Texas

Texas
http://www.tea.state.tx.us

School and Teacher Demographics
Per pupil expenditures
(CCD, 2000-01)

$6,539 1,040 241

Number of Districts
(CCD, 2001-02)

Number Schools

of

Charter

(CCD, 2001-02)

Number of Public Schools
(CCD)

Elementary Middle High Combined Total Number of FTE Teachers
(CCD)

1993-94 3,366 1,293 1,056 348 6,063

2001-02 3,870 1,533 1,384 813 7,600

Elementary Middle High Combined Total
(SASS)

1993-94 108,043 50,827 55,763 6,806 221,439

2001-02 131,750 64,643 73,754 8,195 278,342

Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject taught, grades 7-12 1994 71% 65 70 67 2000 64% 57 57 60

English Math Science Social Studies

Key

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

n/a # High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Texas

Sources of Funding District Average
(CCD, 2000-01)

Student Demographics
Public school enrollment
(CCD)

Pre-K K-8 9-12 Total (K-12) Race/ethnicity
(CCD)

1993-94 120,446 2,560,607 927,209 3,487,816

2001-02 170,101 2,846,113 1,147,233 3,993,346

1993-94 American Indian/Alaskan Natives Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic White Other Students with disabilities
(OSEP)

2001-02 * 3% 14 42 41 2001-02 11% 2000-01 14%

* 2% 14 36 48 1993-94 11% 1993-94 12%

Students with limited English proficiency
(ED/NCBE)

Key

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

n/a # High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Texas

Migratory students
(OME)

1993-94 2001-02 3% 5% All schools by percent of students eligible to participate in the Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Program† (CCD, 2001-02)

†150 schools did not report.

Statewide Accountability Information
(Collected from states, January 2002 for 2001-02 school year.)

Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment Above 50 percent passing on assessment for all racial and ethnic groups and low-income students. (Pass=70 percent correct in reading and math). Expected School Improvement on Assessment Pass rate increases 5 percent per year for each group. Title I Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Schools Same as statewide goal.

Title I 2001-02
(ED Consolidated Report, 2001-02)

Number of schools Schools meeting AYP Goal Schools identified for Improvement Title I Allocation
Key

Schoolwide Programs 3,970 87% 3,725 88% 62 86% $786,011,631

Targeted Assistance 589 28% 505 12% 10 14%

Total 4,559 100% 4,230 93% 72 2%

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

n/a # High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Texas
(Includes Basic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start, Migrant Education, and Neglected and Delinquent, ED, 2000-2001)

NAEP State Results
Grade 4 Reading, 2003 Proficient level and above Basic level and above Math, 2003 Proficient level and above Basic level and above 27% 60 33% 82 Grade 8 26% 71 25% 69

Texas
Student Achievement 2001-02 Assessment: Texas Assessment of Academic Skills. State Definition of Proficient: Score of 70 or above on Texas Learning Index. Elementary School Grade 4 Reading Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities
Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced

9% 11 14

54% 58 64

37% 31 22

21 18 13

66 66 61

13 16 27

Key

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

n/a # High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Texas

Grade 4 Mathematics Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities
Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced

6% 8 10

84% 85 85

10% 8 5

13 10 10

83 86 84

3 4 6

Student Achievement Trend Reading 4th grade Meets or Exceeds Proficient

Middle School Grade 8 Reading Students in:
Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced

Key

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

n/a # High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Texas

All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities

6% 8 11

64% 68 73

30% 24 16

36 15 16

62 73 75

2 13 9

Grade 8 Mathematics Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities
Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced

8% 10 13

79% 80 81

14% 10 7

29 14 19

68 80 78

2 6 3

Student Achievement Trend Mathematics 8th grade Meets or Exceeds Proficient

Key

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

n/a # High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Texas

High School Grade 10 Reading Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities
Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced

6% 8 11

72% 76 79

22% 16 10

34 15 20

65 79 75

1 7 5

Grade 10 Mathematics Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities High School Indicators High school dropout rate (CCD, event)
Key

Partially Proficient

Proficient

Advanced

8% 10 14

82% 83 82

10% 6 4

29 14 28

69 83 71

2 4 1

1993-94
n/a%

2000-01
4%

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

n/a # High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Texas

1994-95 Postsecondary enrollment
(NCES, High school grads enrolled in college)

2000-01
53%

50%

Key

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

n/a # High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies