Humble Report Text - Fall 2015 New Revisions...Table: Five Year Enrollment Trends by District (2009‐10 to 2014‐15).....16 Map: Kindergarten Students as Percent of Total Enrollment

Executive Summary Districtwide Projections Three Scenarios of Growth Projections by Attendance Zone New Projected Housing Units

Single‐Family Housing Projections Multi‐Family Housing Projections New Housing Projections Summary

Ratios of Students per Home Economic and Housing Considerations

Economic Concerns Recent Housing Trends Impact of Oil and Gas Employment on Humble I.S.D. Residents

Chapter 1: Introductory Materials Discussion Demographic Study Overview ...........................................................................................1 Regional Growth Trends ...................................................................................................2 Recent Growth of Students in Early Grades .....................................................................3 Socioeconomic Characteristics of Student Population ....................................................3 Economic and Employment Trends ...................................................................................5

Employment by Sector ............................................................................................5 Current Employment Trends ..................................................................................6 Impact of Oil and Gas Employment on Humble I.S.D. Residents ...........................6 New Commercial Development Impacting Humble I.S.D. Job Growth .................7

Private and Charter School Enrollment ............................................................................8 Maps and Tables Map: Square Miles in Humble I.S.D. .................................................................................9 Map: Total Student Enrollment, Sept 2015, Houston area ...............................................10 Map: Numeric Change in Enrollment, 2014‐15 to 2015‐16, Houston area ......................11 Map: Percent Change in Enrollment, 2014‐15 to 2015‐16, Houston area .......................12 Map: Numeric Change in Enrollment, 2010‐11 to 2015‐16, Houston area ......................13 Map: Percent Change in Enrollment, 2010‐11 to 2015‐16, Houston area .......................14 Table: Fastest Growth School Districts in Texas (2013‐14 to 2014‐15) ............................15 Table: Five Year Enrollment Trends by District (2009‐10 to 2014‐15) ..............................16 Map: Kindergarten Students as Percent of Total Enrollment 2015‐16, Houston area .....17

Population & Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - February 2016

Table: KN as a Proportion of Total Enrollment, Ranking ...................................................18 Graph: Kindergarten Enrollment Compared to Births. .....................................................19 Table: 1st vs. 5th Grade Enrollment, Ranking .....................................................................20 Table: Comparison of Resident 1st and 5th Grade Populations by School Zone ................21 Table: Historical Enrollment Trends ..................................................................................22 Map: Economically Disadvantaged Student Population 2014‐15, Houston area. ............23 Table: Economically Disadvantaged Student Population, Ranking. ..................................24 Map: Percent of Students Passing 2015 STAAR, Houston area ……………… .......................25 Table: Percent of Students Passing 2015 STAAR, Ranking ………… ....................................26 Table: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Area Districts. ................................................27‐28 Map: Proportion of African‐American Students Enrolled, 2014‐15, Houston area ..........29 Map: Proportion of Hispanic Students Enrolled, 2014‐15, Houston area ........................30 Map: Proportion of Asian Students Enrolled, 2014‐15, Houston area .............................31 Map: Proportion of “Other Ethnicity” Students Enrolled, 2014‐15, Houston area ..........32 Table: Recent Employment Trends. ..................................................................................33 Graph: Employment by Sector. .........................................................................................34 Table: Trends in Private and Charter Schools. ...............................................................35‐36

Chapter 2: Housing Projections Discussion Mapping Data Used in Demographic Update ..................................................................37 Methodology for Developing Housing Projections ..........................................................38 Assessment of Current Housing ........................................................................................39 Factors Contributing to New Housing Growth .................................................................40

Transportation Plans ...............................................................................................40 MUDs and Utility Districts ......................................................................................41 Outfall Permits and Flood Plain Challenges ...........................................................41 Special Districts or Overlay Zones ...........................................................................43 Ownership Changes and Land Currently For Sale ...................................................43 Competitive Advantage of Housing in Humble I.S.D. .............................................43

Total Projected Future Housing ........................................................................................44 Projected Single‐Family Homes ........................................................................................44 Projected Mobile Home Parks (MHPs) and RV Parks ........................................................45 Projected Multi‐Family Homes .........................................................................................46

Atmosphere for Multi‐Family Development in Each City .......................................46 Aging Owners and Renters .....................................................................................46 Millennial Owners and Renters ..............................................................................46 Supreme Court Ruling on Dispersing Apartments .................................................47

Maps and Tables Map: Planning Units. .........................................................................................................48 Map: Municipal Jurisdictions .............................................................................................49 Map: Student Density per Municipal Jurisdiction .............................................................50 Map: Development Density ..............................................................................................51


Map: Utility Districts per City of Houston .........................................................................52 Map: Utility Districts per HCAD and PUC ..........................................................................53 Map: Large Parcels For Sale ..............................................................................................54 Map: Parcel Ownership Changes ...................................................................................55‐56 Map: Development Overview ........................................................................................57‐59 Map: Projected New Housing Occupancies ...................................................................60‐64 Table: Projected New Housing Detailed Table ...............................................................65‐147

Chapter 3: Ratios of Students per Home Discussion Ratios of Students per Home: Single‐Family Units ..........................................................148 Ratios of Students per Home: Multi‐Family Units ...........................................................149 Long‐Term Ratio Trends ...................................................................................................150

Maps and Tables Map: Ratios of Students per Home – Subdivisions ........................................................152‐153 Table: Ratios of Students per Home – Subdivisions .......................................................154‐157 Map: Ratios of Students per Home – Apartments ............................................................158 Table: Ratios of Students per Home – Apartments .......................................................159‐160 Table: Trends in Ratios of Students per Home ..............................................................161‐166

Chapter 4: Resident Students Discussion Resident Students by Attendance Zone ...........................................................................167 Recent Students Trends by Planning Unit .........................................................................167 Recent Student Trends by Development .........................................................................168

Regeneration and Decline of Older Neighborhoods ..............................................168 Aging Homebuyers .................................................................................................168

Maps and Tables Map: Current EE‐5th Grade Students by Attendance Zone ..............................................170 Map: Change in EE‐5th Grade Students by Attendance Zone, 2014 to 2015 ...................171 Map: Current 6th ‐8th Grade Students by Attendance Zone ...........................................172 Map: Change in 6th‐8th Grade Students by Attendance Zone, 2014 to 2015 .................173 Map: Current 9th‐12th Grade Students by Attendance Zone ..........................................174 Map: Change in 9th‐12th Grade Students by Attendance Zone, 2014 to 2015 ...............175 Map: Current EE‐12th Grade Students by Planning Unit ..................................................176 Map: Change in EE‐12th Grade Students by Planning Unit, 2014 to 2015 .......................177 Map: Student Trends by Development – Apartments ......................................................178 Map: Student Trends by Development – Subdivisions .................................................179‐180 Table: Student Trends by Development .........................................................................181‐186


Chapter 5: Student Projections Discussion Unique Characteristics of H.I.S.D. that Impact Growth ....................................................188 The Model for Developing Student Projections ................................................................188 Moderate Scenario of Growth ..........................................................................................189 Low Scenario of Growth ...................................................................................................190 High Scenario of Growth ..................................................................................................191 Projected Resident Students by Planning Unit .................................................................191 Projected Resident Students by Attendance Zone ...........................................................192

The Importance of Transfers...................................................................................192 Elementary Attendance Zones ...............................................................................192 Middle School Attendance Zones ..........................................................................192 High School Attendance Zones ..............................................................................193

Maps and Tables Table: Low Growth Scenario, Student Enrollment Projections by Grade .........................194 Table: Moderate Growth Scenario, Student Enrollment Projections by Grade ...............195 Table: High Growth Scenario, Student Enrollment Projections by Grade ........................196 Map: Projected Growth in Elementary Students by Planning Unit ..................................197 Map: Projected Growth in Middle School Students by Planning Unit ..............................198 Map: Projected Growth in High School Students by Planning Unit ..................................199 Table: Projected Resident Students by Planning Unit ....................................................200‐214 Table: Elementary School Transfers .................................................................................215 Map: Projected Resident Elementary Students by 2015‐16 Attendance Zone ................216 Table: Projected Resident Elementary Students by 2015‐16 Attendance Zone ............217‐219 Map: Middle School Transfers ..........................................................................................220 Map: Projected Middle School Students by 2015‐16 Attendance Zone ...........................221 Table: Projected Middle School Students by 2015‐16 Attendance Zone .........................222 Map: High School Transfers ...............................................................................................223 Map: Projected High School Students by 2015‐16 Attendance Zone ...............................224 Table: Projected High School Students by 2015‐16 Attendance Zone .............................225


35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

2011 2016 2020 2025

\ Population and Survey Analysts (PASA) has recently completed a Demographic Update for Humble I.S.D., and the findings are summarized below. The Demographic Update included the study of current student locations, potential growth based on new housing, trends occurring in student relocation patterns throughout the District, and economic factors relevant to both the District and the nation. PASA projects student data for a school district by using forward‐looking techniques, and does not rely on past rates of change.

Districtwide Projections After evaluating the current student population, recent trends in geo‐coded students, projected additional housing occupancies and their resulting student yields, and the over‐arching economic and employment concerns, PASA finds the following projected student population by grade group:

Three Scenarios of Growth PASA takes a “conservative” approach to projecting growth, and develops a Low, Moderate, and High scenario of growth for each of the years in the projection period. These scenarios are shown on a graph below, with supporting data and complete projections found in the attached Chapter 5.

2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23 2023‐24 2024‐25 2025‐26

EE‐5th 19,171 19,661 20,065 20,625 20,963 21,333 21,763 22,258 22,823 23,471

6th‐8th 9,536 9,894 10,279 10,531 11,075 11,329 11,653 11,702 11,866 12,055

9th‐12th 12,730 12,945 13,288 13,764 14,179 14,750 15,123 15,697 16,143 16,488

Total: 41,437 42,500 43,631 44,921 46,217 47,412 48,538 49,657 50,832 52,014


Projections by Attendance Zone PASA has generated the student population projections by Planning Unit, to aid in long range planning, and has then aggregated the data from those Planning Units into the current attendance zones. Projections of resident students by attendance zone are included in the following charts:

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Atascocita Springs 950 1,124 1,172 1,225 1,234 1,250 1,248 1,246 1,248 1,254 1,265 1,281 ‐30

Bear Branch 650 546 543 543 544 548 547 545 547 550 557 568 56

Deerwood 700 527 560 587 608 631 639 641 643 646 654 661 92

Eagle Springs 750 754 805 868 890 915 936 961 992 1,014 1,033 1,044 78

Elm Grove 650 607 591 578 582 591 591 592 594 598 604 617 ‐125

Fall Creek 750 887 969 1,039 1,058 1,082 1,095 1,106 1,120 1,135 1,150 1,166 2

Fields 750 612 631 634 637 647 652 658 664 678 695 716 ‐6

Foster 700 615 604 600 606 623 638 657 683 714 746 787 ‐52

Greentree 700 719 691 666 667 671 670 670 670 675 684 697 45

Hidden Hollow 700 544 544 561 562 567 566 564 566 570 575 584 ‐31

Humble 750 513 537 558 580 607 624 630 639 650 665 691 59

Lakeland 650 763 788 784 791 804 818 844 878 922 969 1,017 ‐20

Lakeshore 950 1,014 1,092 1,201 1,278 1,366 1,447 1,518 1,580 1,644 1,706 1,771 ‐1

Maplebrook 750 704 677 659 662 669 667 667 669 675 683 696 19

North Belt 750 758 755 765 771 784 789 800 813 831 849 867 ‐34

Oak Forest 750 677 695 716 717 723 720 720 721 725 734 746 49

Oaks 700 598 607 613 613 619 617 618 624 632 644 659 ‐29

Park Lakes 750 701 685 683 683 688 687 686 687 691 698 709 39

Pine Forest 700 608 594 592 598 608 612 614 616 623 630 643 29

Ridge Creek 950 608 679 806 935 1,069 1,192 1,330 1,471 1,610 1,756 1,898 58

River Pines 750 864 898 915 957 1,002 1,036 1,071 1,105 1,130 1,157 1,187 ‐68

Shadow Forest 700 615 622 649 663 688 707 730 758 793 831 865 ‐15

Summerwood 750 671 672 683 686 691 689 689 689 694 701 712 91

Timbers 650 777 750 726 728 735 732 731 732 737 747 761 ‐46

Whispering Pines 700 976 1,006 1,027 1,031 1,039 1,036 1,034 1,036 1,042 1,052 1,068 ‐255

Willow Creek 700 537 499 473 479 491 494 498 503 508 516 526 18

Woodland Hills 650 504 507 509 509 515 513 513 513 516 523 532 77

Total Projected

Elementary

Students

19,900 18,823 19,173 19,660 20,069 20,623 20,962 21,333 21,761 22,257 22,824 23,469

Projected RESIDENT EE‐5th Grade Students

Elementary Zone

Built‐As

Capacity

2015‐16

Net

Transfers


New Projected Housing Units PASA projects the developments listed below to have the largest impact on the District in the next 10 years. These projections are based on interviews with land owners, real estate experts, commercial brokers, and city and county officials. These projections are for the number of new housing units only, and are not a reflection of the total public school students expected in each development.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Atascocita 990 1,179 1,184 1,186 1,213 1,222 1,266 1,271 1,287 1,270 1,267 1,270 18

Creekwood 1064 992 956 936 953 958 990 994 1,004 990 989 990 144

Humble 1110 1,343 1,391 1,480 1,525 1,548 1,605 1,623 1,652 1,638 1,642 1,652 ‐201

Kingwood 1030 1,076 1,049 1,058 1,087 1,098 1,150 1,163 1,190 1,186 1,197 1,215 ‐59

Riverwood 1130 995 1,055 1,027 1,067 1,092 1,148 1,170 1,199 1,199 1,210 1,223 35

Sterling 950 935 921 999 1,043 1,079 1,150 1,187 1,237 1,258 1,294 1,337 ‐32

Timberwood 1110 1,444 1,478 1,518 1,565 1,584 1,651 1,675 1,711 1,699 1,702 1,708 18

Woodcreek 1110 1,340 1,498 1,686 1,827 1,952 2,120 2,245 2,378 2,461 2,563 2,662 72Community Learning

Center, Highpoint n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5

Total Projected

Middle School

Students

8,494 9,304 9,532 9,890 10,280 10,533 11,080 11,328 11,658 11,701 11,864 12,057

Projected RESIDENT 6th‐8th Grade StudentsMiddle School

Zone

Permanent

Capacity

2015‐16

Net

Transfers

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Atascocita 3200 3,522 3,564 3,573 3,622 3,705 3,760 3,868 3,920 4,022 4,090 4,123 ‐134

Humble 2400 1,831 1,889 1,926 1,987 2,068 2,138 2,234 2,298 2,398 2,481 2,556 ‐208

Kingwood 2800 2,770 2,811 2,823 2,871 2,939 2,995 3,075 3,119 3,201 3,258 3,296 ‐95

Kingwood Park 1600 1,608 1,637 1,647 1,661 1,694 1,724 1,776 1,800 1,856 1,895 1,927 197

Summer Creek 3200 2,682 2,833 2,974 3,150 3,361 3,557 3,801 3,984 4,219 4,421 4,586 ‐191

Quest n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 385Community Learning

Center, Highpoint n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 46

Total Projected

High School

Students

13,200 12,413 12,734 12,943 13,291 13,767 14,174 14,754 15,121 15,696 16,145 16,488

Projected RESIDENT 9th‐12th Grade Students

High School Zone

Permanent

Capacity

2015‐16

Net

Transfers


Single‐Family Housing Projections Multi‐Family Housing Projections City of Houston: In the City of Houston and in Houston’s ETJ, multi‐family developers are attracted to undeveloped reserves within large subdivisions and MPC’s, particularly those with good access. Within the City of Houston in H.I.S.D. – unlike several other large districts in Houston ‐‐ there does not seem to be a glut of planned apartments. The District can expect one to two apartment complexes per year to be added over the coming decade. City of Humble: The City of Humble has taken a proactive approach to regulating high‐density development within its City boundaries. Developable tracts with multi‐family potential must comply with the City’s 15 units per acre zoning ordinance. Townsen Landing is the only planned development with the “grandfathered” right to build higher‐density apartments. Even with the grandfathering, Townsen Landing is permitted only one apartment complex with a higher density per acre. In sum, any future multi‐family developments will have to comply with the 15 units per acre requirement, making apartments financially unattractive for developers.

2015-2020 2020-2025 2015-202512D, 12E, 15E, 15L Balmoral Park Lakes 339 1,324 1,66329A, 29B, 30A, 30B, 32, 33A, 33B, 33C, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41A, 50A, 50B, 50C, 51, 52A,

52B, 52C, 53A, 53B, 54A, 54B, 54C

Kingwood (includes Royal Brook at Kingwood)

519 793 1,312

15L, 18 The Groves 646 653 1,29955A Lakewood Pines 257 395 65255E Bridges on Lake Houston 504 81 58515E Sunset Ridge East 312 121 433

3B, 3C, 3D Fall Creek 261 113 37455E Waters Edge 346 2 348

6 Townsen Landing Village 122 205 32712D Sunset Ridge West 257 26 283

3,563 3,713 7,276Total Single-Family Housing Projected : 5,624 6,469 12,093

Planning UnitLargest Single Family Residential

Developments

Total (Above-Listed Developments):

Projected New Housing Occupancies


New Housing Projections Summary

Ratios of Students per Home

The average ratio of students per occupied unit for Single‐Family units was 0.62. The ratio in specific subdivisions ranged from 0.00 to 1.83 students per home.

The average ratio of students per occupied Multi‐Family unit was 0.36. The ratio in specific multi‐family units ranged from 0.09 to 1.13 students per unit.

Economic and Housing Considerations Economic Concerns At the present time, unemployment is still low in the City of Houston overall, but is 11% higher than a year ago. For Harris County, there has been a 15% increase in unemployment in the past year. During 2015, the Houston area gained 23,000 jobs. This was down significantly from the 104,700 added jobs in 2014, at the height of the oil boom. Job losses due to the oil price plunge are more difficult to ascertain. Schlumberger and Southwestern Energy have made sharp cuts, but are not legally required to report the number of losses in the Houston area, per se. Karr Ingham, a Texas economist, estimates that in 2015, Texas lost a minimum of 60,000 upstream oil and gas jobs. Ingham further stated that ~250,000 “supply chain” Texas jobs were lost in 2015 due to the oil industry’s woes (Houston Chronicle, Jan. 26, 2016).

Single Family

Housing Unit

Multi-Family

Housing Units

Condos / Townhomes

Housing Units

Mobile Home Communities

Housing Units

GRAND TOTAL

Dec2015-Oct2016 967 235 7 20 1,229Oct2016-Oct2017 1,115 475 5 49 1,644Oct2017-Oct2018 1,145 575 6 31 1,757Oct2018-Oct2019 1,169 705 6 21 1,901Oct2019-Oct2020 1,228 705 3 9 1,945Oct2020-Oct2021 1,291 665 4 1 1,961Oct2021-Oct2022 1,290 635 4 0 1,929Oct2022-Oct2023 1,284 540 3 0 1,827Oct2023-Oct2024 1,323 315 0 0 1,638Oct2024-Oct2025 1,281 150 0 0 1,431

2015-2020 5,624 2,695 27 130 8,4762020-2025 6,469 2,305 11 1 8,7862015-2025 12,093 5,000 38 131 17,262


This Texas data does not allow us to estimate Houston’s losses, although Patrick Janowski (Greater Houston Partnership) estimated that 29,000 oil/gas related jobs locally have been lost due to layoffs and job cuts at exploration and production firms. The Partnership also emphasized that local banking and real estate job losses may be up to one in seven in both sectors (Houston Chronicle, Dec. 8, 2015). Recent Housing Trends Metrostudy data suggests that Humble I.S.D. ranks 8th out of 64 districts in the Consolidated Metro Area in housing starts for the quarter ending in December, 2015. H.I.S.D. has ranked 8th for several years, keeping pace with other high growth local districts. Humble I.S.D. had 222 housing starts in this last quarter, behind Fort Bend, Katy, Lamar, Houston, Cy‐Fair, Conroe and Klein. For the 4thquarter 2015, H.I.S.D. new home starts have been 18% lower than the 4th quarter last year (222 starts down from 263 starts). However, the two years of annualized starts are very similar (1,111 starts through the 4th quarter of 2015) and showed no significant annualized downturn. Likewise, new home closings are down 20%, from 370 in the 4th quarter of 2014 to 307 in the 4th quarter of 2015. This is a sign of decreased demand among home buyers, even if this decline is short‐lived. The Houston Association of Realtors (HAR) has placed their end‐of‐year evaluation of the number of home sales at a 9.7% decrease from 2014. However, for the entire Houston area, the median home price was up 6.5% in 2015, and HAR expects the current prices to hold steady in 2016. It is anticipated that, with the continued in‐migration from outside the State to this area, predominately due to the greater access afforded by the imminent opening of the Grand Parkway, there will be a resurgence in home purchases in H.I.S.D. Of note, this renewed demand will likely include older homes in the northern sector of the District, specifically in the 14,000 acre Kingwood Master Planned Community. With the exception of the new Kingwood sections in Royal Brook, the remaining subdivisions are built‐out. In Kingwood, older residents should continue to move out of homes built in the early 1970s and later. With the potential for renewed housing demand due to better access to major employment centers, regeneration will begin to occur, with younger families likely moving into subdivisions with homes 34‐40 years old. In sum, home prices are holding steady, but H.I.S.D. housing starts and new home closings in the near term are a softer market due to low oil prices and significant layoffs in the energy sector that have spilled over into Humble I.S.D. The Impact of Oil and Gas Employment on Humble I.S.D. Residents

Humble I.S.D. is at the geographic crossroads between a financial boom in “downstream” oil process (to the southeast) and an “upstream” financial bust (to the west). Within the metro area,


there are countervailing employment trends associated with these two parts of the oil industry. Jobs not related directly or indirectly to oil and gas production are seemingly continuing to grow, especially those related to medical services. Downstream Work Force: Humble I.S.D. has been in the top ten districts Statewide in regard to increases in student enrollment. One of the economic pulls to the area is the proximity to refineries and petrochemical plants southeast of the District (with a concentration of downstream jobs), and where the demand for plastics, chemicals, and liquid natural gas propels new job growth. The downstream petrochemical centers to the southeast have between $35 billion and $50 billion in new industrial construction underway in Baytown, Mont Belvieu, and other adjacent sites. This brings added permanent employees, as well as tens of thousands of temporary construction jobs. But, most often, the engineers and related technology workers do not live in the locations of the refinery jobs, and either commute from their last place of origin, or bring their families to close proximity to their jobs, such as Humble I.S.D and other positively regarded school districts. The new commercial space in and near H.I.S.D. should be noted in summary, since new technology centers, such as Generation Park, are adjacent to H.I.S.D. Humble I.S.D. residents can have this proximity to employment, while still being able to have children enrolled in a highly regarded school district such as H.I.S.D. Upstream Work Force: Likewise, due to the imminent opening of the Grand Parkway, there will be greater accessibility from Humble I.S.D. to The Woodlands, and to other office epicenters in north central and western Harris County. But, upstream jobs and office space are both downsizing, just as rapidly as they recently increased, in both manpower and square footage. While the Houston area added perhaps 23,000 jobs overall in 2015, those sectors dependent on oil saw steep job cuts. The latest cut‐backs for the nation’s oil companies suggests that investments (and budgets) will be cut by 24% in 2016 and, combined with 2015 cuts, would represent a two‐year 51% cut in capital. Surprisingly, this would be more than the 46% budget cuts in the 1980s. Perhaps most thought‐provoking is that those who invest in infrastructure for oil production (which will decide the future for oil production in 2017, 2019 and 2020) are not yet entering the fray. This causes many to feel that there will be no real uptick in U.S. oil production for 4‐5 years. Humble I.S.D. is in the unique position that its geographic proximity to employment centers for BOTH of these sectors of the oil‐related industry allows its residents to be employed in both categories. Therefore, the diversification of oil‐related employment (upstream AND downstream) by Humble I.S.D. residents will help the School District weather the negative consequence of the current low oil prices.


Population and Survey Analysts (PASA) has recently completed a Demographic Update for Humble I.S.D. by studying student residential locations, potential growth, housing trends, and economic factors inherent to the District. PASA studied the expected long‐term trends for the District, and created a dataset to use in planning for the next ten years. The findings of this report are detailed in the following document.

Demographic Study Overview PASA projects student data for a school district by using forward‐looking techniques, and does not rely on past rates of change. The resulting data that PASA generates is more rigorous and more usable by school districts than data created by State or Local entities because PASA assesses the actual development occurring. The steps in the gathering of this data are outlined below and organized by chapter. Chapter 1 – Introductory Materials

PASA uses this data to understand the competitive advantage the District has over other nearby districts or schools, and also to understand recent enrollment trends by grade and grade group.

1. Introductory materials comparing the District to surrounding districts 2. Economic data 3. Recent enrollment trends by grade 4. Private school data

Chapter 2 – Housing Projections

PASA employees assess the 10‐year development potential for each major parcel of land in the District. Data is gathered for every subdivision, apartment complex, and condo and then aggregated into Planning Units, with the Planning Units being derived from the Census‐defined block groups for the area. Projected housing occupancies are based on interviews with up to 100 real estate experts, commercial brokers, city and county officials, and others, who are familiar with development expected in the area.

1. Planning Unit maps 2. Maps and spreadsheets of projected housing occupancies – both single‐ and multi‐

family – for the 10‐year timeframe 3. Maps containing aerial imagery and data on parcels, subdivisions, and multi‐family

complexes

Population & Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - February 2016 1

Chapter 3 – Ratios of Students per Household

PASA must understand how many new students each new house will yield. The common assumption is that each home contains an average of two students, but in reality, the ratios of students enrolled in the District at any given time is much lower than that.

1. Current ratios of students per household for both single‐ and multi‐family housing units 2. Maps and spreadsheets of this ratio data

Chapter 4 – Districtwide Student Projections

Where the current students live is the basis of all of PASA’s student projections, and maps in this chapter show these “geo‐coded” students and their attendance zones of residence. PASA develops three scenarios of growth, in an attempt to “bracket‐in” all future growth patterns. The Moderate Scenario of Growth is used as the basis of long range planning in this report, but the Low and High Growth Scenarios must also be considered as feasible possibilities when planning for future facility utilization.

1. Maps of the current student population, geo‐coded by their home addresses 2. Three scenarios of Districtwide, grade level growth: Low Growth, Moderate Growth,

and High Growth Chapter 5 – Student Projections by Location

PASA uses the data prepared in the Demographic Update to assess the long‐term stability of each existing attendance zone, and also projects when and where additional facilities might be warranted. 1. Charts containing projections by Planning Unit, based on the Moderate Scenario of Growth 2. Maps detailing the projections by Attendance Zone 3. Charts of current transfers by attendance zone 4. Maps and charts detailing the projected student population compared to the capacity of

each facility

Regional Growth Trends The first map shows the District as it is located in Harris County with 91.26 square miles. The next maps show the 2015 student enrollment for the districts in the Houston metro area based on telephone contacts with each district. Despite the fact that the 2015‐16 PEIMS data has been submitted to the State, it will not be readily available for public use until later in the Spring, 2016. As a result, these figures will vary from the official PEIMS data, but should provide a baseline for growth patterns in the area. Humble I.S.D. had an absolute increase of 1,025 students (a 2.59% increase) this year. Katy I.S.D. gained the most students out of 62 area districts, with 2,459 added students, followed by Conroe I.S.D. at 1,811 and Lamar C.I.S.D. at 1,244 new students. Houston I.S.D. lost 2,235 students, according to this unofficial survey of local districts. In looking at a five‐year growth pattern, Humble I.S.D. has gained over 4,600 students, which is similar to Fort Bend I.S.D. But, Katy I.S.D. and Houston I.S.D. gained more than 9,000 students during the same time, with some of Houston I.S.D.’s growth coming from the inclusion of North Forest I.S.D. Humble I.S.D. ranked 10th in percent growth out of all districts larger than 20,000 students in the State of Texas for the last official PEIMS data available. Additionally, Humble


I.S.D. ranked 9th in terms of the most students added out of all school districts in Texas between 2013‐14 and 2014‐15.

Recent Growth of Students in Early Grades The growth in Kindergarten students is particularly important, in that it predicts somewhat the growth in each future grade. This school year, H.I.S.D. lost 3% relative to last year in Kindergarten. But, due to programmatic changes, there was an 11% gain last school year in KN. One interesting chart in this Chapter shows the Kindergarten enrollment in the District compared to the births (based on birth mother’s address) within the District – and adjusted five years forward. This chart has shown a correlation between the two sets of data, and allows, at least in general terms, for an approximation of future Kindergarten enrollment over the next 3 years. This graph shows the recent increase that the District has seen in Kindergarteners and births, but also shows a future dampening of growth. Since this data does not account for in‐migration into Humble I.S.D., it tells only a part of the story about future enrollment. Similarly, for the 2014‐15 PEIMS data, the 1st grade population was 2.36% smaller than the 5th grade population, compared to the statewide trend in which the 1st grade was 6.03% larger than the 5th grade. These figures spell slower growth for the District, with these smaller cohorts replacing older, larger classes – a sign that young families have been having continued difficulty in obtaining mortgages in H.I.S.D. Likewise, the distribution of younger students throughout the District can have a varying impact on enrollment at each elementary school. The next chart illustrates the attendance zones in which the resident 1st grade population is larger than the 5th grade population (shown in green). Fourteen of the elementary schools have a larger 1st grade population than 5th grade. Twelve have a larger 5th grade population than 1st grade. One school has the same number in each grade. Those with larger 1st grade classes are more likely to continue to grow in the short term, while those with smaller 1st grade classes may see smaller incoming KN classes, as well as aging and/or declining student populations. An analysis of the past decade of enrollment trends (refer to Historical Growth Trends chart) shows an extremely small fluctuation in the proportions in each grade group from year to year. Overall, the proportion of students in each grade group has remained very stable over the past several years, ranging from between 46 % and 47% for elementary school students.

Socioeconomic Characteristics of Student Population Many non‐specific quality of life opinions held by the public can be studied empirically using two factors from school district data. First, the percentage of students who qualify for the free/reduced price lunch program is tightly correlated with median household income and median housing value. Therefore, analysis of the free/reduced lunch population offers an annually updated assessment of this quality of life indicator. H.I.S.D. had 33.4% of enrolled students who


are eligible for the free/reduced price lunch program (based on 2014‐15 PEIMS data), compared to 58.39% of all students in Texas who participate in this program for economically disadvantaged families. This ranks Humble I.S.D. 13th in the State out of all 62 Districts with 20,000 or more students as having a low proportion of economically disadvantaged students. This subset of the student population has increased only slightly in the last 5 years, increasing from 32.4% in the Fall, 2009 to 33.4% in the Fall, 2014. Most school districts in the state of Texas have seen increases in this student population. Another quality of life indicator commonly being used is performance on the State‐mandated STAAR test. While most Districts focus on small subsets of the population and scores on specific tests, a more global analysis provides a good comparison of overall performance between districts. Therefore, PASA summarizes the percentage of students in all grades who passed the STAAR test in the Spring, 2015. Statewide, about 71.8% of all students in Texas public schools passed the STAAR test (achieved Level II or Level III). Comparatively, Humble I.S.D. has an overall passage rate of 79.18%, ranking it 16th in the State of Texas for Districts larger than 20,000 students. Thus, analysis of the economically disadvantaged population and STAAR performance illustrates empirically the extremely positive perception of Humble I.S.D. and points to the competitive advantage this district holds over others in attracting new residents. Also, the passage rate and the percentage of economically disadvantaged students correlates highly with other quality of life factors, such as median household income and educational levels of adults 25 years and older. Other socioeconomic characteristics are summarized for the District in the next chart, and the District is compared to other comparable Districts and the Houston Consolidated Metro area. The resident population of Humble I.S.D. is older in age than Houston Metro area (median age of 35.4 years compared to the median age in Houston of 34 years), and less oriented to families with children (18% of the population is school‐aged, compared to 20% of the Houston population in this age range). Not surprisingly, the H.I.S.D. population is more educated (36% has a Bachelor’s degree or higher compared to 31% in Houston), and the median household income is just over $82,000 compared to $60,072 in D‐FW overall. Also not surprisingly, the H.I.S.D. population spends more time commuting to work each day, an average of 33.4 minutes each way, with the median for the Metro area at 29.2. Shown on maps in this Chapter are the proportions of the student population by ethnicity for Humble I.S.D. and all local districts. Apart from the employment growth and the increase in nearby job centers, growth of students in Humble I.S.D. has also been spawned by international immigration. As noted on the aforementioned maps, virtually every Houston area school district over the past two years has seen a significant increase in Central American and Asian students. In October, November, and December of 2015, 10,500 unaccompanied minors per month entered the U.S. If the locations to which these children gravitate is similar to the past two years, the Houston area will evidence the largest increase of these new arrivals. For all age groups, relocation to Harris County between 2010 and 2014 was highest for those from Asia and Central America, followed by those from California. International immigrants account for the lion’s share of population growth in several school districts in the region, such as Houston I.S.D. and Aldine I.S.D., both of which are adjacent to Humble I.S.D.


Statewide, there have been greater numeric increases in school‐age children than any other state in the nation. Texas has become the second most populous State, largely due to immigration. In fact, one in six Texans (of all age groups) were born in a foreign country, and most school districts reflect this immigrant influence. For example, in 1990, 50% of all students statewide were non‐minority. As of the 2014‐15 school year, Texas schools had 28.2 % non‐minority (with those identifying as more than 1 race being considered as “minority” students for this analysis.) The 2015‐16 Humble I.S.D. enrollment suggests that 34.06% of H.I.S.D. students are Hispanic, 19.11% are African‐Americans, and 2.98% are Asian. The remaining 43.83% are “other” races, including mixed‐race students. The Competitive Advantages of Humble I.S.D. Based on demographic precepts, people migrate due to fairly predictable patterns and for fairly predictable reasons. There are both “push” and “pull” factors operating. In the past 25 years, the “pull” factors to Humble I.S.D. have revolved around available land. The Humble/Lake Houston area is in the development path of the northern portion of the Houston area. These relocates are seeking the ability to be “pioneers” in a less dense, more secure environment, and also have been seeking to benefit from new infrastructure, and from a master‐planned environment that would yield a high quality of life. “Push” factors revolve around immigration. While some international immigrants move to Humble, other, urban core residents exit homes inside “the loops” to move outward to new suburban communities, leaving the older infrastructure for incoming international immigrant residents. This push factor was suppressed from 2007 to roughly 2012, as the area attempted to pull out of a deep recession, and dealing with a lack of readily available mortgages. Even in 2016, the mortgage rates are increasing only slightly, and this could either motivate some buyers to enter the Houston housing market (while there is an overabundance of homes due to the oil price downturn). Or, conversely, the slight increase in rates could discourage potential buyers, because the down payments remain high, and they also feel the personal income uncertainty of the continued oil price slump. Recent growth in Humble I.S.D. has been fueled by pull factors, i.e., the aesthetically desirable subdivisions and new infrastructure, as well as (indirectly) still available undeveloped land. This has spawned new retail and office development, encouraging residents to be further drawn to H.I.S.D.

Economic and Employment Trends Employment by Economic Sector The 2014 American Community Survey provides annually updated information about residents of Humble I.S.D., including the economic sectors in which residents are employed. These data are shown on a pie chart at the end of this Chapter.


Not surprisingly, the largest employment sectors represented in the District are the educational and medical services sector (23% of the work force); and the professional, scientific, and management sector (11%); followed by the transportation, warehousing, and utilities sector (9%). Current Employment Trends Summary of Employment Changes in Humble I.S.D: According to the American Community Survey, H.I.S.D.’s employment grew at 5.26% between 2007 and 2008. Employment growth slowed the next 2 years, with a growth rate at 0.45% in 2009 and 2.24% in 2010. This figure increased again for 2011, coming in at 4.04%, with growth rates of 3.52% in 2012, 3.53% in 2013, and 4.03% in 2014. During this time, the lowest unemployment rate was at 4.8% in 2008. The rate hovered around 5% from 2007 to 2010 (ranging from 4.8% to 5.3%), but in the last several years, the unemployment rate has been near 6% (with 5.3% in 2011, 5.8% in 2012, 6.1% in 2013, and 6.2% in 2014.) These figures are gathered by the ACS for Humble I.S.D., and are slightly different than those gathered for the City of Houston or Harris County. At the present time, unemployment is still low in the City of Houston overall, but is 11% higher than a year ago. For Harris County, there has been a 15% increase in unemployment in the past year. During 2015, the Houston area gained 23,000 jobs. This was down significantly from the 104,700 added jobs in 2014, at the height of the oil boom. The job losses due to the oil price plunge are more difficult to ascertain. Schlumberger and Southwestern Energy has made sharp cuts, but are not legally required to state the number of losses in the Houston area, per se. Karr Ingham, a Texas economist, estimates that in 2015, Texas lost a minimum of 60,000 upstream oil and gas jobs. Ingham further stated that ~250,000 “supply chain” Texas jobs were lost in 2015 due to the oil industry’s woes (Houston Chronicle, Jan. 26, 2016). This Texas data does not allow us to estimate Houston’s losses, although Patrick Janowski (Greater Houston Partnership) estimated that 29,000 oil/gas related jobs locally have been lost due to layoffs and job cuts at exploration and production firms. The Partnership also emphasized that local banking and real estate job losses may be up to one in seven of both sectors (Houston Chronicle, Dec. 8, 2015). The Impact of Oil and Gas Employment on Humble I.S.D. Residents

Humble I.S.D. is at the geographic crossroads between a financial boom in downstream oil process (to the southeast) and an upstream financial bust (to the west). Within the metro area, there are countervailing employment trends. Jobs not related directly or indirectly to oil and gas production are seemingly continuing to grow, especially those related to medical services.


Downstream Work Force: As noted earlier in this Chapter, Humble I.S.D. has been in the top ten districts Statewide in regard to increases in student enrollment (among the large 20,000 student‐population districts). One of the economic pulls to the area is the proximity to refineries and petrochemical plants southeast of the District (with a concentration of downstream jobs), and where the demand for plastics, chemicals, and liquid natural gas propels new job growth. The downstream petrochemical centers to the southeast have between $35 billion and $50 billion in new industrial construction underway in Baytown, Mont Belvieu, and other adjacent sites. This brings added permanent employees, as well as tens of thousands of temporary construction jobs. But, most often, the engineers and related technology workers do not live in the locations of the refinery jobs, and either commute from their last place of origin, or bring their families to close proximity to their jobs, such as Humble I.S.D and other positively regarded school districts. The new commercial space in and near H.I.S.D. will be discussed below, but should be noted in summary, since new technology centers, such as Generation Park, are adjacent to H.I.S.D. Humble I.S.D. residents can have this proximity, while still being able to have children enrolled in a highly regarded school district such as H.I.S.D. Upstream Work Force: Likewise, due to the imminent opening of the Grand Parkway, there will be greater accessibility from Humble I.S.D. to The Woodlands, and to other office epicenters in north central and western Harris County. But, the upstream jobs and office space are both downsizing, just as rapidly as they recently increased, in both manpower and square footage. While the Houston area added perhaps 23,000 jobs overall in 2015, those sectors dependent on oil saw steep job cuts. The latest cut‐backs for the nation’s oil companies suggests that investments (and budgets) will be cut by 24% in 2016 and, combined with 2015 cuts, would represent a two‐year 51% cut in capital. Surprisingly, this would be more than the 46% budget cuts in the 1980s. Perhaps most thought‐provoking is that those who invest in infrastructure for oil production (which will decide the future for oil production in 2017, 2019 and 2020) are not yet entering the fray. This causes many to feel that there will be no real uptick in U.S. oil production for 4‐5 years. Humble I.S.D. is in the unique position that its geographic proximity to employment centers for BOTH of these sectors of the oil‐related industry allows its residents to be employed in both categories. Therefore, the diversification of oil‐related employment (upstream AND downstream) by Humble I.S.D. residents will help the School District weather the negative consequence of the current low oil prices. New Commercial Development Impacting Humble I.S.D. Job Growth The increase in major employment centers in the region will affect H.I.S.D. because many area employers are suggesting Humble I.S.D. as a place of residence for employees, even though the enterprise itself may be outside the District’s boundaries. These include:

1. Generation Park – on ~4,000 acres. Phase I of the FMC Technologies new campus is

close to completion, and about 2,000 employees are planning to move in early 2016. Construction has already begun on a new Courtyard Marriott, Lone Star College Process Technology Center, and Phase I of Subsea Lane Pedestrian Advantage, which plans to offer 2+ million square feet of office space, restaurants and retail shops.


2. Valley Ranch Town Center – at the intersection of Highway I‐69/US 59 N. and the

Grand Parkway; located on 240 ac. with a focus on retail and office space;

3. Kingwood Parc City Center – along I‐69 at Sorters Road – with 1 million square feet of offices, restaurants, park and outdoor fitness areas, retail, hotels, and apartments;

4. Kingwood Main Street opening in Fall 2016 – retail centered – five miles from W.

Lake Houston @ FM 1960;

5. Grand Texas Theme Park (north of 242 & west of US 59/69) –just north of H.I.S.D. The time frame has been set back for this development, with opening in 2018 a possibility. It is expected to bring 1,200 seasonal and full‐time jobs, and ~900 secondary jobs in retail and hotels, as well as 1,600 construction jobs; and

6. Pondera King Energy Center – a 900‐megawatt natural gas plant located north of

the intersection of North Lake Houston Pkwy and Lockwood Rd., close to Beltway 8 and UPRC. The water supply contract is not finalized, but it is expecting commercial operation to begin in July, 2017 (thus stimulating other development).

Private and Charter School Enrollment The final chart in this chapter summarizes the survey of area private schools conducted by PASA this year. Schools included in this survey were both those located within H.I.S.D. boundaries, as well as those located near major employment centers that could potentially enroll students living in H.I.S.D. Based on these interviews with headmasters and enrollment coordinators at each private school, there are an estimated 626 students in KN‐12th grades who live within H.I.S.D. that attend these private schools. In other words, approximately 1.52 of the population attends private schools. This is a small percent of the total student‐aged population within the District, implying that the perception of public schools in Humble I.S.D. is very positive. Based on the schools’ plans for expansion of facilities and enrollment goals, the private schools in the area could draw an additional 130 students from the H.I.S.D. public school system over the next five years, but due to the expected growth in Humble I.S.D., the proportion of student population in enrolled in private schools should increase only slightly, to 1.61%. Likewise, if a continued downturn in economic conditions were to occur, then this will discourage families from financing private school educations. Thus, H.I.S.D. could receive some of these projected 756 students into the public school system.


Tarkington ISD

228.41

Dayton ISD

260.98

Spring ISD

55.6

Sheldon ISD

53.5

Pasadena ISD

60.43

North Forest ISD

31.58

Huffman ISD

52.58

Deer Park ISD

39.7

Crosby ISD

81.13

Channelview ISD

19.99

Aldine ISD

108.85

Splendora ISD

73.97

Conroe ISD

345.45

Cleveland ISD

143.4

New Caney ISD

86.48

Humble ISD

91.26

Goose Creek CISD

134.14Houston ISD

300.43

Montgomery County

Liberty County

Harris County

Chambers County

District Size in Square MilesDistrict Size in Square MilesDistrict Size in Square MilesDistrict Size in Square MilesHumble I.S.D.Humble I.S.D.Humble I.S.D.Humble I.S.D.

Highways

Counties

Water Bodies²0 1 2 3 4 50.5

Miles*Source: Texas Education Agency


Goose

Creek CISD

23,250

Dayton

ISD

5,271

Cleveland

ISD

4,091

Humble

ISD

40,547Aldine

ISD

69,122

Spring ISD

36,617

Brazos

ISD

802

Splendora

ISD

3,753

Katy ISD

72,825

Tomball

ISD

13,842

Houston

ISD

212,990

Galena

Park ISD

20,873

Klein ISD

50,395

Deer

Park ISD

13,277

New

Caney ISD

13,718

La Porte

ISD

7,673

Cypress-Fairbanks

ISD

113,822

Pearland

ISD

21,034

Pasadena

ISD

55,274

Alief ISD

47,751

Spring

Branch ISD

35,191

Conroe

ISD

58,174

Barbers

Hill ISD

5,008

Crosby ISD

5,659

Huffman

ISD

3,456

Royal

ISD

2,260

Friendswood

ISD

6,132

Sheldon

ISD

8,311

Channelview

ISD

9,283

Clear

Creek ISD

41,179

Montgomery

ISD

8,161

Waller

ISD

6,506

Magnolia

ISD

12,872

Fort

Bend ISD

72,993

Alvin ISD

22,030Needville

ISD

2,994

Lamar

CISD

29,576

Navasota

ISD

3,062

Grimes

San Jacinto

Montgomery

Liberty

Waller

Harris

Fort BendBrazoria

Galveston

(Based on Pre-PEIMS Estimates in September 2015)

Tota l School Enro l lment

Fa l l 2015HOUSTON

Population and Survey Analysts0 5 102.5 Miles

[

Enrollment 2015

Counties

Water Bodies

Highways

<4,000

4,001 - 10,000

10,001 - 20,000

20,001 - 30,000

30,001 - 50,000

50,001 - 212,990


Goose

Creek

CISD

81

Dayton

ISD

67

Cleveland

ISD

244

Humble

ISD

1,025Aldine

ISD

-594

Spring

ISD

-333

Brazos

ISD

-1

Splendora

ISD

124

Katy ISD

2,495

Tomball

ISD

604

Houston

ISD

-2,235

Galena

Park ISD

-1,852

Klein ISD

993

Deer

Park ISD

137

New

Caney ISD

739

La Porte

ISD

136

Cypress-Fairbanks

ISD

799

Pearland

ISD

484

Pasadena

ISD

-303

Alief ISD

549

Spring

Branch ISD

81

Conroe

ISD

1,811

Barbers

Hill ISD

105

Crosby

ISD

208

Huffman

ISD

67

Royal

ISD

58

Friendswood

ISD

26

Sheldon

ISD

348

Channelview

ISD

195

Clear

Creek ISD

367

Montgomery

ISD

225

Waller

ISD

256

Magnolia

ISD

414

Fort

Bend ISD

841

Alvin ISD

1,164Needville

ISD

69

Lamar

CISD

1,244

Navasota

ISD

7Grimes

San Jacinto

Montgomery

Liberty

Waller

Harris

Chambers

Fort BendBrazoria

Galveston


Numeric Change in School District Enrollment

1-Year Change: 2014-15 to 2015-16HOUSTON


[

Numeric Change 1-year

Counties

Water Bodies

Highways

<0

1 - 100

101 - 500

501 - 1,000

1,001 - 1,250

1,251+


Deer Park

ISD

1.04%

Goose

Creek CISD

0.35%

Dayton

ISD

1.29%

Cleveland

ISD

6.34%

Humble

ISD

2.59%Aldine

ISD

-0.85%

Spring ISD

-0.9%

Brazos

ISD

-0.12%

Splendora

ISD

3.42%

Katy ISD

3.55%

Tomball

ISD

4.56%

Houston

ISD

-1.04%

Galena

Park ISD

-8.15%

Klein

ISD

2.01%

New

Caney ISD

5.69%

La Porte

ISD

1.78%

Cypress-Fairbanks

ISD

0.71%

Pearland

ISD

2.36%

Pasadena

ISD

-0.55%

Alief ISD

1.16%

Spring

Branch ISD

0.23%

Conroe

ISD

3.21%

Barbers

Hill ISD

2.14%

Crosby ISD

3.82%

Huffman

ISD

1.98%

Royal

ISD

0.86%

Friendswood

ISD

0.43%

Sheldon

ISD

4.37%

Channelview

ISD

1.64%

Clear

Creek ISD

0.9%

Montgomery

ISD

2.84%

Waller

ISD

4.1%

Magnolia

ISD

3.32%

Fort

Bend ISD

1.17%

Alvin ISD

5.58%Needville

ISD

2.36%

Lamar

CISD

4.39%

Navasota

ISD

0.23%

Grimes

San Jacinto

MontgomeryLiberty

Waller

Harris

Chambers

Fort BendBrazoria

Galveston


Percent Change in School District Enrollment



[

Percent Change 1 yr

Counties

Highways

Water Bodies

<0%

.01% - 1%

1.1% - 2%

2.1% - 3%

3.1% -4%

4%+


Goose

Creek CISD

1,744

Dayton

ISD

257

Cleveland

ISD

-42

Humble

ISD

4,635Aldine

ISD

6,362

Spring

ISD

681

Splendora

ISD

156

Katy ISD

9,275

Tomball

ISD

2,280

Houston

ISD

9,722

Galena

Park ISD

879

Klein

ISD

3,926

Deer

Park ISD

446

New

Caney ISD

2,885

La Porte

ISD

-32

Cypress-Fairbanks

ISD

7,725

Pearland

ISD

1,721

Pasadena

ISD

3,349

Alief ISD

1,608

Spring

Branch ISD

2,179

Conroe ISD

7,004

Barbers

Hill ISD

656

Crosby

ISD

332

Huffman

ISD

225

Royal

ISD

177

Friendswood

ISD

141

Sheldon

ISD

1,073

Channelview

ISD

491

Clear

Creek ISD

2,437

Montgomery

ISD

1,041

Waller

ISD

755

Magnolia

ISD

602

Fort

Bend ISD

4,045

Alvin ISD

3,415Needville

ISD

398

Lamar

CISD

3,695

Grimes

San Jacinto

Montgomery

Liberty

Waller

Harris

Chambers

Fort BendBrazoria

Galveston


Numeric Change in School District Enrollment



[

Numeric Change 5 yrs

Counties

Water Bodies

Highways

<0

1 - 450

451 - 1,500

1,501 - 4,000

4,001 - 8,500

8,501+


Goose

Creek CISD

8.19%

Dayton

ISD

5.22%

Cleveland

ISD

-1.09%

Humble

ISD

12.91%Aldine

ISD

10.07%

Spring ISD

1.87%

Brazos

ISD

1.46%

Splendora

ISD

4.47%

Katy ISD

15.25%

Tomball

ISD

21.37%

Houston

ISD

4.76%

Galena

Park ISD

4.05%

Klein

ISD

8.66%

Deer

Park ISD

3.54%

New

Caney ISD

28.55%

La Porte

ISD

-0.41%

Cypress-Fairbanks

ISD

7.28%

Pearland

ISD

9.17%

Pasadena

ISD

6.41%

Alief ISD

3.51%

Spring

Branch ISD

6.61%

Conroe

ISD

13.69%

Barbers

Hill ISD

15.55%

Crosby ISD

6.49%

Huffman

ISD

7.1%

Royal

ISD

8.66%

Friendswood

ISD

2.36%

Sheldon ISD

15.66%

Channelview

ISD

5.68%

Clear

Creek ISD

6.35%

Montgomery

ISD

15.09%

Waller

ISD

13.85%

Magnolia

ISD

5.06%

Fort

Bend ISD

5.87%

Alvin ISD

19.66%Needville

ISD

15.33%

Lamar

CISD

15%

Navasota

ISD

4.26%

Grimes

San Jacinto

Montgomery

Liberty

Waller

Harris

Fort BendBrazoria

Galveston


Percent Change in School District Enrollment



[

Percent Change 5-year

Counties

HighwaysWater Bodies

<-.9%

0% - 3%

3.01% - 6%

6.01% - 9%

9.01% - 15%

15.01%+


Numeric Percent

1 HOUSTON ISD 211,552 215,225 3,673 1.7%

2 FRISCO ISD 46,053 49,644 3,591 7.8%

3 KATY ISD 67,213 70,330 3,117 4.6%

4 ALDINE ISD 67,381 69,716 2,335 3.5%

5 CYPRESS‐FAIRBANKS ISD 111,440 113,023 1,583 1.4%

6 NORTHSIDE ISD 102,129 103,606 1,477 1.4%

7 FORT WORTH ISD 84,588 85,975 1,387 1.6%

8 CONROE ISD 55,009 56,363 1,354 2.5%

9 HUMBLE ISD 38,235 39,522 1,287 3.4%10 LAMAR CISD 27,079 28,332 1,253 4.6%

(Most Students Added Between 2013‐14 and 2014‐15)

Fastest Growth School Districts in Texas

Growth

Rank District Name

Enrollment

2013‐14

Enrollment

2014‐15


Five Year Enrollment Trends by District: Fall, 2009 to Fall, 2014All Districts with >20,000 Students

(Sorted by 1-Year % Change 2013-14 to 2014-15)

2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 20095-Year

% Change (2009-2014)

2014 / 2013

2013 / 2012

2012 / 2011

2011 / 2010

2010 / 2009

1 FRISCO ISD 49,644 46,053 42,707 40,123 37,279 33,973 46.13% 7.80% 7.83% 6.44% 7.63% 9.73%

2 ALVIN ISD 20,866 19,809 18,886 18,209 17,367 16,788 24.29% 5.34% 4.89% 3.72% 4.85% 3.45%

3 KATY ISD 70,330 67,213 64,562 62,414 60,803 59,078 19.05% 4.64% 4.11% 3.44% 2.65% 2.92%

4 LAMAR CISD 28,332 27,079 26,135 25,278 24,637 23,864 18.72% 4.63% 3.61% 3.39% 2.60% 3.24%

5 COMAL ISD 20,327 19,500 18,693 17,817 17,239 16,700 21.72% 4.24% 4.32% 4.92% 3.35% 3.23%

6 GOOSE CREEK CISD 23,169 22,320 21,821 21,675 21,283 20,954 10.57% 3.80% 2.29% 0.67% 1.84% 1.57%

7 ECTOR COUNTY ISD 31,971 30,857 29,649 28,533 28,126 27,435 16.53% 3.61% 4.07% 3.91% 1.45% 2.52%

8 ALDINE ISD 69,716 67,381 65,684 64,300 63,154 62,792 11.03% 3.47% 2.58% 2.15% 1.81% 0.58%

9 MIDLAND ISD 24,369 23,560 23,319 22,628 21,736 21,374 14.01% 3.43% 1.03% 3.05% 4.10% 1.69%

10 HUMBLE ISD 39,522 38,235 37,095 36,076 35,913 34,923 13.17% 3.37% 3.07% 2.82% 0.45% 2.83%

Rank

Enrollment Percent Change

Population Survey Analysts

Population &

Survey A

nalysts - Dem

ographic Update - February 2016

16

Tomball ISD

7.13%

Goose

Creek CISD

7.3%

Dayton

ISD

6.3%

Cleveland

ISD

3.54%

Humble

ISD

6.74%Aldine

ISD

7.62%

Spring ISD

4.15%

Brazos

ISD

6.23%

Splendora

ISD

6.95%

Katy ISD

7.24% Houston

ISD

7.97%

Galena

Park ISD

6.78%

Klein ISD

6.65%

Deer

Park ISD

6.42%

New

Caney ISD

7.2%

La Porte

ISD

6.58%

Cypress-Fairbanks

ISD

6.44%

Pearland ISD

6.77%

Pasadena

ISD

6.66%

Alief ISD

7.33%

Spring

Branch ISD

6.88%

Conroe ISD

7.03%

Barbers

Hill ISD

6.69%

Crosby

ISD

7.25%

Huffman

ISD

6.48%

Royal

ISD

7.3%

Friendswood

ISD

5.9%

Sheldon

ISD

6.47%

Channelview

ISD

7.34%

Clear

Creek ISD

6.76%

Montgomery

ISD

6.3%

Waller

ISD

7.36%

Magnolia

ISD

6.04%

Fort

Bend ISD

6.19%

Alvin ISD

7.68%Needville

ISD

7.21%

Lamar

CISD

7.5%

Navasota

ISD

6.86%

Grimes

Montgomery Liberty

Waller

Harris

Fort BendBrazoria

Galveston


Kindergarten Students as Percent of Total Enrollment

Fall 2015HOUSTON


[

Percent in Kindergarten

Counties

Water Bodies

Highways

<5%

5.01% - 6.25%

6.26% -7%

7.01% - 7.25%

7.26% - 7.5%

7.5%+


KN as a Proportion of Total Enrollment -- Fall 2014

All Districts with 20,000+ Students(Excluding Charter Schools)

Rank District Name

KN

Enrollment

2014‐15

Total

Enrollment

2014‐15

% KN

1 AUSTIN ISD 7,353 84,564 8.70%

2 RICHARDSON ISD 3,318 38,618 8.59%

3 LUBBOCK ISD 2,487 29,265 8.50%

4 KILLEEN ISD 3,623 42,638 8.50%

5 ECTOR COUNTY ISD 2,704 31,971 8.46%

6 HOUSTON ISD 18,160 215,225 8.44%

7 ALDINE ISD 5,847 69,716 8.39%

8 MIDLAND ISD 2,028 24,369 8.32%

9 DALLAS ISD 13,300 160,253 8.30%

10 AMARILLO ISD 2,764 33,576 8.23%

11 FORT WORTH ISD 7,025 85,975 8.17%

12 ALIEF ISD 3,826 47,202 8.11%

13 CARROLLTON‐FARMERS BRANCH ISD 2,105 26,210 8.03%

14 ALVIN ISD 1,670 20,866 8.00%

15 GOOSE CREEK CISD 1,843 23,169 7.95%

40 KLEIN ISD 3,528 49,402 7.14%

41 HUMBLE ISD 2,819 39,522 7.13%42 CYPRESS‐FAIRBANKS ISD 8,058 113,023 7.13%

43 COMAL ISD 1,438 20,327 7.07%

44 PHARR‐SAN JUAN‐ALAMO ISD 2,275 32,288 7.05%

45 MCKINNEY ISD 1,745 24,811 7.03%

46 GALENA PARK ISD 1,589 22,725 6.99%

47 ALLEN ISD 1,443 20,663 6.98%

48 LEANDER ISD 2,511 36,211 6.93%

49 EL PASO ISD 4,184 60,852 6.88%

50 PLANO ISD 3,756 54,689 6.87%

51 PEARLAND ISD 1,411 20,550 6.87%

52 CLEAR CREEK ISD 2,801 40,812 6.86%

53 NORTH EAST ISD 4,653 67,971 6.85%

54 UNITED ISD 2,946 43,421 6.78%

55 GARLAND ISD 3,894 57,436 6.78%

56 MCALLEN ISD 1,666 24,692 6.75%

57 KELLER ISD 2,239 33,619 6.66%

58 BROWNSVILLE ISD 3,217 48,355 6.65%

59 SOCORRO ISD 2,903 44,561 6.51%

60 LEWISVILLE ISD 3,405 53,356 6.38%

61 MANSFIELD ISD 2,114 33,410 6.33%

62 FORT BEND ISD 4,535 72,152 6.29%

7.43%Statewide Average

Population and Survey AnalystsPopulation & Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - February 2016 18

Humble I.S.D. :

Kindergarten Enrollment Compared to Births (Moved Five Years Forward)

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Kindergarten Enrollment 1,555 1,484 1,657 1,709 1,850 1,869 2,076 2,237 2,185 2,279 2,412 2,517 2,471 2,561 2,530 2,819 2,736 2,713 2,597 2,572

Births (Adjusted 5 years) 1,322 1,390 1,530 1,504 1,540 1,693 1,786 1,770 2,026 2,040 2,176 2,281 2,435 2,645 2,827 2,871 2,782 2,835 2,713 2,687

1,300

1,500

1,700

1,900

2,100

2,300

2,500

2,700

2,900

3,100

3,300

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Stu

den

ts

Year

Kindergarten Enrollment

Births (Adjusted 5 years)

KN Enrollment vs Births

Population &

Survey A

nalysts - Dem


19

1st Grade vs. 5th Grade Enrollment -- Fall, 2014


Rank District Name

1st Grade

Enrollment

2014‐15

5th Grade

Enrollment

2014‐15

Total

Enrollment

2014‐15

1st > 5th

1 KILLEEN ISD 3,937 2,943 42,638 33.78%

2 LAREDO ISD 2,207 1,724 24,705 28.02%

3 ALIEF ISD 4,203 3,382 47,202 24.28%

4 AUSTIN ISD 7,654 6,175 84,564 23.95%

5 LUBBOCK ISD 2,575 2,136 29,265 20.55%

6 ALDINE ISD 6,027 5,110 69,716 17.95%

7 SAN ANTONIO ISD 4,615 3,915 53,750 17.88%

8 ALVIN ISD 1,770 1,504 20,866 17.69%

9 HOUSTON ISD 18,884 16,133 215,225 17.05%

10 PASADENA ISD 4,694 4,049 55,577 15.93%

11 DALLAS ISD 13,968 12,105 160,253 15.39%

12 FORT WORTH ISD 7,411 6,449 85,975 14.92%

13 BIRDVILLE ISD 1,963 1,711 24,389 14.73%

14 RICHARDSON ISD 3,244 2,840 38,618 14.23%

15 MIDLAND ISD 2,117 1,865 24,369 13.51%

16 CARROLLTON‐FARMERS BRANCH ISD 2,193 1,963 26,210 11.72%

17 ECTOR COUNTY ISD 2,712 2,460 31,971 10.24%

18 AMARILLO ISD 2,736 2,483 33,576 10.19%

19 CORPUS CHRISTI ISD 3,184 2,920 38,772 9.04%

20 GALENA PARK ISD 1,767 1,639 22,725 7.81%, , ,, , ,, , ,, , ,, , ,, , ,, , ,, , ,, , ,, , ,, , ,, , ,, , ,, , ,, , ,, , ,, , ,, , ,, , ,

40 MESQUITE ISD 3,026 3,020 40,273 0.20%

41 COMAL ISD 1,585 1,590 20,327 ‐0.31%

42 UNITED ISD 3,192 3,216 43,421 ‐0.75%

43 NORTH EAST ISD 5,036 5,076 67,971 ‐0.79%

44 DENTON ISD 2,099 2,133 27,020 ‐1.59%

45 ROUND ROCK ISD 3,579 3,659 47,251 ‐2.19%

46 SOCORRO ISD 3,168 3,244 44,561 ‐2.34%

47 HUMBLE ISD 2,854 2,923 39,522 ‐2.36%48 KLEIN ISD 3,560 3,683 49,402 ‐3.34%

49 LA JOYA ISD 2,230 2,318 29,667 ‐3.80%

50 KELLER ISD 2,425 2,526 33,619 ‐4.00%

51 PFLUGERVILLE ISD 1,744 1,834 23,948 ‐4.91%

52 PEARLAND ISD 1,505 1,583 20,550 ‐4.93%

53 PLANO ISD 3,972 4,190 54,689 ‐5.20%

54 CLEAR CREEK ISD 2,865 3,030 40,812 ‐5.45%

55 FRISCO ISD 4,019 4,264 49,644 ‐5.75%

56 FORT BEND ISD 5,015 5,415 72,152 ‐7.39%

57 MCKINNEY ISD 1,743 1,886 24,811 ‐7.58%

58 LEANDER ISD 2,688 2,934 36,211 ‐8.38%

59 ALLEN ISD 1,451 1,588 20,663 ‐8.63%

60 LEWISVILLE ISD 3,643 3,987 53,356 ‐8.63%

61 MCALLEN ISD 1,703 1,866 24,692 ‐8.74%62 MANSFIELD ISD 2,332 2,636 33,410 ‐11.53%

295,596 278,783 5,232,065 6.03%Statewide Average


Comparison of 1st and 5th Grade Populations

by School Zone

2015‐16

School1st

grade5th

gradeDifference (1st-5th)

% Difference

Atascocita Springs 192 164 28 17%Bear Branch 73 98 -25 -26%Deerwood 83 85 -2 -2%Eagle Springs 120 107 13 12%Elm Grove 106 103 3 3%Fall Creek 164 116 48 41%Fields 81 88 -7 -8%Foster 105 102 3 3%Greentree 99 137 -38 -28%Hidden Hollow 89 88 1 1%Humble 80 72 8 11%Lakeland 115 96 19 20%Lakeshore 194 165 29 18%Maplebrook 99 141 -42 -30%North Belt 120 120 0 0%Oak Forest 111 104 7 7%Oaks 112 89 23 26%Park Lakes 125 109 16 15%Pine Forest 97 114 -17 -15%Ridge Creek 110 94 16 17%River Pines 135 115 20 17%Shadow Forest 90 124 -34 -27%Summerwood 105 129 -24 -19%Timbers 122 139 -17 -12%Whispering Pines 151 157 -6 -4%Willow Creek 85 120 -35 -29%Woodland Hills 73 89 -16 -18%

**Number of students is based on current geo-coded 1st and 5th grade students.

Yellow: 5th > 1st

Green: 1st > 5th

Fourteen schools have a larger 1st grade population than 5th grade. Twelve have a larger 5th grade population than 1st grade. One school has the same in both grades.


Historical Growth Trends by Grade and Grade Group in Humble I.S.D.

% Chg. % Chg. % Chg. % Chg. % Chg. % Chg. % Chg. % Chg. % Chg.

2006-07 2007-08 07-08/ 2008-09 08-09/ 2009-10 09-10/ 2010-11 10-11/ 2011-12 11-12/ 2012-13 12-13/ 2013-14 13-14/ 2014-15 14-15/ 2015-16 15-16/

06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-10 12-13 13-14 14-15

EE 217 272 25% 229 -16% 203 -11% 233 15% 196 -16% 199 2% 188 -6% 152 -19% 161 6%

PK 745 762 2% 947 24% 1,015 7% 1,119 10% 685 -39% 655 -4% 668 2% 685 3% 683 0%

KG 2,237 2,185 -2% 2,279 4% 2,412 6% 2,517 4% 2,471 -2% 2,561 4% 2,530 -1% 2,819 11% 2,736 -3%

1 2,344 2,470 5% 2,479 0% 2,537 2% 2,580 2% 2,717 5% 2,721 0% 2,841 4% 2,854 0% 3,085 8%

2 2,274 2,442 7% 2,519 3% 2,499 -1% 2,586 3% 2,665 3% 2,818 6% 2,822 0% 2,989 6% 2,956 -1%

3 2,322 2,415 4% 2,553 6% 2,604 2% 2,604 0% 2,637 1% 2,727 3% 2,897 6% 2,943 2% 3,072 4%

4 2,343 2,432 4% 2,489 2% 2,581 4% 2,678 4% 2,670 0% 2,748 3% 2,818 3% 3,035 8% 3,034 0%

5 2,322 2,478 7% 2,540 3% 2,560 1% 2,702 6% 2,725 1% 2,794 3% 2,860 2% 2,923 2% 3,101 6%

6 2,320 2,471 7% 2,564 4% 2,640 3% 2,679 1% 2,771 3% 2,853 3% 2,917 2% 2,976 2% 3,094 4%

7 2,475 2,508 1% 2,577 3% 2,642 3% 2,713 3% 2,751 1% 2,891 5% 3,020 4% 3,065 1% 3,060 0%

8 2,420 2,591 7% 2,571 -1% 2,654 3% 2,697 2% 2,744 2% 2,872 5% 3,022 5% 3,035 0% 3,157 4%

9 2,499 2,591 4% 2,626 1% 2,718 4% 2,979 10% 3,078 3% 3,132 2% 3,307 6% 3,400 3% 3,511 3%

10 2,380 2,617 10% 2,605 0% 2,718 4% 2,750 1% 2,723 -1% 2,874 6% 2,970 3% 3,057 3% 3,136 3%

11 2,459 2,575 5% 2,617 2% 2,633 1% 2,628 0% 2,629 0% 2,681 2% 2,790 4% 2,906 4% 3,010 4%

12 1,970 2,154 9% 2,288 6% 2,507 10% 2,448 -2% 2,558 4% 2,569 0% 2,585 1% 2,683 4% 2,751 3%

Total 31,327 32,963 5.22% 33,883 2.79% 34,923 3.07% 35,913 2.83% 36,020 0.30% 37,095 2.98% 38,235 3.07% 39,522 3.37% 40,547 2.59%

EE-5th 14,804 15,456 4% 16,035 4% 16,411 2% 17,019 4% 16,766 -1% 17,223 3% 17,624 2% 18,400 4% 18,828 2%

6th-8th 7,215 7,570 5% 7,712 2% 7,936 3% 8,089 2% 8,266 2% 8,616 4% 8,959 4% 9,076 1% 9,311 3%

9th-12th 9,308 9,937 7% 10,136 2% 10,576 4% 10,805 2% 10,988 2% 11,256 2% 11,652 4% 12,046 3% 12,408 3%

% EE-5th 47% 47% 47% 47% 47% 47% 46% 46% 47% 46%

% 6th-8th 23% 23% 23% 23% 23% 23% 23% 23% 23% 23%

% 9th-12th 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 31% 30% 30% 30% 31%

Population &

Survey A

nalysts - Dem


22

TarkingtonISD

46.0%

LibertyISD

57.3%

HardinISD

55.6%

DaytonISD

60.7%Waller

ISD63.9%

Katy ISD28.5%

TexasCity ISD65.2%

La MarqueISD

69.0%

DickinsonISD

61.8%

ClearCreek ISD

26.9%

Damon ISD100.0%

WillisISD

57.9%

SplendoraISD

58.0%

MontgomeryISD

23.5%

MagnoliaISD

39.2%

ConroeISD

35.7%

ClevelandISD

76.4%

Spring ISD72.1%

SpringBranch ISD

50.6%

SheldonISD

75.8%

PasadenaISD

76.8%

KleinISD

42.9%

HuffmanISD

33.6%

GalenaPark ISD

80.0% DeerPark ISD

42.4%

Cypress-FairbanksISD

49.1%

CrosbyISD

46.4%

ChannelviewISD

78.1%

Alief ISD80.3%

AldineISD

82.3%

TomballISD

22.1%

NewCaney ISD

62.4%

HumbleISD

33.4%

La PorteISD

48.3%

Goose CreekConsolidated ISD

61.8%

BarbersHill ISD19.4%

AnahuacISD

53.2%

StaffordMSD

67.8%

ShepherdISD

70.7%

PearlandISD

27.0%

DanburyISD

31.7%

Columbia-BrazoriaISD

53.0%

AngletonISD

60.8%

Alvin ISD49.2%

HoustonISD

75.4%

SantaFe ISD33.4%

HitchcockISD

79.6%

GalvestonISD

75.0%

FriendswoodISD

7.9%

NeedvilleISD

37.7%

LamarCons ISD

40.1%

FortBend ISD

37.1%

San Jacinto

Montgomery

Liberty

Harris Chambers

Fort Bend

Brazoria Galveston

2014-2015 School YearEconomically Disadvantaged Student Population HOUSTON

Source: Texas Education Agency, Public Education Information Management System Division0 5 102.5 Miles[

Eco. Dis. 2014-15CountiesWater Bodies< 30%31% - 40%41% - 55%56% - 65%66% - 80%> 80%


Economically Disadvantaged Student Population -- Fall 2014


Rank District Name

Economically

Disadvantaged

Students 2014‐15

Total

Enrollment

2014‐15

% Disadvantaged

2014‐15

1 FRISCO ISD 5,566 49,644 11.21%

2 ALLEN ISD 3,117 20,663 15.08%

3 LEANDER ISD 7,128 36,211 19.68%

4 KELLER ISD 7,907 33,619 23.52%

5 ROUND ROCK ISD 12,630 47,251 26.73%

6 CLEAR CREEK ISD 10,960 40,812 26.85%

7 PEARLAND ISD 5,555 20,550 27.03%

8 KATY ISD 20,057 70,330 28.52%

9 PLANO ISD 15,629 54,689 28.58%

10 COMAL ISD 6,209 20,327 30.55%

11 MCKINNEY ISD 7,663 24,811 30.89%

12 LEWISVILLE ISD 17,084 53,356 32.02%

13 HUMBLE ISD 13,187 39,522 33.37%14 CONROE ISD 20,142 56,363 35.74%

15 FORT BEND ISD 26,766 72,152 37.10%

16 MANSFIELD ISD 12,696 33,410 38.00%

17 LAMAR CISD 11,363 28,332 40.11%

18 MIDLAND ISD 10,292 24,369 42.23%

19 DENTON ISD 11,497 27,020 42.55%20 KLEIN ISD 21,203 49,402 42.92%

55 ALDINE ISD 57,383 69,716 82.31%

56 EDINBURG CISD 29,102 34,285 84.88%

57 DALLAS ISD 137,529 160,253 85.82%

58 PHARR‐SAN JUAN‐ALAMO ISD 28,517 32,288 88.32%

59 SAN ANTONIO ISD 49,243 53,750 91.61%

60 LAREDO ISD 22,645 24,705 91.66%

61 LA JOYA ISD 28,050 29,667 94.55%

62 BROWNSVILLE ISD 45,779 48,355 94.67%

58.39%Statewide Average


Boling ISD75.2%

TarkingtonISD

69.6%

LibertyISD

73.5%

Hull-DaisettaISD

67.7%

HardinISD

72.2%

DaytonISD

59.4%

RoyalISD

52.2%

Waller ISD74.6%

Katy ISD87.4%

TexasCity ISD70.7%

La MarqueISD

49.5%

Dickinson ISD70.3%

ClearCreek ISD

82.3%

West HardinCounty CISD

67.6%

Damon ISD57.4%

Spring ISD61.2%

SpringBranch ISD

68.5%

SheldonISD

61.2%

PasadenaISD

69.7%

KleinISD

78.9%Huffman

ISD67.2%

GalenaPark ISD

73.7%

DeerPark ISD

80.2%


79.9%

CrosbyISD

72.4%

ChannelviewISD

67.1%

Alief ISD64.5%

AldineISD

61.4%

New Waverly ISD72.1%

Huntsville ISD62.5%

Willis ISD71.6%

SplendoraISD

63.4%

MontgomeryISD

86.5%

MagnoliaISD75%

ConroeISD

83.7%

ClevelandISD

60.2%

RichardsISD

68.9%

TomballISD

88.8%

NewCaney ISD

63.4%

HumbleISD

79.2%

NavasotaISD48%

Anderson-ShiroCISD75.5%

La PorteISD

80.3%

GooseCreek CISD

69.8%


BrazosISD

73.6%

StaffordMSD

72.4%

Livingston ISD68.1%Shepherd

ISD56.3%

Coldspring-OakhurstCISD58.8%

PearlandISD

88.9%

DanburyISD

80.3%Columbia-Brazoria

ISD68.5%

AngletonISD

77.1%

Alvin ISD73.5%

HoustonISD

63.2%

SantaFe ISD69.2%

HitchcockISD

57.3%

GalvestonISD

62.6%Friendswood

ISD92.6%

NeedvilleISD

77.1%

LamarCISD79.2%

Fort BendISD

79.1%

Polk

San Jacinto

Walker

Montgomery Liberty

Waller

HarrisChambers

Fort Bend

Brazoria Galveston

3rd-8th Grade Primary Assessment, All Tests Taken, 2014-15Percent of Students Passing STAAR (Level II) HOUSTON

Source: Texas Education Agency, Public Education Information Management System Division0 105 Miles[

CountiesWater Bodies

STAAR 2014-15<60%60.1% - 70.0%70.1% - 75.0%75.1% - 80.0%80.1% - 85.0%>85.0%


2014-15 STAAR Results - Meeting Level II Standards3rd-8th Grade Primary Administration

All Districts with >20,000 Students (Excluding Charter Schools)

2014-15 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12

1 FRISCO ISD 49,644 90.69% 91.90% 92.37% 91.92%

2 ALLEN ISD 20,663 90.25% 92.04% 92.05% 91.77%

3 PEARLAND ISD 20,550 88.91% 85.83% 85.46% 84.98%

4 KATY ISD 70,330 87.36% 87.21% 85.50% 86.68%

5 PLANO ISD 54,689 86.97% 86.15% 85.16% 84.56%

6 ROUND ROCK ISD 47,251 85.79% 83.96% 83.50% 82.76%

7 MCKINNEY ISD 24,811 84.39% 84.75% 84.05% 82.81%

8 HURST‐EULESS‐BEDFORD ISD 22,416 84.01% 83.27% 81.68% 83.55%

9 CONROE ISD 56,363 83.73% 84.12% 84.16% 82.46%

10 COMAL ISD 20,327 83.20% 82.27% 84.11% 83.01%

11 LEANDER ISD 36,211 82.98% 83.32% 84.45% 84.80%

12 CLEAR CREEK ISD 40,812 82.31% 83.60% 83.56% 84.07%

13 KELLER ISD 33,619 81.54% 84.30% 84.30% 84.69%

14 CYPRESS‐FAIRBANKS ISD 113,023 79.85% 80.71% 80.20% 81.51%

15 MANSFIELD ISD 33,410 79.71% 80.70% 80.32% 79.83%

16 HUMBLE ISD 39,522 79.18% 79.37% 78.41% 80.10%17 LAMAR CISD 28,332 79.17% 80.90% 80.13% 79.05%

18 FORT BEND ISD 72,152 79.13% 80.24% 80.50% 79.99%

19 KLEIN ISD 49,402 78.94% 79.85% 78.95% 79.37%

20 LEWISVILLE ISD 53,356 78.35% 77.85% 80.06% 82.94%

21 NORTH EAST ISD 67,971 78.03% 76.68% 75.47% 76.04%

22 DENTON ISD 27,020 77.53% 78.64% 78.34% 78.37%

23 SOCORRO ISD 44,561 77.18% 75.53% 72.57% 69.60%

24 NORTHSIDE ISD 103,606 76.08% 76.03% 76.57% 75.67%

25 BIRDVILLE ISD 24,389 75.74% 75.21% 74.39% 73.37%

26 YSLETA ISD 42,488 74.89% 72.47% 69.58% 67.14%

27 PFLUGERVILLE ISD 23,948 74.82% 74.26% 75.09% 75.79%

28 GALENA PARK ISD 22,725 73.75% 73.08% 72.62% 73.74%

29 AUSTIN ISD 84,564 73.64% 72.80% 72.62% 72.02%

30 ALVIN ISD 20,866 73.52% 73.96% 75.46% 75.08%

31 RICHARDSON ISD 38,618 73.04% 77.31% 76.70% 77.66%

32 CARROLLTON‐FARMERS BRANCH 26,210 72.59% 72.76% 73.47% 75.13%

33 MCALLEN ISD 24,692 72.19% 70.61% 68.17% 69.14%

34 EDINBURG CISD 34,285 72.19% 72.74% 70.00% 69.34%

35 AMARILLO ISD 33,576 72.01% 74.48% 72.74% 72.25%70 88% 73 23% 75 88% 76 35%70 73% 69 68% 69 82% 71 25%70 39% 69 81% 69 55% 69 45%70 04% 65 68% 67 53% 66 79%69 77% 70 71% 70 32% 70 49%69 74% 68 02% 63 54% 63 55%69 68% 70 89% 70 38% 69 09%68 69% 72 94% 71 23% 71 71%68 54% 68 29% 68 66% 68 80%68 09% 68 21% 67 39% 65 17%67 44% 67 11% 68 63% 68 88%67 32% 64 21% 64 63% 65 32%66 50% 66 46% 67 11% 68 39%64 55% 67 45% 68 48% 68 64%

55 ALDINE ISD 69,716 61.44% 64.46% 65.91% 66.30%

56 SPRING ISD 36,950 61.15% 59.55% 61.01% 58.80%

57 IRVING ISD 35,191 60.06% 56.91% 56.45% 58.46%

58 DALLAS ISD 160,253 59.98% 59.91% 61.46% 60.08%

59 LAREDO ISD 24,705 58.43% 57.62% 54.03% 54.26%

60 MIDLAND ISD 24,369 57.01% 59.07% 60.92% 61.73%

61 SAN ANTONIO ISD 53,750 55.18% 54.41% 54.11% 54.05%

62 ECTOR COUNTY ISD 31,971 52.98% 54.72% 54.95% 58.37%

State of Texas 71.83% 71.79% 71.53% 71.52%

Rank District Name2014-15

Enrollment

STAAR Passage Rate


Humble I.S.D. 2014 Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics for Humble I.S.D. as Compared with Other Area School Districts

Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

Total housing units 65,087 92,511 112,871 70,829 2,441,230Occupied housing units 61,749 95% 84,803 92% 105,506 93% 64,103 91% 2,226,123 91%Vacant housing units 3,338 5% 7,708 8% 7,365 7% 6,726 9% 215,107 9% Owner-occupied 45,969 41,189 70,935 30,931 1,314,711 Renter-occupied 15,780 43,614 34,571 33,172 911,412

AgeUnder 5 years 14,579 8% 26,557 9% 20,142 7% 15,589 9% 481,095 7%

5 to 9 years 12,975 7% 30,241 10% 22,490 7% 13,406 7% 496,979 8%

10 to 14 years 14,312 8% 25,192 9% 27,936 9% 14,996 8% 492,091 8%

15 to 19 years 10,948 6% 24,965 8% 19,525 6% 14,401 8% 448,963 7%5 to 17 years 34,389 18% 70,267 24% 64,158 21% 37,060 21% 1,271,566 20%

20 to 24 years 10,517 6% 21,550 7% 17,713 6% 13,028 7% 453,105 7%

25 to 34 years 28,725 15% 46,103 16% 39,602 13% 31,511 18% 981,010 15%

35 to 44 years 27,713 15% 40,000 14% 43,987 15% 27,858 15% 928,646 14%

45 to 54 years 28,039 15% 35,734 12% 45,615 15% 20,427 11% 849,827 13%

55 to 59 years 12,461 7% 14,244 5% 17,999 6% 8,815 5% 396,032 6%

60 to 64 years 8,538 5% 10,846 4% 15,973 5% 6,982 4% 323,840 5%65 to 74 years 11,374 6% 13,063 4% 18,587 6% 9,445 5% 398,372 6%75 to 84 years 5,007 3% 5,282 2% 8,812 3% 2,311 1% 175,495 3%85 years and over 1,428 1% 848 0% 4,387 1% 1,166 1% 64,725 1%Median Age 35.4 28.9 35.9 31.0 34.0

Class of Worker

Private wage and salary 75,823 80% 103,130 82% 115,871 81% 75,422 82% 2,573,307 83%Government 14,065 15% 12,083 10% 16,749 12% 11,435 12% 339,831 11%Self-employed 4,764 5% 10,000 8% 11,084 8% 4,800 5% 194,321 6%Unpaid family workers 263 0% 539 0% 150 0% 83 0% 4,925 0%

Educational Attainment

Population 25 years & over 123,285 166,120 194,962 108,515 4,117,947Less than 9th grade 5,067 4% 33,890 20% 12,525 6% 7,725 7% 392,116 10%9th to 12th grade, no diploma 7,136 6% 25,503 15% 15,018 8% 9,175 8% 349,226 8%H.S. graduate 24,527 20% 53,348 32% 33,020 17% 27,231 25% 943,264 23%Some college, no degree 30,427 25% 31,033 19% 45,352 23% 31,014 29% 901,714 22%Associate's degree 11,286 9% 7,425 4% 12,872 7% 8,454 8% 253,309 6%Bachelor's degree 28,993 24% 11,012 7% 50,481 26% 18,198 17% 817,241 20%Graduate or professional degree 15,849 13% 3,909 2% 25,694 13% 6,718 6% 461,077 11%H.S. graduate or higher 90% 64% 86% 84% 82%Bachelor's degree or higher 36% 9% 39% 23% 31%

Humble ISD Aldine ISD

Houston - Sugar Land -

The Woodlands Metro Area

6,490,180

Conroe ISD Spring ISD

Housing

179,935186,616Total Population 302,768294,625

* Data Gathered From the 2014 American Community Survey1-Year Estimates

Population &

Survey A

nalysts - Dem


27

Humble I.S.D. 2014 Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics for Humble I.S.D. as Compared with Other Area School Districts

Humble ISD Aldine ISD

Houston - Sugar Land -

The Woodlands Metro Area

Conroe ISD Spring ISD

Income and Benefits

Total households 61,749 84,803 105,506 64,103 2,226,123less than $10,000 2,275 4% 7,831 9% 3,677 3% 2,418 4% 129,085 6%$10,000 to $14,999 851 1% 6,307 7% 2,833 3% 3,297 5% 99,857 4%$15,000 to $24,999 3,150 5% 13,882 16% 7,743 7% 6,553 10% 220,948 10%$25,000 to $34,999 4,374 7% 11,135 13% 9,505 9% 7,517 12% 216,969 10%$35,000 to $49,999 6,745 11% 14,827 17% 12,788 12% 9,570 15% 277,710 12%$50,000 to $74,999 10,252 17% 15,325 18% 16,410 16% 14,881 23% 386,591 17%$75,000 to $99,999 9,653 16% 7,988 9% 14,531 14% 6,880 11% 258,214 12%$100,000 to $149,999 11,125 18% 5,534 7% 17,368 16% 8,404 13% 314,292 14%$150,000 to $199,999 7,311 12% 1,113 1% 7,270 7% 2,276 4% 143,404 6%$200,000 or more 6,013 10% 861 1% 13,381 13% 2,307 4% 179,053 8%Median household income $82,380 $38,144 $74,754 $52,084 $60,072

Residence 1 year ago

Population 1 year & over 183,746 290,741 297,280 177,409 6,405,543Same house 152,996 83% 252,651 87% 244,491 82% 146,215 82% 5,369,922 84%Different house in the U.S. 26,737 15% 37,560 13% 50,755 17% 30,784 17% 965,058 15% Same county 17,933 10% 31,827 11% 19,678 7% 24,662 14% 641,262 10% Different county 8,804 5% 5,733 2% 31,077 10% 6,122 3% 323,796 5% Same state 4,506 2% 4,519 2% 15,750 5% 3,166 2% 192,935 3% Different state 4,298 2% 1,214 0% 15,327 5% 2,956 2% 130,861 2%Abroad 4,013 2% 530 0% 2,034 1% 410 0% 70,563 1%

Commuting to work

Workers 16 years & over 92,927 123,642 141,718 90,035 3,058,605Car, truck or van--drove alone 79,180 85% 96,125 78% 117,004 83% 73,407 82% 2,456,451 80%Car, truck or van--carpooled 7,799 8% 13,965 11% 13,947 10% 11,147 12% 327,866 11%Public transportation (excluding taxis) 2,025 2% 3,057 2% 2,102 1% 1,707 2% 72,344 2%Walked 925 1% 1,250 1% 1,525 1% 446 0% 39,851 1%Other means 1,079 1% 6,477 5% 1,591 1% 899 1% 58,793 2%Worked at home 1,919 2% 2,768 2% 5,549 4% 2,429 3% 103,300 3%Mean travel time to work (mins.) 33.4 29.8 31.5 29.1 29.2

* Data Gathered From the 2014 American Community Survey1-Year Estimates

Population &

Survey A

nalysts - Dem


28

LamarCons ISD

18.7%

TarkingtonISD

0.6%

LibertyISD

15.8%

HardinISD

3.7%

DaytonISD

8.1%

WallerISD

11.0%

Katy ISD9.6%

TexasCity ISD21.1%

La MarqueISD

66.7%

DickinsonISD

17.2%

ClearCreek ISD

8.1%

Damon ISD2.1%

WillisISD

7.7%

SplendoraISD

0.7%

MontgomeryISD

3.1%

MagnoliaISD

2.0%

ConroeISD

6.4%

ClevelandISD

10.4%

Spring ISD39.8%

SpringBranch ISD

4.5%

SheldonISD

20.3%

PasadenaISD

7.0%

Klein ISD14.1%

HuffmanISD

2.0%

GalenaPark ISD

16.1%Deer Park ISD 2.4%


16.5%

CrosbyISD

16.6%

ChannelviewISD

11.8%

Alief ISD29.6%

AldineISD

24.5%

TomballISD

4.6%

NewCaney ISD

3.0%

Humble ISD18.7%

La PorteISD

6.2%


15.7%

BarbersHill ISD

3.1%

StaffordMSD

40.4%

Coldspring-OakhurstCons ISD

22.9%

PearlandISD

16.0%

DanburyISD


ISD11.5%

AngletonISD

11.4%

Alvin ISD15.6%

HoustonISD

24.9%

SantaFe ISD0.4%

HitchcockISD

45.2%

FriendswoodISD

2.0%

NeedvilleISD

3.8%

LamarCons ISD

18.7%

FortBend ISD

28.7%

2014-15 School YearProportion of African-American Students Enrolled by District HOUSTON


% Chg. WhiteCountiesWater Bodies< 5.0%5.1% - 10.0%10.1% - 15.0%15.1% - 20.0%20.1% - 25.0%> 25%


LamarCons ISD

44.6%

TarkingtonISD

8.3%

LibertyISD

36.2%

HardinISD

12.3%

DaytonISD

37.2%

WallerISD

50.9%

Katy ISD34.4%

TexasCity ISD42.4%

La MarqueISD

21.1%

DickinsonISD

48.0%

ClearCreek ISD

28.7%

West Hardin CountyCons ISD

2.9%

Damon ISD52.4%

Willis ISD34.0%

SplendoraISD

32.7%

MontgomeryISD

13.0%

MagnoliaISD

30.7%

Conroe ISD34.9%

ClevelandISD

48.9%

Spring ISD43.2%

SpringBranch ISD

58.6%

SheldonISD

69.7%

PasadenaISD

82.4%

Klein ISD38.6%

HuffmanISD

19.0%

GalenaPark ISD

76.8%Deer Park ISD 52.6%


44.0%

CrosbyISD

33.9%

ChannelviewISD

77.2%

Alief ISD52.6%

AldineISD

71.3%

TomballISD

29.3%

NewCaney ISD

53.4%

Humble ISD33.0%

La PorteISD

46.0%


58.7%


StaffordMSD

45.3%

Shepherd ISD26.6%Coldspring-Oakhurst

Cons ISD7.5%

PearlandISD

30.6%

DanburyISD


ISD27.6%

AngletonISD

46.4%

Alvin ISD43.9%

HoustonISD

62.0%

SantaFe ISD18.6%

HitchcockISD

27.9%

FriendswoodISD

15.5%

NeedvilleISD

43.2%

LamarCons ISD

44.6%

FortBend ISD

26.6%

2014-15 School YearProportion of Hispanic Students Enrolled by District HOUSTON


% Chg. WhiteCountiesWater Bodies< 15.0%15.1% - 30.0%30.1% - 45.0%45.1% - 60.0%60.1% - 75.0%> 75%


LamarCons ISD

6.2%

TarkingtonISD

0.2%

LibertyISD

0.5%

HardinISD

0.0%

DaytonISD

0.4%

WallerISD

0.4%

Katy ISD13.2%

TexasCity ISD

0.5%La Marque

ISD0.2%

DickinsonISD

2.3%

ClearCreek ISD

9.8%

Damon ISD0.0%

WillisISD

0.7%

SplendoraISD

0.1%

MontgomeryISD

1.1%

MagnoliaISD

0.8%

ConroeISD

3.6%

ClevelandISD

1.0%

SpringISD

3.4%

SpringBranch ISD

6.2%

SheldonISD

0.5%

PasadenaISD

3.0%

Klein ISD8.4%

HuffmanISD

0.7%

GalenaPark ISD

0.8%


8.8%

CrosbyISD

0.4%

ChannelviewISD

1.1%

Alief ISD12.3%

AldineISD

1.3%

TomballISD

5.9%

NewCaney ISD

1.5%

HumbleISD

3.0%

La PorteISD

1.0%


1.4%

BarbersHill ISD

0.7%

StaffordMSD7.3%

Shepherd ISD0.7%

PearlandISD

10.0%

DanburyISD

0.3%


0.2%

AngletonISD

0.5%

Alvin ISD8.7%

HoustonISD

3.6%

SantaFe ISD0.5%

HitchcockISD

0.4%

FriendswoodISD

6.2%

NeedvilleISD

0.4%

LamarCons ISD

6.2%

FortBend ISD

23.7%

2014-15 School YearProportion of "Asian" Students Enrolled by District HOUSTON


% Chg. WhiteCountiesWater Bodies< 1.0%1.1% - 3.5%3.6% - 5.0%5.1% - 10.0%10.1% - 25.0%> 25.0%


TarkingtonISD

90.9%

LibertyISD

47.5%

HardinISD

84.0%

DaytonISD

54.3%WallerISD

37.8%

Katy ISD42.7%

TexasCity ISD35.9%

La MarqueISD

12.1%

DickinsonISD

32.6%

ClearCreek ISD

53.4%

Damon ISD45.5%

Willis ISD57.7%

SplendoraISD

66.5%

MontgomeryISD

82.9%

MagnoliaISD

66.5%

Conroe ISD55.1%

ClevelandISD

39.6%

Spring ISD13.6%

SheldonISD

9.5%

PasadenaISD

7.6%

Klein ISD38.9%

HuffmanISD

78.3%

GalenaPark ISD

6.3%


30.7%

CrosbyISD

49.1%

ChannelviewISD

9.9%

AliefISD

5.5%

AldineISD

2.8%

TomballISD

60.3%

NewCaney ISD

42.2%

HumbleISD

45.3%

La PorteISD

46.8%


24.2%


StaffordMSD7.1%

Shepherd ISD65.8%

PearlandISD

43.3%

Danbury ISD78.9%


60.8%

AngletonISD

41.6%

AlvinISD

31.8%

HoustonISD

9.5%

SantaFe ISD80.5%

HitchcockISD

26.5%

FriendswoodISD

76.3%

NeedvilleISD

52.6%

LamarCons ISD

30.5%

FortBend ISD

21.0%

2014-15 School YearProportion of "Other" Students Enrolled by District (Including More than 1 Race)HOUSTON


% Chg. WhiteCountiesWater Bodies< 15%15% to 30%30% to 45%45% to 60%60% to 75%> 75%


Recent Employment TrendsHumble I.S.D.

6 Month AnnualPercent PercentChange Change

City of Houston

Employment 1,113,785 1,095,546 1,095,505 0.00% -1.64% Unemployment Rate 3.8 4.2 4.2

Harris County

Employment 2,175,670 2,140,053 2,139,960 0.00% -1.64% Unemployment Rate 4.0 4.5 4.6

December 2015

June 2015

December 2014


Humble ISD Employment by Sector(Out of Civilian Employed Population 16 Years and Over)

Humble ISD Population: 186,616Civilian Employed Population 16 Years and Over: 94,915

Industry % EmployedAgriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 5.1Construction 4.6Manufacturing 10.3Wholesale Trade 4.1Retail Trade 7.8Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 8.6Information 1.5Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 6.0Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services 11.2Educational services, and health care and social assistance 23.2Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accomodation, and food services 7.6Other services, except public administration 6.9Public Administration 3.3

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and

mining5%

Construction5%

Manufacturing10%

Wholesale Trade4%

Retail Trade8%

Transportation and warehousing, and

utilities9%Information

1%Finance and insurance,

and real estate and rental and leasing

6%

Professional, scientific, and management, and

administrative and waste management

services11%

Educational services, and health care and

social assistance23%

Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and

accomodation, and food services

8%

Other services, except public administration

7%

Public Administration3%

Humble ISD Employment by Sector (Out of Civilian Employed Population 16 Years and Over)

Employed Population: 94,915 (out of 186,616 Total Residents in HISD)As Reported by 2014 American Community Survey Data


Spring, 2016Trends in Private/Charter School EnrollmentTrends in Private/Charter School EnrollmentTrends in Private/Charter School EnrollmentTrends in Private/Charter School Enrollment

Humble I.S.D.Humble I.S.D.Humble I.S.D.Humble I.S.D.

School Address Grades % of

Students from HISD

Current Enrollment

Estimated Students

from HISD

% of enrollment that are KN-

12th

Students from HISD in

KN-12th

Enrollment in 5 yrs.

Estimated Students

from HISD


12th


KN-12thAdditional Information

Atascocita Christian Academy

7811 FM 1960 Rd E PK - 5thNot included in total, could not be

reached.Berean Baptist School - Humble

702 Atascocita Rd K - 4thNot included in total, could not be

reached.

Calvin Nelms Northeast School - Charter

18425 Timber Forest Dr K-12thCLOSED (several years ago,

called another campus in 2016 to confirm)

Childtime Learning Center 3420 Tree Ln Inf - PK Not included in total, no K+.

Childtime Learning Center 4018 Feather Lakes Way PK Not included in total, no K+.

Children's Choice Montessori

304 Wilson Rd PK - KNot included in total, number

disconnected.Christian Life Center Academy

6650 Rankin Rd. PK - 12 30% 34 10 88% 9 120 36 88% 32 No plans for facility expansion.

Christian School of Kingwood

806 Russell Palmer Rd PK-8th Not included in total, closed.

Forest Cove Weekday Preschool

22770 HWY. 59 N. PK - KNot included in total, could not be

reached.Good Shepherd Episcopal School

2929 Woodland Hills Dr 1 yr - K 100% 300 300 13% 39 300 300 13% 39 No plans for expansion.

Holy Comforter Lutheran Church & School

1901 Woodland Hills Dr Inf - PK Not included in total, no K+.

Holy Trinity Episcopal School

11810 Lockwood Rd PK - 12 80% 132 106 65% 69 150 120 65% 78 No plans for expansion.

Houston Learning Academy

5334 FM 1960 Rd E # B 9th - 12thNot included in total, location is

now closed.

Humble Christian School 16202 Old Humble Rd PK - 12th 60% 300 180 9% 16 300 180 9% 16 Adding a gym.

Kingwood Day School Montessori

21820 E Memorial Drhttp://www.kingwoodcovedayschool.com/about.h

tm

?Not included in total, number

disconnected.

Kingwood Christian Academy

1365 Northpark Drive PK-7th closed

La Petite Academy8063 E North Belt,

Humble, TXInf - PK Not included in total, no K+.

La Petite Academy: Kingwood

2025 North Park Dr Inf - PK Not included in total, no K+.

Lake Houston Academy 7810 Fm 1960 Rd E 9th - 12Not included in total, number

disconnected.

Lamb of God Lutheran School

1400 FM 1960 Bypass Rd E

Inf - K, MDO

Not included in total, could not be reached.

Current Enrollment Projected Enrollment in 5 Years

Population &

Survey A

nalysts - Dem


35

Spring, 2016Trends in Private/Charter School EnrollmentTrends in Private/Charter School EnrollmentTrends in Private/Charter School EnrollmentTrends in Private/Charter School Enrollment

Humble I.S.D.Humble I.S.D.Humble I.S.D.Humble I.S.D.

School Address Grades % of

Students from HISD

Current Enrollment

Estimated Students

from HISD


12th


KN-12th

Enrollment in 5 yrs.

Estimated Students

from HISD


12th


KN-12thAdditional Information

Current Enrollment Projected Enrollment in 5 Years

Montessori Unlimited: Atascocita Montessori

19120 W Lake Houston Pkwy

Inf - PK Not included in total, no K+.

Northeast Christian Academy

1711 Hamblen Rd PK - 12th 75% 306 230 93% 213 350 263 93% 244 Currently building a new building.

Pines Montessori School 3535 Cedar Knolls Inf - 8th 90% 177 159 40% 64 225 203 40% 81 No plans for expansion.

Primrose School at Summerwood



Primrose School of Lake Houston



Primrose School of Kingwood

2311 Green Oak Dr. Inf - PK Not included in total, no K+.

St. Martha Catholic School 2411 Oak Shores Dr PK3 - 8thNot included in total, could not be

reached.

St. Mary Magdalene Catholic School

530 Ferguson St PK - 8th 80% 325 260 83% 216 400 320 83% 266 No plans for expansion.

The Goddard School15015 Fall Creek

Preserve Dr, HumbleInf-K 100% Not willing to provide information.

The Goddard School17823 W Lake Houston

Pkwy, HumbleInf-K 2016 - under construction

Two Dimensions - Charter12330 Vickery St,

HoustonPK-4th 0% 213 0 0% 0 250 0 0% 0 No plans for expansion.

Vista Academy - Charter 901 Wilson Rd, Humble K-5th 100% 200 200 100% 200 400 400 100% 400 Adding a grade level every year until 12th.

Yes Prep North Forest - Charter

6602 Winfield Rd, Houston

6th-12th 1% 804 8 100% 8 804 8 100% 8 No plans for expansion.

Total 2,791 1,453 834 3,299 1,829 1,164

District Enrollment: 40,547 46,217

Overall percentage of students from HISD in private/charter schools: 2.01% 2.46%

Population &

Survey A

nalysts - Dem


36

Documents

Humble Report Text - Fall 2015 New Revisions...Table: Five Year Enrollment Trends by District (2009‐10 to 2014‐15).....16 Map: Kindergarten Students as Percent of Total Enrollment