2010 central texas education proflie

1

E3 Alliance2010 Central Texas Education Profi le

2

©2010 E3 Alliance

Photocopy/Reprint Permission Statement

Permission is hereby granted to reprint or photocopy any section or in whole the E3 Alliance 2010 Profi le, provided each

copy made shows the E3 Alliance logo and copyright notice. Such copies may not be sold, and further distribution is

prohibited. Written permission must be obtained from E3 Alliance to reproduce or transmit this work or portions thereof

in any other form or by another electronic or mechanical means, including any information storage or retrieval system,

unless expressly permitted by federal copyright law. Address inquiries to E3 Alliance, Rick Olmos, 5930 Middle Fiskville

Rd., Austin, TX 78752.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode or send a letter to

Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

™

©E3 Alliance

Book Layout and Design: Rick Olmos

3

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. 03

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 04

Chapter 1

What is the Central Texas Education Profi le? ................................................................... 05

Chapter 2

The Economics of Central Texas ....................................................................................... 09

Chapter 3

Changing Demographics ................................................................................................ 21

Chapter 4

Instructional Resources ................................................................................................. 29

Chapter 5

Early Childhood Education .............................................................................................. 39

Chapter 6

K-12 Achievement ........................................................................................................... 46

Chapter 7

English Language Learner Education ............................................................................. 55

Chapter 8

Middle School Years ........................................................................................................ 64

Chapter 9

Central Texas High School Students & Graduates ............................................................ 75

Chapter 10

Central Texas Higher Education ....................................................................................... 85

Photo Credits ...................................................................................................................................... 95

©E3 Alliance

4

AcknowledgementsThis Profi le would not be possible without the support of:

E3 Alliance Board of Directors:

E3 Alliance Staff:Ms. Susan DawsonPresident & Executive Director

Ms. Millie MarquisSenior Administrative Assistant

Mr. Rick OlmosDirector of Communications & Engagement

Dr. Jim Van OverscheldeDirector of Research and Policy

Dr. Hannah GourgeySenior DirectorThe Blueprint for Educational Change and Coolege & Career Readiness

Dr. Carol FenimoreDirector of Student Success InitiativesThe Blueprint for Educational Change

Ms. Laura KoenigDirector of School ReadinessThe Blueprint for Educational Change

Dr. Ed FullerResearch Consultant

Ms. Karen HerbertGraduate Research Assistant

Ms. Christie HepburnResearch Assistant

E3 Alliance would also like to thank our partner districts, who have a unique data sharing agreement in place to share information that can be analyze to improve outcomes for students and schools. These include: Austin, Bastrop, Eanes, Hays, Hutto, Leander, Manor, Pfl ugerville, Round Rock and San Marcos.

Also thank you to the following groups and individuals who shared their knowledge and time: The University of Texas at Dallas Texas Schools Project, Ray Marshall Center at the University of Texas at Austin, Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, Dr. Debra Haas, Dr. Ester Smith and Perry Weirich of the Texas Education Agency.

We would also like to thank contributors to the 2010 Central Texas Education Profi le: Carol Fenimore, Karen Herbert, Ed Fuller, Hannah Gourgey, Susan Dawson, Rick Olmos and Christie Hepburn.

©E3 Alliance

5

The Central Texas Education Profi le is a comprehensive review of education that includes:

Who our students are and where they go to school

Community and student demographics and economic implications

Education institution characteristics

Description of Central Texas’ capacity in early childhood education

Analysis of student achievement milestones and gaps

High school outcomes, college readiness and higher education

Chapter 1:What is the Central Texas Education Profi le?

Chapter 1 - What is the Central Texas Education Profi le? ©E3 Alliance

6

Why is there a Central Texas Education Profi le?

The Profi le makes educational data as transparent and informative as possible. This objective information serves as a communication tool to engage and guide Central Texas schools, districts, colleges, policy makers, leaders and the general public around systemic change in education from early childhood through college and career success.

Who does the profi le include?

The Profi le includes the Austin-Round Rock Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis and Williamson counties. Additionally, the profi le includes the Austin Community College Service Area outlying districts: Blanco, Fredericksburg, Gonzales, Harper, Johnson City, and Nixon-Smiley. This area includes: 37 non-charter public school districts (ISDs), 20 charter school districts and 7 traditional institutions of higher education.

Figure 1.1. Geographic Area of the Educational Profi le 2010


7

Of the 37 ISDs, there are 10 partner districts. Partner districts are those that participate in E3 Alliance community engagement and alignment activities and have data agreements to share detailed student records for analysis. 77% of Central Texas Pk-12 students are enrolled in our partner districts. There are also 5 ISDs with fewer than 250 students. Data from these districts is not included in the profi le due to their student populations and FERPA (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act) population size requirements for reporting data. For the same reason, we do not collect individual student data for the 20 charter schools included in the area.

Figure 1.2. Central Texas Institutes of Higher Education


8

The region also includes the following Institutes of Higher Education: one Public 2-year College (Austin Community College), two Public 4-year Colleges (Texas State University, and The University of Texas at Austin), four Private 4-year Colleges (Concordia University Texas, Huston-Tillotson University, St. Edwards University, Southwestern University), four For-Profi t Regionally Accredited Colleges (Art Institute of Austin, DeVry University, North American University, University of Phoenix) and three For-Profi t Regionally Unaccredited Colleges (ITT Technical Institute, Texas Culinary Academy, and Virginia College at Austin Community College). This profi le primarily covers public and private colleges of Central Texas with minimal information on for profi t colleges.

Who is the E3 Alliance?

E3 Alliance uses objective data and focused community collaboration to align our education systems so all students succeed and lead Central Texas to economic prosperity.

The E3 Alliance is a regional collaborative dedicated to developing a comprehensive, data-driven view of our education landscape to better align educational systems and practices to drive higher outcomes for students and ensure a more effi cient allocation of resources, thereby increasing our competitiveness as a region. Founded in 2006 by partners the Austin Area Research Organization, The University of Texas at Austin and Austin Community College District; the E3 Alliance acts as a catalyst for change and is the P-16 Council for the Central Texas region.


9

The Central Texas region has been blessed with a largely sound economy that has functioned

better than most of the United States in the past few decades, through both strong and weak

global economic cycles. Because Central Texas contains both the state capital and many

strong institutions of higher education, and is considered to have desirable “quality of life” and

environmental surroundings, the region tends to have a much more highly educated workforce

than the rest of the state and much of the country. However, much of that workforce are recent

immigrants to our region (either to come to an institute of higher education or for jobs) and not

students who have succeeded in educational opportunities here. Also, our demographics are

working strongly against us: the growth in populations who have traditionally been challenged

in achieving high education outcomes drastically outstrips the improvements in outcomes of

current students. Incremental improvements are not enough. Unless we change educational

outcomes systemically, all factors point toward a much more poorly educated workforce and

therefore a much weaker economy in the future.

Chapter 2:The Economics of Central Texas

Chapter 2 - Economics of Central Texas ©E3 Alliance

10

Central Texas Has a Relatively Sound Economy—For Now

The United States and most of the industrial world has just experienced a signifi cant

recession, followed by the start of a “jobless recovery.” Local, state and national

budgets are consistently being overrun and effects of a multi-hundred billion dollar

recovery plan may be hard to recognize. Still, Austin and Texas enjoy a signifi cantly

lower unemployment rate than much of the United States. Across the United States

almost 1 out of 10 of the working age population is unemployed, with 1 out of 12

unemployed in Texas and 1 out of 13 unemployed in Central Texas (see Figure 2.1).

7.7%

3.0%

4.6%

8.3%

4.5%

5.5%

9.9%

3.8%

5.2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

20

00

Ap

r

20

00

Sep

20

01

Feb

20

01

Ju

l

20

01

Dec

20

02

May

20

02

Oct

20

03

Mar

20

03

Au

g

20

04

Jan

20

04

Ju

n

20

04

No

v

20

05

Ap

r

20

05

Sep

20

06

Feb

20

06

Ju

l

20

06

Dec

20

07

May

20

07

Oct

20

08

Mar

20

08

Au

g

20

09

Jan

20

09

Ju

n

20

09

No

v

20

10

Ap

r

% U

nem

plo

yed

Austin MSA Texas United States

Figure 2.1. Austin-Round Rock MSA Quarterly Unemployment Rates Compared to Texas and United States, April 2000 through April 20101

From 2000 to 2010, Austin-Round Rock MSA ranked sixth highest out of 100 metropolitan areas

in population growth

This relatively low unemployment rate is despite the large infl ux of new residents. From 2000 to 2010, Austin-

Round Rock Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) 2 ranked sixth highest out of 100 metropolitan areas in population

growth at an increase of 30.6%, from 1,265,665 to 1,652,602 residents. 3 Of these newcomers, 59,259, or 15%,

were due to international migration.


11

Central Texas, compared to the rest of the United

States, has a highly educated workforce and a

local economy that supports and is driven by the

high availability of college-educated adults. The

Austin-Round Rock MSA has the eighth highest

percentage of total adult population (25 years or

older) with a Bachelors degree at 38.2%.4 For every

Central Texas adult without a high school diploma,

there are 2.5 adults with Bachelor degrees.

But there remains a wide range in educational

attainment of our workforce. Currently, about one

in seven (13.5%) Central Texas adults have less

than a high school diploma. 5 Due to a combination

of relatively low graduation rates and high in-

migration of adults who have not completed high

school, Texas has the highest rate of adults with

less than a high school diploma of all fi fty states.

The Austin-Round Rock MSA also is made up of

a relatively young population compared to many

MSA’s that are rapidly aging. It ranks third for

percent of the adult population of working age

(defi ned as 16 to 64 years old) at 66.3%6, and has

one of the fastest growing child populations in the

country.

Up until the 1970’s, the economy of Central Texas was built largely upon state government and the university. Business and political leaders recognized the fragility of this narrow focus and undertook many focused efforts to diversify the economy, largely through high technology manufacturing, and later design companies and entrepreneurial ventures. Today, Austin is a recognized tech leader and has a more diverse economy than ever in its history. Efforts are underway to expand in biotech and other areas, and to make convergence industries part of the foundation to continued economic growth.7 The regional economy is not only more diverse than ever before, but is largely driven by occupations that require and build upon a highly educated

Chapter 2 - Economics of Central Texas ©E3 Alliance 11

12

workforce. Table 2.1 shows the composition of Austin’s workforce and the “location quotient” for the different occupation groups. Location quotient defi nes the relative concentration of a given occupation group versus the rest of the country: if over 1.0, then our region has a larger relative share of local employment than the national average. The higher the level of location quotient, the higher the relative concentration of local employment in that occupation group.

Table 2.1. Austin-Round Rock MSA Occupations Compared to United States, 20068

At the foundation of its economy, Central Texas has several industries

that not only make up a sizeable portion of the workforce but are a

source of such skills and services to the rest of the United States. Table

2.1 shows six occupation groups with location quotients of greater

than 1.10. Together these occupations represent 22.1% of the region’s

workforce. These occupation groups, generally high tech related but

also including legal and management jobs, typically require high levels

of education. Of those occupations underrepresented in our region as

compared to the national average, many are typically low education/

low wage jobs (e.g. cleaning and maintenance, social services,

transportation). However, some key high-skilled jobs that are needed to

serve the community infrastructure (e.g. healthcare practitioners) are

underserved in Central Texas so can limit overall economic growth.

Occupation Group LQ#

Employed% of Total

EmploymentComputer & mathematical 2.15 35,440 5.00%Architecture & engineering 1.81 23,620 3.30%Life, physical & social science 1.67 11,030 1.60%Business & fi nancial operations 1.43 44,770 6.30%Legal 1.29 6,780 1.00%Management 1.1 34,610 4.90%Offi ce & administrative support 1.06 131,010 18.40%Protective service 1.05 17,020 2.40%Food preparation & serving 1.05 61,890 8.70%Education, training & library 1.04 45,630 6.40%Personal care & service 1.04 18,050 2.50%Arts, design, entertainment, sports & media 1.02 9,490 1.30%Installation, maintenance & repair 1.01 29,020 4.10%Sales 1.01 76,480 10.80%Building, cleaning & maintenance 0.87 20,480 2.90%Construction & extraction 0.85 30,410 4.30%Community & social services 0.75 7,040 1.00%Healthcare support 0.7 13,090 1.80%Healthcare practitioners & technical 0.7 25,210 3.50%Transportation & material moving 0.67 34,420 4.80%Production 0.64 35,430 5.00%


13

Certainly, a balance of more

highly educated workers in

higher paying jobs increases the

earnings base of the community.

Those same workers have also

been much more insulated from

the economic downturn. As

shown in Figure 2.2, Travis County

workers who have not completed

any post-secondary degree make

up 54% of the population, but over

84% of all recent unemployment

insurance claims. Those with

college degrees were far less

likely to apply for unemployment

insurance.9

Figure 2.2. Travis County Unemployment Insurance Claimants based on Educational Attainment, 2008-2009

Between 2008-2009, over 84% of

unemployment insurance claims

are from those who have not completed any post secondary

degree


14

Workforce Projections and Education Needed

Contrasting sharply with the workforce requirements of the

20th century, the great majority of 21st century high-growth,

high-wage jobs in both the United States and Central Texas will

require some post-secondary education. The United States

Department of Labor estimates that 87% of high-wage, high-

growth jobs added in ten years (2008 through 2018) will require

some post-secondary education.10 (Some post-secondary

education is defi ned as completion of a two-year community

college academic program, a vocational certifi cate, or specialized

formal training.) Two-thirds of new job types created, 2008

through 2018, will require at least a Bachelors degree.11

In our region, the requirements are even higher (see Table 2.2):

almost no high-paying jobs in the next decade can be had with

just a high school education, and most new jobs created will

require at least a Bachelor’s degree. Of the 46,794 additional

jobs that require at least some college, 4.7% (2,195) will

also require on-the-job training and 24% (11,134) will require

licensing exams.12 Clearly, the changing job needs of the 21st

century require that we drastically increase the educational

attainment of our native workforce.

Table 2.2 Education Required for High-wage, High-growth Occupations in Central Texas, 2009-20191314

High School Education or Less

0 out of 8New Jobs

Some Post-Secondary Education

2 out of 8New Jobs

At least a Bachelor’s Degree

6 out of 8New Jobs


15

E3 Alliance has identifi ed the top 25 high-growth, high-wage occupations for Central Texas based

on analysis of workforce projections and requirements for education from Economic Modeling

Specialists, Inc. (EMSI) and the United States Bureau of Labor. Table 2.3 shows the high-wage, high-

growth occupations, their required education and the projected additional jobs for the next decade.

Occupation Required EducationAdditional

Jobs 2009-2019

Other Requirements

Licensing Exam

On-the-Job Training

Post-secondary Teachers Doctorate/Professional Degree 5,184

Computer Software Engineers, Applications

Bachelor’s Degree 3,619

Accountants & Auditors Bachelor’s Degree 3,207

Registered Nurses Associate’s Degree 3,170

Elementary School Teachers Bachelor’s Degree 3,090

Computer System Analysts Bachelor’s Degree 2,539

Sales Representatives, services Some College 2,356

Sales Representatives, excluding technical, medical products

Some College 2,236

Personal Financial Advisors Bachelor’s Degree 1,972

Computer Software Engineers, Systems Bachelor’s Degree 1,852

Business Operation Specialists Bachelor’s Degree 1,784

Network Systems & Data Comm Analysts Bachelor’s Degree 1,444

Lawyers Doctorate/Professional Degree 1,326

Middle School Teachers Bachelor’s Degree 1,320

Police & Sheriff’s Patrol Offi cers Some College 1,251

Construction Managers Some College 1,225

Securities & Commodities Sales Agents Bachelor’s Degree 1,175

Industrial Engineers Bachelor’s Degree 1,173

High School Teachers Bachelor’s Degree 1,157

Physicians & Surgeons Doctorate/Professional Degree 1,071

Financial Analysts Bachelor’s Degree 1,019Network & Computer Systems Analysts Bachelor’s Degree 964

Fire Fighters Some College 944

Computer Support Specialists Associate’s Degree 937

Sales Representatives, specialized16 Some College 779

Table 2.3 Education Requirements and Projected Additional Jobs for 25 Highest-wage, High-Growth Occupations for Central Texas, 2009-201915


16

Figure 2.3 shows the contribution of additional jobs to the Central Texas

economy by career cluster. The total additional high-wage, high-growth

jobs projected for 2009-2019 is 46,800.17 The projected annual income

from these additional high-wage, high-growth jobs is about $3 billion.18

Figure 2.3. Estimated Additional High-Wage, High Growth Jobs for Central Texas by Career Cluster19

Education & Training

10,800 jobs23%

Finance7,400 jobs

16%

Information Technology11,400 jobs

23%

STEM1,200 jobs

3%

Construction Management1,200 jobs

3%

Business Management & Administration

1,800 jobs4%

Law & Public Safety

3,500 jobs7%

Health Science4,200 jobs

9%

Marketing, Sales & Service

5,400 jobs12%

Information Techniology and

Education & Training jobs account for almost half of additional jobs


17

Education Outcomes Don’t Match Workforce Needs

While occupational projections already point to the

need for more highly educated workers, Central Texas

is experiencing relatively low levels of high school

graduation and college and career readiness. Of the

Class of 2008, only 78 % graduated on time and barely

half were ready for college-level coursework in English

language arts and mathematics.20 Furthermore,

while approximately 60 % of Central Texas high school

graduates enter college directly after graduation21, only

about 3 out of 8 (or 37%) earn a degree or certifi cate

within six years.22

Those who do not graduate create hardships not just

for themselves, but for our overall economy. The Austin-

Round Rock MSA ranks 84th out of 100 American

metropolitan areas for median hourly wage earnings for

workers with less than a high school degree at $10.18,

or an annual salary of just $21,175.23 A dropout earns,

on average, $260,000 less in personal income over his

lifetime than a peer who graduates.24 Of the students

in the Central Texas Class of 2008, approximately 3420

did not earn a high school diploma, costing the region almost $900 million

dollars in unearned income over their lifetimes.25 Of course, the Central Texas

economy also loses on money not spent within the local economy and lower

local sales taxes collected,26 as well as losses due to higher crime rates, poorer

health, and greater use of public assistance programs.27

Compounding the economic problems, those who do graduate and go on to

higher education often study in fi elds that do not map to where jobs are. We

describe our region’s “natural workforce” as those students who graduated

high school in Central Texas and went on the higher education in our region. We

can be reasonably sure that almost all of these students, if there are suitable

opportunities available, will want to take jobs and live in this same area where

they grew up and were educated. Yet a 2008 E3 Alliance study indicated that

only about 8% of this natural workforce obtained degrees that map to any of

the high-paying, growth industries targeted by the Chamber of Commerce.

To sustain growth in high technology and other brain-based industries, Central Texas needs to nurture its current and future generations of young people to graduate high school and go on to college.


18

Pressures from the Global Economy

Many who read alarming stories or statistics might believe that our educational system is

“in a crisis” or “failing our communities.” From an economic standpoint, the implications

are both real and alarming, but not because student outcomes are getting worse. In fact,

on most measures, most groups of students are getting incrementally better and have been

for many years. We have more students graduating high school and college than at any

point in our history. However, those incremental improvements are not keeping up with the

advances seen in many of the industrialized nations that we compete against. (See fi gure

2.4) Based on Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores and other ways

to compare student outcomes internationally, U.S. students compare poorly and tend to be

losing ground. Of even greater concern, as we project the skills and education needs required

for competitive jobs in a global, technologically advanced economy, we fi nd that advances

in job requirements are outpacing changes in student outcomes. It’s not that students or

schools are getting worse – it’s just that without step function improvements, our students

are losing ground competitively.

Figure 2.4. The Education Gap and Competitive Disadvantage in the Global Economy


19

How Changes in Workforce will Impact the Future Economy From 1998-99 to 2008-09, Central Texas school enrollment, pre-Kindergarten to

12th grade, increased by 38% or 80,100 more students - the equivalent of adding

a second district the size of Austin Independent School District.28,29 During the

same period, the low income student population increased from 37% to 46% and

the English language learning student population increased from 8% to 16%.30

Such rapid changes in student enrollment present great challenges to our schools

to produce students ready for college and career by the end of high school.

Because the population is rapidly shifting to include more students who have

traditionally been educationally challenged, if current population and college

enrollment trends do not change, by 2040, over 30% of Texans and 25% of Central

Texans will be without a high school diploma.31,32

Noted economist Ray Perryman has extensively studied regions around the state

to project the impact of not raising educational outcomes at least to the state’s

Closing the Gaps goals, which target parity with the national average in college-

going rates. Unless our region changes outcomes signifi cantly to reach Closing

the Gaps goals by 2030, Central Texas stands to lose 85,000 jobs and over $10

Billion in personal income and about $40 Billion in local spending.33


20

Endnotes1 Texas Workforce Commission (www.tracer2.com) and Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (http://dallasfed.org/data/

topic.html)2 The Austin-Round Rock MSA is defi ned by the U.S. Census as the area of Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis and

Williamson Counties.3 Brookings Institute, State of Metropolitan America Indicator Map retrieved http://www.brookings.edu/metro/

StateOfMetroAmerica/Map.aspx (June 2010).4 Ibid.5 Brookings Institute, State of Metropolitan America Indicator Map retrieved http://www.brookings.edu/metro/

StateOfMetroAmerica/Map.aspx (June 2010).6 Ibid.7 Market Street Services, Inc. (2007). Opportunity Austin II: Greater Austin, Texas Target Business Review. Retrieved

from http://www.austin-chamber.org/DoBusiness/AboutOpportunityAustin/TargetBusinessReview.pdf (June 2010)8 Ibid.9 CAPCOG – Central Texas 2040, February 201010 Source: US Department of Labor (2007) America’s Dynamic Workforce11 Ibid.12 E3 Alliance analysis of workforce projections and salary data from Economic Modeling Specialists, Inc. (EMSI) and

the United States Bureau of Labor. 13 Ibid.14 0% require high school education or less; 19% require some college; 9% require an Associate’s degree, 56%

require a Bachelor’s degree; 16% require a Doctorate or Professional degree. 15 E3 Alliance analysis of workforce projections and salary data from EMSI and the United States Bureau of Labor.16 Wholesale and manufacturing, technical and scientifi c products17 E3 Alliance analysis of workforce projections and salary data from EMSI and the United States Bureau of Labor. 18 Ibid.19 Ibid.20 E3 Alliance analysis of Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board P-16 Council dataset, released February 2010.21 Based on the Ray Marshall Center, Student Futures Project fi gure for high school graduates of the larger Central

Texas districts rate of college enrollment in the fall semester directly after graduation. 22 E3 Alliance analysis of Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board P-16 Council dataset, released February 2010.23 Brookings Institute, State of Metropolitan America Indicator Map retrieved http://www.brookings.edu/metro/

StateOfMetroAmerica/Map.aspx (June 2010).24 Rouse, C. (2005). “Labor consequences of an inadequate education” Paper prepared for the Symposium on the

Social Costs of Inadequate Education, Teacher College, Columbia University, October 2005.25 Based on E3 Alliance analysis of Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board P-16 Council dataset, released

February 2010.26 Rouse, C.E.. (2005).27 The Alliance for Excellent Education. (2008). The high cost of high school dropouts: What the nation pays for

inadequate high schools. Washington, DC: Author.28 E3 Alliance analysis of Texas Education Agency PEIMS data from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/99/

xplore/DistByCounty.html and http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2009/xplore/DistByCounty.html.29 According to TEA AEIS reports, Austin ISD had student enrollments of 79,496 in1998-99 and 83,033 students in

2008-09.30 E3 Alliance analysis of Texas Education Agency PEIMS data from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/99/

xplore/DistByCounty.html and http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2009/xplore/DistByCounty.html.31 Texas State Data Center http://txsdc.utsa.edu/tpepp/2006projections/summary/ (1.0 scenario projections

– 2006)32 Austin Area Research Organization. (2005) An investment in the education of Central Texas: Closing the gap in

higher education. Austin, TX33 The Perryman Group (2007) A Tale of Two States and One Million Jobs.


21

Chapter 3:Changing Demographics

This chapter examines the growth and projections in Austin and Central Texas populations

and in Central Texas schools. The student population in the region is not only growing

rapidly, but shifting quickly toward much greater proportions of students who come

from groups that have traditionally been the most challenged in educational attainment.

Dealing with this rapid shift is a great challenge for our schools and communities.

Chapter 3 - Changing Demographics ©E3 Alliance

22

Figure 3.1. Central Texas Historic and Projected Ethnic Populations, 2000-2040.2

Expanding Regional Population

The Central Texas region is one of the most rapidly growing in the country. In the city of Austin alone,

the population increased by more than 50% between 1990 and 2010. It’s expected to nearly double

over the next 30 years.1 At the same time, its demographic composition has greatly diversifi ed:

Hispanic and Asian populations have steadily increased, while the relative proportion of whites has

steadily declined. The Black population steadily made up about 16% of Austin until about 1990, when

it began to decline. By 2020 the Hispanic and white population are expected to reach parity, while the

Asian population is projected to be slightly higher than the Black population for the fi rst time.

Similar demographic trends are seen for the entire Central Texas region (Austin-Round Rock MSA),

with Hispanic and other ethnic populations (primarily Asian) increasing while the proportional white

population decreases.

41%

61%

45%

27%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Perc

en

t o

f To

tal

Po

pu

lati

on

Black Hispanic Other White

33%

51%

54%

35%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Perc

en

t o

f To

tal

Po

pu

lati

on

Black Hispanic Other White

The school age

(18 and under)

population is shifting

even more rapidly,

with Hispanic and

white populations

reaching parity

before 2020 (see

Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2. Central Texas Historic and Projected Population Age 18 and Under by Ethnicity, 2000-2040.3

As Figure 3.1 shows,

the Central Texas

region is expected to

be majority-Hispanic

by 2030. Over this

time period, the Black

population in the

region is expected

to remain steady at

about 8%.


23

Disparity in Levels of Educational Attainment

Nearly one third of Central Texas adults have no college education, with over 13%

having no high school diploma. However, almost 39% of adults have a Bachelor’s

Degree or higher.4

Of those 39% of Central Texans with a Bachelor’s degree or higher, there is signifi cant

ethnic disparity. Figure 3.3 shows Central Texas residents 25 years and older with

a Bachelor’s degree by ethnicity: 67% of Asians have attained at least a Bachelor’s

degree, and 42% of white adults, yet only 23% of black and 17% of Hispanic adults

have received a Bachelor’s degree.

Figure 3.3. Central Texas Adults, 25 Years or Older, with Bachelor’s Degrees or Higher by Ethnicity, 20085

Chapter 3 - Changing Demographics ©E3 Alliance 23

24

The populations growing the fastest are those who traditionally have not

attained highest rates of educational attainment. Without systemic changes

in educational systems and outcomes (see more in Chapter 2 - Economics),

our overall education rates and workforce readiness will fall rapidly. Further,

we can project that, without such systemic changes, things will get more

challenging before they get easier.

One of the best predictors of educational outcomes of a child is his mother’s

own attainment. Yet, with data gathered from hospital surveys, we fi nd that

the percent of births to Central Texas Mothers without a high school diploma

is almost 30%, with about 34% of Travis County babies born to a mother who

has never graduated high school. (See Figure 3.4)

30% 30%

20%

34%

14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Bastrop Caldwell Hays Travis Williamson

County

% B

irth

s

Figure 3.4. Percent Birth to Central Texas Mothers without High School Diplomas, 20086


25

Diversifying and Expanding Public School Populations

Table 3.1 shows the percent change in the Texas student-age population, compared to the

change in Central Texas students overall as well as different Central Texas subpopulations.

The overall change in Texas student enrollment was almost 20 percent, from 3.9 million

students to 4.7 million students, in the last measured 10 year period, making Texas

one of the fastest growing school populations in the country. The Central Texas student

population growth was almost double that of the state.

Figure 3.5 shows the huge

growth differential in those

students who come to our

schools with the highest

obstacles to overcome:

low income and English

Language Learning student

populations have grown at

2-4 times the rate of our

already rapidly growing

regional student population.

Table 3.1. Change in Student Enrollment, State and Central Texas, 1998-99 to 2008-097

Figure 3.5. 10-Year Student Enrollment Increase, State Versus Central Texas8

Texas

Central Texas Asian Black ELL Hispanic Low

Income White

1998-99 3,945,367 210,222 5,342 23,204 17,257 69,276 77,974 111,651

2008-09 4,728,204 290,593 13,082 29,584 46,361 124,461 133,137 122,455

% Change 19.8% 38.2% 145% 27% 169% 80% 71% 10%


169% more students

71% more students

38% more students

20% more students

0% 50% 100% 150% 200%

1

2

3

4

% Increase from 1998-99 to 2008-09

26

By 2008-2009, Hispanic

students were the largest

demographic group at 42.9%,

with white students being the

second largest population at

42.1% (see Figure 3.6). Black

students comprised 10.2%

of the total student body and

Asian students comprised

4.5%.

Figure 3.6. PK-12 Enrollment by Ethnicity, Central Texas Districts and Charter Districts, 2008-099

Figure 3.7 shows the portion of low

income students in Central Texas

Districts and Charter Districts during

2008-2009. Nearly 46% of students

are “low income” – students who are

eligible for free or reduced price lunch

through the National School Lunch

Program, or are eligible for other

public assistance (e.g., Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families).

Figure 3.7. PK-12 Enrollment by Income Status, Central Texas Districts and Charter Districts, 2008-0910

Chapter 3 - Changing Demographics ©E3 Alliance 26

27

The changes in student make up are even more dramatic when mapped over a ten year period. Figure

3.8 shows Central Texas districts (those in the 5 county MSA as well as outlying districts that are part of

the Austin Community College District service area) a decade ago versus last year. Those districts shown

in darkest blues have over 60% or over 80% of students who are considered low income. In 1999, that

was but a handful of districts. By 2009, districts east and west of the IH-35 corridor, from Williamson

county to south of Gonzales, were all districts with more than 60% low income students.

Figure 3.8. Low Income Levels, Central Texas Districts, 1998-99 and 2008-0911


28

Endnotes

1 City of Austin Demographer, retrieved November, 2009 from http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/demographics/.

2 Texas State Data Center and Offi ce of the State Demographer, 2008 population projections by county

(Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson counties), 2000-2007 migration scenario

3 Ibid.

4 Brookings Institute, State of Metropolitan America Indicator Map retrieved http://www.brookings.edu/metro/

StateOfMetroAmerica/Map.aspx (June 2010).

5 Data for Caldwell County not included due to population size reporting requirements. Asian adult data not

included for Bastrop and Hays Counties due to population size reporting requirements. Black adult data not

included for Hays County due to population size reporting requirements. “Other” adults include individuals

identifi ed as two or more races. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year

Estimates.

6 United Way Capital Area Success by 6, 2009 Indicator Report

7 E3 Alliance analysis of publicly available 1998-99 and 2008-09 TEA student data retrieved from http://

ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/99/xplore/DownloadSelData.html and http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/

perfreport/aeis/2009/download.html (respectively) in January 2010.

8 Ibid.

9 E3 Alliance analysis of publicly available 2008-09 TEA student data retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.

tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2009/download.html in January 2010.

10 Ibid.

11 Publicly available 1998-99 and 2008-09 TEA student data retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/

perfreport/aeis/99/xplore/DownloadSelData.html and http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2009/

download.html (respectively) in January 2010. Maps prepared by Garrett Groves.

12 Ibid.


29

Chapter 4:Instructional Resources

Repeated studies have shown that the single most important factor in a student’s academic

success is the quality of the teacher in the classroom. Yet “teacher quality” is a hotly debated

and hard to defi ne measure. Further, districts struggle to fi nd enough teachers of any

capability in certain high needs areas. This chapter examines how instruction is budgeted

and paid for in districts, where teachers (especially those in highest demand areas) come

from, and how they are allocated to the highest needs students and campuses.

Chapter 4 - Instructional Resources ©E3 Alliance

30Chapter 4 - Instructional Resources

All Other$569.6 M

38%

Instructional Resources

$30.3 M2.0% Curriculum

$31.8 M 2.1%

Instruction$868.3 M

58%

Figure 4.1. 2007-08 District Expenditures, E3 Alliance Partner districts2

Instructional Expenditures

In 2007-08 (the latest fi gures available), the nine E3 Alliance Central Texas

partner districts combined had about $1.5B in total district expenditures.

Of their total budgets, these districts spent over $930M on people and

resources directly or tangentially related to classroom instruction: salaries,

wages and retirement and benefi ts for teachers, paraprofessionals

and curriculum developers; teacher professional development; school

libraries; instructional media; consultants; and assessment materials.1

• $868.3 million went directly to Instruction expenses

• $30.3 million went to Instructional Resources and Media Services

• $31.8 million went to Curriculum Development And Instructional

Staff Development

Another $569.6 million went to all other district functions—

transportation, facilities, district and school administrator salaries,

computer hardware and software, debt service and so on. See

expenditure breakdown in Figure 4.1.


31

Figure 4.2 illustrates how each dollar related to instruction was spent by these Central Texas districts:

69½ cents out of each instructional dollar went to salaries and wages

14½ cents were spent on benefi ts and retirement

5½ cents went to extra duty pay for instruction (e.g. tutoring before school, after school and

Saturdays)

3½ cents were spent on curriculum development and teacher professional development

3¼ cents were spent on instructional resources and media services, to include school libraries but

not including computer hardware or software for classroom instruction

3/10 cents went to outside professional and contracted services for instruction such as contracted

teacher coaches

2/10 cents were spent on materials for teaching and assessment purchased locally by districts (does

not include textbooks budgeted by the state and purchased through the state textbook fund)

3¼ cents were spent on all other instructional expenses

Figure 4.2. 2007-08 Expenditures on Instruction, Instructional Resources and Curriculum, E3 Alliance Partner districts3

Thus, of all the investment required to run school districts, over half goes directly to salary and benefi ts of

instructional staff.


32

Distribution of Central Texas Teachers

While teacher “effectiveness” remains an elusive term, we do know that very new teachers

face huge hurdles in applying their theoretical training to effective classroom management

and content instruction. Studies vary on how long, but it typically takes teachers at least

a few years to reach full productivity, and because new teachers struggle they often have

the highest rates of turnover. Given this, one would expect that districts would work to put

more tenured teachers at higher need campuses. And indeed, many of our districts offer

stipends to teachers to work at highest need or most struggling campuses. But aggregate

numbers indicate that our most inexperienced teachers remain greatly overrepresented

at our highest needs schools. In Figures 4.3 through 4.6, we review the placement of the

least experienced teachers (those with 0 to 2 years of prior experience) into Central Texas

schools based on the distribution of low income students at that school – from the “most

affl uent” schools (those with fewer than 25% of students who are low income) to those

schools with more than 75% of the student population low income.

As shown in Figure 4.3, over ¾ of math teachers in our poorest secondary schools have

less than three years experience – more than twice the rate of the newest teachers at

the most affl uent schools.

Chapter 4 - Instructional Resources

Figure 4.3. Distribution of Secondary Math Teachers with Less Than Three Years of Experience by Income Level of School4


33

This pattern continues when looking at the distribution of inexperienced teachers in other

high needs areas of secondary science and English as a Second Language (ESL) (see

Figures 4.4-4.5). Over 85% of secondary science teachers, and 62% of ESL teachers in our

poorest schools are inexperienced, while the rate of inexperienced teachers in the most

affl uent schools, at 31% and 16% respectively, is far less.

Figure 4.4. Distribution of Secondary Science Teachers with Less Than Three Years of Experience by Income Level of School5

Figure 4.5. Distribution of ESL Teachers with Less Than Three Years of Experience by Income Level of School6

Chapter 4 - Instructional Resources ©E3 Alliance 33

34

The area where there are consistent teacher shortages and this pattern is not apparent

is in bilingual teachers (see Figure 4.6): Those schools with fewer than 25% low income

students typically have few or no bilingual students, or can attract the few bilingual

teachers that they need with at least 3 years of experience. But in all of the schools with

at least 25% of students who are low income, over 50% of the bilingual teachers have

less than three years experience. As the number of English Language Learning students

coming into our schools continues to rapidly expand, this problem will only get worse.

Figure 4.6. Distribution of Bilingual Teachers with Less Than Three Years of Experience by Income Level of School7


35

Sources of Central Texas Teachers

When most people think of teachers, they remember their own, who probably

wanted to be a teacher growing up and came through a traditional college

teacher preparation program with a four year degree in education. However,

teachers today enter teaching through a variety of routes:

• traditional college programs

• alternative certifi cation programs, usually targeted at professionals

coming to teaching later in life who receive training and certifi cation

from a private provider or an Education Service Center

• post-baccalaureate programs for those who have received a degree

in a different fi eld

• those who hold an out-of-state certifi cation, who can start teaching

in Texas schools but need to pass a Texas certifi cation exam before

the second year of teaching

• certifi cation by exam, for those who already hold a teaching

certifi cation in one fi eld and can add by passing the state

certifi cation exam for a new fi eld

The largest providers of teachers in the Central Texas region

over the last few years have been Texas State University and the

alternative certifi cation (Alt-Cert) program out of the Region XIII

Education Service Center. However, The University of Texas at

Austin supplies a growing number of math and science teachers,

especially through its UTeach program for students in other

colleges who want to graduate with education credentials, and

every other institution of higher education in the region has some

form of teacher preparation program. And more and more teachers

are coming through Alt-Cert programs of different kinds.


36

Figure 4.7 shows the sources of new Central Texas teachers in our hard-to-hire areas: secondary

mathematics, secondary science, bilingual education, and English as a Second Language. In all but

ESL, at least as many new teachers are coming from Alt-Cert programs as from traditional colleges,

and more science and bilingual teachers are come from Alt-Cert programs than all other sources

combined. Most ESL teachers receive certifi cation by exam, as schools are trying to expand the

number of current teachers who can serve larger numbers of ESL students in their classrooms.

Figure 4.7. Sources of Teachers for Central Texas Classrooms in Mathematics, Science, Bilingual, and ESL, 2007-088


37

Table 4.1 shows the sources of novice teachers by subject area in the 2007-08 school year. The largest single

teacher provider was Region XIII, but almost as many came from out of state or were certifi ed by exam.

Table 4.1. Sources of Novice Teachers for Central Texas Classrooms by Institute or Agency and Subject Area, 2007-089

Secondary Math

Secondary Science

Bilingual (Elementary

only)

ESL (Elementary &

Secondary)Total

Region XIII ACP 14 27 30 – 71

Texas Teaching Fellows 13 16 13 4 46

iteACHtexas.com 13 20 8 – 41 ACP 203

Texas ACP 10 – 9 – 19ACC ACP – – 15 – 15

Region IV ACP – – 11 – 11

University of Texas - Austin 34 23 – – 57

Texas State University 29 7 10 – 46 Traditional & Post

Le Tourneau University 5 6 – – 11 Baccalaureate 119

Texas A&M 5 – – – 5Out of State 27 15 15 10 67 Out of State 67

Certifi cation By Exam 8 5 7 43 63 By Exam 63

Emergency Permit – – 8 – 8 Emergency Permit 8


38

Endnotes

1 These include function codes 11,12, and 13 in PEIMS fi nance data standards

2 E3 Alliance analysis of data from Debra Haas, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin

3 Ibid.

4 Ed Fuller, (2009) College of Education, The University of Texas at Austin

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.


39

Chapter 5:Early Childhood Education

This chapter examines available data on children ages 0-5 in Central

Texas, including changing demographics of this population and the

implications of these changes. This section also defi nes early childhood

development and education, maps current high-quality programs as

defi ned by national and state standards and the growth in public pre-

kindergarten (Pre-K) programs in the region. Also described are current

efforts in Central Texas to defi ne and measure school readiness.

Chapter 5 - Early Childhood Education ©E3 Alliance

40

A growing body of research and policy feature the importance of early intervention as an effective means to

address low achievement in students. Indeed, a few studies on high quality Pre-K programs that longitudinally

track participants over the course of their lives found both higher outcomes in education achievement and

lower outcomes in high-risk behavior for this group as compared to children of similar background.1

In the past fi ve years, groundbreaking research in brain development and architecture indicates that the

conditions and experiences of children in their earliest years (0-5) profoundly affect not only their preparation

for school but their aptitude for learning.2 As a result, the language has begun to shift from early intervention to

prevention as essential to eliminating persistent gaps in education achievement among student populations.

Early childhood development broadly includes the whole child and focuses on processes of change during

the fi rst few years of life. Early childhood education features teaching at its center, is often associated with

“school” and “achievement” and may include promoting early childhood development.3

Demographic Breakdown of Central Texas Children 0-5 Years Old

Across the nation, the child population (ages 0-5) growth rate from 2001-2008 was 10.2%. In Texas, the child

growth population was 12.6% for the same period. Here in Central Texas, the population growth for children

ages 0-5 was 13.8%. Of particular note, however, are the rates of change in 0-5 year old low income children

who participated in the federal Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program (those from families living below

185% of the federal poverty level) from 2000-2007. Nationally, the number of low income young children

grew by 15%, for the state that growth rate was 20%, and in Central Texas, the number of low income children

under the age of 5 grew by over 40% over that same period.4 (See Figure 5.1)


Figure 5.1. Growth Rate Since 2000 of Children 0-5 Participating in WIC, Central Texas versus Texas5

41

Figure 5.2. Growth Rate Since 2000 of WIC Participants by County6

Figure 5.2 shows the growth rate since 2000 of low income children participating in WIC by county throughout the

Austin-Round Rock Municipal Statistical Area (MSA). The percentage of low income young children grew in every

county, with the percent change ranging from 18% in Caldwell County to 95% in Williamson County between 2000

and 2007.

Child growth rates for specifi c racial and ethnic subpopulations vary as well in Central Texas.


42

Child Care and Early Childhood Education

As the overall 0-5 population in Central Texas continues to increase, child

care centers and early childhood education providers will need to keep

pace with demand. Figure 5.3 shows a distribution of “quality childcare and

early childhood education centers” throughout Central Texas as of 2008

in relation to areas of concentration of children in poverty. “Quality Child

Care Centers” refer to centers who have received National Association for

the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) accreditation or a rating of “3”

or higher according the Texas Rising Star quality child care standard.7 In

addition to the challenge of the availability of accredited child care centers,

many children of poverty remain home or are in informal settings with

“friends, family, or neighbors.” Outreach to these children poses particular

challenges for local services and often requires higher costs for support.

Figure 5.3. Distribution of Quality Childcare Centers in Central Texas, 20088

In Travis County, the percentage of child care or early childhood education centers identifi ed as “high quality” increased 7% from 32% in 2008 to 39% in 2009.9

Chapter 5 - Early Childhood Education ©E3 Alliance 42

43

Central Texas Pre-Kindergarten Programs

The state of Texas offers public Pre-K to eligible 4 year-olds as well as Early Childhood

Intervention (ECI) for qualifying 3 year-olds. Eligibility for Pre-K includes: family would

qualify for free & reduced lunch, or child is an English language learner (ELL), or child

has ever received Child Protective Services, or child’s parents are military personnel on

active duty, injured or died in active duty, or child qualifi es for special needs. Qualifying

3 year-olds typically have received early childhood intervention services from the city or

county in which they reside or have medical documentation of special needs.

Figure 5.4 indicates a sustained and rapid growth in public Pre-K enrollment from 1997

through 2006. The jump from 2001 to 2002 resulted from a change in policy at Austin

Independent School District to run full-day Pre-K classes instead of half day. Austin ISD

comprises close to half of all children (46% of 2008-09 public Pre-K students in Central

Texas) enrolled in public Pre-Kindergarten in Central Texas. Across the state 199,371

children are enrolled in public Pre-K.10

5,073

9,008

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

# P

re-K

Stu

den

ts

Figure 5.4. Central Texas Public Pre-K Student Enrollment, 1997 through 2006, 3 and 4 year olds, Austin-Round Rock Municipal Statistical Area11


44

Table 5.1 provides a snapshot of public Pre-K programs for E3 Alliance partner districts. In

Central Texas, an estimated 71% of eligible 4 year-olds are enrolled in public Pre-K, however this

proportion varies dramatically across districts and across counties.12 Public Pre-K programs

may be half day (3 hours) or full day (7 hours). Central Texas districts primarily have half-day

programs with the notable exception of Austin ISD whose program is full day district-wide. In

addition, several districts have developed strategic partnerships (frequently with local Head

Start Programs) to offer full day care with half the day serving as their public-Pre-K program.

Most districts also offer transportation to their Pre-K programs. Providing transportation to

public Pre-K programs increases enrollment of eligible children.

Table 5.1. Partner District Pre-Kindergartener Programs, 2008-0913

District# Early Childhood

and Pre-KStudents

FormatTransportation

Provided?

Austin 5,002 Full Day Only Yes

Bastrop 363 Half Day Only Yes

Hays 468 Half-Day Only Yes

Hutto 152 Half Day Only No

Leander 484 Half Day Only Yes

Manor 606Half Day &

Full DayYes

Pfl ugerville 634Half Day

& Full DayNo

Round Rock 865 Half Day Only Yes

San Marcos 382Half Day

& Full DayYes

All Children Ready for School

In 2008, Central Texas adopted as one of the region’s top priorities the goal: All

Children Enter Kindergarten School Ready. Over the subsequent two years a taskforce

led by Region XIII, United Way Success by Six, and San Marcos CISD has worked with

Texas Education Agency’s Pre-K Guidelines to develop the Central Texas Guide to

School Readiness (CTGSR). This tool is designed to help Pre-K teachers to assess

their students and calibrate activities and instructional support to meet their specifi c

needs. In addition, CTGSR is used to help our region determine what percentage of

our children enter Kindergarten “school ready.”

In 2009, we piloted our study with a representative sample of Kindergarten Classrooms.

In 2010 we will expand the project to create a benchmark estimate for the percentage

of Central Texas children entering Kindergarten school ready based on a 6-week

assessment of student behavior and skills in four domains of development: Social

Emotional, Language and Communication, Emerging Literacy: Reading and Writing

and Mathematics. The intent of this effort is to establish a baseline and provide

our Early Childhood Education community with descriptive information of our entering

Kindergartener’s skill assets and defi cits.

Chapter 5 - Early Childhood Education ©E3 Alliance 44

45

Endnotes

1 Literature review found in Meaningful Investments in Pre-K: Estimating the Per Child Costs of Quality

Programs. (2008) Institute for Women’s Policy Research. http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/G718preknow.pdf

2 The Science of Early Childhood Development (2007) National Scientifi c Council on the Developing Child.

http://www,developingchild.net

3 It is important to clarify these two terms since policy decisions often hinge on the specifi city of these terms.

The above clarifi cation comes from leading research, Aletha Huston, at the University of Texas at Austin.

May 3, 2010

4 Texas Department of State Health Services from http://www.cppp.org/factbook09/county_select.php, data

are counts for the month of April. Federal Poverty Guidelines defi ne poverty for a family of four is $22,050.

WIC Partcipants must be below 185% of poverty level to participate.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 NAEYC accreditation is considered a “gold” standard for child care and early childhood education centers.

The Texas Rising Star program was designed to assist child care centers reach NAEYC accreditation and

provide specifi c levels toward that accreditation in that process.

8 Early Childhood Atlas Mississippi State, June 2008, retrieved from http://ims2.missouri.edu/

EarlyChildhood/step. Map prepared by Garrett Groves. 1.AOl/countylist.asp?tool=statusreport&state=Texas

9 Source: United Way Capital Area Success by Six Indicators Report 2010.

10 Source: TEA Academic Excellence Indicator System Data, 2008-09 school year.

11 Source: The Anne E. Casey Foundation retrieved on April 14, 2010 from http:/www.kidscount.org/cgi-bin/

cliks.cgi

12 Estimate generated from Texas Education Agency ad hoc data request of selected populations for 4,5,6,7

year olds and 2008 US Census Estimates for the total 4 year old population across Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays,

Travis and Williamson Counties. Total estimated number of eligible children in 5 county MSA is 14,438.

Total enrolled in public Pre-K for 2008-2009 is 10,303.

13 Source: Self-reports from each district, except second column. Data from second column provided through

TEA ad hoc request.


46Chapter 6 - K - 12 Achievement ©E3 Alliance

Chapter 6:K-12 Achievement

This chapter examines student achievement in Central Texas at three critical transition

points – fi fth grade, eighth grade, and eleventh grade (exit level). These are the points at

which students prepare to transition from elementary school to middle school, from middle

school to high school, and from high school to college or the workforce. These are also

logical points for assessing the effectiveness of schools at each level in preparing students

for the next stage.

Achievement is examined in three subject areas – mathematics, reading and English language

arts (ELA), and science. Mathematics and reading/ELA are skills that are fundamental

across the K-12 curriculum. Science is emerging as an equally important area for college

and workforce preparation, particularly in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics) fi elds.

47

Overall Achievement in Central TexasStudent achievement in Central Texas is similar to overall achievement in the state. As shown in Figure

6.1, Central Texas passing rates on the 2009 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) are

comparable or somewhat higher to those of the state overall. In most subjects at most grades, over 80%

of students passed. In only one subject/grade, eighth grade science, did fewer than 80% of students

pass. However, the same was true of students statewide.

There were differences between Central Texas and Texas passing rates in fi fth grade mathematics and

reading, and eighth grade math. In those subjects/grade levels, Central Texas passing rates were higher.

These differences may have been due to differences in data used to calculate passing rates for each

group. Central Texas rates were based on cumulative rates that included results from second TAKS

administrations, whereas state passing rates in fi fth and eighth grades were based on only the fi rst

administration of each test. Thus, the Central Texas rates included more scores (and, particularly, more

passing scores since some students who did not pass likely took the test a second time and passed).

Figure 6.1. 2009 TAKS Passing Rates for Central Texas (32 Districts) and Texas in Reading/English Language Arts, Mathematics and Science, Grades 5, 8 and Exit Level1

Chapter 6 - K - 12 Achievement ©E3 Alliance 47

48

Looking at achievement for Central Texas alone, there are differences among grade levels and

subject areas. As Figure 6.2 shows, achievement was high in all grades in reading/English language

arts. Mathematics achievement was higher in fi fth grade and declined successively in eighth grade

through exit level. In science, fi fth graders and eleventh graders (exit level) performed higher than

eighth graders. In addition, the lowest passing rate was in eighth grade science (76%).

These fi ndings indicate that Central Texas students are performing generally well in reading/ELA, but

are having more diffi culty in mathematics and science, at least in certain grades. Math performance

was lowest among eleventh grade students, but those students had the highest overall passing rate

in science. Fifth grade students performed generally well in all three subjects, although their science

passing rate was below those of mathematics and reading.

Figure 6.2. 2009 TAKS Passing Rates for Central Texas in Reading/English Language Arts, Mathematics and Science, Grades 5, 8 and Exit Level (32 Districts)2


49

Achievement among Demographic Groups

While overall achievement in Central Texas shows generally high performance in most areas, examining achievement

among different groups of students paints a somewhat different picture. We examined achievement among Central Texas

students according to various demographic variables that are historically correlated with academic success – ethnicity,

gender, and family income.

Figures 6.3 through 6.5 show TAKS performance by subject and grade among four primary ethnic groups found in Central

Texas school districts – Asian, black, Hispanic, and white. In mathematics (Figure 6.3), Asian and white students had

higher passing rates than black and Hispanic students at all three grade levels. Black students had the lowest passing

rates in all grades; with some dramatically lower than those of other groups. For example, only 65% of black students

passed the exit level (11th grade) mathematics test, compared to 95% of Asian and 91% of white students. The passing

rate for Hispanic students on this test, 73%, was well below that of Asian and white students as well.

Figure 6.3. 2009 TAKS Passing Rates by Ethnicity for Central Texas in Mathematics, Grades 5, 8 and Exit Level (32 Districts)5


50

In reading/ELA (Figure 6.4), Asian and white students again outperformed black and Hispanic students.

However, the differences among groups at all grade levels were smaller. The largest differences were found

in fi fth grade, in which 85% of black students and 83% of Hispanic students passed, compared to 97% of

both Asian and white students. In eighth grade, over 90% of students in all groups passed.

Figure 6.4. 2009 TAKS Passing Rates by Ethnicity for Central Texas in Reading/English Language Arts, Grades 5, 8 and Exit Level (32 Districts)6

Figure 6.5. 2009 TAKS Passing Rates by Ethnicity for Central Texas in Science, Grades 5, 8 and Exit Level (32 Districts)7

Chapter 6 - K - 12 Achievement ©E3 Alliance

51

Science achievement gaps by ethnicity are larger than in any other subject. Asian and

white students performed well at all grades, with 90% and above passing. Black and

Hispanic students, however, had no passing rate above 80% in any grade. The lowest rates

for these two groups were found in eighth grade, in which only 58% of black and 61% of

Hispanic students passed, compared to 94% of Asian and 90% of white students.

Figure 6.6 shows TAKS performance between female and male students. There

were few differences in any subject or grade level. The only notable difference is

in exit level science, in which 74% of females passed compared to 78% of males.

However, even this difference is fairly small.

Figure 6.6. 2009 TAKS Passing Rates by Gender for Central Texas in Reading/English Language Arts, Mathematics and Science, Grades 5, 8 and Exit Level (32 Districts)8

Highlights: small differences between females and males in all subjects and grades


52

Finally, Figure 6.7 shows performance among low income and non-low income students.

In every subject at every grade level, non-low income students outperformed their

low income peers. The smallest differences were in reading/ELA. In this subject over

80% of students at all grade levels passed despite disparities at all grade levels. In

mathematics, low income students, along with their non-low income peers had lower

passing rates at each successive grade level. The disparities between low income and

non-low income passing rates also got progressively greater. In grade 5, there was a 13

percentage point difference between the two groups. In grade 8, the difference was 18

points. At the exit level, there was a 21 percentage point difference between low income

and non-low income students. The greatest disparity, though, was found in eighth grade

science, in which only 58% of low income students passed compared to 88% of non-low

income students. Low income students in grade 5 and at the exit level also performed

considerably below non-low income students in science.

Figure 6.7. 2009 TAKS Passing Rates by Income for Central Texas in Reading/English Language Arts, Mathematics and Science, Grades 5, 8, and Exit Level (32 districts)9


53

In conclusion, student achievement in Central Texas is generally strong compared to Texas as

a whole. However, disparities remain among grade levels, subjects, and student demographic

groups. These disparities are important in light of the demographic and economic shifts discussed

in Chapter 2 (The Economics of Central Texas) and Chapter 3 (Changing Demographics).

As the need for postsecondary education increases, students will need to graduate from high

school better prepared for higher education. Knowledge in core subjects, such as mathematics,

language arts, and science, is critical for postsecondary success. Central Texas students

are performing generally well in reading/ELA across grade levels and demographic groups.

In mathematics, however, secondary students, who are presumably taking more advanced

mathematics courses, are performing below elementary students. In addition, black and

Hispanic students, as well as low income students, have passing rates below those of Asian,

white, and non-low income students. Science performance, which is critical to success in STEM

fi elds, is lower overall than that of mathematics or reading/ELA. Black, Hispanic, and low-income

students perform below Asian, white, and non-low income students in this subject as well.

Differences among demographic groups are of considerable concern given the shifts toward

larger Hispanic populations and larger low-income student populations in large school districts.

As these students come to make up larger proportions of school district enrollments, persistently

low performance among these groups will create numerous challenges for school districts,

institutions of higher education, and employers.


54

Endnotes

1 E3 Alliance analysis of 2008-09 TEA student data retrieved January 2010 from

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2009/download.html.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 E3 Alliance analysis of 2008-09 TEA student data retrieved January 2010 from

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2009/download.html.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.


55

Chapter 7:English Language Learner Education

This chapter describes the region’s fastest growing student demographic, English

Language Learners. The following sections defi ne English Language Learners, describe

the services provided to them, detail the demographic changes that have occurred

since 1999 and describe their academic achievement.

Chapter 7 - English Language Learner Education ©E3 Alliance

56

Here in Central Texas, the fastest growing student population from

1999 to 2009 was English language learners (ELLs). This population

grew by 169%, whereas the region’s overall student population grew

by only 38% (see Chapter 3). In 2008-09, 16.2% of Central Texas

students were ELL, similar to the state’s 17%, but increasing at a

much faster rate.

A student is classifi ed as an ELL or a limited-English-profi cient (LEP)

student by the district or campus Language Profi ciency Assessment

Committee (LPAC) according to criteria established in the Texas

Education Code §29.052. Specifi cally, the Code defi nes an ELL as

a student “whose primary language is other than English and whose

English language skills are such that the student has diffi culty

performing ordinary class work in English.” When these students

become English profi cient, the ELL classifi cation is retracted and

they are removed from the ELL group.

Chapter 7 - English Language Learner Education ©E3 Alliance 56

57

Texas law (Texas Education Code and Texas Administrative Code) requires that students who are

qualifi ed as ELL receive academic services that are contingent on the type of needs required by the

student and/or the number of students in need of those services. These services include:

o Bilingual education Programs: Bilingual programs offer classroom instruction in

two languages. The instructional program uses the student’s primary language as

the foundation on which to build both social and academic profi ciency in English.

Districts that identify 20 or more ELLs at the same grade level and in the same non-

English language are required to offer a full-time bilingual program in grades PK-5

(grade 6 is also required when clustered with elementary grades). English-Spanish

bilingual programs use state-adopted instructional materials.

Two general types of bilingual programs exist: transitional and dual-language.

• Transitional Programs: Transitional bilingual programs focus on helping

students become literate only in English, and these programs can be

early exit (where students transition in two to fi ve years) or late exit (where

students transition in six to seven years).

• Dual-language Programs: Dual-language bilingual programs focus

on helping students become literate in both English and their primary

language (biliterate) and these programs can be one-way (for ELLs only) or

two-way (ELLs and native English speakers). These programs are late-exit

programs, by defi nition.

o English as a Second Language (ESL) Programs: ESL programs offer classroom

instruction only in English. The instructional program uses second-language

instructional methods. ESL requires intensive English instruction at the student’s

English profi ciency and academic achievement level. Such instruction addresses

affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of the student. Districts not offering a

bilingual program must offer an ESL program for students PK-12 grades, and

districts offering a bilingual program in grades PK-5/6, are generally required to

offer an ESL program for ELLs in later grades.

ESL Pull-Out: This strategy requires that students be taught English

Language Arts by a certifi ed ESL teacher, but remains in classes with non-

ESL certifi ed teachers for other content areas.

ESL Content-based: This strategy requires a certifi ed ESL teacher for all

content areas.


58

Demographic Data of Central Texas English Language Learners

In 1998-99, 8.2% (1 out of 12 students) of the Central Texas

student enrollment was classifi ed as ELL. In 2008-09, 16.2% (1 out

of 6 students, 46,361) of the Central Texas student enrollment was

classifi ed as ELL. Figure 7.1 shows the changes in the concentrations

of ELLs across Central Texas. While the heaviest concentrations

remain within the school districts in Travis County, many districts

in surrounding counties also have experienced dramatic increases

in their ELL population. These population changes have occurred in

urban, suburban, and rural school districts throughout the region.

Figure 7.1. Geographic Changes in Central Texas ELL Population, 1998-99 to 2008-09


59

As of 2008-09, Austin ISD, Del Valle ISD, and Manor ISD

educate almost two-thirds (62.7%) of all ELLs in Central

Texas and these districts have seen dramatic growth

since 1998-99 (126%, 237%, 582%, respectively).

As shown in Figure 7.2, only 3 districts (all very small

districts) had decreasing ELL enrollment. 8 districts

had small increases in their ELL enrollments (by 9% to

33%), 6 districts had moderate increases (39% to 96%),

5 districts, including Austin ISD, had large increases

(100% to 200%), and 14 districts had extremely large

increases (200% to 750%).

In Texas, ELLs live in predominantly Spanish-speaking

households (92%), whereas the nation average is 79%.1

Further, 87% of the state’s ELL population is identifi ed

as economically disadvantaged.2 Nationwide, most

ELLs (73%) in elementary and secondary schools were

born in the U.S.3

726%

685%

582%

510%

459%

400%

398%

384%

270%

269%

250%

247%

241%

237%

133%

133%

126%

110%

106%

96%

92%

90%

58%

39%

33%

25%

25%

17%

12%

11%

11%

9%

-63%

-13%

-21%

-200% 0% 200% 400% 600% 800%

HUTTO ISD

FLORENCE ISD

MANOR ISD

BASTROP ISD

WIMBERLEY ISD

LEANDER ISD

PFLUGERVILLE ISD

HAYS CONS ISD

ROUND ROCK ISD

DRIPPING SPRINGS ISD

HARPER ISD

GEORGETOWN ISD

LAGO VISTA ISD

DEL VALLE ISD

GRANGER ISD

LAKE TRAVIS ISD

AUSTIN ISD

ELGIN ISD

JARRELL ISD

EANES ISD

LOCKHART ISD

TAYLOR ISD

GONZALES ISD

LULING ISD

JOHNSON CITY ISD

COUPLAND ISD

SAN MARCOS CONS ISD

NIXON-SMILEY CONS ISD

FREDERICKSBURG ISD

MCDADE ISD

PRAIRIE LEA ISD

SMITHVILLE ISD

THRALL ISD

LIBERTY HILL ISD

WAELDER ISD

% Change in ELL Enrollment, 1998-99 to 2008-09

Figure 7.2. Percentage Change in ELL Population by District, 1998-99 to 2008-09


60

Enrollment in ESL/Bilingual Program across Central Texas districts

Figure 7.3 shows the breakdown of students enrolled in the different Bilingual and ESL

programs across Central Texas. (For a description of these types of programs, please review

the Introduction of this chapter). Students classifi ed as ELL but who were not served may

fall into this category for several reasons, including parent denial of services or parent not

contacted or failed to respond to the district requests. Overall, 39% of ELLs received ESL

instruction, 54% received bilingual instruction that focused on transitioning to English, just

over 4% received bilingual instruction that focused on biliteracy, and 2% were not served by

any program.

ELL Achievement

The growth in the ELL population in Central Texas creates both opportunities and challenges

for districts across the region. In an era in which global competition has never been

stronger, Central Texas has the opportunity to cultivate a biliterate generation and doing

so would provide signifi cant economic advantages. At the same time, it is challenging but

critical that we identify the most effi cient and effective instructional strategies that enable

high academic achievement of ELLs.

This section describes key themes and issues our region must address as we educate this

growing generation of students.

Figure 7.3. 2008-2009 Central Texas Enrollment Breakdown by ESL/Bilingual Programs

Count Percent TRANSITIONAL BILINGUAL/EARLY EXIT

2,968 7%TRANSITIONAL BILINGUAL/LATE EXIT 20,983 47%

DUAL LANGUAGE / TWO-WAY 211 0.4%DUAL LANGUAGE / ONE-WAY 1,758 4%ESL CONTENT-BASED 10,844 24%ESL PULL-OUT 6,899 15%NOT SERVED IN BILINGUAL OR ESL 998 2%

TOTAL 44,661 100%


61

TAKS Achievement

As a reminder, ELLs are students who are not profi cient in English and when they

become profi cient they are removed from the group. Therefore, any assessment

results for ELLs include only students who are not currently English profi cient. In

addition to current ELLs, results for former ELLs are presented below. Former

ELLs are students who are not ELL now but who were ELL during either of the

two prior school years.

Current ELLs TAKS results for Central Texas students show a substantial

achievement gap between ELLs and non-ELLs. Figure 7.4 illustrates gaps in

ELL TAKS passing rates compared with all students for 2009 at 3rd, 5th 8th and

11th grades in Reading or in Mathematics. (Region XIII’s total ELL population is

50,438, 92% of which fall within the geographic scope covered in the Central

Texas Education Profi le.) Gaps increase signifi cantly in upper-level grades.


Figure 7.4. ESC Region XIII ELL 2009 TAKS Passing Rates Compared to all at 3rd, 5th, 8th, 11th grades, Reading or ELA and Math

62

Former ELLs: In contrast to the challenges on standardized tests faced by ELLs, students who are

“former ELLS” – those who have mastered the English language suffi ciently to receive instruction in

English, generally perform better than those students who were never classifi ed as ELL, especially at

early grades. As shown in fi gure 7.5, recent exiters from ELL performed better in passing standardized

tests than their peers who were never in the ELL cohort at 3rd and 5th grades, and roughly comparably

at 8th grade. However, those students who were still transitioning to English in high school, either

because they entered the country as an adolescent or had never mastered English in multi-year

programs, performed much more poorly than their non-ELL peers at exit level. It should be noted that

passing English may not always indicate competency in academic literacy. Former ELLs have lower

passing rates in science at all levels, probably due to continued struggles with the academic literacy

required to understand scientifi c terms.

The opportunity to raise a high achieving bilingual generation of students in Central Texas is extraordinary

and compelling for creating a versatile, globally- savvy workforce. Central Texas ELL students continue to

make gains in achievement but lag in their progress. Across Region XIII, the ELL graduation rate hovers

at 34% for the Class of 2008. While initially alarming, it is important to note that these students have

remained classifi ed as ELL through their senior year, and therefore by defi nition, have not mastered

English to the level where they can take courses in English. Future research of this population while

likely include reviews of the length of time students remain in ELL programs within and across school

districts. Because of the rapid growth of ELL students, it is clear that the region must achieve higher

rates of success in building highly literate, globally competitive English learners.

Figure 7.5. Central Texas 2009 TAKS Passing Rates Among Non-ELLS and Recent Exiters from ELL Programs

“Exiters” refers to a combination of two data variables - students exited for one year and students exited for two years.


63

Endnotes

1 Payan, Rose and Michael Nettles (2009) Current State of English Language Learners in the U.S. K-12 Student

Population. Paper delivered at December Education Testing Service La Raza Conference retrieved June 17,

2010 http://www.ets.org/Media/Conferences_and_Events/pdf/ELLsympsium/ELL_factsheet.pdf

2 2009 Enrollment in Texas Public Schools Division of Accountability Research ,Department of Assessment,

Accountability, and Data Quality , Texas Education Agency.

3 Capps, R., Fix M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J. and Herwantoro, S. (2005) The New Demogrpahy of America’s

Schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC. Urban Institute.


64

Chapter 8:Middle School Years

Middle school and junior high school are levels of schooling that were designed

to act as the bridge between elementary and high schools. The fi rst junior high

school was established in 1909 in Columbus Ohio1. Junior High Schools, now

often called intermediate schools, typically include grades 7 and 8, with faculty

organized into academic departments that operate more or less independently

of one another, and were originally designed to better prepare students for the

industrial age. The middle school movement of the 1950’s saw this model as

inadequately addressing the needs of students undergoing signifi cant social

and physical changes, and so created a new model, usually including grades

6 through 8, with an emphasis on grade level cohorts of teachers working

together across subjects, and typically advocated a “home room” to support

students through adolescent diffi culties.

Chapter 8 - Middle School Years ©E3 Alliance

65

The middle school format has now replaced the junior high format by a ratio of about ten to one across the U.S.2, and

most districts in the Central Texas region use the middle school (grade 6-8) structure, although there remains much

debate about how true many schools are to the intended “middle school model” of interdisciplinary teams providing

strong student support.

The middle schools years, whether structured in a “middle school” or “intermediate school” format (we will use the

term middle school in the remainder of this chapter) are deemed a critical transition period that drive high school

and college success or failure. Elementary schools are typically smaller, neighborhood based, have strong adult

volunteer involvement, and teacher “home rooms” with strong teacher/student relationships. They are focused on

teaching students basic skills of reading, math, and subject area foundational concepts and facts. Middle school

(in any model) introduces multiple separate disciplinary subjects with many more teachers and confusing schedules,

and starts to introduce more critical thinking and conceptual skills for students – exactly those skills that are critical

to college readiness and success. The combination of major academic and structural changes with the social and

hormonal challenges of the middle school years make this transition very diffi cult for many students. Some thrive. At

the same time, teachers and counselors often report that “while they physically drop out in high school, our students

are mentally dropping out in middle school.”

Academic results at middle school refl ect these

diffi culties. While achievement gaps in test passing

rates have been consistently closing in our region

over the last decade, disciplinary rates increase

tremendously and achievement in critical subject

areas falls during middle school years. Many students

continue to pass subjects but do not develop the

critical thinking depth that will later indicate college

readiness. In order to determine the root of student

diffi culties and leverage to increase outcomes for

all students, we must examine this phenomenon

through longitudinal data analysis of individual

students, examining key factors and outcomes over

time and how student experiences can be used to

predict and change these outcomes. E3 Alliance

has undertaken such longitudinal analysis of

middle school students. This, in combination with

aggregate “snapshots” of data, help provide a more

robust picture of middle school in Central Texas.


66

8th Grade as a Keystone

8th grade – the end point of middle school – is considered a keystone year for student success. This is one

of two focus years for the state’s “student success initiative” when students must show basic profi ciency on

standardized tests in order to move to the next grade (unless a waiver is given by a grade placement committee).

But success or failure at 8th grade, of course, starts much earlier.

Table 8.1. Academic Performance of 2008-09 8th Graders Who, in 4th and 5th Grade, Did Not Pass Reading TAKS3

8th Grade Outcome% “Struggling

Reader”StudentsDid not reach 8th grade on-time or Passed No 8th Grade TAKS or Passed 1 TAKS

30%

Passed 2 TAKS 18%

Passed 3 TAKS 29%

Passed All 8th Grade TAKS 23%

Table 8.2. Academic Performance of 2008-09 8th Graders Who, in 4th and 5th Grade, Had Passed Reading TAKS4

8th Grade Outcome% “Reading”

StudentsDid not reach 8th grade on-time or Passed No 8th Grade TAKS or Passed 1 TAKS

1½ %

Passed 2 TAKS 2%

Passed 3 TAKS 8%

Passed All 8th Grade TAKS 90%

E3 Alliance undertook a study to follow

elementary school students longitudinally

to review 8th grade outcomes based on their

performance in 4th and 5th grade. This study

compares students who are “struggling

readers”, meaning those students who failed

both 4th and 5th grade TAKS tests in reading,

versus “reading students”, meaning those

students who passed both the 4th and 5th

grade Reading TAKS. As shown in Tables

8.1 and 8.2, the outcomes of these groups

are very different, indicating that 4th and 5th

grade reading is very predictive of 8th grade

performance across all subjects (not just

reading). Only 23% of struggling readers

passed all of the 8th grade TAKS subject

tests (ELA, mathematics, science, and social

studies), while 30% of them either did not

advance to 8th grade on-time or did not pass

3 or more of their TAKS tests. Of the “reading

students” in elementary school, only 1% failed

3 or more tests, and 90% passed all of their

8th grade TAKS tests.


67

Success and Predictors of Success in and Through Middle School

Across the region, more and

more students are passing 8th

grade TAKS tests in all subjects,

and achievement gaps between

different ethnic and income groups

are closing. Based on aggregate

passing rate data for all students

across the Central Texas region

(see Figures 8.1 and 8.2) , it is clear

that not only are more and more

students successfully passing the

reading and mathematics TAKS

tests over the past 6 years, but

that achievement gaps between

different student groups- both by

income and ethnicity – are rapidly

closing. It is important to note

that, due to the “ceiling effect”

of mature tests (especially in

reading), this closing of gaps may

not be refl ected in student scale

scores: even if passing rates are

improving, ethnic minorities

and poor students continue

to have much lower scores on

tests. Nevertheless, more and

more students passing over time

across all demographic groups is

excellent news for our region.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

% S

tud

en

ts P

ass

ed

8th

Gra

de M

ath

em

ati

cs

Asian Black Hispanic White Low Income Non-Low Income

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

% S

tud

en

ts P

ass

ed

8th

Gra

de R

ead

ing

Asian Black Hispanic White Low Income Non-Low Income

Figure 8.1. Six Year Trend of Passing Rates of Central Texas 8th Graders in Mathematics, 2005-20095

Figure 8.2. Six Year Trend of Passing Rates of Central Texas 8th Graders in Reading, 2005-20096


68

Achievement gaps in aggregate passing rates, while improving, still show cause for concern,

especially in math and science. As shown in Figure 8.3, passing rates for reading are relatively close

across all ethnic groups, but vary by as much as 27 percentage points in math and almost 34 points

in science. School districts across the region continue to be concerned about student performance

in middle school math and science.

Figure 8.3. Passing Rates of Central Texas 8th Graders in Mathematics, Reading and Science, 20097

Chapter 8 - Middle School Years ©E3 Alliance 68

69

Recognizing the critical nature of middle school, E3 Alliance undertook a longitudinal study

of students from 37 districts across the Central Texas region, tracking 5th graders from 2002-

03 through 11th grade in 2008-09. The purpose was to analyze the factors that predict their

reaching 11th grade on-time by Fall 2009 with grade-level knowledge and skills, which was

defi ned as passing the four core subject area 10th grade statewide exams. The study traced

academic outcomes against disciplinary, attendance and demographic data for fi ve years

spanning from the last year of elementary school, through middle school to the fi rst two years

of high school.

As shown in Figure 8.4, as a group, Central Texas students improved over time in passing the

grade level reading statewide exam but languished on the mathematics exam. The cohort of

students who progressed from 5th grade in 2002-03 to 9th grade in 2007-08 without ever

being retained in grade increased their passing rate in reading from 83% to 92%. However,

the percentage of students who passed TAKS Math declined as they were promoted annually

to a higher grade, from 88% of the 2002-03 cohort of 5th graders passing the TAKS Math to

72% passing in grade 9 (2006-07); a decline of over 16 percentage points. And this cohort

does not include those students who did poorly enough to be retained in any grade.

Figure 8.4. Achievement of On-Grade Level Students of the 2002-03 5th Grade Cohort in Reading and Mathematics through 2006-078


70

Much has been written of the “9th grade bulge,” with far more students classifi ed as 9th graders behind where their

on-time grade placement should be than occurs at any other grade level, Pre-K to 12. This scenario plays out with

the 2002-03 5th grade cohort: between .6% and 2.6% of students are retained in grade in 5th through 8th grade

years, but more than 1 in 10 students are retained in 9th grade with insuffi cient credits (see Figure 8.5). Ninety-

seven percent of the cohort entered high school in 2006-07; however only 88.1 percent progressed from ninth

grade to tenth grade in 2007-08, reinforcing the “ninth grade bulge” phenomenon , and indicating that middle

school did not prepare a large percentage of our students for successful progression in high school.

1253 Students

74Students106

Students110Students94

Students

0.6%1.3%

2.1%2.6%

11.6%

0

600

1200

1800

Retained at5th grade

Retained at6th grade

Retained at7th Grade



# S

tud

en

ts

0.0%

3.0%

6.0%

9.0%

12.0%

15.0%

% S

tud

en

ts

# Students % Students

Figure 8.5. Number and Percent of Retained Students of the 2002-03 5th Grade Cohort9

As shown in Table 8.3, the odds of a student being retained at 8th grade is more than any other year of middle

school, but still quite low. This outcome fl ies in the face of education policy: the state legislature has determined

through the Student Success Initiative that 8th grade is one of just two critical years where students who do

Table 8.3. Retention Rates of 2002-03 5th Grade Cohort through 2007-0810

Year Retention Rate

Retained at 5th Grade 1 out of 170 students





not pass all TAKS tests must

be retained in grade unless a

grade placement committee

(made up of parent, principal,

and others) determines that it is

more appropriate for the student

to move forward. While well over

40% of 8th graders do not pass all

statewide tests, only about 2.6%,

or 1 in 38 students, is actually

retained. These are often the

students who later drop out or get

insuffi cient credits to advance in

high school.


71

While the movement to change from “junior high school” to middle school” was

driven in large part by the desire to address the social and behavioral needs of

middle schoolers, Central Texas cohort data shows that structural barriers to

student success in middle school remain. The number of disciplinary actions

taken against students in the Central Texas cohort increased more than four-fold

when students moved from fi fth grade (elementary school) to sixth grade (middle

school), kept increasing all through middle school and only began to decrease

as students entered high school (when many of these students had started to

drop out). As shown in Figure 8.6, the number of students against whom formal

disciplinary actions (e.g. in-school or out-of-school suspension, transfer to an

alternative school setting) almost tripled between 5th and 6th grades, and the

average number of actions per student almost doubled.

1,260

3,9144,160

3,894

3,264 3,407

1.9

3.5

4.03.9

3.7

3.3

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

# C

oh

ort

Stu

den

ts D

isci

pli

ned

0

1

2

3

4A

vera

ge #

Dis

cpli

nary

Act

ion

s p

er

Stu

den

t

# Students # Actions Per Student

Further, disciplinary actions were not representative of the overall student

population: in 2002-03, students against whom disciplinary actions were

taken were typically male (79.8 percent), economically disadvantaged (68.1

percent), at-risk of dropping out (43.8 percent), and special education students

(26.9 percent). Black and Hispanic students were much more likely to be

represented in the group of students receiving disciplinary actions than in their

cohort group (17% of disciplinary cohort versus 10% of overall student cohort

for Black students; 52% versus 38% for Hispanic students12).

Figure 8.6. Disciplinary Actions of 2002-03 5th Grade Cohort through 2007-0811


72

8th Grade Outcomes as Predictors of Success

Passing a TAKS test in a given subject is an important indicator of grade level performance, but it is

considered a “low bar” or minimum skills test. To better understand actual student profi ciency, and

well as a student’s growth or regression over time, it is more instructive to use student scale scores.

A 2100 score is required to pass the TAKS (or reach the standard for grade-level profi ciency), and a

score of 2400 is considered commended.

Figure 8.7 shows 8th Grade math TAKS scale score grouping (ranging from failed by a large margin to

commended) as predictor of 9th Grade and 11th Grade performance in mathematics. (This fi gure only

includes students who were present for the 8th, 9th, and 11th grade tests from 2006-2009 – not those

who left school or for some reason were not present to take one or more TAKS tests.)

Those with the lowest scale scores in math in 8th grade were much less likely to pass in 9th grade, but

the good news is that if they continued in school through 11th grade, they were much more likely to

pass by then (9-38% at 9th grade passed; 32-65% passed in 11th grade). However, those who were

commended in 8th grade almost always passed, but only 79% were still commended in 11th grade.

Figure 8.7. 2007 9th Grade and 2009 11th Grade Mathematics TAKS Passing Rates by 2006 8th Grade Mathematics TAKS Performance (Scale Score)13


73

A regression analysis of 2003 8th grade mathematics TAKS scale scores and 2006

11th grade mathematics TAKS passing rates found that students with a scale score

of 1986 or below on the 8th grade mathematics TAKS were at least 90% less likely to

pass the 11th grade mathematics TAKS than students with an 8th grade scale score of

2100 or better. 14

On the 2003 8th grade mathematics TAKS, the scale score of 1986 was equivalent

to answering 22 out of 50 questions correctly, while a scale score of 2100 was

equivalent to answering 30 out of 50 questions correctly. Students with a scale score

of 2176 or better on the 2003 8th grade mathematics TAKS were at least six times

more likely to pass the 11th grade mathematics TAKS than a student with an 8th grade

scale score of 2100 or better. In short, 8th grade performance is not only a keystone

year in understanding cumulative skills development of a student and his or her ability

to navigate the oft-confusing structure of middle school, but a strong predictor of

ultimate academic success. Only by digging deeper than basic aggregate test passing

rates can we start to understand the drivers of middle school success as predictors of

ultimate student outcomes.


74

Endnotes

1 Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_school#Canada_and_the_United_States

2 Ibid.

3 Ed Fuller, School of Education, University of Texas - Austin

4 Ibid.

5 E3 Alliance analysis of TEA TAKS data retrieved from

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/reporting/taksagg/dnload.html

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 EGS Research and Consulting (2010). Longitudinal Analysis of a Central Texas Cohort of

Students 2002-03 to 2007-08. Austin, TX: E3 Alliance These data only include students on-

grade level and do not include students retained in previous years. These data cannot be

compared to state passing rates.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 EGS Research and Consulting (2010). Longitudinal Analysis of a Central Texas Cohort of

Students 2002-03 to 2007-08. Austin, TX: E3 Alliance

12 Ibid.

13 Ed Fuller, School of Education, University of Texas - Austin

14 Ibid.


75

Chapter 9:Central Texas High School Students & Graduates

Central Texas can expect to hire 46,800 people for high-growth, high-wage jobs over the next

decade, all of which need at least some post-secondary education and three-fourths will need at

least a bachelor’s degree. Over the past few decades, many non-Austinites moved to Austin to fi ll

these jobs.

If these jobs are to be fi lled by local talent—that is, recent and future high school graduates of

Central Texas, then the young adults in high school need to earn a high school diploma that

includes challenging coursework or develop a specifi c trade or a combination thereof in order to

be ready for college and career.

This chapter discusses the patterns and trends of Central Texas high school students and describes

current rates of on-time high school graduation and current course-taking patterns within the

context of cultivating a natural workforce—that is, a workforce educated in Central Texas and

staying to work in Central Texas—that is ready for the higher paying jobs of the 21st century.

Chapter 9 - Central Texas High School Students & Graduates ©E3 Alliance

76

9th Grade Student Outcomes

As shown by Figure 9.1, nine percent of Central Texas 9th graders in 2006-07 did

not accumulate enough credits to be promoted to 10th grade. This retention rate

– which only includes fi rst-time 9th graders -- exceeds any other grade level. A total of

1,875 fi rst-time 9th graders did not advance to 10th grade at the end of the 2007-

08 out of 20,598.

There is great variation among Central Texas school districts for the 9th grade

retention rate. Six districts have 9th grade retention rates of less than two percent,

while four districts have 9th grade retention rates of 19 percent or higher.1

As in other grades, 9th grade retention varies by ethnicity, income and gender. Asian

student data are not available due to population size reporting requirements.

Figure 9.1. Retention Rates of 2007-08 First-time Central Texas 9th Graders2

Chapter 9 - Central Texas High School Students & Graduates ©E3 Alliance 76

77

Figure 9.2. 2008-09 First-time Central Texas 9th Graders Taking 10th Grader Courses4

Table 9.1 demonstrates the disparity among student

populations in slightly different if more compelling terms.

Of note is the great disparity between low income and non-

low income students. Differences among race/ethnicity

are stark as well. It should be noted that Asian student

data are not available due to population size reporting

requirements.

Achievement in 9th grade serves as a bell weather not only

for poor student outcomes but for student success as well.

Many 9th graders take 10th grade coursework during their

fi rst year of high school. In 2008-09, 24 percent of all fi rst

time 9th graders took Geometry, English Language Arts 2,

World History or a combination thereof. Figure 9.2 shows

the breakdown of 10th grade course taking by student

population. Asian students demonstrate the greatest

propensity to be taking these upper-level courses followed

by White students. Both Black and Hispanic students are

under-represented among this group of students. Only

12% of fi rst-time 9th graders taking 10 grade courses are

classifi ed as low income.

Student Population 2007-08 Retention Rate

Any 9th grader 1 out of 11

Black 9th grader 1 out of 8

Hispanic 9th grader 1 out of 7

White 9th grader 1 out of 22

Low Income 9th grader 1 out of 9

Non-Low Income 9th grader 1 out of 30

Female 9th grader 1 out of 13

Male 9th grader 1 out of 10

Table 9.1. Retention Rates of 2007-08 First-time Central Texas 9th

Graders3


78

Tech-Prep for Central Texas High School Students

High school also offers the opportunity for students to gain awareness and begin to focus on a

selection of industry occupations in preparation for entering the workforce either directly after

completing high school or postsecondary training.

In Central Texas, Career and Technology Education (CTE) opportunities are directed primarily

through Austin Community College’s Capital Area Tech Prep Consortium (CATPC). CATPC

covers school districts in nine counties throughout Central Texas and combines academic and

technical courses to students to raise awareness and to prepare them for specifi c careers.

Because it is administered through Austin Community College many of the courses within

the program offer college credit in escrow. This type of credit allows students to receive the

technical credit upon enrolling at Austin Community College. CATPC serves students from 23

Central Texas Districts (Figure 9.3). Six districts (Dripping Springs, Fredericksburg, Georgetown,

Johnson City, Lago Vista and Lake Travis) have at least 6 percent of their high school students

taking Tech Prep courses.

Figure 9.3. 2007-08 District Participation in Austin Community College’s Tech Prep Program5


79

The growth in participation in Tech

Prep programs through CATPC

has been substantial over the last

several years. Figure 9.4 shows the

increase in the number of students

participating across the region.


Figure 9.4. Participation in Tech Prep by Central Texas High School Students, 2004-05 through 2007-08

80

This growth in student participation corresponds to an equally substantial increase in the

range of courses and career options available in local area high schools. Table 9.2 provides

a table of the career-based courses available as of 2007-2008.

Table 9.2. Availability of Tech Prep Programs for Central Texas High School Students, 2004-05 through 2007-086

Across the state, almost 89% of school districts with high schools have Tech Prep programs,

and a study of graduation patterns for the period between 1994-95 and 2006-07 showed

lower annual drop-out rates for participating students than non-participating students.7


81

On-Time Graduation

One of the most important and, at times, confounding milestones of student achievement to be

measured is graduation. Defi nitions of drop outs, of graduation have varied over time and among both

researchers and practitioners alike. This report specifi cally looks at on-time graduation rates (within 4

years of fi rst entering 9th grade) as a measure of student achievement.

Given the high 9th grade retention rate and heightened requirements to earn a high school diploma,

the trend is for fewer high school students to graduate within four years. Specifi cally, these enhanced

course requirements include8:

• 9th graders of 2007-08 (Class of 2011) and later are required to complete four years of coursework

in each of the four core subject areas (English language arts, mathematics, science, and social

studies). Mathematics coursework must cover Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II and a course beyond

Algebra II.9

• 9th graders of 2004-05 through 2006-07 (Classes of 2008 through 2010) were required to complete

three years of math and three years of science to include Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II.10

Before this, Texas high school graduation requirements did not include Algebra II.


82

In addition to the changes in the course requirements, the rigor of the standardized assessments for high school is

increasing:

• 9th graders of the 2010-11 (Class of 2014) and earlier are required to pass the Texas Assessment of Knowledge

and Skills (TAKS) at the 11th grade level in four core subject areas (mathematics, science, social studies, and

English language arts, which includes a written essay).

• 9th graders of 2011-12 (Class or 2015) and later are required to pass end-of-course examinations for 12 high

school courses (Algebra I, Geometry and Algebra II; English I, II and III; Biology, Chemistry and Physics; World

Geography, World History and United States History).11 These examinations represent a higher standard of

learning since the student will be required to perform for the standards of each course, whereas the grade-level

TAKS as the similar level (e.g., the 9th grade Math TAKS compared to the Algebra I end-of-course exam) includes

content learned at earlier grade levels.

There are three other outcomes for high school students besides graduating on-time, as tracked by the Texas Education

Agency:

• Earn a G.E.D. by August of their graduating year. This is very rare; only 1.7 percent of all 2004-05 fi rst-time 9th

graders in Texas earned their G.E.D. by August 2008.12

• Continued for a fi fth year of high school. This outcome is counted as part of the high school completion rate,

yet the state does not follow these continuers to know whether they ever earn a high school diploma or not.

• Dropping out of school, which includes enrolling in a G.E.D. program but not earning the G.E.D. by August of their

graduation year.

Figure 9.5. Outcomes for 2004-05 Central Texas First-time 9th Graders by August 2008 (4 Years)13

Figure 9.5 shows the four-year

outcomes for fi rst-time Central Texas

9th graders of 2004-05. Out of 17,801

fi rst-time 9th graders that did not

move to another school in Texas but

outside the Central Texas region and

did not leave high school as “other

leavers” (see below), 1,802 or 10.1

percent were continuers, 1,745 or 9.8

percent were dropouts, and 298 or

1.7 percent were G.E.D. recipients.


83

Figure 9.6 shows the four-year outcomes for fi rst-time Central Texas 9th graders by student

population. The rate of G.E.D. recipients was very close in value, ranging from 1.5 percent to

1.9 percent across the different student populations. Also, each student population roughly

had the same number of dropouts as continuers. However, white students have a much

lower percent dropouts and percent continuers (4.8 percent) than their non-white peers,

which ranged from 14 to 19 percent for dropouts and 16 to 17 percent for continuers.

Note that these statistics on 9th grader outcomes do not include students who left high school with circumstances labeled as “other”. “Other leavers” include any student who, when

un-enrolling in his or her school, claims to be moving to another state, returning to home

country, leaving to enroll in private school, or leaving to be home-schooled. None of these

circumstances allow for the Texas Education Agency to know whether any of these students,

at some point, ever earn a high school diploma.

Out of the 20,774 fi rst-time 9th graders in 2003-04 that did not move to another school in

Texas outside the region, 2,973 – or one out of seven – left high school as an “other leaver”.

“Other leavers” may fall into several categories that include: “left for another state, returned

to home country, left to be homeschooled,” although many of them never complete school yet

are not classifi ed as drop outs because they are not tracked.

Figure 9.6. Outcomes for 2004-05 Central Texas First-time 9th Graders by August 2008 (4 Years) Disaggregated by Student Demographics14


84

Endnotes

1 E3 Alliance analysis of TEA data of 32 Central Texas districts retrieved from

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/research/pdfs/retention_2006-07_supp.pdf in October 2009.

2 E3 Alliance analysis of data from the Education Research Center at the Texas Schools Project, University of

Texas at Dallas. .

3 Ibid.

4 Source: E3 Alliance analysis of Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board P-16 Council data, released February

2010.

5 Source: Austin Community College 2008 Factbook. Map prepared by Garrett Groves.

6 Source: Austin Community College 2008 Factbook.

7 Data retrieved from State Tech Prep website: http://www.web-magik.com/techpreptexas/facts.html July 2010.

8 The following covers the required coursework fore a student to graduate on the recommended high school plan

(RHSP), which was established in the 2007 Texas legislature as the expected program of courses for a student

to graduate with a high school diploma. There is an option for parents to waive this requirement, but this option

is generally discouraged except for situations involving an individualized education plan (I.E.P.) for a student

receiving Special Education services. While the policy is for few students to graduate with on the minimum plan,

19 percent of the graduates of 2007-08 earned a minimum plan diploma.

9 19 TAC, Chapter 74, subchapter F§74.63

10 19 TAC, Chapter 74, subchapter E§74.53.

11 Source: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3.aspx?id=3302&menu_id=793

12 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board P-16 Council data, released February 2010.

13 E3 Alliance analysis of Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board P-16 data, released February 2010.

14 Ibid.


85

Chapter 10:Central Texas Higher Education

This chapter briefl y describes the Texas Higher Education Coordinating

Board’s Closing the Gaps Initiative and College and Career Readiness

Standards (CCRS), describes trends in College and Career Readiness

locally, provides an overview of higher education in Central Texas and

examines college-going patterns for Central Texas high school graduates,

and enrollment patterns of local colleges and universities.

Chapter 10 - Central Texas Higher Education ©E3 Alliance

86

The Closing the Gaps in Higher Education Initiative: In October 2000, the Texas Higher education Coordinating

Board (THECB) approved a state plan to increase college enrollment and success rates for all Texas high school graduates

with a particular emphasis on student populations that have been traditionally under-represented in higher education.

This initiative sought to “close gaps in higher education” across four key areas: student participation, student success,

institutional excellence, and institutional research. By focusing on these four areas, Closing the Gaps intended to improve

the economic forecast of Texas over the next several decades as the state experiences radical changes in the demographics

of its population.

Increased enrollment broadly includes adults who may have previous college experience, adults with no college experience,

and direct-to-college high school graduates. Direct-to-college refers to students who enroll in higher education the fall

immediately following their high school graduation. Increasing direct-to-college enrollment has shown to improve overall degree completion rates. Indeed, for low income students,

entering postsecondary education directly from high

school and remaining in the top 40% overall GPA in the

freshman year increases degree completion from 45% to

69%.1 Because college-going directly after high school is so

predictive of increased college success rates, this chapter

primarily addresses direct-to-college enrollment rates.

College and Career Readiness: In addition to the call for

higher enrollment and success rates for Texas high school

graduates, the THECB and Texas Education Agency (TEA)

adopted a set of College and Career Standards in 2008 to

help ensure Texas high school graduates are prepared for

success in the post secondary experience. These standards

incorporate the four core subject areas of English Language

Arts, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies as well as

broad reaching set of Cross-Disciplinary skills that contribute

toward student success in education or career.

For the past two years, THECB and TEA have undertaken

curriculum alignment between high school and entry-level

college courses in all core subject areas. Pending approval

and State Board of Education adoption of curriculum

recommendations, Texas high schools will be required to meet

the new standards through course-specifi c examinations

called “End of Course Exams.” The 9th grade class of 2011-

2012 will be the fi rst to take these examinations in lieu of the

Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS).

Chapter 10 - Central Texas Higher Education ©E3 Alliance 86

87

When looking at key milestones

for fi rst time 9th grade students

to graduate on time, college and

career ready, however, the declining

pipeline of students is alarming.

Figure 10.1 describes achievement

thresholds necessary for 9th

graders to reach the outcome of

graduating on time, college and

career ready. It is important to note that this chart does not track a cohort of 9th graders through high school, but looks at fi rst-time 9th graders in 2003-04 and the subset of those 9th graders found to have graduated in the region in 2007-08. There will be some portion of these students who changed districts within the region or who may have left the region and later returned.

College and Career Readiness of Central Texas High School Students

In addition to aligning curriculum, Texas Education Agency also has developed an indicator for college and

career readiness for high school graduates defi ned as meeting criteria listed in the table below in Exit Level

TAKS or SAT or ACT.2

Subject Exit-level TAKS SAT ACT

ELA >= 2200 scale score on ELA test

ANDa “3”;or higher on essay

OR

>=500 on Critical Reading

AND>=1070 Total

OR >= 19 on English

AND>= 23 Composite

Math >= 2200 scale score on mathematics

test OR

>=500 on Math AND

>=1070 Total OR

>= 19 on Math AND

>= 23 Composite

In Central Texas the percentage of high school graduates who meet this defi nition of college and career ready

has been steadily rising.

The Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce calculates the rate of college and career readiness from the

senior class (versus graduates) and includes students in special education programs has also seen an

overall increase over the last 3 years. The most recent percentage of seniors who are college and career

ready across the region is 47%.

Figure 10.1. Outcomes of 2003-04 Central Texas First-Time 9th Graders


88

“Career” Readiness in College and Career Readiness Standards (CCRS)

When fi rst published as a draft for review, the CCRS met with concern from Texas public

schools who wanted to make sure that students who were not immediately college-bound were

included in the new standards. As a result of these observations, the Texas Higher Education

Coordinating Board added a chapter entitled “Cross-Disciplinary Skills” aimed at capturing a

set of “professional skills” needed by both college-bound students and graduates entering the

workforce directly.

In January 2010, the Austin Human Resources Management Association (AHRMA) Workforce

Readiness Committee administered a survey of most valued workforce readiness attributes in entry-level employees eliciting responses from over 120 H.R. managers across a range of

industries and company-sizes. Survey included attributes from categories including Basic

academic skills (Math, Reading, Writing, Science, Technical), Personal, Social, and Cognitive

skills. HR managers rated personal attributes of ethics, dependability and integrity highest

with technical and communication skills considered critical as well.3


89

Higher Education and Central Texas High School Graduates

In Central Texas there are 7 traditional public and private not-for-profi t colleges and university headquarters with

an additional 9 for-profi t postsecondary institutions. This section focuses on Central Texas high school graduates

and their direct-to-college enrollment patterns in not-for-profi t post secondary institutions.

In 2009 Central Texas not-for-profi t and for-profi t postsecondary institutions enrolled 112,140 undergraduates.

About half of these students graduated from Central Texas high schools.4 For-profi t institutions enroll approximately

5 percent (5,230) of all undergraduates in Central Texas.5 Of the nine for-profi t institutions that enroll at least

250 students, only three – Art Institute, DeVry University and University of Phoenix – are accredited, meaning their

college credits are transferable to other colleges.

All data on higher education student outcomes reported in the 2010 Profi le excludes data from for-profi t colleges

because their data is not collected by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board or the National Student

Clearinghouse. Table 10.1 provides a breakdown of undergraduate enrollment across Central Texas colleges.

Over one third of all undergraduates are enrolled

at Austin Community College the vast majority of

which are Central Texas residents. While another

third of all undergraduate students also attend

The University of Texas at Austin, the majority of

these students come from outside the Central

Texas region. In fact, Central Texas representation

is relatively high at The University of Texas at

Austin with 20% (6,605) of the undergraduates

coming from regional high schools. Texas State

University also sees a large and growing portion

of Central Texas high school graduates enrolling at

35% (9,786) of total enrollment.6 Private four-year

colleges in Central Texas enroll 41 percent of their

undergraduates from local area high schools.

Table 10.1. Institutions of Higher Education in Central Texas


90

Enrollment Trends of Central Texas High School Graduates

In 2007-08, 13,646 students graduated from Central Texas high schools.11 Of those, 55%

enrolled in college by fall 2008 and about 30% of graduates (4,058) enrolled in a local

institution of higher education.

Austin Community College receives the greatest percentage of Central Texas high school

graduates at 17% of the total number enrolling. About 58% of those enroll directly to

college. One quarter (3,656) of Central Texas high school graduates enrolled within

the state of Texas but outside the region. For the region’s larger school districts, which

include Austin, Bastrop, Eanes, Hays, Leander, Manor, Pfl ugerville, Round Rock and San

Marcos, 62% of the graduating class of 2008 enrolled directly to college.12 Figure 10.3

shows data from the Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources’ Student Futures Project and describes college enrollment patterns. Of note, 9% of local high

school graduates enrolled in college out of state.

Figure 10.3. College Entry of 2007-08 High School Graduates of Central Texas Large Districts by Fall 200813


91

Despite overall increases in college enrollment rates over the past 5 years, gaps in enrollment

rates exist among different student populations. Figure 10.4 shows disparities across race/

ethnicity as well as gender. Female enrollment rates exceed male enrollment rates by 7

percentage points while the gap between White and Hispanic college enrollment rates reaches

26 percentage points.

San Marcos44%

Manor45%

Bastrop45%

Hays51%

Austin58%

Pflugerville62%

Round Rock69%

Leander69%

Eanes87%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

% Low Income

% H

S G

radu

ates

En

roll

Dir

ect-

to-C

olle

ge

Income level of the student’s family also links to college enrollment trends. Direct-to-College

enrollment rates are generally lower for districts with higher proportions of low income

students as shown in Figure 10.5.

Figure 10.4. College Entry by Ethnicity and Gender, 2007-08 High School Graduates of Central Texas Large Districts by Fall 200814

Figure 10.5. Fall 2008 Direct-to-College Rates of Central Texas Large Districts versus Poverty Level of District15


92

Postsecondary Success and Central Texas High School Graduates

Within six years following high school graduation, 19 percent of Central Texas highs school graduates

(1998-1999 through 2000-01) had earned a bachelor’s degree from a Texas university, 1 percent

had earned a certifi cate and 2 percent had earned an associate’s degree.16 There is no data on

the portion of students who earned post-secondary degrees or certifi cates through institutions

outside the state of Texas. Also, data is currently unavailable on the types of high school diplomas

or courses taken by the high graduates who did later complete a college degree.

Central Texas Public Colleges and Universities

This section describes student outcomes for Central Texas public colleges and universities which

include Austin Community College, Texas State University and The University of Texas at Austin.

Similar to high school, fi rst year students (freshmen) far outnumber the sophomores, juniors and

seniors. Figure 10.6 provides a breakdown of the number of students in each class year based on

a 4-year Bachelor’s degree. Almost 40 percent, or 38,870, of the 98,550 undergraduates enrolled

in Central Texas public colleges are freshmen.

68 percent (26,580) of the freshmen are enrolled at Austin Community College (ACC). It is important

to note that through its open enrollment mission, ACC’s student population includes a much higher

proportion of students needing developmental education (remediation) and therefore who remain

“freshman” in status despite taking multiple courses.

38,867

20,879

16,767

22,034

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Cen

tral

Tex

as P

ub

lic C

olle

ge

Stu

den

ts,

Fall

20

0

Figure 10.6. Distribution of Central Texas Public College Students by Class Year, Fall 2009 (undergraduate only)17


93

Figure 10.7 shows the 2009 demographic breakdown of Central Texas public college students. About

40 percent are students of color and more than half are female.

9%7%

23%

60%

1% 1%

54%

46%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Asian

Black

Hispanic

White

lnte

rnatl.

Unknown

Fem

aleM

ale

Cen

tral

Tex

as P

ub

lic

Co

lleg

e S

tud

ents

, Fa

ll 2

00

Central Texas Residents Enrollment at Central Texas Colleges

As we launch into the second decade of the 21st Century, an educated workforce will provide the

versatility needed for the region to continue to compete globally and thrive locally. To achieve this goal

of an educated workforce, strategies must include efforts to increase postsecondary education for our

region’s adult population as well.

In 2008, the population of Austin-Round Rock MSA was 1.65 million, or 7% of the population of Texas.

Of the total metropolitan population, 29 percent, or 482,560, are within the “college-going” age range,

which is defi ned as 18 to 34 years old.19 Discounting for the 38 percent of the adults 25 years and older

already possessing a Bachelor’s degree, there are potentially 390,000 Central Texans who could earn a

college degree relatively early in their wage-earning years.

Two public colleges are positioning themselves to increase their enrollment of Central Texas residents.

ACC’s enrollment has grown 12 percent from fall 2008 to fall 2009 and will be position to increase

enrollment even more upon the expansion of ACC’s taxing district. Texas State University at San Marcos

opened its campus in Round Rock in and has yet to fully realize the increase enrollment for this area of

Central Texas. Both ACC and Texas State University in San Marcos are pursuing expansion of the dual

enrollment with local high schools, which would also increase Central Texas resident enrollment rates.

In addition, St. Edward’s University and Concordia University are expanding enrollments, particularly of

“non-traditional” students. Central Texas has a wealth of higher education resources that our high school

graduates and adult learners can take better advantage of to prepare for the 21st century economy.

Figure 10.7. Demographics of Central Texas Public College Students, Fall 2009 (undergraduate only)18


94

Endnotes

1 Adelman, C. (2006) The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion from High School Through College.

Washington, DC.: US Department of Education. p.xxvi

2 Defi nition drawn from Texas Education Agency’s Academic Excellence Indicator System.

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2009/glossary.html

3 The survey was conducted to validate fi ndings from an E3 Alliance commissioned white paper on

professional skills. For the AHRMA survey report fi ndings please visit

http://www.theblueprintforeducationalchange.org/Media/ahrma-wfr-survey-02-2010.pdf

4 Source: Texas Schools Project Education Research Center, University of Texas – Dallas.

5 Based on Fonte, R.W. (2010). An analysis of the higher education institutional capacity to meet the post-

secondary educational needs of local residents: A comparison of Austin with Raleigh, Denver,

Portland and Phoenix. Austin, TX: Austin Area Research Organization.

6 Ibid.

7 Fall 2009 enrollment. Source: Texas Schools Project, University of Texas – Dallas.

8 Ibid.

9 Fall 2008 enrollment. Source: Texas Schools Project, University of Texas – Dallas.

10 Any institution with an enrollment of at least 250 students, accredited or unaccredited. Estimated Fall

2008 enrollment. Source: Fonte, R.W. (2010).

11 Source: Texas Schools Project, University of Texas - Dallas

12 Ray Marshall Center Student Futures Project, University of Texas – Austin, May 2009.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 Source: Texas Schools Project Education Research Center, University of Texas – Dallas.

18 Ibid.

19 Fonte (2010).


95

Photo Credits:

©E3 Alliance

p46 Microsoft Exchange

p53 guillermo ossa, www.colombiafoto.com



p56 graph, ilker via Creative Commons


p63 Aron Kremer, www.stock-exchang

p64 PA Junior High, via Creative Commons



p73 tim & annette, www.stock-exchang




p79 Wikipedia via Creative Commons


p84 GHerrera, www.stock-xchang

p85 Ruth Elkin, www.stock-exchang

p86 Harrison Keely, www.stockexchang

p88 Dan MacDonald, www.stockexchang


Cover Tom Stephan, 2010, Joy on Capitol Grounds

p05 Tiffany Szerpicki, www.stock-xchang

p09 Arvindn via Creative Commons

p10 graph, guitargoa via Creative Commons


p12 graph, ilker via Creative Commons

p13 Carlos Chavez, www.stock-xchang


p17 Sara Haj-Hassan, www.stock-xchang

p19 guillermo ossa, www.colombiafoto.com



p29 Heriberto Herrera, www.stock-xchang


p36 Loretta Humble, www.stock-exchang



p39a Microsoft Exchange

p39b Microsoft Exchange

p41 Wikipedia via Creative Commons


2010 central texas education proflie

Documents

e3 alliance staff

e3 alliance logo

e3 alliance board of

central texas higher

economics of central

e3 alliancebook layout

early childhood education

middle school years