Demographic Study Objectives and Methodology

Transcription

1

2 Introduction 1 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 Objectives and Methodology PASA projects student data for a School District by using forward looking techniques not by relying on past rates of change. As a result, the data that PASA generates is more rigorous and more usable by school districts than data created by State or Local entities because they assess the reality of development on the ground. The steps in the gathering of this data are outlined below and organized by chapter. Chapter 1 Introductory materials comparing the District to surrounding districts Economic data Recent enrollment trends by grade Private school data 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. Chapter 2 Planning Unit maps Maps showing various factors that affect long term potential for residential development, including municipal boundaries, water supply data, floodplain, and parks/preserves Maps and spreadsheets of projected housing occupancies both single and multifamily for the 10 year timeframe Maps containing aerial imagery and data on parcels, subdivisions, and multi family complexes In order to project student enrollment accurately, PASA employees assess the 10 year development potential for each major parcel of land in the District. Data is gathered for Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

3 every subdivision, apartment complex, and condo and then aggregated into Planning Units, with the Planning Units having been in use by the District for several years. 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. Chapter 3 Current ratios of students per household for both single and multi family housing units Maps and spreadsheets of this ratio data 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. Chapter 4 Maps of the current student population, geo coded by their home addresses Maps of past changes in the student population, showing which areas are increasing or declining in students Knowing where new homes will be built (yielding future students) is only half the picture. PASA must also understand where the current students live and where students have redistributed within the District over the past few years. These maps illustrate areas in which existing homes are becoming more oriented to families with school aged children and other changes that are then applied to the projections of future student population. Chapter 5 Three scenarios of Districtwide, grade level growth: Low Growth, Most Likely Growth, and High Growth Charts containing projections by Planning Unit, based on the Most Likely scenario of growth Maps detailing the projections by Planning Unit, based on the Most Likely scenario of growth PASA develops three scenarios of growth, in an attempt to bracket in all future growth patterns. The Most Likely 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. Chapter 6 Charts of current transfers by attendance zone Maps and charts detailing the projected student population compared to the capacity of each facility Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

4 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. Student Growth Trends The first map shows the School District as it is located in Harris County with square miles. The next maps show the 2013 student enrollment for the districts in the Houston metro area based on the newly available PEIMS snapshot data. Humble I.S.D. had an absolute increase of 1,140 students (a 3.1% increase) this year. Houston I.S.D. gained 2,951 students, much of which is due to the inclusion of North Forest I.S.D. Katy I.S.D. gained 8,198 students, followed by Aldine I.S.D. at 1,697 and Cypress Fairbanks I.S.D. at 1,427. New Caney I.S.D. and Tomball I.S.D. saw the highest percentage increases at more than 6% each but their absolute student increases were smaller than those at Humble I.S.D. H.I.S.D. has gained over 4,300 students in the last five years, which is similar to Klein and Aldine I.S.D. Cypress Fairbanks I.S.D. has gained 10,755 during the same time, while Katy I.S.D. gained just over 10,300. H.I.S.D. ranks 10 th in percent growth out of all districts larger than 20,000 students in the State of Texas. Also shown in this chapter are the growth rates by ethnicity for H.I.S.D. and the surrounding districts. Like most districts, Humble I.S.D. saw a slight increase in African American students over the last 5 years, a major increase in Hispanic students, very little change in the proportion of the student population that is Asian, and a corresponding decrease in Anglo student population. Trends in Grade Sizes that Affect Future Enrollment The Fall, 2013 PEIMS data shows that 6.6% of the Humble I.S.D. student population was in Kindergarten for the school year, which is lower than the State average of 7.57%. This ranks Humble I.S.D. 58 th out of 60 districts larger than 20,000 students. Only Lewisville I.S.D. and I.S.D. have lower proportions of Kindergarten students. The next chart shows the Kindergarten enrollment in the District, compared to the births in the District (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 shows the recent increase that the District has seen in Kindergarteners and births, but also shows a future slight dampening of growth. Similarly, the 1 st grade population was 0.7% smaller than the 5 th grade population, compared to the statewide trend in which the 1 st grade was 6.3 % larger than 5 th 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. Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

5 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 1 st grade population is larger than the 5 th grade population (shown in green). Twelve of the elementary school attendance zones have smaller 5 th grade classes than 1 st grade classes, while fifteen of the schools have larger 5 th grade classes. Those with larger 1 st grade classes are more likely to continue to grow in the short term, while those with smaller 1 st grade classes may see smaller incoming KN classes, aging and declining 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 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. has 34.3% of enrolled students who are eligible for the free/reduced price lunch program, compared to 59.8% of all students in Texas who participate in this program for economically disadvantaged families. This ranks Humble I.S.D. 12 th in the State out of all 60 Districts with 20,000 or more students as having a low proportion of economically disadvantaged students. This subset of the student population has increased significantly in the last 5 years, increasing from 27.2% in the Fall, 2008 to 34.3% in the Fall, 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 STAAR test. While most Districts focus on small subsets of the population and scores on specific tests, a more global analysis, such as passage rates, provides a good comparison of overall performance between districts. Therefore, PASA summarizes the percentage of students in grades 3 through 8 who passed Level II of the 2013 STAAR test. Statewide, about 72% of all students in Texas public schools passed subjects on the STAAR test. Comparatively, Humble I.S.D. has an overall passage rate of 78.4%, which was higher than most surrounding districts. Thus, analysis of the economically disadvantaged population and STAAR performance illustrates empirically the positive perception residents have of Humble I.S.D. These two factors point to the competitive advantage the District holds over others in attracting new residents. Other socioeconomic characteristics are summarized for the District in the next chart, and Humble I.S.D. is compared to other nearby large Districts and the Houston Sugar Land Baytown Metro Area. This data is prepared based on the 2012 American Community Survey data, available in mid The median age of the resident population of Humble I.S.D. is 33.4 years, Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

6 comparable to the median age in the Metro Area of 33.5 years. Humble I.S.D. is more oriented to families with children (24% of the population is school aged, compared to 20% in the Metro Area). The H.I.S.D. population is more educated (38% has a Bachelor s degree or higher compared to 30% in the Metro Area), and the median household income is about $78,729 compared to $55,910 in the Metro Area overall. The H.I.S.D. population spends more time commuting to work each day than the average Houstonian, driving an average of 33.5 minutes each way. Employment Trends and Housing Demand Impacts Recent Employment Trends for Humble I.S.D. and the Houston Area Employment trends for the School District, for the City of Houston and Harris County are outlined in this chapter. Overall, both the City of Houston and Harris County have shown increases in employment during the last 6 and the last 12 months, with 3.2% annual increases in employment across the region. Also, unemployment rates have declined, with both entities declining from over 6% unemployment to just over 5% in the past year. During the 2013 year, the Houston area created ~ 76,200 to ~77,000 new jobs. This is really a positive report, in that energy related jobs were added at only half of the 2012 rate. The Houston area has more than doubled the jobs lost in the downturn. Due to adding over 200,000 new jobs in 24 months, there is a heightened demand for new homes, as well as new office and retail space, and, of course, new schools. For Humble I.S.D., according to the American Community Survey, employment grew at 14.6% in 2006 and at 3.6% in For 2008 and 2009, there was only a 1.9% growth in employment. This changed in 2010, according to the ACS data, when the employment figures jumped 7.3%. Since then, however, there has only been spotty growth, with a 1.1% increase in employment in 2011, and an increase of only 0.1% in Also, during this time the lowest unemployment rate was at 3.9% in In most other years, the rate has hovered near 5%, except for 2011, when the unemployment rate spiked to 7.9%. Employment Trends over the Next Five Years The above data shows the past growth in employment of the workers who live within H.I.S.D. The Houston area has totally recovered all jobs lost in the downturn and added another ~95,000 last year. The Houston metro area is likely to have gained another 76,000 to 85,000 jobs in 2013 (Janowski, Greater Houston Partnership). A better than elsewhere economy should cause construction jobs (which temporarily have dropped), as well as manufacturing and services employment, to lead in the 2013 increases in jobs. Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

7 These employment trends affect Humble I.S.D. and the demand for housing within the District. Based on PASA s housing projections (to be discussed in Chapter 2), residential construction is expected to provide over 454 new homes and 69 new multi family units in the coming 7 months (March, 2013 to the PEIMS snapshot in Oct., 2013). Also, non residential construction has risen substantially, but is still far from the peak of 2008 (Pat Kiley: AGC/CEFPI Economic Outlook, 2013). Business relocations from California and other states and internationally place a further focus on increases in manufacturing jobs in the local school districts particularly since the Houston region is the preferred locale for some of these relocations. While unemployment has seen significant declines within the District over the past two years, many feel that there may be a stationery period, where unemployment locally may not decline further within the next year even while new jobs are being created in Humble I.S.D. and in Houston and Harris County. The fact that the Houston area has been within the top three large metro areas nationwide in job growth for this past year signals continued, gradual improvement in the economic well being of Humble I.S.D. Tied to this expectation of general job growth is the knowledge that mortgages will be more readily obtainable, mostly due to improved credit scores, particularly among younger homebuyers. The uptick in H.I.S.D. housing starts and the accelerated demand for housing due to both the opening of the Grand Parkway and Generation Park adds credence to accelerated enrollment in the School District. Employment by Sector in Humble I.S.D. The 2012 American Community Survey provides annually updated information about residents of the District, including the economic sectors in which residents are employed. Not surprisingly, the largest employment sectors represented in the District are the educational services, health care and social assistance sector (22% of the population), and the professional, scientific, and management sector (12%), followed closely by the transportation and warehousing and utilities sector (10%). Looking forward five years, the outlook is a positive one, with 23% of employers expecting to add to the workforce. Bob Harvey emphasizes that the business friendly climate and solid infrastructure will continue to encourage investment and job growth. Harris County Judge Ed Emmett, as well as County Commissioner Jack Cagle, are emphasizing the key nature of new transportation infrastructure, and PASA s data from the last 9 years shows that new housing (and added students) are heavily dependent on new and/or improved arterials. In sum, there will be a steady demand for both manufacturing jobs, as well as construction jobs, both of which will allow the School District to have stable student growth. There is no expectation of a dramatic acceleration of the student population, but rather the employment data alone could drive a steady 1.8% to 2% annual enrollment growth pattern. Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

8 Private School Enrollment An increasingly common factor for public schools to consider is the impact that private and charter schools have on public school enrollment. Included in this chapter is a summary of the survey of area private and charter 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 and charter school, there are an estimated students in KN 12 th grades who live within H.I.S.D. that attend these schools. In other words, approximately 1.99% of the school aged population living within H.I.S.D. boundaries attends private or charter schools. This is a very small percent of the total studentaged 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 and charter schools in the area could draw additional students from the H.I.S.D. public school system over the next five years, thereby slightly increasing the proportion of students in private schools to 2.35%. Likewise, if a 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 1,078 students into the public school system. Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

9 Humble I.S.D. Square Miles Splendora Tarkington Conroe Cleveland County County New Caney Dayton Huffman Humble Aldine Harris County Crosby North Forest Sheldon 53.5 Chambers County Houston *Source: Texas Education Agency Pasadena Channelview Miles ² Deer Park 39.7 Goose Creek C Highways Counties Water Bodies Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

10 Waller 5,909 7,542 Magnolia 12,208 Cypress-Fairbanks 111,440 Katy 67,213 Alief 46,258 Willis 6,785 Klein 48,253 Branch 35,312 Conroe 55,009 36,484 Aldine 67,381 Alvin 19,809 Needville Brazoria Angleton 2,831 Columbia-Brazoria Damon 187 3,045 6,588 Danbury 774 [ Total School Enrollment Fall Tomball 12,499 Lamar C 27, Miles Stafford MSD 3,481 70,931 Harris Houston San Jacinto Cleveland Splendora 3,838 3,571 New Caney 12,319 Pearland 20,034 Humble 38,235 Sheldon 7,760 Pasadena 54,535 Shepherd 1,932 Huffman 3,314 Crosby 5,215 Channelview Galena Park 8,943 22,572 Friendswood 6,071 Deer Park 13,015 Clear Creek 39,998 Santa Fe 4,640 La Porte 7,628 Dickinson 10,000 Tarkington 1,883 Dayton 5,082 Goose Creek C 22,320 Barbers Hill 4,688 Texas City La Marque 6,163 2,528 Hitchcock 1,530 HOUSTON Hardin 1,300 2,070 Chambers Anahuac 1,231 6,813 Counties Water Bodies Enrollment 2013 Enrollment_2013.enr_1314 < 1,000 1,001-3,000 3,001-8,000 8,001-20,000 20,001-60,000 > 60,000 Source: Texas Education Agency, Public Education Information Management System Division Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

11 Waller 188 [ Absolute Change in School District Enrollment 1-Year Change: to Magnolia 218 Cypress-Fairbanks 1,427 Katy 2,651 Needville 55 Tomball 727 Damon 13 Klein 1,208 Branch 455 Alief 475 Lamar C 944 Willis 235 Stafford MSD 126 Conroe 1,075 Angleton Columbia-Brazoria Miles 1, Aldine 1,697 Harris Houston 8,198 Brazoria Cleveland Splendora New Caney 768 Pearland 384 Danbury -8 San Jacinto Alvin 923 Humble 1,140 Sheldon 194 Shepherd 48 Huffman 38 Crosby 44 Channelview Galena Park Deer Park 189 Pasadena 870 Friendswood 66 Clear Creek 363 Santa Fe -36 La Porte -119 Tarkington 31 Dayton 0 Goose Creek C 499 Dickinson 254 Texas City 219 La Marque Hitchcock HOUSTON Hardin Chambers Barbers Hill 143 Anahuac Counties Water Bodies Student Growth Enrollment_2013.Abs_12to Source: Texas Education Agency, Public Education Information Management System Division Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

12 Waller 3.3% Cypress-Fairbanks 1.3% Katy 4.1% Klein 2.6% Branch 1.3% Needville Angleton 2% Columbia-Brazoria Damon 7.5% 1.2% 1.4% [ Percent Change in School District Enrollment 1-Year Change: to % Magnolia 1.8% Tomball 6.2% Alief 1% Lamar C 3.6% Miles Willis 3.6% Stafford MSD 3.8% 1.9% Conroe 2% 1.1% Aldine 2.6% Harris Houston 4% Shepherd 2.5% San Jacinto Cleveland Splendora 4.8% 2.4% New Caney 6.6% Humble 3.1% Sheldon 2.6% Galena Park 2.1% Pasadena 1.6% Huffman 1.2% Deer Park 1.5% Crosby 0.9% Channelview 2.1% Clear Pearland Creek 2% Friendswood 0.9% 1.1% Brazoria Alvin 4.9% Danbury -1% Santa Fe -0.8% La Porte -1.5% Tarkington 1.7% Dayton 0% Goose Creek C 2.3% Dickinson 2.6% Hitchcock 8.8% HOUSTON Chambers Barbers Hill 3.1% Texas City 3.7% La Marque -11.7% Hardin 1.4% -2.5% Anahuac 1.8% 1.5% Counties Water Bodies Student Growth Enrollment_2013.Pct_12to % % -0.9% - 0.0% 0.1% - 1.0% 1.1% - 2.0% 2.1% - 4.0% 4.1% % Source: Texas Education Agency, Public Education Information Management System Division Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

13 Waller 685 Cypress-Fairbanks 10,755 Katy 10,351 Klein 4,515 Branch 2,903 2,504 Alvin 3,640 Needville Brazoria Angleton 259 Columbia-Brazoria Damon Danbury 22 [ Absolute Change in School District Enrollment 5-Year Change: to ,238 Magnolia 893 Tomball 2,776 Alief 1,028 Lamar C 4, Miles Willis 759 Stafford MSD 438 2,223 Conroe 7,013 Aldine 5,855 Harris Houston 11,327 Cleveland Splendora New Caney 3,197 Pearland 2,394 San Jacinto Humble 4,352 Sheldon 1,554 Pasadena 2,957 Shepherd 128 Huffman 260 Deer Park 461 Crosby 217 Channelview Galena Park 380 1,222 Friendswood 78 Clear Creek 2,804 La Porte -286 Dickinson 1,404 Tarkington -51 Dayton 310 Goose Creek C 1,622 Santa Fe 27 Hitchcock 378 Texas City 112 La Marque -1,176 HOUSTON Hardin Chambers Barbers Hill 785 Anahuac ,222 Counties Water Bodies Student Growth Enrollment_2013.Abs_08to13-1, ,000 2,001-4,000 4,001-15,289 Source: Texas Education Agency, Public Education Information Management System Division Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

14 Waller 13.1% [ Percent Change in School District Enrollment 5-Year Change: to % Magnolia 7.9% Katy 18.2% Needville 10.1% Tomball 28.6% Cypress-Fairbanks 10.7% Lamar C 17.5% Damon 16.9% Alief 2.3% Willis 12.6% Klein 10.3% Branch 9% Stafford MSD 14.4% Fort Bend 3.2% Angleton Columbia-Brazoria 4.7% -2.9% Miles Conroe 14.6% 7.4% Aldine 9.5% Harris Houston 5.7% San Jacinto Pearland 13.6% Brazoria Splendora 4.6% New Caney 35% Alvin 22.5% Danbury 2.9% Humble 12.8% Sheldon 25% Pasadena 5.7% Shepherd 7.1% Cleveland 4.5% Huffman 8.5% Crosby 4.3% Channelview Galena Park 4.4% 5.7% Friendswood 1.3% Clear Creek 7.5% La Porte -3.6% Tarkington -2.6% Dayton 6.5% Goose Creek C 7.8% Dickinson 16.3% Santa Fe 0.6% La Marque -31.7% Hitchcock 32.8% HOUSTON Hardin 7.3% -8.5% Chambers Barbers Hill 20.1% Texas City 1.9% Anahuac -8.4% 21.9% Counties Water Bodies Student Growth Enrollment_2013.Pct_08to13 < -5.0% -4.9% - 0.0% 0.1% - 5.0% 5.1% % 10.1% % > 20.0% Source: Texas Education Agency, Public Education Information Management System Division Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

15 Five Year Enrollment Trends by District: Fall, 2008 to Fall, 2013 All Districts with >20,000 Students (Sorted by 5 Year % Change) Rank Enrollment Percent Change FRISCO 46,053 42,707 40,123 37,279 33,973 30,797 27,418 23,777 19,881 16,190 13, % 7.83% 6.44% 7.63% 9.73% 10.31% 12.32% 15.31% 19.60% 22.80% 20.72% 2 LEANDER 35,450 34,381 33,309 32,152 30,454 28,507 26,551 24,333 22,077 19,945 18, % 3.11% 3.22% 3.60% 5.58% 6.83% 7.37% 9.12% 10.22% 10.69% 9.58% 3 DENTON 26,312 25,775 24,845 23,994 22,825 22,189 20,892 19,722 18,355 16,932 15, % 2.08% 3.74% 3.55% 5.12% 2.87% 6.21% 5.93% 7.45% 8.40% 6.15% 4 KATY 67,213 64,562 62,414 60,803 59,078 56,862 54,402 51,201 48,247 44,646 42, % 4.11% 3.44% 2.65% 2.92% 3.90% 4.52% 6.25% 6.12% 8.07% 6.01% 5 LAMAR CONSOLIDATED 27,079 26,135 25,278 24,637 23,864 22,958 21,936 20,708 19,662 18,574 17, % 3.61% 3.39% 2.60% 3.24% 3.95% 4.66% 5.93% 5.32% 5.86% 3.97% 6 ALLEN 20,381 19,894 19,505 18,888 18,242 17,590 17,102 16,463 15,961 14,816 13, % 2.45% 1.99% 3.27% 3.54% 3.71% 2.85% 3.88% 3.15% 7.73% 6.87% 7 NORTHSIDE 102, ,159 98,110 95,581 92,335 89,000 86,260 82,587 78,711 74,649 71, % 1.97% 2.09% 2.65% 3.52% 3.75% 3.18% 4.45% 4.92% 5.44% 3.97% 8 CONROE 55,009 53,934 52,664 51,170 49,629 47,996 46,524 44,460 42,613 40,432 39, % 1.99% 2.41% 2.92% 3.11% 3.40% 3.16% 4.64% 4.33% 5.39% 3.02% 9 PEARLAND 20,034 19,650 19,205 18,769 18,308 17,640 17,090 16,244 15,543 14,236 13, % 1.95% 2.32% 2.32% 2.52% 3.79% 3.22% 5.21% 4.51% 9.18% 8.70% 10 HUMBLE 38,235 37,095 36,076 35,913 34,923 33,883 32,970 31,327 29,706 28,159 27, % 3.07% 2.82% 0.45% 2.83% 3.07% 2.77% 5.24% 5.46% 5.49% 4.26% 11 ECTOR COUNTY 30,857 29,649 28,533 28,126 27,435 27,443 26,680 26,472 26,060 26,119 26, % 4.07% 3.91% 1.45% 2.52% -0.03% 2.86% 0.79% 1.58% -0.23% 0.11% 12 SOCORRO 44,517 44,259 43,672 42,569 41,357 39,771 38,878 38,357 36,842 34,362 32, % 0.58% 1.34% 2.59% 2.93% 3.99% 2.30% 1.36% 4.11% 7.22% 6.58% 13 ROUND ROCK 46,666 45,749 45,034 44,776 43,008 41,733 40,493 39,211 37,847 36,648 35, % 2.00% 1.59% 0.58% 4.11% 3.06% 3.06% 3.27% 3.60% 3.27% 3.08% 14 KELLER 33,763 33,367 33,130 32,746 31,569 30,299 29,458 27,905 25,873 23,756 21, % 1.19% 0.72% 1.17% 3.73% 4.19% 2.85% 5.57% 7.85% 8.91% 8.96% 15 RICHARDSON 38,283 38,043 37,044 36,070 34,843 34,407 34,180 34,042 35,147 34,139 34, % 0.63% 2.70% 2.70% 3.52% 1.27% 0.66% 0.41% -3.14% 2.95% -1.15% 16 EDINBURG C 34,104 33,673 33,412 33,223 32,011 30,749 29,858 28,772 27,424 26,504 25, % 1.28% 0.78% 0.57% 3.79% 4.10% 2.98% 3.77% 4.92% 3.47% 4.46% 17 CYPRESS-FAIRBANKS 111, , , , , ,685 96,837 92,135 86,256 79,314 74, % 1.30% 1.90% 1.76% 1.79% 3.52% 3.97% 5.10% 6.82% 8.75% 5.93% 18 KLEIN 48,253 47,045 46,002 45,310 44,824 43,738 42,935 41,612 39,432 36,964 35, % 2.57% 2.27% 1.53% 1.08% 2.48% 1.87% 3.18% 5.53% 6.68% 3.95% 19 LA JOYA 29,711 29,235 28,965 28,846 28,004 27,055 26,109 25,130 24,161 23,008 21, % 1.63% 0.93% 0.41% 3.01% 3.51% 3.62% 3.90% 4.01% 5.01% 5.71% 20 MIDLAND 23,560 23,319 22,628 21,736 21,374 21,466 21,056 20,922 20,711 20,716 20, % 1.03% 3.05% 4.10% 1.69% -0.43% 1.95% 0.64% 1.02% -0.02% -0.98% 21 ALDINE 67,381 65,684 64,300 63,154 62,792 61,526 60,083 58,831 58,093 56,375 56, % 2.58% 2.15% 1.81% 0.58% 2.06% 2.40% 2.13% 1.27% 3.05% 0.15% 22 SPRING BRANCH 35,312 34,857 33,687 32,948 32,502 32,409 32,040 32,160 32,701 32,343 33, % 1.31% 3.47% 2.24% 1.37% 0.29% 1.15% -0.37% -1.65% 1.11% -2.01% 23 UNITED 43,575 42,891 42,179 41,876 40,885 40,080 39,009 37,807 35,697 33,955 32, % 1.59% 1.69% 0.72% 2.42% 2.01% 2.75% 3.18% 5.91% 5.13% 5.25% 24 PFLUGERVILLE 23,543 23,347 23,070 22,763 22,060 21,719 20,807 19,811 18,761 17,591 16, % 0.84% 1.20% 1.35% 3.19% 1.57% 4.38% 5.03% 5.60% 6.65% 6.02% 25 AMARILLO 33,456 33,327 32,995 32,682 31,890 31,005 30,560 30,394 30,061 29,881 29, % 0.39% 1.01% 0.96% 2.48% 2.85% 1.46% 0.55% 1.11% 0.60% 1.20% 26 HURST-EULESS-BEDFORD 22,180 21,814 21,570 21,046 20,762 20,565 20,392 20,238 19,978 19,444 19, % 1.68% 1.13% 2.49% 1.37% 0.96% 0.85% 0.76% 1.30% 2.75% -0.43% 27 JUDSON 22,972 22,606 22,503 22,040 21,750 21,301 20,634 20,263 19,250 18,161 17, % 1.62% 0.46% 2.10% 1.33% 2.11% 3.23% 1.83% 5.26% 6.00% 1.00% 28 GOOSE CREEK C 22,320 21,821 21,675 21,283 20,954 20,698 20,354 20,293 20,215 19,469 19, % 2.29% 0.67% 1.84% 1.57% 1.24% 1.69% 0.30% 0.39% 3.83% 1.15% 29 MESQUITE 39,909 39,127 38,287 37,747 37,272 37,030 36,640 36,002 35,615 34,815 34, % 2.00% 2.19% 1.43% 1.27% 0.65% 1.06% 1.77% 1.09% 2.30% 1.17% 30 BIRDVILLE 24,326 24,190 23,711 23,545 22,897 22,576 22,063 22,541 22,509 22,333 22, % 0.56% 2.02% 0.71% 2.83% 1.42% 2.33% -2.12% 0.14% 0.79% -0.77% 31 CLEAR CREEK 39,998 39,635 39,209 38,406 37,611 37,194 36,314 35,528 35,232 33,616 32, % 0.92% 1.09% 2.09% 2.11% 1.12% 2.42% 2.21% 0.84% 4.81% 2.46% 32 NORTH EAST 68,205 67,901 67,439 66,604 65,498 63,452 62,181 61,255 59,817 57,599 56, % 0.45% 0.69% 1.25% 1.69% 3.22% 2.04% 1.51% 2.40% 3.85% 2.31% 33 KILLEEN 41,402 41,756 40,998 40,231 39,603 38,550 38,229 36,651 34,584 33,310 32, % -0.85% 1.85% 1.91% 1.59% 2.73% 0.84% 4.31% 5.98% 3.82% 2.23% 34 SPRING 36,484 36,098 36,513 36,323 35,350 33,980 33,249 32,255 31,389 28,423 26, % 1.07% -1.14% 0.52% 2.75% 4.03% 2.20% 3.08% 2.76% 10.44% 6.18% 35 GRAND PRAIRIE 27,740 26,921 26,607 26,541 26,395 25,996 25,317 24,616 23,927 22,860 22, % 3.04% 1.18% 0.25% 0.55% 1.53% 2.68% 2.85% 2.88% 4.67% 3.29% 36 FORT WORTH 84,588 83,503 83,109 81,651 80,209 79,285 78,857 79,457 80,336 79,769 80, % 1.30% 0.47% 1.79% 1.80% 1.17% 0.54% -0.76% -1.09% 0.71% -0.70% 37 IRVING 35,328 35,030 34,770 34,243 33,679 33,131 32,746 32,951 32,677 31,917 31, % 0.85% 0.75% 1.54% 1.67% 1.65% 1.18% -0.62% 0.84% 2.38% 2.14% 38 MANSFIELD 32,779 32,879 32,564 32,251 31,662 30,759 29,696 28,015 25,714 23,069 21, % -0.30% 0.97% 0.97% 1.86% 2.94% 3.58% 6.00% 8.95% 11.47% 9.54% 39 PASADENA 54,535 53,665 52,942 52,218 52,303 51,578 50,757 49,851 49,227 47,440 46, % 1.62% 1.37% 1.39% -0.16% 1.41% 1.62% 1.82% 1.27% 3.77% 2.81% 40 GALENA PARK 22,572 22,113 21,861 21,680 21,536 21,350 21,114 21,275 21,271 20,805 20, % 2.08% 1.15% 0.83% 0.67% 0.87% 1.12% -0.76% 0.02% 2.24% 1.72% 41 HOUSTON 211, , , , , , , , , , , % 4.03% 0.14% -0.58% 0.73% 1.27% 0.35% -1.68% -3.50% 0.64% -1.21% 42 LEWISVILLE 52,801 52,528 51,920 51,484 50,840 50,216 49,636 49,060 47,497 45,527 44, % 0.52% 1.17% 0.85% 1.27% 1.24% 1.17% 1.17% 3.29% 4.33% 3.41% 43 MCKINNEY 24,565 24,443 24,733 24,422 23,933 23,401 22,426 21,289 19,743 18,047 16, % 0.50% -1.17% 1.27% 2.04% 2.27% 4.35% 5.34% 7.83% 9.40% 8.31% 44 PHARR-SAN JUAN-ALAMO 31,997 32,050 31,634 31,508 31,329 30,618 29,999 28,868 28,088 27,338 26, % -0.17% 1.32% 0.40% 0.57% 2.32% 2.06% 3.92% 2.78% 2.74% 3.19% 45 FORT BEND 70,931 69,591 69,449 68,948 69,374 68,708 67,992 67,014 66,104 62,853 61, % 1.93% 0.20% 0.73% -0.61% 0.97% 1.05% 1.46% 1.38% 5.17% 2.62% 46 ARLINGTON 64,688 65,001 64,703 64,484 63,487 63,045 62,863 63,082 63,397 62,267 62, % -0.48% 0.46% 0.34% 1.57% 0.70% 0.29% -0.35% -0.50% 1.81% -0.30% 47 CORPUS CHRISTI 39,414 39,213 38,678 38,409 38,196 38,474 38,693 38,930 39,213 39,189 39, % 0.51% 1.38% 0.70% 0.56% -0.72% -0.57% -0.61% -0.72% 0.06% -0.31% 48 ALIEF 46,258 45,783 45,410 45,768 45,553 45,230 45,183 45,696 47,595 45,571 45, % 1.04% 0.82% -0.78% 0.47% 0.71% 0.10% -1.12% -3.99% 4.44% 0.50% 49 AUSTIN 85,372 86,516 86,528 85,697 84,676 83,483 82,564 82,140 81,155 79,950 79, % -1.32% -0.01% 0.97% 1.21% 1.43% 1.11% 0.52% 1.21% 1.51% 1.19% 50 BROWNSVILLE 49,370 49,190 49,655 49,879 49,121 48,587 48,837 48,334 48,260 46,846 45, % 0.37% -0.94% -0.45% 1.54% 1.10% -0.51% 1.04% 0.15% 3.02% 2.01% 51 DALLAS 159, , , , , , , , , , , % 0.49% 0.86% 0.26% 0.03% -0.15% -0.29% -0.84% -1.30% 2.04% -1.59% 52 PLANO 54,822 55,185 55,659 55,568 54,939 54,203 53,683 52,997 53,238 52,406 51, % -0.66% -0.85% 0.16% 1.14% 1.36% 0.97% 1.29% -0.45% 1.59% 1.04% 53 LUBBOCK 29,287 29,219 28,790 28,905 28,680 28,970 28,601 28,696 28,844 28,741 29, % 0.23% 1.49% -0.40% 0.78% -1.00% 1.29% -0.33% -0.51% 0.36% -0.96% 54 MCALLEN 25,217 24,931 25,252 25,622 25,172 25,047 24,973 24,570 24,435 24,146 23, % 1.15% -1.27% -1.44% 1.79% 0.50% 0.30% 1.64% 0.55% 1.20% 2.78% 55 CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH 26,347 26,385 26,423 26,159 25,920 26,257 26,397 26,252 26,231 25,860 25, % -0.14% -0.14% 1.01% 0.92% -1.28% -0.53% 0.55% 0.08% 1.43% 0.87% 56 GARLAND 57,616 58,059 58,151 57,833 57,861 57,510 57,169 56,955 57,425 56,236 55, % -0.76% -0.16% 0.55% -0.05% 0.61% 0.60% 0.38% -0.82% 2.11% 2.04% 57 LAREDO 24,955 24,823 24,788 24,706 24,707 24,963 25,148 24,885 24,954 24,825 24, % 0.53% 0.14% 0.33% 0.00% -1.03% -0.74% 1.06% -0.28% 0.52% -0.08% 58 EL PASO 61,620 63,210 64,214 64,330 63,378 62,322 62,123 62,857 63,811 63,216 63, % -2.52% -1.56% -0.18% 1.50% 1.69% 0.32% -1.17% -1.50% 0.94% 0.03% 59 SAN ANTONIO 53,857 54,268 54,394 55,116 55,327 54,696 54,779 55,406 56,422 56,639 56, % -0.76% -0.23% -1.31% -0.38% 1.15% -0.15% -1.13% -1.80% -0.38% -0.48% 60 YSLETA 43,063 43,680 44,376 44,746 44,620 44,592 45,049 45,242 46,115 46,349 46, % -1.41% -1.57% -0.83% 0.28% 0.06% -1.01% -0.43% -1.89% -0.50% -0.68% Total 2,871,099 2,834,170 2,803,296 2,772,908 2,726,894 2,676,851 2,632,124 2,589,927 2,551,626 2,466,262 2,421, % 1.10% 1.10% 1.69% 1.87% 1.70% 1.63% 1.50% 3.46% 1.84% 5-Year % Change ( ) 2013 / / / / / / / / / / 2003 Population Survey Analysts PEIMS Snapshot October 2011 Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

16 Change in the Percent of African-American Students Waller -3% -1.4% Magnolia -1.2% Katy -0.5% Needville -0.4% [ 5-Year Change: to Tomball -2% Cypress-Fairbanks 0.9% Lamar C -0.4% Damon -2.6% Klein -1.8% Branch -1.6% Alief -4.2% Willis -1.7% Stafford MSD 1.3% Conroe -0.5% Angleton Columbia-Brazoria -3.9% -2.3% Miles -2.2% 0.5% Aldine -4.5% Harris Houston -2.6% Cleveland Splendora -2.1% -0.6% New Caney -0.4% Pearland -1% Brazoria Danbury -1.5% San Jacinto Alvin 2.4% Humble 0.7% Sheldon -3.4% Galena Park -3.1% Pasadena -0.5% Friendswood -0.2% Shepherd -1.6% Huffman -0.6% Deer Park -0.1% Crosby -3.1% Channelview -1.8% Clear Creek -1.1% Santa Fe -0.3% La Porte -2.7% Tarkington -0.2% Dayton -2.1% Goose Creek C -2.6% Dickinson 1% La Marque -3.6% Hitchcock 7% HOUSTON Chambers Barbers Hill -0.8% Texas City -1.1% Hardin 0.3% -3.7% Anahuac -6.5% -1.4% Counties Water Bodies Chg in % Black 2008 to 2013 Ethnicity_2013.ChgBlk0813 Significant Decrease Slight Decrease Stable Percentage Slight Increase Significant Increase Substantial Increase Source: Texas Education Agency, Public Education Information Management System Division Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

17 Change in the Percent of Hispanic Students Waller 9.9% Katy 3.6% Needville 6.2% Damon 7.6% [ 5-Year Change: to % Magnolia 7.7% Tomball 7.8% Cypress-Fairbanks 5.4% Lamar C 0.6% Alief 2.8% Miles Willis 5.9% Klein 6.4% Stafford MSD 5.5% 2.7% Brazoria Conroe 6.7% Angleton 6.9% 4.1% Aldine 5.5% Harris Houston 0.9% San Jacinto Cleveland Splendora 9.9% 10.5% New Caney 13.6% Pearland 4.2% Alvin 2.4% Danbury 3.4% Humble 6.3% Sheldon 7.4% Galena Park 3.5% Pasadena 4.9% Friendswood 3.8% Shepherd 7.6% Huffman 4.9% Crosby 8.7% Channelview 7.4% Clear Creek 7.6% Santa Fe 4.1% La Porte 8.1% Tarkington 2.8% Dayton 10.7% Dickinson 4.3% Goose Creek C 6.7% Hitchcock -2.1% HOUSTON Chambers Texas City 3.9% Hardin 1.7% 7.7% Barbers Hill 5% Anahuac 5.9% -3.9% Counties Water Bodies Chg in % Hispanic 2008 to 2013 Significant Decrease Slight Decrease Stable Percentage Slight Increase Significant Increase Substantial Increase Source: Texas Education Agency, Public Education Information Management System Division Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

18 Change in the Percent of Asian Students 5-Year Change: to HOUSTON Willis -1.7% San Jacinto Sheperd -0.4% ta Waller -3% -1.4% Magnolia -1.2% Katy -0.5% Lamar C -0.4% [ Needville -0.4% Tomball -2% Cypress-Fairbanks 0.9% Alief -4.2% Fort Bend -2.2% Klein -1.8% Branch -1.6% Stafford MSD 1.3% Conroe -0.5% 0.5% Angleton -3.9% Aldine -4.5% Harris Houston -2.6% Brazoria Pearland -1% Splendora -0.6% New Caney -0.4% Alvin 2.4% Humble 0.7% Sheldon -3.4% Pasadena -0.5% Cleveland -2.1% Huffman -0.6% Deer Park C -0.1% Crosby -3.1% Channelview Galena Park -1.8% -3.1% Clear Creek Friendswood -1.1% -0.2% Santa Fe -0.3% La Porte -2.7% Tarkington -0.2% Dayton -2.1% Dickinson 1% La Marque -3.6% Texas City -1.1% Hardin 0.3% -3.7% Barbers Hill Goose -0.8% Creek C Chambers -2.6% Hitchcock 7% 2.5 Miles Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April Anahuacl 1.2% -1.4% Counties Water Bodies Chg in % Asian 2008 to 2013 ChgAsn0813 Significant Decrease Slight Decrease Stable Percentage Slight Increase Significant Increase Substantial Increase Source: Texas Education Agency, Public Education Information Management System Division

19 ta ler D % Change in the Percent of White Students Waller -9.2% -3.2% Magnolia -8.6% Katy -7.9% Needville -6.7% [ 5-Year Change: to Tomball -9.9% Cypress-Fairbanks -8.8% Lamar C -2.6% Damon -9.3% Klein -7.3% Branch -3.4% Alief 0% Willis -6.3% Stafford MSD -3.8% Columbia-Brazoria -4.7% Miles -4.6% Conroe -9% -6% Aldine -1.4% Harris Houston 0.4% Brazoria Angleton -5.6% Cleveland Splendora -9.4% -10.8% New Caney -14.8% Pearland -6.2% Danbury -5.3% San Jacinto Alvin -8.6% Humble -9% Sheldon -5% Galena Park -1.1% Pasadena -4.7% Friendswood -6.8% Shepherd -6.8% Huffman -5.2% Deer Park -9.2% Crosby -7.7% Channelview -6.1% Clear Creek -9.4% Santa Fe -5.6% La Porte -7.7% Dickinson -6.6% Tarkington -4% Dayton -11.6% Goose Creek C -5.9% La Marque -1.2% Hitchcock -7.2% HOUSTON Chambers Barbers Hill -6.3% Hardin -4.9% -6.1% Anahuac -4.2% 3.5% Texas City -4.8% Counties Water Bodies Chg in % White 2008 to 2013 Ethnicity_2013.ChgWht0813 Significant Decrease Slight Decrease Stable Percentage Slight Increase Significant Increase Substantial Increase Source: Texas Education Agency, Public Education Information Management System Division Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

20 Waller 8.2% 6.2% Magnolia 6.5% Katy 7.2% Needville 7.5% [ Kindergarten Students as Percent of Total Enrollment School Year Tomball 7.6% Cypress-Fairbanks 7.2% Damon 11.8% Alief 8% Lamar C 7.6% Willis 7.7% Klein 7% Branch 7.5% Stafford MSD 7.4% Conroe 7.4% Angleton Columbia-Brazoria 7% 7.8% Miles 6.3% 7.8% Danbury 7% Aldine 8.4% Harris Houston 8.5% Danbury Cleveland Splendora 8.1% 7.3% New Caney 7.8% Humble 6.6% Sheldon 7.3% Galena Park 6.9% Pasadena 7.5% Shepherd 7.6% Huffman 6.4% Deer Park 7% 7.6% Crosby 7.7% Channelview 7.8% Clear Pearland Creek 7% Friendswood 6.8% 5.4% Brazoria San Jacinto Alvin 8.4% Santa Fe 6.7% La Porte 7.2% Tarkington 7% Dayton 7% Goose Creek C 8% Dickinson 8.3% Hitchcock 7.7% Texas City 7% La Marque 7.4% HOUSTON Hardin 8.3% 7.9% Chambers Barbers Hill 6.9% Anahuac 8.4% 7.7% Counties Water Bodies Percent KN Enrollment_2013.PCTKN13 0.0% - 6.0% 6.1% - 6.5% 6.6% - 7.0% 7.1% - 7.5% 7.6% - 8.0% 8.1% % Source: Texas Education Agency, Public Education Information Management System Division Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

21 Rank KN as a Proportion of Total Enrollment Fall 2013 All Districts with 20,000+ Students (Excluding Charter Schools) District Name Kindergarten Enrollment Total Enrollment % KN 1 AUSTIN 7,693 85, % 2 KILLEEN 3,696 41, % 3 LUBBOCK 2,582 29, % 4 DALLAS 13, , % 5 RICHARDSON 3,258 38, % 6 HOUSTON 17, , % 7 CARROLLTON FARMERS BRANCH 2,219 26, % 8 MIDLAND 1,978 23, % 9 ECTOR COUNTY 2,581 30, % 10 ALDINE 5,634 67, % 11 FORT WORTH 6,991 84, % 12 AMARILLO 2,761 33, % 13 SAN ANTONIO 4,406 53, % 14 LAREDO 2,019 24, % 15 ALIEF 3,721 46, % 16 GOOSE CREEK C 1,781 22, % 17 FRISCO 3,654 46, % 18 BIRDVILLE 1,930 24, % 19 DENTON 2,074 26, % 20 HURST EULESS BEDFORD 1,744 22, % 21 SPRING 2,847 36, % 22 JUDSON 1,769 22, % 23 IRVING 2,703 35, % 24 CORPUS CHRISTI 3,005 39, % 25 ROUND ROCK 3,547 46, % 26 LAMAR C 2,053 27, % 27 PASADENA 4,115 54, % 28 SPRING BRANCH 2,651 35, % 29 GRAND PRAIRIE 2,063 27, % 30 ARLINGTON 4,790 64, % 31 LA JOYA 2,189 29, % 32 YSLETA 3,169 43, % 33 CONROE 4,048 55, % Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

22 Rank KN as a Proportion of Total Enrollment Fall 2013 All Districts with 20,000+ Students (Excluding Charter Schools) District Name Kindergarten Enrollment Total Enrollment % KN 34 MESQUITE 2,926 39, % 35 NORTHSIDE 7, , % 36 EDINBURG C 2,484 34, % 37 KATY 4,856 67, % 38 LEANDER 2,558 35, % 39 PHARR SAN JUAN ALAMO 2,306 31, % 40 CYPRESS FAIRBANKS 8, , % 41 GARLAND 4,133 57, % 42 NORTH EAST 4,847 68, % 43 EL PASO 4,377 61, % 44 PFLUGERVILLE 1,671 23, % 45 KELLER 2,373 33, % 46 PEARLAND 1,401 20, % 47 KLEIN 3,363 48, % 48 PLANO 3,805 54, % 49 GALENA PARK 1,566 22, % 50 BROWNSVILLE 3,405 49, % 51 MCKINNEY 1,684 24, % 52 CLEAR CREEK 2,728 39, % 53 ALLEN 1,383 20, % 54 UNITED 2,937 43, % 55 SOCORRO 2,961 44, % 56 MCALLEN 1,677 25, % 57 MANSFIELD 2,169 32, % 58 HUMBLE 2,530 38, % 59 LEWISVILLE 3,493 52, % 60 FORT BEND 4,475 70, % Statewide Average 7.57% Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

23 Humble I.S.D. : Kindergarten Enrollment Compared to Births (Moved Five Years Forward) 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 2,754 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 3,300 KN Enrollment vs Births 3,100 2,900 2,700 2,500 2,300 2,100 Kindergarten Enrollment Births (Adjusted 5 years) Students 1,900 1,700 1,500 1, Year Population and Survey Analysts Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

24 Rank 1st Grade vs. 5th Grade Enrollment Fall, 2013 All Districts with 20,000+ Students (Excluding Charter Schools) District Name 1st Grade Fall, th Grade Fall, 2013 Total Enrollment Fall, st > 5th Grade 1 LAREDO 2,154 1,718 24, % 2 KILLEEN 3,801 3,043 41, % 3 AUSTIN 7,661 6,181 85, % 4 ALIEF 4,072 3,311 46, % 5 ALDINE 5,974 4,918 67, % 6 LUBBOCK 2,643 2,187 29, % 7 HOUSTON 18,985 15, , % 8 FORT WORTH 7,550 6,420 84, % 9 DALLAS 14,256 12, , % 10 PASADENA 4,637 3,953 54, % 11 SAN ANTONIO 4,579 3,992 53, % 12 CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH 2,256 1,978 26, % 13 RICHARDSON 3,328 2,929 38, % 14 MIDLAND 2,040 1,827 23, % 15 GALENA PARK 1,736 1,560 22, % 16 CORPUS CHRISTI 3,321 2,992 39, % 17 HURST-EULESS-BEDFORD 1,767 1,592 22, % 18 EL PASO 4,904 4,455 61, % 19 AMARILLO 2,695 2,462 33, % 20 JUDSON 1,902 1,738 22, % 21 YSLETA 3,263 2,996 43, % 22 LAMAR C 2,242 2,071 27, % 23 BROWNSVILLE 3,725 3,441 49, % 24 ECTOR COUNTY 2,635 2,443 30, % 25 NORTHSIDE 8,129 7, , % 26 SPRING BRANCH 2,818 2,657 35, % 27 ARLINGTON 5,019 4,737 64, % 28 UNITED 3,397 3,246 43, % 29 CONROE 4,378 4,188 55, % 30 BIRDVILLE 1,883 1,812 24, % 31 SPRING 2,897 2,789 36, % 32 DENTON 2,164 2,085 26, % 33 LA JOYA 2,317 2,250 29, % 34 MESQUITE 3,016 2,932 39, % 35 GOOSE CREEK C 1,758 1,713 22, % 36 GARLAND 4,263 4,199 57, % 37 KATY 5,067 5,002 67, % 38 IRVING 2,774 2,755 35, % 39 ROUND ROCK 3,601 3,591 46, % 40 CYPRESS-FAIRBANKS 8,417 8, , % 41 HUMBLE 2,841 2,860 38, % Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

25 Rank 1st Grade vs. 5th Grade Enrollment Fall, 2013 All Districts with 20,000+ Students (Excluding Charter Schools) District Name 1st Grade Fall, th Grade Fall, 2013 Total Enrollment Fall, st > 5th Grade 42 EDINBURG C 2,573 2,595 34, % 43 PFLUGERVILLE 1,758 1,775 23, % 44 MCKINNEY 1,796 1,815 24, % 45 NORTH EAST 4,960 5,025 68, % 46 KELLER 2,426 2,462 33, % 47 FRISCO 3,735 3,846 46, % 48 SOCORRO 3,169 3,265 44, % 49 GRAND PRAIRIE 2,128 2,202 27, % 50 PHARR-SAN JUAN-ALAMO 2,419 2,504 31, % 51 KLEIN 3,495 3,630 48, % 52 PLANO 3,985 4,158 54, % 53 LEANDER 2,693 2,823 35, % 54 ALLEN 1,552 1,627 20, % 55 CLEAR CREEK 2,820 2,985 39, % 56 LEWISVILLE 3,752 4,008 52, % 57 MCALLEN 1,829 1,973 25, % 58 MANSFIELD 2,259 2,495 32, % 59 FORT BEND 4,848 5,439 70, % 60 PEARLAND 1,431 1,608 20, % Statewide Average 6.3% Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

26 Comparison of 1st and 5th Grade Populations by School Zone School 1st 5th Difference grade grade (1st-5th) % Difference Atascocita s % Bear Branch % Deerwood % Eagle s % Elm Grove % Fall Creek % Fields % Foster % Greentree % Hidden Hollow % Humble % Lakeland % Lakeshore % Maplebrook % North Belt % Oak Forest % Oaks % Park Lakes % Pine Forest % Ridge Creek % River Pines % Shadow Forest % Summerwood % Timbers % Whispering Pines % Willow Creek % Woodland Hills % Yellow: 5th > 1st Green: 1st > 5th **Number of students is based on current geo-coded 1st and 5th grade students. Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

27 Historical Growth Trends by Grade and Grade Group in Humble I.S.D. % Chg. % Chg. % Chg. % Chg. % Chg. % Chg. % Chg. % Chg. % Chg / / / / / / / / / EE % % % % % 206-8% 217 5% % PK % % % % 634 2% % 668-5% % 762 2% KG % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Total 23,922 24,221 1% 24,773 2% 25,322 2% 26,025 3% 27,009 4% 28,159 4% 29,706 5% 31,327 5% 32,963 5% EE-5th % % % % % % % % % 6th-8th % % % % % % % % % 9th-12th % % % % % % % % % % EE-5th 46% 46% 45% 46% 46% 46% 46% 46% 47% 47% % 6th-8th 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 23% 23% % 9th-12th 30% 31% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% PASA-Population and Survey Analysts Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

28 Waller 64.2% Katy 29% Klein 40.8% Branch 58.2% Needville Angleton 37.5% Columbia-Brazoria Damon 80.7% 53.3% 60.5% [ Economically Disadvantaged Population School Year 25.7% Magnolia 40.2% Tomball 23.5% Cypress-Fairbanks 49.3% Lamar C 47.5% Alief 80.9% Miles Willis 61.7% Stafford MSD 68.9% Fort Bend 35.8% Conroe 36.1% 74% Aldine 85.3% Harris Houston 80.4% Brazoria Cleveland Splendora 76.8% 60.7% New Caney 62.3% Pearland 27.7% Danbury 28.7% San Jacinto Alvin 50.4% Humble 34.3% Sheldon 79.8% Pasadena 78.7% Shepherd 70.8% Huffman 32.6% Crosby 45.3% Channelview 78.8% Galena Park 80.5% Deer Park 42.9% Friendswood 8.5% Clear Creek 27.4% Santa Fe 35.2% La Porte 48.3% Dickinson 63.7% Tarkington 47.7% Dayton 61.5% Goose Creek C 64.5% Hitchcock 87.6% Texas City 67.3% La Marque 78% HOUSTON Hardin 51% 59.8% Chambers Barbers Hill 20% Anahuac 53.8% 73.6% Counties Water Bodies Econ Disadvantaged Eco_Dis_2013.Eco_1314 < 30% 31% - 40% 41% - 55% 56% - 65% 66% - 80% > 80% Source: Texas Education Agency, Public Education Information Management System Division Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

29 Economically Disadvantaged Student Population All Districts Larger than 20,000 Students Rank District Name Economically Disadvantaged Total Enrollment Percent Economically Disadvantaged 1FRISCO 5,196 46, % 2 ALLEN 3,226 20, % 3 LEANDER 6,690 35, % 4 KELLER 7,942 33, % 5CLEAR CREEK 10,953 39, % 6PLANO 15,069 54, % 7PEARLAND 5,557 20, % 8KATY 19,465 67, % 9ROUND ROCK 13,565 46, % 10 MCKINNEY 7,447 24, % 11 LEWISVILLE 16,260 52, % 12 HUMBLE 13,130 38, % 13 FORT BEND 25,415 70, % 14 CONROE 19,840 55, % 15 MANSFIELD 12,493 32, % 16 KLEIN 19,666 48, % 17 DENTON 11,207 26, % 18 MIDLAND 10,916 23, % 19 NORTH EAST 31,655 68, % 20 LAMAR C 12,866 27, % 21 CYPRESS FAIRBANKS 54, , % 22 ECTOR COUNTY 15,645 30, % 23 NORTHSIDE 53, , % 24 HURST EULESS BEDFORD 11,787 22, % 25 PFLUGERVILLE 12,643 23, % 26 BIRDVILLE 13,727 24, % 27 KILLEEN 23,720 41, % 28 RICHARDSON 22,027 38, % 29 SPRING BRANCH 20,540 35, % 30 GARLAND 35,050 57, % 31 AUSTIN 52,140 85, % 32 CARROLLTON FARMERS BRANCH 16,401 26, % 33 GOOSE CREEK C 14,391 22, % 34 CORPUS CHRISTI 26,074 39, % 35 LUBBOCK 19,511 29, % 36 AMARILLO 22,339 33, % 37 MCALLEN 16,937 25, % 38 ARLINGTON 44,260 64, % 39 EL PASO 42,845 61, % 40 JUDSON 16,169 22, % 41 MESQUITE 28,136 39, % Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

30 Economically Disadvantaged Student Population All Districts Larger than 20,000 Students Rank District Name Economically Disadvantaged Total Enrollment Percent Economically Disadvantaged 42 GRAND PRAIRIE 19,867 27, % 43 SOCORRO 32,085 44, % 44 UNITED 31,960 43, % 45 SPRING 26,995 36, % 46 FORT WORTH 65,246 84, % 47 PASADENA 42,892 54, % 48 HOUSTON 170, , % 49 IRVING 28,442 35, % 50 GALENA PARK 18,181 22, % 51 YSLETA 34,823 43, % 52 ALIEF 37,442 46, % 53 EDINBURG C 29,029 34, % 54 ALDINE 57,504 67, % 55 DALLAS 142, , % 56 PHARR SAN JUAN ALAMO 28,523 31, % 57 SAN ANTONIO 50,289 53, % 58 LA JOYA 28,185 29, % 59 BROWNSVILLE 47,424 49, % 60 LAREDO 24,374 24, % Statewide Average 59.8% Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

31 Change in the Economically Disadvantaged Population 5-year Change: to HOUSTON 24.7%, 25.7% Magnolia 36.6%, 40.2% Tomball 23.1% 23.5% Waller 54.6% 64.2% Cypress-Fairbanks 41.4%, 49.3% Katy 27.6%, 29% Needville 29.2%, 37.5% [ Lamar C 45.1%, 47.5% Damon 63.7%, 80.7% Alief 76.3%, 80.9% Miles Willis 57.6% 61.7% Klein 35.9% 40.8% Stafford MSD 54.8%, 68.9% 30.9%, 35.8% Conroe 32.5%, 36.1% 61.8%, 74% Brazoria Angleton 53.8%, 60.5% Aldine 84.8% 85.3% Harris Houston 80.9%, 80.4% San Jacinto Cleveland Splendora 68.2%, 76.8% 55.1%, 60.7% New Caney 60.2% 62.3% Pearland 23.1%, 27.7% Alvin 52.1%, 50.4% Huffman 31.6% 32.6% Humble 27.2% 34.3% Sheldon 78.4% 79.8% Galena Park 77.9%, 80.5% Shepherd 65.2%, 70.8% Crosby 46.8% 45.3% Channelview 75.9%, 78.8% La Porte 43.8%, 48.3% Clear Creek 22%, 27.4% Friendswood 6.6%, 8.5% Santa Fe 33.3%, 35.2% Tarkington 38.2%, 47.7% Dayton 50.4% 61.5% Goose Creek C 64.1%, 64.5% Dickinson 62.3%, 63.7% Hitchcock 74.1%, 87.6% Texas City 64.7%, 67.3% Hardin 54.7% 51% 56.8% 59.8% Chambers Barbers Hill 20.7%, 20% Counties La Marque Water Bodies I Change in Econ Disad 75.1%, 78% < 0% 76.5% 1% 2% 73.6% 3% - 4% 5% - 9% >10% Source: Texas Education Agency, Public Education Information Management System Division Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

32 Percent of Students Passing STAAR (Level II) 3rd-8th Grade Primary Assessment, All Tests Taken, HOUSTON Sealy 73.9% Austin Grimes Navasota 54.4% Hempstead 58.8% Waller Brazos 76.6% East Bernard 86.4% Boling Wharton 69.5% Wharton 59.2% El Campo 63.6% [ Royal 53.9% Richards 74.1% Waller 78.9% Bay City 59.7% Van Vleck 68.7% Huntsville New Waverly 64% 73.1% 84.9% Magnolia 75.8% Tomball 86% Damon 48.7% Sweeny 77.4% Klein 79% Harris Cypress-Fairbanks 80.2% Katy 85.5% Lamar C 80.1% Needville 80.4% Miles Branch 68.7% Alief 68.5% Willis 70% Stafford MSD 70.5% Columbia-Brazoria 66.6% 80.5% Conroe 84.2% 61% Coldspring-Oakhurst C 58.7% San Jacinto Brazoria Cleveland Splendora 53.3% 68.2% Humble 78.4% Pasadena 70.4% Shepherd 60.6% Huffman 68.9% Crosby Aldine 65.9% North Sheldon 73.6% Forest 40.6% 66.2% Channelview Galena Park 66.7% Goose Houston 72.6% Creek C Deer Park 70.3% 65.9% La Porte 78% Angleton 77.8% Pearland 85.5% New Caney 70.2% Friendswood 88.7% Alvin 75.5% Danbury 79.1% Brazosport 65.7% 79.5% Clear Creek 83.6% Santa Fe 73.2% Dickinson Livingston Big Sandy Polk 66.5% 66.6% Hardin West Hardin County C 57.6% Tarkington 70.7% Dayton 65.3% 70.9% La Marque Texas City 46.3% 67.1% Hitchcock 56% Hardin 68.8% Hull-Daisetta 58.1% 69% Chambers Barbers Hill 87.7% Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April Anahuac 70.4% Devers 79.6% 62.6% Counties Water Bodies STAAR Pass Level II 31.4% % 50.3% % 59.6% % 66.4% % 72.4% % 78.6% % 85.3% % Source: Texas Education Agency

33 Humble I.S.D Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics for Humble I.S.D. as Compared with Adjacent and/or Comparable School Districts in the Houston Area Humble Conroe Aldine Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metro Area Total Population 183, , , ,002 6,204,161 Housing Age Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Total housing units 63, ,347 90,914 68,383 2,363,507 Occupied housing units 59,944 95% 96,408 91% 78,684 87% 60,521 89% 2,099,897 89% Vacant housing units 3,166 5% 9,939 9% 12,230 13% 7,862 11% 263,610 11% Owner-occupied 43,964 68,812 40,770 31,983 1,288,302 Renter-occupied 15,980 27,596 37,914 28, ,595 Under 5 years 13,030 7% 18,528 7% 27,506 10% 18,641 10% 475,260 8% 5 to 9 years 16,563 9% 17,490 6% 25,155 9% 15,174 8% 470,609 8% 10 to 14 years 17,005 9% 23,336 9% 23,374 9% 16,023 8% 480,448 8% 15 to 19 years 13,611 7% 17,648 6% 22,315 8% 14,457 8% 441,000 7% 5 to 17 years 43,144 24% 53,229 19% 62,536 23% 40,847 22% 1,224,203 20% 20 to 24 years 9,767 5% 15,092 6% 20,956 8% 15,406 8% 427,329 7% 25 to 34 years 26,523 14% 37,707 14% 45,378 17% 31,647 17% 939,052 15% 35 to 44 years 26,748 15% 41,661 15% 37,834 14% 29,314 16% 887,511 14% 45 to 54 years 24,379 13% 42,777 16% 32,222 12% 21,323 11% 839,617 14% 55 to 59 years 9,351 5% 17,094 6% 12,987 5% 7,643 4% 371,324 6% 60 to 64 years 8,785 5% 13,552 5% 10,069 4% 8,718 5% 300,138 5% 65 to 74 years 12,047 7% 17,590 6% 11,091 4% 7,229 4% 348,985 6% 75 to 84 years 4,288 2% 7,545 3% 4,415 2% 2,787 1% 162,371 3% 85 years and over 1,348 1% 3,671 1% 1,435 1% 640 0% 60,517 1% Median Age Class of Worker Private wage and salary 66,687 76% 102,249 79% 95,040 83% 76,606 84% 2,355,849 82% Government 16,495 19% 17,392 13% 10,884 10% 9,779 11% 334,476 12% Self-employed 3,994 5% 9,316 7% 7,856 7% 4,788 5% 188,097 7% Unpaid family workers 0 0% 42 0% 569 0% 0 0% 4,307 0% Income and Benefits Total households 59,944 96,408 78,684 60,521 2,099,897 less than $10,000 1,807 3% 4,540 5% 9,021 11% 2,725 5% 140,725 7% $10,000 to $14, % 3,657 4% 7,090 9% 3,345 6% 98,450 5% $15,000 to $24,999 3,938 7% 8,050 8% 11,459 15% 7,090 12% 210,717 10% $25,000 to $34,999 4,244 7% 6,873 7% 10,753 14% 9,424 16% 214,121 10% $35,000 to $49,999 7,976 13% 10,404 11% 14,169 18% 7,421 12% 276,940 13% $50,000 to $74,999 10,237 17% 16,402 17% 12,256 16% 13,189 22% 363,118 17% $75,000 to $99,999 8,463 14% 11,941 12% 7,036 9% 6,960 12% 244,058 12% $100,000 to $149,999 10,748 18% 14,693 15% 5,565 7% 6,621 11% 292,812 14% $150,000 to $199,999 6,486 11% 8,603 9% 1,050 1% 1,779 3% 123,155 6% $200,000 or more 5,408 9% 9,445 10% 285 0% 1,967 3% 135,801 6% Median household income $78,729 $68,494 $35,944 $50,212 $55,910 * Data Gathered From the 2012 American Community Survey1-Year Estimates Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

34 Humble I.S.D Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics for Humble I.S.D. as Compared with Adjacent and/or Comparable School Districts in the Houston Area Humble Conroe Aldine Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metro Area Educational Attainment Population 25 years & over 113, , , ,301 3,909,515 Less than 9th grade 4,137 4% 8,416 5% 34,083 22% 9,755 9% 370,805 9% 9th to 12th grade, no diploma 6,384 6% 15,852 9% 26,294 17% 11,031 10% 368,223 9% H.S. graduate 21,347 19% 35,991 20% 48,232 31% 32,738 30% 919,797 24% Some college, no degree 30,173 27% 41,447 23% 27,337 18% 27,706 25% 856,652 22% Associate's degree 7,750 7% 11,901 7% 5,474 4% 7,823 7% 236,501 6% Bachelor's degree 28,650 25% 46,586 26% 10,623 7% 14,480 13% 754,517 19% Graduate or professional degree 15,028 13% 21,404 12% 3,388 2% 5,768 5% 403,110 10% H.S. graduate or higher 91% 87% 61% 81% 81% Bachelor's degree or higher 38% 37% 9% 19% 30% Residence 1 year ago Population 1 year & over 181, , , ,684 6,123,294 Same house 148,535 82% 233,447 86% 217,890 81% 147,854 80% 5,097,727 83% Different house in the U.S. 30,920 17% 36,343 13% 50,648 19% 36,703 20% 977,060 16% Same county 20,083 11% 20,540 8% 45,129 17% 28,467 15% 681,030 11% Different county 10,837 6% 15,803 6% 5,519 2% 8,236 4% 296,030 5% Same state 6,248 3% 10,416 4% 3,172 1% 5,480 3% 191,836 3% Different state 4,589 3% 5,387 2% 2,347 1% 2,756 1% 104,194 2% Abroad 1,617 1% 1,983 1% 1,136 0% 127 0% 48,507 1% Commuting to work Workers 16 years & over 85, , ,491 89,309 2,836,304 Car, truck or van--drove alone 69,377 81% 105,080 82% 87,303 78% 70,708 79% 2,258,479 80% Car, truck or van--carpooled 7,690 9% 10,790 8% 13,956 12% 10,875 12% 316,211 11% Public transportation (excluding taxis) 1,653 2% 3,341 3% 3,667 3% 3,245 4% 73,121 3% Walked 830 1% 1,538 1% 804 1% 951 1% 39,194 1% Other means 1,186 1% 2,004 2% 5,444 5% 1,721 2% 51,010 2% Worked at home 4,133 5% 4,964 4% 1,317 1% 1,809 2% 98,289 3% Mean travel time to work (mins.) * Data Gathered From the 2012 American Community Survey1-Year Estimates Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April

35 Recent Employment Trends Humble I.S.D. March 2013 September 2013 March Month Annual Percent Percent Change Change City of Houston Employment 972, ,075 1,003, % 3.20% Unemployment Rate Harris County Employment 1,988,807 2,014,815 2,052, % 3.20% Unemployment Rate Population and Survey Analysts - Demographic Update - April