Part One: Houston County                                                                                                                                                             

By Will Johnson                                                                                                                                                       Messenger Reporter

HOUSTON COUNTY – School districts throughout the State of Texas received their accountability ratings from the Texas Education Association (TEA) for 2016 and the results for the school systems in Houston County showed mostly positive results.

The TEA ratings, however, revealed one district and two campuses in Houston County with some concerns. Crockett ISD – as a whole – was not rated because of “data integrity issues” at the district level, as was Crockett Elementary School/Early Childhood Center. The other campus with some concerns, according to the TEA, was the Grapeland Junior High, which received a rating of “Needs Improvement.”

A press release, dated Aug. 15, from the TEA stated, “The TEA today released the 2016 state accountability ratings for more than 1,200 school districts and charters, as well as more than 8,600 campuses statewide. The ratings reveal that approximately 94 percent of school districts and charters across Texas have achieved the rating of Met Standard. Districts, campuses, and charters receive one of three ratings under the accountability system: Met Standard, Met Alternative Standard, or Improvement Required.”

According to the media release, “The 2016 ratings are based on a system that uses a range of indicators to provide greater detail about the performance of a district or charter and individual campuses throughout the state. The performance index framework includes four areas:

  • Student Achievement – Provides a snapshot of performance across all subjects
  • Student Progress – Measures year-to-year student progress by subject and student group
  • Closing Performance Gaps – Emphasizes the academic achievement of economically disadvantaged students and the lowest performing racial/ethnic student groups
  • Postsecondary Readiness – Emphasizes the importance of earning a high school diploma that provides students with the foundation necessary for success in college, the workforce, job training programs or the military

In order to earn a rating of Met Standard or Met Alternative Standard, a campus or district must meet the target on either Index 1 or Index 2 plus meet the targets on Index 3 and Index 4. For the 2015-2016 school year, the number of districts achieving a rating of Met Standard or Met Alternative Standard stayed relatively stable to the previous years.”

The TEA Further indicated, “Campuses that receive an accountability rating of Met Standard are also eligible for distinction designations. Distinction designations are awarded to campuses based on achievement on performance indicators compared to a group of 40 campuses of similar type, size and student demographics. Distinction designations will be publicly released by Sept. 16.”

In Crockett ISD, the district received a rating of “Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues.” The Crockett High School campus received a rating of “Met Standard.” The CHS Index One (Student Achievement) target score was 60 and the campus received an 80. The CHS Index Two (Student Progress) target score was 17 and the campus received a 28. The CHS Index Three (Closing Performance Gaps) target score was 30 and the campus received a 46. The CHS Index Four (Postsecondary Readiness) target score was 60 and the campus received an 80.

The Piney Woods AEC of Choice campus received a rating of “Met Standard.” The AEC Index One target score was 35 and the campus received a 38. The AEC Index Two target score was 8 and the campus received a 17. The AEC Index Three target score was 13 and the campus received a 19. The AEC Index Four target score was 33 and the campus received a 93.

The Crockett Junior High School campus received a rating of “Met Standard.” The CJHS Index One target score was 60 and the campus received a 61. The CJHS Index Two target score was 30 and the campus received a 34. The CJHS Index Three target score was 26 and the campus received a 30. The CJHS Index Four target score was 13 and the campus received a 24.

The Crockett Elementary campus was paired with the Early Childhood Center and received a rating of “Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues.”

In Grapeland ISD, the district received a rating of “Met Standard.” The GISD Index One target score was 60 and the district received a 69. The GISD Index Two target score was 22 and the district received a 30. The GISD Index Three target score was 28 and the district received a 32. The GISD Index Four target score was 60 and the campus received a 63.

The Grapeland High School campus received a rating of “Met Standard.” The GHS Index One target score was 60 and the campus received a 69. The GHS Index Two target score was 17 and the campus received a 26. The GHS Index Three target score was 30 and the campus received a 45. The GHS Index Four target score was 60 and the campus received a 67.

The Grapeland Junior High School campus received a rating of “Improvement Required.” The GJHS Index One target score was 60 and the campus received a 58. The GJHS Index Two target score was 30 and the campus received a 26. The GJHS Index Three target score was 26 and the campus received a 26. The GJHS Index Four target score was 13 and the campus received a 16.

The Grapeland Elementary School campus received a rating of “Met Standard.” The GES Index One target score was 60 and the campus received a 72. The GES Index Two target score was 32 and the campus received a 51. The GES Index Three target score was 28 and the campus received a 38. The GES Index Four target score was 12 and the campus received a 31.

GISD Superintendent commented on the accountability ratings during a school board meeting held on Monday, Aug. 15. He said, “The Junior High was the only one who didn’t make and it’s the same as it has been. It received a rating of ‘Improvement Required.’ Again, they just barely missed. It’s not because of the teachers, we have some very good teachers and they have some very good plans. We did see some improvements and we saw growth in certain areas, but it wasn’t quite enough to get over that hump. To be honest with you, I anticipate getting over it this year.”

In Kennard ISD, the district received a rating of “Met Standard.” The KISD Index One target score was 60 and the district received a 65. The KISD Index Two target score was 22 and the district received a 35. The GISD Index Three target score was 28 and the district received a 32. The GISD Index Four target score was 60 and the campus received a 76.

The Kennard High School campus received a rating of “Met Standard.” The KHS Index One target score was 60 and the campus received a 67. The KHS Index Two target score was 17 and the campus received a 37. The KHS Index Three target score was 30 and the campus received a 33. The KHS Index Four target score was 60 and the campus received a 77.

The Kennard Elementary School campus received a rating of “Met Standard.” The KES Index One target score was 60 and the campus received a 60. The KES Index Two target score was 32 and the campus received a 30. The KES Index Three target score was 28 and the campus received a 28. The KES Index Four target score was 12 and the campus received an 18.

In Latexo ISD, the district received a rating of “Met Standard.” The LISD Index One target score was 60 and the district received a 77. The LISD Index Two target score was 22 and the district received a 35. The LISD Index Three target score was 28 and the district received a 39. The LISD Index Four target score was 60 and the campus received a 77.

The Latexo High School campus received a rating of “Met Standard.” The LHS Index One target score was 60 and the campus received an 80. The LHS Index Two target score was 17 and the campus received a 31. The LHS Index Three target score was 30 and the campus received a 40. The LHS Index Four target score was 60 and the campus received a 79.

The Latexo Elementary School campus received a rating of “Met Standard.” The LES Index One target score was 60 and the campus received a 72. The LES Index Two target score was 32 and the campus received a 36. The LES Index Three target score was 28 and the campus received a 40. The LES Index Four target score was 12 and the campus received a 21.

In Lovelady ISD, the district received a rating of “Met Standard.” The LLISD Index One target score was 60 and the district received an 87. The LLISD Index Two target score was 22 and the district received a 32. The LLISD Index Three target score was 28 and the district received a 48. The LLISD Index Four target score was 60 and the campus received a 71.

The Lovelady High/Junior High School campuses received a rating of “Met Standard.” The LLH/JHS Index One target score was 60 and the campuses received an 85. The LLH/JHS Index Two target score was 17 and the campuses received a 32. The LLH/JHS Index Three target score was 30 and the campus received a 44. The LLH/JHS Index Four target score was 60 and the campus received a 74.

The Lovelady Elementary School campus received a rating of “Met Standard.” The LLES Index One target score was 60 and the campus received an 89. The LLES Index Two target score was 32 and the campus received a 34. The LLES Index Three target score was 28 and the campus received a 51. The LLES Index Four target score was 12 and the campus received a 41.

Will Johnson may be contacted via e-mail at wjohnson@messenger-news.com.