificates no longer issued.6 Includes all other 4‐8 and 6‐12 ESL certificates.

7 Includes certificates issued in agriculture science and technology, business education including secretarial, driver education, family/consumer science, health science technology education, home economics, hospitality, nutrition and food science, human development/family studies, marketing education, office education, technology education and trade industrial.8 Includes certificates issued in art, music, theatre, and theatre arts.9 Includes certificates issued in special education, deaf and hard of hearing and teacher of students with visual impairment.

Source Data59Page

E.3Teacher Certification Files, TEAPACE 2012


Preparation Program Name

1


2008‐2012

Teacher Retention ComparisonFive‐Year Retention Rates for the Certification Cohort of 2007

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Percen

t Retaine

d

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Texas Tech University University of North Texas University of Texas ‐ El Paso


100.0 96.5 94.4University of Texas - El Paso 91.5 90.5 9.5

100.0 95.2 91.7University of North Texas 84.8 79.0 21.01 Includes only teachers obtaining certification in FY 2007, becoming employed in AY 2008 with no teaching experience prior to 2008.

Source Data60Page

E.4Teacher Certification and Assignment Files, TEAPACE 2012

61

Performance Analysis for Colleges of Education

Changes made to the 2012 PACE Reports

Section B: Educational Trend Reports on Public Schools in the Proximal Zone of

Professional Impact. Information is provided on the new accountability system being

implemented in 2012. (See pages 12-13).

C.1: Five-Year University Production Trends. The undergraduate teacher production ratio

was eliminated. Footnote 1 was changed to read: Total enrolment also includes doctoral and

professional level degree-seeking students. (See page 37).

C.4: Initial Certification Production by Level. The number of certification categories was

increased, especially those in high school. The 5-year change column was removed. (See page

40.)

D.5a-d: Comparison of Teacher Retention Trends. A state total was added to all retention

reports.

E.1: Comparison of Teacher Production. The title was shortened by omitting the words “in

Nearby Geographic Area” from the title. (See page 56).

E.2: Five-Year Teacher Production of Consortium Universities . The five-year trend

column was removed and replaced by a five-year average. (See page 57).

E.3: Comparison of Longitudinal Certificate Production Trends. The number of

certification categories was increased, especially those in high school.

Data Corrections and Data Requests

The 2012 PACE Report is intended for use by various educational stakeholders. The data

presented should be validated by each individual university. Depending on each university’s

particular need, CREATE offers the additional support and technical assistance outlined on page

6 of this report. All inquired regarding PACE, including data corrections and data request should

be forwarded to:

Sherri Lowrey

CREATE Associate Director of Research

936-273-7661 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Mona S. Wineburg Executive Director

[email protected]

Jeanette Narvaez

Director of Operations & Research Dissemination

[email protected]

Sherri Lowrey

Associate Director of Research

[email protected]

John Beck

Higher Education Research Liaison

[email protected]

Robert Cox

Higher Education Research Liaison

[email protected]

Paula Hart Administrative Assistant

[email protected]

Nancy Olson

Administrative Secretary

[email protected]

Center for Research, Evaluation & Advancement of Teacher Education 3232 College Park Drive, Suite 303

The Woodlands, TX 77384 www.createtx.org








Performance Analysis for Colleges of Education - depts.ttu.edu · Performance Analysis for Colleges of Education ... Jeanne Burns Associate ... Performance Analysis for Colleges of

Documents