Copy of HISD Magnet Demographics and Recommendations Data Chart 1 19 11

8/8/2019 Copy of HISD Magnet Demographics and Recommendations Data Chart 1 19 11

1/195

2010-2011 HISD ProjectElementary Magnet Schools

District Area Elementary Current Program Pro

6 Askew Elementary School SWVP Vanguard DWVP

9 Bell Elementary School SWP Physical Development

2 Berry Elementary School SWP Environmental Science same

2 Bruce Elementary School SWP Fine Arts same

1 Burbank Elementary School SWAS Physical Development

CurrentProgram Type

ProposedProgram Type

NeighborhoodSchool

NeighborhoodSchool

SWP-

Scho

olWideProgramSWAS

-SchoolWithinASch

oolSUS-Separatean

dUniqu

SWP- School Wide ProgramSWAS- School Within A SchoolSUS- Separate and Unique School

SWVP- School Wide Vanguard ProgramDWVP- District Wide Vanguard Program


2/195

u


3/195


4/195


District Area Elementary Current Program PCurrent

Program TypeProposed

Program Type

SWP-

Scho

olWideProgramS



5 Elrod Elementary School SWP Math/Science/Technology

2 Felix Cook Elementary School SWP Fine Arts

3 Garden Villas Elementary School SWAS Fine Arts SWP

NeighborhoodSchool

NeighborhoodSchool


5/195


District Area Elementary Current ProgramCurrent


Program Type

SWP-

Sch

oolWideProgramS

SWP- School Wide ProgramSWAS- School Within A School

SUS- Separate and Unique SchoolSWVP- School Wide Vanguard ProgramDWVP- District Wide Vanguard Program

8 SWP Fine Arts same

1 Harvard Elementary School SWP Math/Science/Technology same

Gregory-Lincoln ElementarySchool (K-8)


6/195




Program Type

SWP-

SchoolWideProgramS



1 Helms Elementary School SWAS Dual Language SWP

5 Herod Elementary School SWAS Vanguard DWVP

1 Herrera Elementary School SWP Integrated TechnologyNeighborhood

School


7/195




Program Type

SWP-

Scho

olWideProgramS



5 Horn Elementary School SWP Academy same

5 Kolter Elementary School SWAS Foreign Languages SWP

b


8/195




Program Type

SWP-

Sch

oolWideProgramS



8 Lantrip Elementary School SWAS Environmental Science SWP

9 Law Elementary School SWP Math/Science/TechnologyNeighborhood

School


9/195




Program Type

SWP-

Sch

oolWideProgramS



4 Lockhart Elementary School SWP Math/Science/Technology same

5 Longfellow Elementary School SWP Fine Arts same


10/195




Program Type

SWP-

Sch

oolWideProgramS



5 Lovett Elementary School SWP Fine Arts same

4 MacGregor Elementary School SWP Fine Arts same


11/195




Program Type

SWP-

Sch

oolWideProgramS



2 Oak Forest Elementary School SWVP Vanguard DWVP

9 Parker Elementary School SWAS Fine Arts SWP


12/195




Program Type

SWP-

SchoolWideProgramS



3 Patterson Elementary School SWP Literature/Fine Arts same

2 Pleasantville Elementary School SWVP Vanguard DWVP


13/195




Program Ty

SWP-

Sch

oolWideProgramS



5 Poe Elementary School SWP Fine Arts same

8 Pugh Elementary School SWP Math/Science/Technology same


14/195


District Area Elementary Current Program ProCurrent


Program Type

SWP-

Scho

olWideProgramS

SWP- School Wide Program

SWAS- School Within A SchoolSUS- Separate and Unique School


4 Red Elementary School SWP Math/Science/Technology same

5 Rice Elementary (K-8) SUS Technology Dedicated Magnet

7 River Oaks Elementary School SWVP DWVPVanguard with IB Primary Years

Programme

Fine Arts with IB Primary Years Neighborhood


15/195




Program Type

SWP-

Sch

oolWideProgramS



1 Roosevelt Elementary School SWVP Vanguard DWVP

2 Ross Elementary School SWAS Math/Science/Technology SWP


16/195




Program Type

SWP-

Scho

olWideProgramS



8 Rusk Elementary School (K-8) SWAS Math/Science/Technology SWP

8 Scroggins Elementary School SWAS Literature/Fine Arts NeighborhoodSchool


17/195


District Area Elementary Current Program PrCurrent


Program Type

SWP-

Scho

olWideProgramS




7 Sinclair Elementary School SWP Communications/Technology same La

7 SUS Vanguard Dedicated DWVP

1 Travis Elementary School SWVP Vanguard DWVP

5 Twain Elementary School SWP same

T. H. Rogers Elementary School

(K-8)

Literature/Fine Arts including IB

Primary Years Programme


18/195




Program Type

SWP-

Scho

olWideProgramS




6 Valley West Elementary School SWAS Math/Science/Technology

7 Wainwright Elementary School SWAS Math/Science/Technology

2 Wesley Elementary School SWP Math/Science/Technology same

NeighborhoodSchool

NeighborhoodSchool


19/195




Program Type

SWP-

Scho

olWideProgramS



5 SWP Math/Science/Technology

4 Whidby Elementary School SWP Health Science MSAP

8 SWP Dual Language same

9 SWVP Vanguard DWVP

West University ElementarySchool

NeighborhoodSchool

William Wharton K-8 DualLanguage Academy

Windsor Village Elementary

School


20/195




Program Type

SWP-

Scho

olWideProgramS




4 Woodrow Wilson Montessori SWP Montessori same

NOTE: The Essential Elements of Magnet Schools: 1. Diversity of the Student Population; 2. Unique and Innovative Curriculum; 3. Impro

Development/Specialized Teaching Staff (supporting the Magnet theme); 5. Dynamic Partnerships (Parent and Community Involvement);

NOTE: Minority Group Isolations - Current demographics are 92% minority and 8$ non-minority


21/195


Recommendation Rationale

No Not theme-based Test Recognized Yes

No Yes Recognized Yes

No Yes Lottery Recognized Yes

No Yes Academically Acceptable Yes

No Yes Recognized Not evident

Is the diversity ofthe student

population within2% of the district-

wide average of92% minority /8%

non-minorityrespectively?

Is there evidence of aUnique and Innovative

Theme-BasedCurriculum?

Entrance

Criteria

What is the StudentAchievement

Accountability Rating:TAKS 2009-2010?

Is there evidence ofSpecializedProfessional

Development andSpecialized Teaching

Staff?

Is

Vanguard SW is not considered aMagnet program by definition.

Does not meet Magnet programrequirements. School capacity is

at issue.

Unavailable asof 1/14/11

Diversity is 99%/1% and needs tobe improved by 2% (-/+) over the

next 3 years.


next 3 years.



at issue.



22/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is

No Yes Exemplary Yes

No Not theme-based Test Recognized Not evident

No Yes Exemplary

Diversity is 99%/1% and needs tobe improved by 2% (-/+) over thenext 3 years. Moving to a SWP

should make this possible.



Diversity is 100% minority. Byrevising to a SWP with a newtheme and improved facility,

diversity should improve by 2%each year over the next 3 years.


PD is not specific toprogram theme


23/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is


No Yes Recognized Yes

No Not theme-based Test Exemplary Yes

See MSAP diversity goal. No MSAP funded MSAP Lottery Exemplary MSAP funded

Yes Lottery Recognized

Diversity is 99%/1%. By revisingto a SWP STEM, diversity shouldimprove by 2% each year over

the next 3 years.


School exceeds capacity anddiversity is 99%/1%. Diversityrecruitment goal should be 2%each year over the next 3 years

for a Fine Arts Magnet.


Vanguard SW is not considered a

Magnet program by definition.

IB PYP will provide an improvedprogram of rigor and relevance.

Yes, transitioning to an IBPYP

Specific IB PYP PD isneeded


24/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is

No Yes Lottery Academically Acceptable Not evident



Does not meet Magnet programrequirements.

Ye


at issue.


SWP affords all students to

participate in the Fine Artsprogram. School exceeds

capacity and diversity is 97%/3%.Diversity goal should be 2% eachyear over the next 3 years. As aSW Fine Arts program, this goal

should be achievable.



25/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is

No Academically Acceptable

No Exemplary

Given the proximity of the school

location, the proposed themeshould be more attractive toimproving diversity, studentperformance, and interest in

theme-based professionaldevelopment. Diversity goal of

2% each year over 3 yearsshould be established.

Yes, mission statementshould be reviewed and

include the Magnet focus


No evidence for PD forMagnet, no evidence ofPrincipal leadership for

Magnet theme

Adding Engineering to theScience, Technology, and MathProgram is more in line with the

top Magnet themes. Thediversity should reflect more of

the district-wide average forelementary schools.

Yes, and in a feederpattern that gives studentsan opportunity to receivean IB diploma, also very

rigorous


Professional learningcommunity, data teams,seeking authorization tobecome an IB program

Ex

attu


26/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is

Yes Recognized Yes

No No Test Recognized Not evident

No Recognized Yes

SWP affords all students toparticipate in the Dual Language

program. School exceedscapacity and diversity is 91/9%.Diversity goal should be 2% eachyear over the next 3 years. As a

Dual Language program, thisgoal should be achievable.

Yes, all the curriculum isonline




at issue.

Yes, goal forimplementation of

technology of 25% per day



27/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is

No Yes, 5 themes Lottery Exemplary

No Yes Lottery Exemplary PD is evident

As a SWP, one articulated theme

throughout the grade levels isconsistent with dedicated Magnetschools. As the program

develops, recruitment must begeared toward improving the

number/percentage of minoritystudents in the program throughincreased enrollment (currently

43%/57% respectively).

Magnet coordinatorserves as assistant

principal

Nf

A significant revision willenhance this program andcapitalize on the current

instructional model for ForeignLanguages. The school exceedscapacity, and enrollment should

be monitored.

in


28/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is

No Lottery Exemplary Ad

No Lottery Recognized Limited

Marketing the program as a SWPwith a revised curriculum should

increase enrollment over thenext three years to meet the10% recommendation and

improve diversity by 2% eachyear.

Yes, however really needsadditional technology

Yes, and increase PD ingardening andSustainability

Does not meet Magnet programrequirements. There is no

opportunity for growth of non-zoned students.

Yes, but not evidentconsistently


29/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is

No Lottery Exemplary Yes, evident

No Lottery Recognized

Adding Engineering to theScience, Technology, and Math

Program is more in line with thetop Magnet themes. Thediversity should reflect more of

the district-wide average forelementary schools through a 2%

(-/+) each year over the nextthree years,

Yes, leadership sharedcontinuous improvement

of the learning focus

Y

The Arts curriculum requires

professional development on anon-going basis for teachers toacquire the latest skills andtechniques in the Fine Arts.

Yes, utilize the space tosupport their theme

Theme-based PD is notevident


30/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is

No Lottery Exemplary

No Yes Recognized

SWP affords all students toparticipate in the Literature

program. School has availablecapacity and diversity is

70%/30%. Diversity goal shouldbe 2% (+/-) each year over the

next 3 years. As a SW Literatureprogram, this goal should be

achievable.

Yes, literacy-based finearts

Evident, teachers have alot of experience yet arts

classes appear to betaught in isolation from

core area courses


next 3 years. New recruitmentstrategies and adding additionalstudents (see capacity utilization%) should help accomplish this

goal.


Principal and MagnetCoordinator work welltogether. Professional

development is evident.


31/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is


No Yes Lottery Exemplary


SWP affords all students toparticipate in the Fine Arts

program. School slightly exceedscapacity and diversity is

78%/22% respectively. Diversitygoal should be 2% (+-) each yearover the next 3 years. As a SW

Fine Arts program, this goalshould be achievable.

Emphasis onprofessional learning

communities andcollaborative planning


32/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is



A Literature-based programaffords all students to participate

in an array of integratedcurriculum instruction and

resources. Fine Arts is a primeexample. School has available

capacity but diversity of 97%/3%should be improved by 2% (-/+)each year over the next 3 years.

As a SWP with a revisedemphasis, this goal should be

achievable.

Teachers could benefitfrom theme alike

meetings andconferences



33/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is

No Yes Lottery Recognized

No Exemplary Evident

SWP affords all students toparticipate in the Fine Arts

program. School has availablecapacity and diversity is

66%/34%. Diversity goal shouldbe 2% (+/-) each year over thenext 3 years. As a SW Fine Arts

program, this goal should beachievable. This school is

exploring adding an IB PrimaryYears Programme.

Well trained teacherswith strong arts

curriculum, need trainingin arts integration

Yesse




(-/+) each year over the nextthree years.

Yes, new technology andupdated science materials

are needed



34/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is

Yes Yes Lottery Recognized Evident


No Not theme-based Test Exemplary Evident

No Yes Lottery Exemplary Not evident


top Magnet themes. Thediversity of 91%/9% reflects

almost the district-wide averagefor schools. A goal would be toimprove by 2% (-/+) each year

over the next three years.

Name "district-wide" is theacceptable terminology for SUS.


Does not meet Magnet programrequirements.


35/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is

No Not theme-based Test Recognized Evident

No Yes Exemplary Evident





(-/+) each year over the nextthree years.


j


36/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is

No Yes Matrix Recognized Evident Inc


Adding Engineering to theScience, Technology, and Math

Program is more in line with thetop Magnet themes. IB PYP offersanother vehicle for this school toadvance the academic curriculum

for all students. The diversityshould reflect more of thedistrict-wide average for

elementary schools through a 2%(-/+) each year over the next

three years.

Currently does not meet Magnetprogram requirements due tocapacity. District may consider

revising to one instructionaltheme and set recruitment goals.

2010 2011 HISD P j t


37/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is

No Yes Lottery Exemplary Evident Inc

No No Test Exemplary Evident



A significant revision willenhance this program andcapitalize on the current

instructional model for language.The school exceeds capacity, andenrollment should be monitored.



Recruitment efforts shouldconcentrate on increasing theminority student enrollment.

Evident (Literature andCulture Project)

2010 2011 HISD P j t


38/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is

No Lottery Recognized Evident

Yes Yes Lottery Academically Acceptable Not evident

No Yes Exemplary Evident

Non-existent Magnet program.Students should not be charged afee to be in the Magnet program.New construction at this school

will relieve overcrowding atneighboring school.

Yes, for the after-schoolprogram


at issue.

As a SWP, an articulated Pre-Engineering strand would better

serve the community. As theprogram develops, recruitment

must be geared towardimproving the current diversity of

99%/1% (-/+) by 2% each yearover the next three years.


2010 2011 HISD Project


39/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is


See MSAP diversity goal. No MSAP MSAP Lottery Recognized MSAP



Does not meet Magnet programrequirements due to capacity and

enrollment.

School exceeds capacity anddiversity is at 92/8%. As Dual

Language is a popular program, agoal of 2% (-/+) should be set for

a more balanced studentpopulation. School is exploring

IB Primary Years Programme.




40/195









Entrance

Criteria





Staff?

Is

No Yes Lottery Academically Acceptable Evident

rofessional

School is 70%/30% and exceedscapacity. New students entering

at the break grades andreplacement students providethe opportunity to improve the

diversity toward the district-wideaverage for elementary schools.



41/195


847 83% 17% 66% 273 32.23% 146 17.24% 1

778 98% 2% 84% 670 86.12% 193 24.81% 1

643 99% 1% 98% 530 82.43% 203 31.57% 1

600 99% 1% 96% 535 89.17% 162 27.00%

829 99% 1% 94% 795 95.90% 68 8.20% 1

CurrentEnrollment as

of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment

2010-2011Magnet Non-

Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

2010-2011 HISD Project


42/195



of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

390 99% 1% 94% 198 50.77% 97 24.87%

670 99% 1% 93% 177 26.42% 99 14.78% 1

599 100% 0% 92% 235 39.23% 110 18.36%



43/195



of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

976 99% 1% 89% 244 25.00% 217 22.23% 1

878 99% 1% 96% 744 84.74% 132 15.03%

612 100% 0% 95% 239 39.05% 156 25.49% 1

563 98% 2% 93% 315 55.95% 227 40.32% 2

489 83% 17% 77% 423 86.50% 203 41.51% 1



44/195

2010 2011 HISD ProjectElementary Magnet Schools


of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

489 96% 4% 99% 413 84.46% 55 11.25%

702 99% 1% 96% 646 92.02% 30 4.27%

938 97% 3% 89% 787 83.90% 225 23.99%



45/195



of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

352 99% 1% 95% 284 80.68% 116 32.95%

689 69% 31% 45% 623 90.42% 396 57.47% 2



46/195



of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

533 91% 9% 71% 322 60.41% 208 39.02% 1

746 75% 25% 50% 323 43.30% 223 29.89% 2

960 100% 0% 97% 849 88.44% 178 18.54%



47/195

jElementary Magnet Schools


of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

610 43% 57% 11% 610 100.00% 159 26.07% 3

594 60% 40% 23% 331 55.72% 306 51.52% 4



48/195



of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

717 98% 2% 88% 169 23.57% 97 13.53% 1

737 99% 1% 93% 548 74.36% 81 10.99%



49/195



of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

708 100% 0% 80% 623 87.99% 259 36.58% 1

732 92% 8% 73% 687 93.85% 288 39.34% 2



50/195

Elementary Magnet Schools


of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

681 70% 30% 41% 673 98.83% 496 72.83% 4

483 99% 1% 69% 358 74.12% 299 61.90% 1



51/195



of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

760 58% 42% 40% 363 47.76% 257 33.82% 2

844 78% 22% 53% 605 71.68% 463 54.86% 4

2010-2011 HISD Projectl h l


52/195



of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

824 97% 3% 90% 721 87.50% 117 14.20%

356 100% 0% 94% 97 27.25% 27 7.58%

2010-2011 HISD ProjectEl t M t S h l


53/195



of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

730 66% 34% 45% 693 94.93% 212 29.04% 2

522 99% 1% 96% 496 95.02% 282 54.02%

2010-2011 HISD ProjectEl t M t S h l


54/195



of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

601 91% 9% 70% 528 87.85% 358 59.57% 1

670 659 98.36% 656 97.91% 5

680 49% 51% 10% 533 78.38% 414 60.88% 5

746 56% 44% 11% 723 96.92% 157 21.05% 4



55/195



of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

612 99% 1% 86% 206 33.66% 162 26.47%

462 100% 0% 95% 162 35.06% 94 20.35%



56/195



of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

534 99% 1% 88% 165 30.90% 160 29.96% 2

606 99% 1% 93% 542 89.44% 117 19.31%



57/195



of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

532 81% 19% 70% 461 86.65% 147 27.63%

385 See Middle School See Middle School 270 70.13% 270 70.13% 4

734 59% 41% 40% 311 42.37% 189 25.75% 2

787 46% 54% 16% 764 97.08% 175 22.24% 4

See MiddleSchool



58/195



of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

623 99% 1% 87% 147 23.60% 58 9.31%

794 95% 5% 82% 181 22.80% 56 7.05%

464 99% 1% 100% 404 87.07% 59 12.72%



59/195



of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

1,197 33% 67% 2% 1180 98.58% 66 5.51% 4

482 97% 3% 92% 455 94.40% 118 24.48% 1

425 92% 8% 73% 369 86.82% 328 77.18% 1

750 99% 1% 90% 150 20.00% 79 10.53% 1



60/195



of October 29,2010

% Minority

Enrollment

% Non-Minority

Enrollment

% Free/Reduced

Lunch

2010-2011Total

Magnet

% Magnet to

Enrollment


Zoned

% Non-Zoned to

Enrollment

2010

Appli

489 70% 30% 57% 333 68.10% 215 43.97% 2



61/195


18 83% 17% 50% 543 156% 99% $3,484,8

1 100% 0% 100% 669 116% 101% $3,512,7

34 100% 0% 97% $2,931,2

7 100% 0% 100% 732 82% 82% $2,768,0

4 100% 0% 100% 878 94% 76% $3,695,5

Total PrincipalTransfer

Agreements asof 10.29.10

% MinorityTransfer

Agreements

% Non-MinorityTransfer

Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic

Disadvantage LunchTransfer Agreements

AdjustedPermanent

Capacity

Permanent

Utilization

Utilization w/ T-

Buildings

Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

New buildingunder

construction

New building underconstruction

New buildingunder construction



62/195




% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity

Permanent

Utilization

Utilization w/ T-

Buildings

Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

6 100% 0% 100% 690 57% 57% $1,893,7

76 97% 3% 92% 753 89% 78% $2,949,7

96 100% 0% 90% 627 96% 72% $2,622,5



63/195

y g



% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity

Permanent

Utilization

Utilization w/ T-

Buildings

Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

13 92% 8% 54% 543 180% 60% $4,280,7

6 100% 0% 100% 732 120% 75% $3,929,9

79 100% 0% 89% 815 75% 68% $2,760,5

15 100% 0% 100% 941 60% 60% $2,309,3

25 100% 0% 92% 480 102% 63% $2,077,5



64/195

y g



% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity

Permanent

Utilization

Utilization w/ T-

Buildings

Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

2 100% 0% 100% 459 106% 35% $2,317,3

Not available Not available Not available Not available 815 86% 86% $2,907,0

20 95% 5% 90% 690 136% 104% $4,230,3



65/195

y g



% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity

Permanent

Utilization

Utilization w/ T-

Buildings

Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

39 100% 0% 95% Not available Not available $1,513,4

24 79% 21% 67% 690 100% 100% $2,777,0

See MiddleSchool



66/195



% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity

Permanent

Utilization

Utilization w/ T-

Buildings

Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

21 95% 5% 81% 376 142% 98% $2,171,9

105 80% 20% 46% 940 79% 58% $3,115,0

51 98% 2% 92% 732 131% 104% $4,044,8



67/195



% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity

Permanent

Utilization

Utilization w/ T-

Buildings

Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

18 44% 56% 17% 71% 50% $2,543,8

5 60% 40% 0% 480 123% 89% $2,393,0

857/ new facilitywill have capacity

of 750



68/195



% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity

Permanent

Utilization

Utilization w/ T-

Buildings

Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

70 100% 0% 93% 920 78% 78% $3,098,9

543 101% $3,012,8



69/195



% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity

Permanent

Utilization

Utilization w/ T-

Buildings

Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

22 100% 0% 86% 836 85% 64% $2,928,9

21 100% 0% 86% 774 95% 95% $3,172,1



70/195



% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity

Permanent

Utilization

Utilization w/ T-

Buildings

Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

7 57% 43% 14% 836 81% 56% $3,019,0

9 100% 0% 78% 564 86% 68% $2,190,6



71/195



% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity

Permanent

Utilization

Utilization w/ T-

Buildings

Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

80 71% 29% 36% 795 96% 96% $3,146,8

13 92% 8% 62% 815 103% 98% $3,671,4



72/195



% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity

Permanent

Utilization

Utilization w/ T-

Buildings

Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

1 100% 0% 100% 1,045 79% 30% $3,556,0

4 100% 0% 100% 753 47% 47% $1,694,2



73/195



% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity

Permanent

Utilization

Utilization w/ T-

Buildings

Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

23 61% 39% 52% 648 112% 89% $3,216,9

77 99% 1% 97% 418 125% 83% $2,250,1



74/195



% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity

Permanent

Utilization

Utilization w/ T-

Buildings

Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

66 92% 8% 79% 669 90% 82% $2,503,3

12 67% 33% 33% 648 105% 105% $2,855,4

2 50% 50% 0% 543 137% 97% $3,134,9

See MiddleSchool

Include all combined Un

if need



75/195



% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity

Permanent

Utilization

Utilization w/ T-

Buildings

Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

137 98% 2% 82% $2,687,8

71 100% 0% 100% 397 116% 74% $2,005,9

need plans -replace on site



76/195



% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity

PermanentUtilization

Utilization w/ T-Buildings

Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

32 97% 3% 94% 391 137% Not available $2,469,1

22 100% 0% 86% 459 132% 132% $2,807,7



77/195



% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity



Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

6 83% 17% 67% 480 111% 64% $2,255,7

Not available Not available Not available Not available See Middle School Not available Not available

114 56% 44% 31% 669 109% 109% $2,880,0

31 65% 35% 26% 815 97% 97% $3,299,6

Include all combined Un

if need



78/195



% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity



Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

25 100% 0% 72% $2,533,4

76 95% 5% 79% 438 181% 64% $3,406,4

37 100% 0% 100% 565 82% 44% $2,055,7

New buildingunder

construction

New building under

construction

New building

under construction



79/195



% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity



Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

2 100% 0% 0% 1,045 113% 107% $4,687,8

0 501 96% 68% $2,019,9

4 75% 25% 50% 195 218% 91% $1,988,7

69 99% 1% 90% 543 138% 66% $3,207,4



80/195



% MinorityTransfer

Agreements


Agreements

%Free/Reduced/Other

Economic


AdjustedPermanent

Capacity



Total ScBudget-All

Sources (A

55 60% 40% 44% 313 156% 96% $2,040,4



81/195

$530.22

$501.49

$513.71

$583.36

$297.48

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure(Actual)



82/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure(Actual)

$1,366.22

$571.56

$1,186.94



83/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure(Actual)

$1,170.76

$275.95

$480.24

$648.75

$350.50



84/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure(Actual)

$656.16

$29.02

$517.94



85/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure(Actual)

$428.76

$299.76



86/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure(Actual)

$93.17

$604.45

$17.67



87/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure(Actual)

$443.15

$648.70



88/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure(Actual)

$707.81

$263.74



89/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure(Actual)

$400.22

$496.15



90/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure(Actual)

$538.72

$877.56



91/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure

(Actual)

$509.97

$691.11



92/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure

(Actual)

$261.58

$1,330.49



93/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure

(Actual)

$533.68

$288.83



94/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure

(Actual)

$349.97

$405.20

$484.90

Include as K-8funding



95/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure

(Actual)

$521.01

$1,013.66



96/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure

(Actual)

$181.82

$471.11



97/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure

(Actual)

$495.06

$337.75

$419.66

Include as K-8funding



98/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure

(Actual)

$153.06

$1,276.13

$485.98



99/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure

(Actual)

$231.76

$297.70

$275.01

$1,073.46



100/195

Magnet PerPupil

Expenditure

(Actual)

$673.12

2010-2011 HISD ProjectMiddle School Magnets


101/195

MIDDLE SCHOOL Current Program Proposed Program

4 Attucks Middle School SWAS Math/Science SWP Non-Magnet

1 Burbank Middle School SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non-Magnet

7 Clifton Middle School SWAS Math/Science SWP STEM

DistrictArea

CurrentProgram

Type


RemoMagn

Remfu

SignifMagnenroaveraIB Mare





102/195

MIDDLE SCHOOL Current Program Proposed ProgramDistrict

Area

CurrentProgram

Type




4 SUS Alternative School closure Non-Magnet

3 Deady Middle School SWAS Communications SWP

Contemporary Learning CenterMiddle School

Communications/Journalism

J



103/195


Area

CurrentProgram

Type




9 Dowling Middle School SWAS Fine Arts SWP Non-Magnet

2 Fleming Middle School SWAS Fine Arts same same

5 Fondren Middle School SWAS Math/Science MSAP M

ReMa

I

IB Middle YearsProgramme



104/195


Area

CurrentProgram

Type




8 Gregory-Lincoln Middle School (K-8) SWAS Fine Arts SWP Museum Magnet

1 Hamilton Middle School SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non-Magnet

3 Hartman Middle School SWAS Math/Science SWP STEM

Sign

Re

SignMa

e



105/195


Area

CurrentProgram

Type




1 Hogg Middle School SWAS Math/Science same

2 Holland Middle School SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non-Magnet

8 Jackson Middle School SWVP Vanguard DWVP Non-Magnet

5 Johnston Middle School SWAS Fine Arts same same

Dual Language/IB

Middle YearsProgramme

Sign

dual lato

Remfu

Remfu

Schsh

Neig



106/195


Area

CurrentProgram

Type




2 Key Middle School SWAS Foreign Languages SWP Non-Magnet

4 Lanier Middle School SWVP DWVP Non-Magnet

5 Long Middle School SWVP Vanguard SWP 6-12 Medical

ReMa

Vanguard with IBMiddle YearsProgramme

Rfu



107/195


Area

CurrentProgram

Type




2 M. C. Williams Middle School SWAS Math/Science SWP

1 Marshall Middle School SWAS Fine Arts SWP same Im

2 Patrick Henry Middle School SWAS Fine Arts Non-Magnet

Technology andEngineering

Sigsch

Magnthe adde

NeighborhoodSchool

RemMa



108/195


Area

CurrentProgram

Type




5 Pershing Middle School SWAS Fine Arts SWP same

5 Pin Oak Middle School SWAS Languages same same

6 Revere Middle School SWAS Math/Science SWP STEM

Mpar

nenro

Im

Exp


109/195



110/195


Area

CurrentProgram

Type




3 Stevenson Middle School SWAS Math/Science SWP STEM

7 T. H. Rogers Middle School (K-8) SUS Vanguard Dedicated DWVP Non-Magnet

9 Welch Middle School SWAS Fine Arts SWP

NOTE: The Essential Elements of Magnet Schools: 1. Diversity of the Student Population; 2. Unique and Innovative Curriculum; 3. Improved StudeDevelopment/Specialized Teaching Staff (supporting the Magnet theme); 5. Dynamic Partnerships (Parent and Community Involvement); 6. Buildin

Monidivers

Remofun

Health and PhysicalFitness

SignifHea

impr



111/195

MIDDLE SCHOOL Current Program Proposed ProgrDistrict

Area

CurrentProgram

Type

Proposed

Program TypeSWP- School Wide Program



NOTE: Minority Group Isolations - Current demographics are 92% minority and 8% non-minority.



112/195

HISD Confidential01/20/2011

*** School receives an additional Unique PUA funding.

Recommendation Rationale Entrance Criteria

No Yes Matrix Acceptable N

No No Test Exemplary N

No Yes Matrix Recognized

Is the diversity of thestudent population

within 2% of thedistrict-wide average of92% minority/ 8% non-

minority respectively?




AccountabilityRating: TAKS 2009-

2010?

Is theSPr

DeveSpecia

By developing a school-wide acceleratedprogram in the content areas through the

Apollo support program, students are morelikely to be focused and perform at a higher

level.

Vanguard SW is not considered a Magnetprogram by definition.

An expansion of the current theme toinclude Engineering and Technology will

bring the program in line with the topMagnet themes. Increasing the pool of non-minority students should assist in improving

the school's diversity.



113/195











2010?

Is theSPr

DeveSpecia

No Yes Acceptable N

No Yes Matrix N

Does not meet Magnet program

requirements.

Unavailable as of

1/14/11

As the current theme is limited, the

recommendation to expand with emphasison Journalism (writing) should offer students

more opportunities to explore the entirefield of Communications. Changing to a

SWP and implementing aggressiverecruiting, diversity should improve. Goal is

2% (-/+).

AcademicallyAcceptable



114/195











2010?

Is theSPr

DeveSpecia

No Audition N

No Audition Recognized

same No Yes MSAP Lottery Recognized



level.

Yes - audition-basedentrance


The school is 100% minority and under-enrolled. Through aggressive marketing

and recruiting, increasing the pool of non-minority students should assist in reducing

MGI by 2% each year.




115/195











2010?

Is theSPr

DeveSpecia

No Audition

No Matrix Recognized


Museum Studies is a very popular theme forstudents and parents. The theme shouldboost enrollment and improve diversity as

well.



Leadindica

o



bring the program in line with the topMagnet themes. Increasing the pool of non-minority students should assist in improving

the school's diversity.



116/195


*** School receives an additional Unique PUA funding









2010?

Is theSPr

DeveSpecia


No No Test Recognized


No Yes Audition Exemplary

Currently, Hogg is seeking IB MYPauthorization. As a SWP program, IB affords

all students to participate. School hascapacity and diversity of 97%/3% should be(-/+) 2% each year over the next 3 years.As the Dual Language program articulates

with Helms ES, this goal should beachievable and a strong feeder pattern

established.



Monitor enrollments to ensure all studentsare adequately prepared in the Academic

and Fine Arts curriculum.



117/195











2010?

Is theSPr

DeveSpecia

No Yes Unacceptable N





level.

Unavailable as of1/14/11


See district plans in development for a 6-12articulated program.



118/195











2010?

Is theSPr

DeveSpecia

No Yes Matrix Recognized Stro

No Audition Acceptable

No Audition N

Implementing this recommended plan willenhance the academic curriculum andprovide for an articulated strand from

middle to high school. Moving to a school-wide program will allow the school to recruitmore non-minority students to improve thediversity toward the district-wide average.

School is 97%/3% diverse. Recruitmentmust be geared toward improving the

current diversity (-/+) by 2% each yearover the next three years.


Does not meet Magnet program definition.School capacity is at issue.





119/195











2010?

Is theSPr

DeveSpecia

No Yes Audition Recognized

No Yes Matrix Exemplary

Yes Yes Matrix Recognized Strong co

School is 82%/18% diverse with 98% non-zoned students.

School is 62%/38% diverse. Recruitmentmust be geared toward improving the

current diversity (+/-) by 2% each year overthe next three years.

Limitesugge

t


bring the program in line with the topMagnet themes. Increasing the pool of non-minority students should assist in improvingthe school's diversity. School is only at 68%

utilization.



120/195











2010?

Is theSPr

DeveSpecia

Yes Yes Lottery Exemplary

No Test


The school is 97% minority and underenrolled. Through aggressive marketing

and recruiting, increasing the pool of non-minority students should assist in reducing

MGI by 2% each year.



level.


Plans are already in place to become a 6-12school in combinations with The High

School for International Studies currentlyhoused at Sharpstown MS.

PD throu



121/195











2010?

Is theSPr

DeveSpecia

No Yes Matrix Exemplary

No Yes Test Exemplary

No Recognized Strong c

); 4. Professional


bring

Documents

Copy of HISD Magnet Demographics and Recommendations Data Chart 1 19 11