klein report text - september 2012 - home - klein isd · humble isd 91.27 aldine isd 108.99 spring...
TRANSCRIPT
Introduction 1 �Population�and�Survey�Analysts�(PASA)�has�recently�completed�a�Demographic�Update�for�Klein�I.S.D.�by�studying�student�residential�locations,�potential�student�growth�or�decline�for�existing�subdivisions,�future�housing�trends,�and�employment�and�other�economic�factors�affecting�the�District.���PASA�studied�the�expected�long�term�trends�for�the�District,�and�created�a�dataset�to�use�in�planning�for�school�facilities�and�for�other�uses�–�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,�and�extrapolating�those�rates�forward.��As�a�result,�the�data�that�PASA�generates�is�more�rigorous�and�more�usable�by�school�districts�than�data�created�by�other�entities,�because�PASA�assesses�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��
�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�(Census�block�group)�maps�Maps�showing�various�factors�that�affect�long�term�potential�for�residential�development,�including�municipal�boundaries,�water�supply�data,�flood�plain,�and�parks/preserves�Maps�and�spreadsheets�of�projected�housing�occupancies�–�both�single��and�multi�family�–�for�the�10�year�time�frame�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 October, 2012: Page 1
every�subdivision,�apartment�complex,�and�mobile�home�park����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�50�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�are�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�(yielding�future�students)�will�be�built�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�where�other�changes�that�are�then�applied�to�the�projections�of�future�student�population.���
�Chapter�5�–��
Three�scenarios�of�Districtwide,�grade�level�growth:���Low�Growth,�Moderate�Growth,�and�High�Growth�Charts�containing�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�Moderate�or�‘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�
�PASA�uses�the�data�prepared�in�the�Demographic�Update�to�assess�the�long�term�stability�of�each�existing�attendance�zone,�and�also�projects�specific�“catchment�areas”�where�additional�facilities�might�be�warranted,�and�the�timing�of�these�new�schools.�
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 2
Student Growth Trends �The�first�map�shows�the�School�District�as�it�is�located�in�Harris�County,�with�82.47�square�miles.��The�next�maps�show�the�2012�student�enrollment,�based�on��phone�calls�made�to�Houston�area�school�districts�in�the�Fall,�2012.��This�information�will�change�from�the�PEIMS�snapshot�data�that�will�be�submitted�at�the�end�of�October,�but�it�gives�a�representation��of�recent�growth�patterns�in�the�area.��It�shows�large�absolute�increases�of�students�in�Spring�Branch,�Katy,�Cypress�Fairbanks,�Aldine,�Humble,�and�Conroe.��The�highest�percentage�growth,�based�on�these�figures,�occurred�in�Tomball�I.S.D.,�New�Caney�I.S.D.,�Crosby�I.S.D.,�Alvin�I.S.D.,�and�Sheldon�I.S.D.��Five�year�trends�are�also�shown.��The�next�maps�show�official�data�released�by�TEA�representing�the�PEIMS�snapshot�date�in�October�2011.��This�map�shows�the�enrollment�of�Klein�I.S.D.�was�46,002�students,�or�a�change�from�the�previous��year’s�PEIMS�snapshot�of�692�students�(1.5%).���The�Houston�area�Districts�that�grew�at�a�similar�percent�of�growth�this�year�were:��Cypress�Fairbanks�I.S.D.�(1.8%�growth�=�1,863�students)�and�Aldine�I.S.D.�(1.8%�growth�=�1,146�students).��The�next�chart�shows�recent�growth�trends�for�all�districts�larger�than�20,000�students.��Klein’s�growth�rate�for�the�years�2006�to�2011�ranges�between�1.08%�to�6.68%,�and�Klein�I.S.D.�ranks�21st�fastest�growing�District�in�the�State�(of�those�with�more�than�20,000�students�enrolled)�during�this�time�period.��Also�shown�are�5�year�trend�maps,�detailing�both�absolute�and�percent�change�for�the�Houston�area.����Trends�in�Grade�Sizes�that�Affect�Future�Enrollment��The�Fall,�2011�PEIMS�data�shows�that�6.8%�of�the�Klein�I.S.D.�student�population�was�in�Kindergarten�for�the�2011�2012�school�year,�which�is�quite�a�bit�lower�than��the�state�average�of�7.6%.��A�map�showing�this�information�based�on�contact�made�with�each�district�in�the�Fall,�2012�is�also�shown,�and�the�figures�are�similar,�with�approximately�7%�of�the�student�population�in�Kindergarten.��The�2011�PEIMS�figures�rank�Klein�I.S.D.�53rd�in�a�list�of�58�districts�larger�than�20,000�students,�as�it�has�recently�had�one�of�the�lowest�cohorts�in�the�State.��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�strong�correlation�between�the�two�sets�of�data,�and�allows,�at�least�in�general�terms,�for�an�approximation�of�future�Kindergarten�enrollment�over�the�next�4�years.��Based�on�birth�data�alone,�a�continued�increase�in�Kindergarten�enrollment�is�likely�to�continue�for�the�next�several�years.����Similarly,�the�1st�grade�population�was�3.8%�smaller�than�the�5th�grade�population,�compared�to�the�statewide�trend�in�which�the�1st�grade�is�3.94%�larger�than�5th�grade.��These�figures�spell�questionable��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�K.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).��Eleven�of�the�elementary�school�attendance�zones�have�smaller�5th�grade�classes�than�1st�grade�
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 3
classes,�while�sixteen�of�the�schools�have�larger�5th�grade�classes.�Those�with�larger�1st�grade�classes�will�likely�continue�to�grow�in�the�short�term,�while�those�with�smaller�1st�grade�classes�will�be�more�likely�to�see�aging�and�declining�populations.����An�analysis�of�the�past�decade�of�enrollment�trends�(refer�to�Historical�Growth�Trends�chart)�shows�little�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�44%�and�46%�elementary�school�students.�����
Socioeconomic Characteristics �Quality�of�Life�Factors:��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.��K.I.S.D.�has�41.9%�of�enrolled�students�who�are�eligible�for�the�free/reduced�price�lunch�program,�compared�to�61%�of�all�students�in�Texas�who�participate�in�this�program�for�economically�disadvantaged�families.���This�ranks�Klein�I.S.D.�14th�in�the�State�out�of�all�58�Districts�with�20,000�or�more�students.��Since�the�Fall,�2006,�this�percentage�has�increased,�but�not�as�quickly�as�in�some�of�the�surrounding�Districts.��Statewide,��virtually�all�districts�are�seeing�an�increase�in�this�sector�of�the�student�population.���Another�quality�of�life�indicator�commonly�being�used�is�performance�on�the�state�mandated�TAKS�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�all�subjects�of�the�TAKS�test�administered�in�Spring�2011.��Statewide,�about�77%�of�all�students�in�Texas�public�schools�passed�all�subjects�of�the�TAKS�test.��Comparatively,�Klein�I.S.D.�has�an�overall�passage�rate�of�81%.��Other�socioeconomic�characteristics�are�summarized�for�the�District�in�the�next�chart,�where�Klein�I.S.D.�is�compared�to�other�nearby�Districts�in�the�area�and�to�the�State�of�Texas.��Median�income�is�of�interest,�in�that�incomes�have�been�generally�declining�in�the�U.S.,�but�many�Texas�school�districts�have�been�able�to�stave�off�this�downturn,�due�to�the�availability�of�good�jobs�and�job�stability.���Klein�median�income�still�far�outpaces�the�state�average,�being�$73,385,�compared�to�$49,392�statewide.��The�K.I.S.D.�population�is�more�educated�(31%�has�a�Bachelor’s�degree�or�higher�compared�to�26%�in�Texas),�and�is�more�oriented�to�school�aged�children�than�the�state�average.�The�median�age�of�the�resident�population�of�Klein�I.S.D.�is�34.4�years,�compared�to�the�median�age�in�Texas�of�33.7�years.�����
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 4
��Average�Travel��Times:��The�K.I.S.D.�population�spends�more�time�commuting�to�work�each�day�than�the�average�Texan,�an�average�of�29.6�minutes�each�way,�compared�24.8�minutes�across�the�State.��This�puts�Klein�I.S.D.�at�a�slight�disadvantage,�but�shows�a�commitment�by�its�residents�to�live�in�Klein�I.S.D.���
Changes in Ethnicity of Student Population �Maps�detailing�ethnic�trends�between�2006�07�and�2011�12�are�shown�on�the�next�pages.��The�African�American�student�population�has�decreased�slightly�over�the�last�five�years�(15.7%,�declining�to�14%),�and�the�Hispanic�student�population�has�increased�from�29.1%�to�36.6%�during�the�same�time.��The�Asian�student�population�has�remained�steady,�at�8.4%,�while�there�has�been�a�corresponding�decline�in�the�proportion�of�the�student�population�that�is�Anglo�during�the�same�time,�decreasing�from�46.4%�to�37.7%.�����Mexican�migration�to�the�U.S.�has�been�at�a�virtual�standstill��in�recent�years.��This�is�due�to�the�weak�U.S.�economy,�improved�border�security,�the�danger�of�the�border’s�organized�crime,�lower�fertility�rates�in�Mexico,�and�an�improved�economic�outlook�in�Mexico.�����Nonetheless,�Klein�I.S.D.�was�significantly�affected�by�this�migration�wave�until�the�economic�downturn.�And,�the�end�result�has�been�that�–�in�Texas�and�in�Klein�–�there�are�essentially�two�population�bulges.���One�of�these�is�comprised�of�aging�non�minorities,�and�the�second�is�a�student�aged�minority�population.��But,�while�this�student�growth�was�pronounced,�and�its�impact�will�be�far�reaching�for�the�next�ten�to�twenty�years�in�the�Klein�School�District,�there�is�little�likelihood�for�such�a�high�immigration�explosion�to�return�again.��One�lingering�(twenty�year�and�beyond)�consequence�of�the�high�immigration�is�the�still�high�birth�rates�in�Texas�(although�lower�for�all�ethnic�groups�since�the�economic�downturn).��Texas�has�the�second�highest�birth�rate�in�the�nation�and�more�than�25%�of�these�children�live�in�poverty�(based�on�a�newly�released�Kids�Count�survey).���So,�the�higher�immigration�prior�to�the�downturn�caused�a�jump�in�the�percent�of�disadvantaged�students�within�K.I.S.D.��to�41.93%�from�33.9%�in�2006�07.����
Employment Trends and Housing Demand Impacts �Employment�by�Sector�–�Based�on�2010�Census�Data�and�the�American�Community�Survey���The�2010�decennial�Census�and�the�annual�American�Community�Survey�(a�4%�sample�of�all�adult�Klein�I.S.D.�residents)�together�provide�updated�information�about�residents�of�the��
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 5
District,�including�the�economic�sectors�in�which�residents�are�employed.��There�are�113,729�workers,�as�of�the�2011�American�Community�Survey,�within�the�School�District.���Not�surprisingly,�the�largest�employment�sector�represented�in�the�District�is�the�educational�services,�health�care�and�social�assistance�sector�(19.1%�of�the�population).��This�is�followed�by�the�manufacturing�sector�(15.4%),��and�the�professional,�scientific,�and�management,�and�administrative�and�waste�management�services�sector�(10%).���
Effects of Job Recovery and Employment Trends �Local�Employment�Trends�over�the�Past�Year�for�the�Houston�Area��Unemployment�trends�for�the�City�of�Houston�–�as�well�as�for�Harris�County�–�are�outlined�for�the�past�year�and�the�past�six�months�in�this�chapter.��Overall,�both�the�city�and�the�county�have�shown�increases�in�employment�for�both�periods,�with�increases�of�over�3%�in�the�last�year.����Moody’s�Analytics�forecasts�that�Texas’�metro�areas�will�lead�the�recovery�–�and�Texas’�large�metro�areas�have�made�up�for�employment�lost�in�the�early�years�of�this�decade.��Evidence�of�the�employment�gains�in�Houston�suggests�fairly�significant�near�term�gains,�with�the�exception�of�housing�construction.��The�housing�sector�generally�is�improving;�the�employment�stability�in�other�sectors�will�be�a�large�determinant�of�the�rapidity�of�renewed�housing�construction.����During�the�subprime�boom�era,�the�readily�available�loans�drove�the�housing�gains,�and�there�was�not�a�commensurate�number�of�added�jobs�or�additional�population�to�actually�support�this�housing�boom.��In�September,�2012,�the�Greater�Houston�Partnership�emphasized�that�the�10�county�Houston�region�had�2%�of�the�nation’s�population,�but�accounted�for�4.6%�of�the�nation’s�net�jobs�growth�in�the�12�months�ending�in�July,�2012.��But,�the�current�increase�in�housing�starts�is�driven�by�comparable�numbers�of�new�jobs�in�the�Houston�region.���Through�August,�the�Houston�Sugar�Land�Baytown�MSA�gained�83,700�jobs,�or�a�3.2%�increase.���The�total�number�of�jobs�are�now�exceeding�their�peak�in�August,�2008.��In�Klein�I.S.D.�the�construction�generators�are�emanating�predominately�from�the�service�sector,�and�much�of�the�future�land�use�that�was�designated�for�residential�is�converting�to�commercial�uses�–�partially�for�offices�for�medical�and�financial�services.�����There�will�be�an�acceleration�of�jobs�in�the�service�sectors�associated�with�the�energy�office�complexes�that�are�evolving�in�The�Woodlands�and�in�Spring�I.S.D.�–�with�Klein�I.S.D.�providing�a�key�residential�location�for�these�added�jobs.���The�relocation�of�~8,000�Houston�area�ExxonMobile�employees�to�their�new�campus�near�Klein�provides�the�chief�employment�impact.��This�includes�some�of�the�current�local�ExxonMobile�employees�from�Baytown,�but�the�majority�of�these�local�jobs�to�be�relocated�will�be�from�the�Aldine�School�District�(Greenspoint�area).��
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 6
Housing�relocation�for�these�already�local�employees�will�be�voluntary,�but�there�will�be�an�impact�on�K.I.S.D.’s�student�population�–�of�a�minimum�of��150�added�students�per�year�for�the�coming�three�school�years.����
Private 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�K.I.S.D.��boundaries,�as�well�as�those�located�near�major�employment�centers�that�could�potentially�enroll�students�living�in�K.I.S.D.��Based�on�these�interviews�with�headmasters�and�enrollment�coordinators�at�each�private�school,�there�are�an�estimated�2,014�students�in�KN�12th�grades�who�live�within�K.I.S.D.�that�attend�these�private�schools.��In�other�words,�approximately�4.11%�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�Klein�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�617�students�from�the�K.I.S.D.�public�school�system�over�the�next�five�years,�but�due�to�the�expected�growth�in�Klein�I.S.D.,��the�proportion�of�student�population�in�enrolled�in�private�schools�should�only�increase�slightly,�to�4.78%.����Likewise,�if�a�continued�downturn�in�economic�conditions�were�to�occur,�then�this�will�discourage�families�from�financing�private�school�educations.��Thus,�K.I.S.D.�could�receive�some�of�these�projected�2,631�students�into�the�public�school�system.���
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 7
Humble ISD91.27Aldine ISD
108.99
Spring ISD55.55
Splendora ISD74.21
Katy ISD171.91
Tomball ISD82.88
Houston ISD300.5
Galena Park ISD33.73
Klein ISD82.47
New Caney ISD86.42
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD187.49
Pasadena ISD60.15
Alief ISD39.26
Spring Branch ISD40.99
Conroe ISD345.68
Sheldon ISD53.56
North Forest ISD31.61
Montgomery ISD232.74
Waller ISD308.22
Magnolia ISD150.04
Grimes County
San Jacinto County
Montgomery County
Waller County
Harris County
Fort Bend County
Klein I.S.D.Square Miles
Highways
Counties
Water Bodies²0 1 2 3 4 5 60.5Miles*Source: Texas Education Agency
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 8
DickinsonISD
GooseCreekCISD
48
DaytonISD108
StaffordMSD191
SantaFe ISD
TexasCity ISD
ClevelandISD-75
HumbleISD
1,050AldineISD
1,313
SpringISD
SplendoraISD20
Katy ISD1,840
TomballISD648
Houston ISD-1,041
GalenaPark ISD
257
Klein ISD837
DeerPark ISD
-39
NewCaney ISD
674
LaPorte ISD
22
Coldspring-Oakhurst CISD
Cypress-FairbanksISD
2,007
PearlandISD402
PasadenaISD741
WillisISD
Alief ISD481
SpringBranch ISD
1,061
ConroeISD
1,169
BarbersHill ISD
129
CrosbyISD282
TarkingtonISD
HuffmanISD-2
Friendswood ISD51
SheldonISD307 Channelview
ISD29
NorthForest ISD
-325
ClearCreek ISD
488
MontgomeryISD229
WallerISD79
Magnolia ISD-57
Fort Bend ISD-49
Alvin ISD652Angleton
ISD
Lamar CISD805
��������
�� �
����
�������
���������
Water BodiesCounties
Absolute Change< -250-249 - 01 - 250251 - 500501 - 1000> 1000
����������� �������������� � ����� �����
�������������������������������� Absolute Change in School Distr ict Enrol lment
�!"#$!%& ��������'��()*�#��������������#�'��� ������+
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 9
DickinsonISD
GooseCreek CISD
0.2%
DaytonISD
2.2%
StaffordMSD6%
SantaFe ISD
ClevelandISD-2%
HumbleISD
2.9%
ing
AldineISD2%
SpringISD
SplendoraISD
0.6%
Katy ISD2.9%
ShepherdISD
TomballISD
5.8%
Houston ISD-0.5%
GalenaPark ISD
1.2%
KleinISD
1.8%
DeerPark ISD
-0.3%
NewCaney ISD
6.2%
La PorteISD0.3%
Coldspring-Oakhurst CISD
Cypress-FairbanksISD
1.9%
PearlandISD
2.1%
PasadenaISD
1.4%
Willis ISD
Alief ISD1.1%
SpringBranch ISD
3.1%
ConroeISD
2.2%
BarbersHill ISD
2.9%
CrosbyISD
5.6%
TarkingtonISD
HuffmanISD
-0.1%
FriendswoodISD0.9%
SheldonISD
4.3% ChannelviewISD0.3%
NorthForest ISD
-4.7%
ClearCreek ISD
1.2%
MontgomeryISD
3.3%
WallerISD
1.4%
Magnolia ISD-0.5%
Fort Bend ISD-0.1%
Alvin ISD3.6%Angleton
ISD
Lamar CISD3.2%
NavasotaISD ��������
�� �
����
�������
���������
Water BodiesCounties
Percent Change< 0%0.1% - 0.9%1% - 1.9%2% - 2.7%2.8% - 3.5%> 3.5%
����������� �������������� � ����� �����
�������������������������������� Percent Change in School Distr ict Enrol lment
�!"#$!%& ��������'��()*�#��������������#�'��� ������+
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 10
DickinsonISD
GooseCreek CISD
1,369
DaytonISD168
StaffordMSD441
SantaFe ISD
TexasCityISD
ClevelandISD96
HumbleISD
4,156AldineISD
5,530
SpringISD
SplendoraISD116
Katy ISD9,852
ShepherdISD
TomballISD
2,385
Houston ISD2,491
GalenaPark ISD
1,004
Klein ISD3,904
DeerPark ISD
447
NewCaney ISD
2,882
La PorteISD-150
Cypress-FairbanksISD
13,130
Pearland ISD2,517
PasadenaISD
2,926
WillisISD
Alief ISD708
SpringBranch ISD
2,708
ConroeISD
7,309
BarbersHill ISD
841
CrosbyISD447
TarkingtonISD
HuffmanISD187
Friendswood ISD93
SheldonISD
1,655ChannelviewISD327
NorthForest ISD
-1,756
ClearCreek ISD
3,383
MontgomeryISD
1,087
WallerISD563
Magnolia ISD908
Fort Bend ISD1,408
Alvin ISD3,532Angleton
ISDNeedville
ISD
Lamar CISD4,049
��������
�� �
����
�������
���������
Water BodiesCounties
Absolute Change< -200-199 - 01 - 500501 - 15001501 - 3,000>3,000
����������� �������������� � ����� �����
,�����������������-��.���������� Absolute Change in School Distr ict Enrol lment
�!"#$!%& ��������'��()*�#��������������#�'��� ������+
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 11
DickinsonISD
GooseCreek CISD
6.7%
LibertyISD
DaytonISD
3.4%
StaffordMSD15.1%
SantaFe ISD
ClevelandISD
2.7%
HumbleISD
12.6%AldineISD
9.2%
SpringISD
SplendoraISD
3.4%
KatyISD
18.1%
ShepherdISD
TomballISD
25.4%
Houston ISD1.2%
GalenaPark ISD
4.8%
Klein ISD9.1%
Deer Park ISD3.6%
NewCaney ISD
33.2%
La PorteISD-1.9%
Cypress-FairbanksISD
13.6%
Pearland ISD14.7%
PasadenaISD
5.8%
WillisISD
Alief ISD1.6%
SpringBranch ISD
8.5%
ConroeISD
15.7%
BarbersHill ISD
22.7%
CrosbyISD
9.2%
TarkingtonISD
HuffmanISD6%
Friendswood ISD1.6%
SheldonISD
28.5%ChannelviewISD3.9%
NorthForest ISD
-21%
ClearCreek ISD
9.3%
MontgomeryISD
17.8%
WallerISD11%
Magnolia ISD8.2%
Fort Bend ISD2.1%
Alvin ISD23%
AngletonISD
Lamar CISD18.4%
�����#���/�0����
��������
�� ��
1����
����
���� ��
��������
��2���
���������
Water BodiesCounties
Percent Change< 1%2% - 4%5% - 8%9% - 12%13% - 16%> 16%
����������� �������������� � ����� �����
,�����������������-��.���������� Percent Change in School Distr ict Enrol lment
�!"#$!%& ��������'��()*�#��������������#�'��� ������+
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 12
La Marque
ISD
2,989
Devers
ISD
178
Dickinson ISD
9,368
Goose
Creek CISD
21,675
Sweeny
ISD
1,943
Hardin
ISD
1,195
Liberty
ISD
2,162
Dayton
ISD
4,956
Stafford
MSD
3,172
Santa
Fe ISD
4,612
Hempstead
ISD
1,503
Hull-
Daisetta
ISD
511
West Hardin
County
CISD
610
Damon ISD
186
Texas
City ISD
5,936
Humble
ISD
36,076
Bay
City ISD
3,769
Big Sandy ISD
520
Boling
ISD
1,046
Aldine
ISD
64,300
Kountze
ISD
1,336
Spring ISD
36,513
Brazos
ISD
856
Splendora
ISD
3,474
Katy ISD
62,414
Van
Vleck ISD
905
Shepherd
ISD
1,933
East
Bernard
ISD
944
Tomball
ISD
11,125
Houston
ISD
203,066
Galena
Park ISD
21,861
Klein ISD
46,002
Deer
Park ISD
12,841
El Campo
ISD
3,509
Sealy
ISD
2,684
New
Caney ISD
10,884
La Porte
ISD
7,768
Coldspring-
Oakhurst CISD
1,671
Wharton
ISD
2,161
Cypress-
Fairbanks ISD
107,960
New Waverly ISD
927
Pearland
ISD
19,205
Pasadena
ISD
52,942
Willis ISD
6,475
Alief ISD
45,410
Spring
Branch ISD
33,687
Conroe
ISD
52,664
Brazosport ISD
12,551
Barbers
Hill ISD
4,420
Crosby ISD
5,049
Cleveland
ISD
3,710
Tarkington
ISD
1,897
Huffman
ISD
3,281
Anahuac
ISD
1,209
Royal
ISD
2,107
Huntsville
ISD
6,276
Friendswood
ISD
5,907
Sheldon
ISD
7,159
Channelview
ISD
8,726
North
Forest ISD
6,938
Richards
ISD
133
Clear
Creek ISD
39,209
Livingston
ISD
4,106
Montgomery
ISD
6,952
Waller
ISD
5,618
Magnolia
ISD
12,016
Anderson-Shiro
CISD
725
Hitchcock
ISD
1,438
Fort Bend
ISD
69,449
Columbia-
Brazoria ISD
2,990
Danbury
ISD
732
Alvin ISD
18,209
Angleton
ISD
6,428
Needville
ISD
2,669
Galveston
ISD
6,427
Lamar
CISD
25,278
Brenham
ISD
4,942
Navasota
ISD
2,985
�����
#���/�0����
��������
�� ��
1���� ����
34����
���� ��
��������
1�����
��2���
��������
���������
To t a l S c h o o l E n r o l l m e n t
�!"#$!%
���������������������� ���!���"�����������#$��%������� �%��� ����%�&���� �� ��� ����
�
CountiesWater Bodies
Enrollment<1,0001,001 - 3,0003,001 - 8,0008,001 - 20,00020,001 - 60,000>60,000
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 13
Big Sandy ISD
35
La Marque ISD
14
Devers
ISD
0
Dickinson
ISD
250
Goose
Creek CISD
392
Sweeny
ISD
-24
Hardin
ISD
-50
Liberty
ISD
14
Dayton
ISD
29
Stafford
MSD
-60
Santa Fe
ISD
101
Hempstead
ISD
-32
Hull-Daisetta
ISD
2
West
Hardin
County
CISD
8
Damon
ISD
5
Texas
City ISD
14
Humble
ISD
163
Bay
City ISD
-8
Boling
ISD
30
Aldine ISD
1,146
Spring
ISD
190
Brazos ISD
33
Splendora
ISD
-13
Katy ISD
1,611
Van
Vleck ISD
-46
Shepherd
ISD
8
East
Bernard ISD
-14
Tomball
ISD
456
Houston
ISD
-1,179
Galena Park
ISD
181
Klein ISD
692
Deer
Park ISD
248
El Campo
ISD
-11
Sealy
ISD
42
New
Caney ISD
778
La Porte
ISD
-48
Coldspring-Oakhurst
CISD
17
Wharton
ISD
-12
Cypress-Fairbanks
ISD
1,863
New Waverly ISD
36
Pearland
ISD
436
Pasadena
ISD
724
Willis ISD
33
Alief ISD
-358
Spring
Branch ISD
739
Conroe ISD
1,494
Brazosport ISD
-186
Barbers
Hill ISD
200
Crosby
ISD
-70
Cleveland
ISD
-156
Tarkington
ISD
-12
Huffman
ISD
113
Anahuac
ISD
-21
Royal
ISD
63
Huntsville ISD
-3
Friendswood
ISD
-63
Sheldon
ISD
308
Channelview
ISD
79
North
Forest ISD
-574
Richards
ISD
-18
Clear Creek
ISD
803
Livingston ISD
56
Montgomery
ISD
52
Waller
ISD
167Bellville
ISD
-7
Magnolia
ISD
121
Anderson-Shiro CISD
-13
Hitchcock
ISD
17
Fort Bend
ISD
501
Columbia-Brazoria ISD
-86
Danbury
ISD
-38
Alvin ISD
842
Angleton
ISD
-44
Needville ISD
73
Galveston
ISD
-40
Lamar
CISD
641
Brenham
ISD
53
Navasota ISD
48
�����
#���/�0����
��������
�� ��
1���� ����
34����
���� ��
��������
1�����
��2���
��������
��������������������������������
A b s o l u t e C h a n g e i n S c h o o l D i s t r i c t E n r o l l m e n t
�!"#$!%
���������������������� ���!���"�����������#$��%������� �%��� ����%�&���� �� ��� ����
�
CountiesWater Bodies
School Districts-1,179 - -40-39 - 01 - 2021 - 100101 - 690691 - 2,844
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 14
La Marque
ISD
0.5%
Dickinson
ISD
2.7%
Goose Creek
CISD
1.8%
Sweeny ISD
-1.2%
Hardin
ISD
-4%
Liberty
ISD
0.7%
Dayton
ISD
0.6%
Stafford
MSD
-1.9%
Santa
Fe ISD
2.2%
Hempstead
ISD
-2.1%
Hull-
Daisetta
ISD
0.4%
West Hardin
County CISD
1.3%
Damon ISD
2.8%
Texas
City ISD
0.2%
Humble
ISD
0.5%
Bay City
ISD
-0.2%
Boling
ISD
3%
Aldine
ISD
1.8%
Spring
ISD
0.5%
Brazos
ISD
4%
Splendora
ISD
-0.4%
Katy ISD
2.6%
Van
Vleck ISD
-4.8%
Shepherd
ISD
0.4%
East
Bernard
ISD
-1.5%
Tomball
ISD
4.3%
Houston
ISD
-0.6%
Galena
Park
ISD
0.8%
Klein ISD
1.5%
Deer Park ISD
2%
El Campo
ISD
-0.3%
Sealy
ISD
1.6%
New
Caney ISD
7.7%
La Porte
ISD
-0.6%
Coldspring-Oakhurst CISD
1%
Wharton
ISD
-0.6%
Cypress-
Fairbanks ISD
1.8%
Pearland
ISD
2.3%
Pasadena
ISD
1.4%
Willis
ISD
0.5%
Alief ISD
-0.8%
Spring
Branch ISD
2.2%
Conroe
ISD
2.9%
Brazosport ISD
-1.5%
Barbers
Hill ISD
4.7%
Crosby ISD
-1.4%
Cleveland
ISD
-4%
Tarkington
ISD
-0.6%
Huffman
ISD
3.6%
Anahuac
ISD
-1.7%
Royal
ISD
3.1%
Friendswood
ISD
-1.1%
Sheldon
ISD
4.5%
Channelview
ISD
0.9%
North
Forest ISD
-7.6%
Richards
ISD
-11.9%
Clear
Creek
ISD
2.1%
Montgomery
ISD
0.8%
Waller
ISD
3.1%
Magnolia ISD
1%
Anderson-
Shiro CISD
-1.8%
Hitchcock
ISD
1.2%
Fort Bend
ISD
0.7%
Columbia-
Brazoria ISD
-2.8%
Danbury
ISD
-4.9%
Alvin ISD
4.8%
Angleton
ISD
-0.7%
Needville
ISD
2.8%
Galveston
ISD
-0.6%
Lamar
CISD
2.6%
Navasota
ISD
1.6%
�����
#���/�0����
���������� ��
1����
���� ���� ��
��������
1�����
��2���
��������
������������������������������������
Pe r c e n t C h a n g e i n S c h o o l D i s t r i c t E n r o l l m e n t
���������������������� ���!���"�����������#$��%������� �%��� ����%�&���� �� ��� ����
�
CountiesWater Bodies
School Districts<-1.0%-0.9% - 0.0%0.1% - 1.0%1.1% - 2.5%2.6% - 4.0%>4.1%
�!"#$!%
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 15
Five
�Yea
r�Enrollm
ent�T
rend
s�by
�District:��F
all,�20
06�to
�Fall,�20
11All�Districts�w
ith�>2
0,00
0�St
uden
ts(Sorted�by
�1�Y
ear�%
�Cha
nge��201
0�11
�to�201
1�12
)
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
5-Ye
ar%
Cha
nge
(200
6-20
11)
2011
/ 20
1020
10 /
2009
2009
/ 20
0820
08 /
2007
2006
/ 20
0720
05 /
2006
2004
/ 20
0520
03 /
2004
1FR
ISC
O IS
D40
,123
37,2
7933
,973
30,7
9727
,418
23,7
7768
.75%
7.63
%9.
73%
10.3
1%12
.32%
15.3
1%19
.60%
22.8
0%20
.72%
2M
IDLA
ND
ISD
22,6
2821
,736
21,3
7421
,466
21,0
5620
,922
8.15
%4.
10%
1.69
%-0
.43%
1.95
%0.
64%
1.02
%-0
.02%
-0.9
8%3
LEA
ND
ER IS
D33
,309
32,1
5230
,454
28,5
0726
,551
24,3
3336
.89%
3.60
%5.
58%
6.83
%7.
37%
9.12
%10
.22%
10.6
9%9.
58%
4D
ENTO
N IS
D24
,845
23,9
9422
,825
22,1
8920
,892
19,7
2225
.98%
3.55
%5.
12%
2.87
%6.
21%
5.93
%7.
45%
8.40
%6.
15%
5C
ON
RO
E IS
D52
,664
51,1
7049
,629
47,9
9646
,524
44,4
6018
.45%
2.92
%3.
11%
3.40
%3.
16%
4.64
%4.
33%
5.39
%3.
02%
6R
ICH
AR
DSO
N IS
D37
,044
36,0
7034
,843
34,4
0734
,180
34,0
428.
82%
2.70
%3.
52%
1.27
%0.
66%
0.41
%-3
.14%
2.95
%-1
.15%
7K
ATY
ISD
62,4
1460
,803
59,0
7856
,862
54,4
0251
,201
21.9
0%2.
65%
2.92
%3.
90%
4.52
%6.
25%
6.12
%8.
07%
6.01
%8
NO
RTH
SID
E IS
D98
,110
95,5
8192
,335
89,0
0086
,260
82,5
8718
.80%
2.65
%3.
52%
3.75
%3.
18%
4.45
%4.
92%
5.44
%3.
97%
9LA
MA
R C
ON
SOLI
DA
TED
ISD
25,2
7824
,637
23,8
6422
,958
21,9
3620
,708
22.0
7%2.
60%
3.24
%3.
95%
4.66
%5.
93%
5.32
%5.
86%
3.97
%10
SOC
OR
RO
ISD
43,6
7242
,569
41,3
5739
,771
38,8
7838
,357
13.8
6%2.
59%
2.93
%3.
99%
2.30
%1.
36%
4.11
%7.
22%
6.58
%11
HU
RST
-EU
LESS
-BED
FOR
D IS
D21
,570
21,0
4620
,762
20,5
6520
,392
20,2
386.
58%
2.49
%1.
37%
0.96
%0.
85%
0.76
%1.
30%
2.75
%-0
.43%
12SP
RIN
G B
RA
NC
H IS
D33
,687
32,9
4832
,502
32,4
0932
,040
32,1
604.
75%
2.24
%1.
37%
0.29
%1.
15%
-0.3
7%-1
.65%
1.11
%-2
.01%
13JU
DSO
N IS
D22
,503
22,0
4021
,750
21,3
0120
,634
20,2
6311
.05%
2.10
%1.
33%
2.11
%3.
23%
1.83
%5.
26%
6.00
%1.
00%
14C
LEA
R C
REE
K IS
D39
,209
38,4
0637
,611
37,1
9436
,314
35,5
2810
.36%
2.09
%2.
11%
1.12
%2.
42%
2.21
%0.
84%
4.81
%2.
46%
15K
ILLE
EN IS
D40
,998
40,2
3139
,603
38,5
5038
,229
36,6
5111
.86%
1.91
%1.
59%
2.73
%0.
84%
4.31
%5.
98%
3.82
%2.
23%
16G
OO
SE C
REE
K C
ISD
21,6
7521
,283
20,9
5420
,698
20,3
5420
,293
6.81
%1.
84%
1.57
%1.
24%
1.69
%0.
30%
0.39
%3.
83%
1.15
%17
ALD
INE
ISD
64,3
0063
,154
62,7
9261
,526
60,0
8358
,831
9.30
%1.
81%
0.58
%2.
06%
2.40
%2.
13%
1.27
%3.
05%
0.15
%18
FOR
T W
OR
TH IS
D83
,109
81,6
5180
,209
79,2
8578
,857
79,4
574.
60%
1.79
%1.
80%
1.17
%0.
54%
-0.7
6%-1
.09%
0.71
%-0
.70%
19C
YPR
ESS-
FAIR
BA
NK
S IS
D10
7,96
010
6,09
710
4,23
110
0,68
596
,837
92,1
3517
.18%
1.76
%1.
79%
3.52
%3.
97%
5.10
%6.
82%
8.75
%5.
93%
20IR
VIN
G IS
D34
,770
34,2
4333
,679
33,1
3132
,746
32,9
515.
52%
1.54
%1.
67%
1.65
%1.
18%
-0.6
2%0.
84%
2.38
%2.
14%
21K
LEIN
ISD
46,0
0245
,310
44,8
2443
,738
42,9
3541
,612
10.5
5%1.
53%
1.08
%2.
48%
1.87
%3.
18%
5.53
%6.
68%
3.95
%22
ECTO
R C
OU
NTY
ISD
28,5
3328
,126
27,4
3527
,443
26,6
8026
,472
7.79
%1.
45%
2.52
%-0
.03%
2.86
%0.
79%
1.58
%-0
.23%
0.11
%23
MES
QU
ITE
ISD
38,2
8737
,747
37,2
7237
,030
36,6
4036
,002
6.35
%1.
43%
1.27
%0.
65%
1.06
%1.
77%
1.09
%2.
30%
1.17
%24
PASA
DEN
A IS
D52
,942
52,2
1852
,303
51,5
7850
,757
49,8
516.
20%
1.39
%-0
.16%
1.41
%1.
62%
1.82
%1.
27%
3.77
%2.
81%
25PF
LUG
ERVI
LLE
ISD
23,0
7022
,763
22,0
6021
,719
20,8
0719
,811
16.4
5%1.
35%
3.19
%1.
57%
4.38
%5.
03%
5.60
%6.
65%
6.02
%26
MC
KIN
NEY
ISD
24,7
3324
,422
23,9
3323
,401
22,4
2621
,289
16.1
8%1.
27%
2.04
%2.
27%
4.35
%5.
34%
7.83
%9.
40%
8.31
%27
NO
RTH
EA
ST IS
D67
,439
66,6
0465
,498
63,4
5262
,181
61,2
5510
.10%
1.25
%1.
69%
3.22
%2.
04%
1.51
%2.
40%
3.85
%2.
31%
28K
ELLE
R IS
D33
,130
32,7
4631
,569
30,2
9929
,458
27,9
0518
.72%
1.17
%3.
73%
4.19
%2.
85%
5.57
%7.
85%
8.91
%8.
96%
29C
AR
RO
LLTO
N-F
AR
MER
S B
RA
NC
H IS
D26
,423
26,1
5925
,920
26,2
5726
,397
26,2
520.
65%
1.01
%0.
92%
-1.2
8%-0
.53%
0.55
%0.
08%
1.43
%0.
87%
30M
AN
SFIE
LD IS
D32
,564
32,2
5131
,662
30,7
5929
,696
28,0
1516
.24%
0.97
%1.
86%
2.94
%3.
58%
6.00
%8.
95%
11.4
7%9.
54%
31A
UST
IN IS
D86
,528
85,6
9784
,676
83,4
8382
,564
82,1
405.
34%
0.97
%1.
21%
1.43
%1.
11%
0.52
%1.
21%
1.51
%1.
19%
32A
MA
RIL
LO IS
D32
,995
32,6
8231
,890
31,0
0530
,560
30,3
948.
56%
0.96
%2.
48%
2.85
%1.
46%
0.55
%1.
11%
0.60
%1.
20%
33LE
WIS
VILL
E IS
D51
,920
51,4
8450
,840
50,2
1649
,636
49,0
605.
83%
0.85
%1.
27%
1.24
%1.
17%
1.17
%3.
29%
4.33
%3.
41%
34G
ALE
NA
PA
RK
ISD
21,8
6121
,680
21,5
3621
,350
21,1
1421
,275
2.75
%0.
83%
0.67
%0.
87%
1.12
%-0
.76%
0.02
%2.
24%
1.72
%35
FOR
T B
END
ISD
69,4
4968
,948
69,3
7468
,708
67,9
9267
,014
3.63
%0.
73%
-0.6
1%0.
97%
1.05
%1.
46%
1.38
%5.
17%
2.62
%36
UN
ITED
ISD
42,1
7941
,876
40,8
8540
,080
39,0
0937
,807
11.5
6%0.
72%
2.42
%2.
01%
2.75
%3.
18%
5.91
%5.
13%
5.25
%37
BIR
DVI
LLE
ISD
23,7
1123
,545
22,8
9722
,576
22,0
6322
,541
5.19
%0.
71%
2.83
%1.
42%
2.33
%-2
.12%
0.14
%0.
79%
-0.7
7%38
CO
RPU
S C
HR
ISTI
ISD
38,6
7838
,409
38,1
9638
,474
38,6
9338
,930
-0.6
5%0.
70%
0.56
%-0
.72%
-0.5
7%-0
.61%
-0.7
2%0.
06%
-0.3
1%39
RO
UN
D R
OC
K IS
D45
,034
44,7
7643
,008
41,7
3340
,493
39,2
1114
.85%
0.58
%4.
11%
3.06
%3.
06%
3.27
%3.
60%
3.27
%3.
08%
40ED
INB
UR
G C
ISD
33,4
1233
,223
32,0
1130
,749
29,8
5828
,772
16.1
3%0.
57%
3.79
%4.
10%
2.98
%3.
77%
4.92
%3.
47%
4.46
%41
GA
RLA
ND
ISD
58,1
5157
,833
57,8
6157
,510
57,1
6956
,955
2.10
%0.
55%
-0.0
5%0.
61%
0.60
%0.
38%
-0.8
2%2.
11%
2.04
%42
SPR
ING
ISD
36,5
1336
,323
35,3
5033
,980
33,2
4932
,255
13.2
0%0.
52%
2.75
%4.
03%
2.20
%3.
08%
2.76
%10
.44%
6.18
%43
HU
MB
LE IS
D36
,076
35,9
1334
,923
33,8
8332
,970
31,3
2715
.16%
0.45
%2.
83%
3.07
%2.
77%
5.24
%5.
46%
5.49
%4.
26%
Ran
k
Perc
ent C
hang
eEn
rollm
ent
Popu
lation
�Surve
y�Ana
lysts
PEIM
S�Sn
apsh
ot�Octob
er�201
1
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 16
Five
�Yea
r�Enrollm
ent�T
rend
s�by
�District:��F
all,�20
06�to
�Fall,�20
11All�Districts�w
ith�>2
0,00
0�St
uden
ts(Sorted�by
�1�Y
ear�%
�Cha
nge��201
0�11
�to�201
1�12
)
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
5-Ye
ar%
Cha
nge
(200
6-20
11)
2011
/ 20
1020
10 /
2009
2009
/ 20
0820
08 /
2007
2006
/ 20
0720
05 /
2006
2004
/ 20
0520
03 /
2004
Ran
k
Perc
ent C
hang
eEn
rollm
ent
44LA
JO
YA IS
D28
,965
28,8
4628
,004
27,0
5526
,109
25,1
3015
.26%
0.41
%3.
01%
3.51
%3.
62%
3.90
%4.
01%
5.01
%5.
71%
45PH
AR
R-S
AN
JU
AN
-ALA
MO
ISD
31,6
3431
,508
31,3
2930
,618
29,9
9928
,868
9.58
%0.
40%
0.57
%2.
32%
2.06
%3.
92%
2.78
%2.
74%
3.19
%46
AR
LIN
GTO
N IS
D64
,703
64,4
8463
,487
63,0
4562
,863
63,0
822.
57%
0.34
%1.
57%
0.70
%0.
29%
-0.3
5%-0
.50%
1.81
%-0
.30%
47LA
RED
O IS
D24
,788
24,7
0624
,707
24,9
6325
,148
24,8
85-0
.39%
0.33
%0.
00%
-1.0
3%-0
.74%
1.06
%-0
.28%
0.52
%-0
.08%
48D
ALL
AS
ISD
157,
575
157,
162
157,
111
157,
352
157,
804
159,
144
-0.9
9%0.
26%
0.03
%-0
.15%
-0.2
9%-0
.84%
-1.3
0%2.
04%
-1.5
9%49
GR
AN
D P
RA
IRIE
ISD
26,6
0726
,541
26,3
9525
,996
25,3
1724
,616
8.09
%0.
25%
0.55
%1.
53%
2.68
%2.
85%
2.88
%4.
67%
3.29
%50
PLA
NO
ISD
55,6
5955
,568
54,9
3954
,203
53,6
8352
,997
5.02
%0.
16%
1.14
%1.
36%
0.97
%1.
29%
-0.4
5%1.
59%
1.04
%51
EL P
ASO
ISD
64,2
1464
,330
63,3
7862
,322
62,1
2362
,857
2.16
%-0
.18%
1.50
%1.
69%
0.32
%-1
.17%
-1.5
0%0.
94%
0.03
%52
LUB
BO
CK
ISD
28,7
9028
,905
28,6
8028
,970
28,6
0128
,696
0.33
%-0
.40%
0.78
%-1
.00%
1.29
%-0
.33%
-0.5
1%0.
36%
-0.9
6%53
BR
OW
NSV
ILLE
ISD
49,6
5549
,879
49,1
2148
,587
48,8
3748
,334
2.73
%-0
.45%
1.54
%1.
10%
-0.5
1%1.
04%
0.15
%3.
02%
2.01
%54
HO
UST
ON
ISD
203,
066
204,
245
202,
773
200,
225
199,
534
202,
936
0.06
%-0
.58%
0.73
%1.
27%
0.35
%-1
.68%
-3.5
0%0.
64%
-1.2
1%55
ALI
EF IS
D45
,410
45,7
6845
,553
45,2
3045
,183
45,6
96-0
.63%
-0.7
8%0.
47%
0.71
%0.
10%
-1.1
2%-3
.99%
4.44
%0.
50%
56YS
LETA
ISD
44,3
7644
,746
44,6
2044
,592
45,0
4945
,242
-1.9
1%-0
.83%
0.28
%0.
06%
-1.0
1%-0
.43%
-1.8
9%-0
.50%
-0.6
8%57
SAN
AN
TON
IO IS
D54
,394
55,1
1655
,327
54,6
9654
,779
55,4
06-1
.83%
-1.3
1%-0
.38%
1.15
%-0
.15%
-1.1
3%-1
.80%
-0.3
8%-0
.48%
58M
CA
LLEN
ISD
25,2
5225
,622
25,1
7225
,047
24,9
7324
,570
2.78
%-1
.44%
1.79
%0.
50%
0.30
%1.
64%
0.55
%1.
20%
2.78
%St
atew
ide
Tota
l2,
764,
586
2,73
5,25
12,
690,
344
2,64
1,62
12,
597,
932
2,55
7,22
08.
11%
1.07
%1.
67%
1.84
%1.
68%
1.59
%1.
47%
3.40
%1.
77%
Popu
lation
�Surve
y�Ana
lysts
PEIM
S�Sn
apsh
ot�Octob
er�201
1
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 17
La Marque
ISD
-740
Devers
ISD
37
Dickinson ISD
1,580
Goose
Creek CISD
1,382
Sweeny
ISD
-115
Hardin
ISD
-64
Liberty
ISD
-123
Dayton
ISD
-11
Stafford
MSD
141
Santa Fe
ISD
40
Hempstead
ISD
105
Hull-
Daisetta
ISD
-63
West
Hardin
County CISD
-5
Damon
ISD
32
Texas
City ISD
97
Humble
ISD
4,749
Bay
City ISD
-232
Big Sandy ISD
16
Boling
ISD
71
Aldine
ISD
5,469
Spring ISD
4,258
Brazos ISD
27
Splendora
ISD
109
Katy ISD
11,213
Van
Vleck ISD
-38
Shepherd ISD
91
East
Bernard
ISD
23
Tomball
ISD
2,001
Houston
ISD
130
Galena
Park ISD
586
Klein ISD
4,390
Deer
Park ISD
420
El Campo
ISD
105
Sealy
ISD
89
New
Caney ISD
2,522
La Porte
ISD
-43
Coldspring-
Oakhurst CISD
-17
Wharton
ISD
-198
Cypress-
Fairbanks ISD
15,825
New Waverly ISD
75
Pearland
ISD
2,961
Pasadena
ISD
3,091
Willis
ISD
809
Alief ISD
-286
Spring
Branch ISD
1,527
Conroe ISD
8,204
Brazosport ISD
-624
Barbers
Hill
ISD
871
Crosby
ISD
334
Cleveland
ISD
232
Tarkington
ISD
-77
Huffman
ISD
210
Anahuac
ISD
-224
Royal ISD
200
Huntsville
ISD
23
Friendswood
ISD
75
Sheldon
ISD
1,490
Channelview
ISD
416
North
Forest ISD
-2,019
Richards ISD
0
Clear
Creek ISD
3,681
Livingston ISD
-5
Montgomery
ISD
1,202
Waller
ISD
547
Magnolia
ISD
1,485
Anderson-Shiro
CISD
113
Hitchcock
ISD
310
Fort Bend
ISD
2,435
Columbia-
Brazoria ISD
-104
Danbury
ISD
-50
Alvin
ISD
3,955
Angleton
ISD
-37
Needville ISD
49
Galveston
ISD
-2,008
Lamar
CISD
4,461
Brenham
ISD
-14
Navasota ISD
15
�����
#���/�0����
��������
�� ��
1��������
34����
���� ��
��������
1�����
��2���
��������
�����
,����������������5��-�����������
A b s o l u t e C h a n g e i n S c h o o l D i s t r i c t E n r o l l m e n t
�!"#$!%
���������������������� ���!���"�����������#$��%������� �%��� ����%�&���� �� ��� �����
CountiesWater Bodies
School Districts<-100-99 - 01 - 500501 - 2,0002,001 - 4,000>4,000
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 18
La Marque
ISD
-19.8%
Devers
ISD
26.2%
Dickinson
ISD
20.3%
Goose Creek
CISD
6.8%
Sweeny ISD
-5.6%
Hardin
ISD
-5.1%
Liberty
ISD
-5.4%
Dayton
ISD
-0.2%
Stafford
MSD
4.7%
Santa
Fe ISD
0.9%
Hempstead
ISD
7.5%
Hull-
Daisetta
ISD
-11%
West Hardin
County
CISD
-0.8%
Damon ISD
20.8%
Texas
City ISD
1.7%
Humble
ISD
15.2%
Bay City
ISD
-5.8%
Boling
ISD
7.3%
Aldine
ISD
9.3%
Spring ISD
13.2%
Brazos
ISD
3.3%
Splendora
ISD
3.2%
Katy ISD
21.9%
Van
Vleck ISD
-4%
Shepherd
ISD
4.9%
East
Bernard
ISD
2.5%
Tomball
ISD
21.9%
Houston
ISD
0.1%
Galena
Park ISD
2.8%
Klein
ISD
10.5%
Deer
Park ISD
3.4%
El Campo
ISD
3.1%
Sealy
ISD
3.4%
New
Caney ISD
30.2%
La Porte
ISD
-0.6%
Coldspring-
Oakhurst
CISD
-1%
Wharton
ISD
-8.4%
Cypress-
Fairbanks ISD
17.2%
Pearland
ISD
18.2%
Pasadena
ISD
6.2%
Willis
ISD
14.3%
Alief ISD
-0.6%
Spring
Branch ISD
4.7%
Conroe ISD
18.5%
Brazosport ISD
-4.7%
Barbers
Hill ISD
24.5%
Crosby
ISD
7.1%
Cleveland
ISD
6.7%
Tarkington
ISD
-3.9%
Huffman
ISD
6.8%
Anahuac
ISD
-15.6%
Royal
ISD
10.5%
Friendswood
ISD
1.3%
Sheldon
ISD
26.3%
Channelview
ISD
5%
North
Forest ISD
-22.5%
Richards ISD
0%
Clear
Creek ISD
10.4%
Montgomery
ISD
20.9%
Waller ISD
10.8%
Magnolia
ISD
14.1%
Anderson-
Shiro CISD
18.5%
Hitchcock
ISD
27.5%
Fort Bend
ISD
3.6%
Columbia-
Brazoria ISD
-3.4%
Danbury
ISD
-6.4%
Alvin ISD
27.7%
Angleton
ISD
-0.6%
Needville
ISD
1.9%
Galveston
ISD
-23.8%
Lamar
CISD
21.4%
Brenham
ISD
-0.3%
Navasota
ISD
0.5%
�����
��������
�� ��
1��������
���� ��
��������
1�����
��2���
,����������������5����-�������������
Pe r c e n t C h a n g e i n S c h o o l D i s t r i c t E n r o l l m e n t
���������������������� ���!���"�����������#$��%������� �%��� ����%�&���� �� ��� ����
�
CountiesWater Bodies
School Districts< -5.0%-4.9% - 0.0%0.1% - 5.0%5.1% - 15.0%15.1% - 21.0%>21.1%
�!"#$!%
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 19
La Marque ISD
7.1%
Devers ISD
12.4%
Dickinson ISD
8%
Goose Creek Consolidated ISD
7.6%
Sweeny ISD
6.6%Tidehaven ISD
7.4%
Hull-Daisetta ISD
5.7%
West Hardin County Cons ISD
8%
High Island ISD
5.6%
Damon ISD
9.7%
Texas City ISD
6.8%
Humble ISD
6.8%
Bay City ISD
7.6%
Boling ISD
6.5%
Aldine ISD
8.4%
Kountze ISD
7.8%
Spring ISD
7.1%
Brazos ISD
7.8%
Splendora ISD
7.5%
Katy ISD
6.9%
Van Vleck ISD
6%
Shepherd ISD
7.3%
East Bernard ISD
7%
Tomball ISD
7.7%
Houston ISD
8.2%
Galena Park ISD
6.8%
Klein ISD
6.8%
Deer Park ISD
6.7%
El Campo ISD
7.7%
Sealy ISD
6.7%
New Caney ISD
7.5%
La Porte ISD
7.4%
Coldspring-Oakhurst Cons ISD
7.1%
Wharton ISD
7.4%
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
7.3%
New Waverly ISD
6.5%
Pearland ISD
7.3%
Pasadena ISD
7.5%
Hardin ISD
6.8%
Liberty ISD
6.8%
Willis ISD
6.7%
Dayton ISD
6.8%
Stafford MSD
6.4%
Alief ISD
7.9%
Spring Branch ISD
7.5%
Conroe ISD
7.3%
Brazosport ISD
7.5%
Barbers Hill ISD
7.5%
Crosby ISD
7.2%
Cleveland ISD
8.2%Tarkington ISD
7.1%
Huffman ISD
6.9%
Anahuac ISD
7%
Royal ISD
8.3%
Santa Fe ISD
6.5%
Huntsville ISD
7.7%
Friendswood ISD
5.2%
Sheldon ISD
7.4%Channelview ISD
7.4%
North Forest ISD
7.1%
Richards ISD
7.5%
Clear Creek ISD
6.7%
Hempstead ISD
8.1%
Livingston ISD
8.3%
Montgomery ISD
6.6%
Waller ISD
7.4%Bellville ISD
6.9%
Magnolia ISD
7%
Anderson-Shiro Cons ISD
7.4%
Hitchcock ISD
7.7%
Fort Bend ISD
6.2%
Columbia-Brazoria ISD
6.7%
Danbury ISD
7.2%
Alvin ISD
8.1%
Angleton ISD
7%
Needville ISD
7.5%
Galveston ISD
7.1%
Lamar Cons ISD
7.5%
Brenham ISD
6.9%
Navasota ISD
8.1%
�����
(��6
#���/�0����
��������
�� ��
1��������
34����
���� ��
��������
1����� ��2���
���������
�����
����������#0��������
K i n d e r g a r t e n S t u d e n t s a s Pe r c e n t o f To t a l E n r o l l m e n t
�!"#$!%
���������������������� ���!���"�����������#$��%������� �%��� ����%�&���� ' �()�� ����
�
CountiesWater Bodies
School Districts0% - 6%6.1% - 6.8%6.9% - 7.3%7.4% - 7.5%7.6% - 8%8.1% - 8.5%
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 20
DickinsonISD
GooseCreek CISD
7.6%
DaytonISD
7.4%
StaffordMSD7.2%
SantaFe ISD
ClevelandISD
8.6%
HumbleISD
6.9%AldineISD
8.7%
SpringISD
SplendoraISD
6.6%
Katy ISD7.2%
ShepherdISD
TomballISD
7.9%
Houston ISD8.6%
GalenaPark ISD
7.1%
KleinISD7%
Deer Park ISD6.8%
NewCaney ISD
8%
La PorteISD7.4%
Cypress-FairbanksISD
7.2%
PearlandISD
6.9%
PasadenaISD
7.6%
WillisISD
Alief ISD4.9%
SpringBranch ISD
7.7%
ConroeISD
7.4%
BarbersHill ISD
6.9%
CrosbyISD
7.1%
TarkingtonISD
HuffmanISD
7.7%
Friendswood ISD5.4%
SheldonISD
7.1% ChannelviewISD8%
NorthForest ISD
10.4%
ClearCreek ISD
6.8%
MontgomeryISD
6.4%
WallerISD
8.4%
Magnolia ISD6.9%
Fort Bend ISD6.2%
Alvin ISD7.9%
AngletonISD
LamarCISD7.9%
��������
�� �
����
�������
���������
Water BodiesCounties
Percent KN0.0% - 6.0%6.1% - 6.9%7.0% - 7.2%7.3% - 7.6%7.7% - 8.0%> 8.0%
����������� �������������� � ����� �����
3"#$*%������ �#0��������Percent KN of Total Enrol lment
�!"#$!%& ��������'��()*�#��������������#�'��� ������+
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 21
KN�as�a�Proportion�of�Total�Enrollment����Fall�2011All�Districts�with�20,000+�Students
Rank District NameKindergartenEnrollment
2011-12
TotalEnrollment
2011-12% KN
1 AUSTIN ISD 7,808 86,528 9.02%2 KILLEEN ISD 3,646 40,998 8.89%3 RICHARDSON ISD 3,262 37,044 8.81%4 FORT WORTH ISD 7,314 83,109 8.80%5 DALLAS ISD 13,739 157,574 8.72%6 FRISCO ISD 3,452 40,123 8.60%7 DENTON ISD 2,108 24,845 8.48%8 ALDINE ISD 5,379 64,300 8.37%9 ECTOR COUNTY ISD 2,354 28,533 8.25%10 AMARILLO ISD 2,718 32,995 8.24%11 HOUSTON ISD 16,675 203,066 8.21%12 MIDLAND ISD 1,835 22,626 8.11%13 CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH 2,141 26,423 8.10%14 LUBBOCK ISD 2,332 28,790 8.10%15 SAN ANTONIO ISD 4,376 54,394 8.05%16 LAREDO ISD 1,982 24,788 8.00%17 HURST-EULESS-BEDFORD ISD 1,699 21,570 7.88%18 ALIEF ISD 3,574 45,410 7.87%19 BIRDVILLE ISD 1,847 23,711 7.79%20 LA JOYA ISD 2,250 28,965 7.77%21 IRVING ISD 2,694 34,770 7.75%22 LEANDER ISD 2,550 33,309 7.66%23 GOOSE CREEK CISD 1,656 21,675 7.64%24 CORPUS CHRISTI ISD 2,950 38,678 7.63%25 SPRING BRANCH ISD 2,539 33,687 7.54%26 LAMAR CISD 1,904 25,278 7.53%27 ARLINGTON ISD 4,860 64,703 7.51%28 ROUND ROCK ISD 3,379 45,034 7.50%29 EDINBURG CISD 2,506 33,412 7.50%30 MCKINNEY ISD 1,853 24,733 7.49%31 PASADENA ISD 3,966 52,942 7.49%32 GRAND PRAIRIE ISD 1,967 26,607 7.39%33 CONROE ISD 3,865 52,664 7.34%34 PFLUGERVILLE ISD 1,688 23,070 7.32%35 JUDSON ISD 1,645 22,503 7.31%36 MESQUITE ISD 2,797 38,287 7.31%37 NORTHSIDE ISD 7,166 98,110 7.30%38 CYPRESS-FAIRBANKS ISD 7,863 107,960 7.28%39 YSLETA ISD 3,228 44,376 7.27%40 MCALLEN ISD 1,833 25,252 7.26%41 NORTH EAST ISD 4,848 67,439 7.19%42 BROWNSVILLE ISD 3,543 49,654 7.14%43 PHARR-SAN JUAN-ALAMO ISD 2,256 31,632 7.13%44 SPRING ISD 2,599 36,513 7.12%45 EL PASO ISD 4,563 64,214 7.11%
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 22
KN�as�a�Proportion�of�Total�Enrollment����Fall�2011All�Districts�with�20,000+�Students
Rank District NameKindergartenEnrollment
2011-12
TotalEnrollment
2011-12% KN
46 GARLAND ISD 4,094 58,151 7.04%47 KATY ISD 4,319 62,414 6.92%48 MANSFIELD ISD 2,253 32,564 6.92%49 PLANO ISD 3,834 55,659 6.89%50 LEWISVILLE ISD 3,570 51,920 6.88%51 KELLER ISD 2,275 33,130 6.87%52 HUMBLE ISD 2,471 36,076 6.85%
53 KLEIN ISD 3,148 46,002 6.84%54 GALENA PARK ISD 1,478 21,861 6.76%55 CLEAR CREEK ISD 2,621 39,209 6.68%56 UNITED ISD 2,784 42,179 6.60%57 SOCORRO ISD 2,826 43,672 6.47%58 FORT BEND ISD 4,335 69,449 6.24%
Statewide Average 7.6%
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 23
Klein�I.S.D.�:�Kinde
rgarten�En
rollm
ent�C
ompa
red�to
�Birth
s�(M
oved
�Five�Yea
rs�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
Kin
derg
arte
n En
rollm
ent
1,73
81,
760
1,95
42,
215
2,30
72,
379
2,73
22,
859
2,92
72,
982
3,08
73,
121
3,13
73,
289
3,48
93,
560
Birt
hs (A
djus
ted
5 ye
ars)
1,78
81,
761
1,77
81,
791
1,88
71,
925
2,09
52,
115
2,16
32,
337
2,33
62,
383
2,61
42,
786
2,93
12,
991
1,60
0
1,80
0
2,00
0
2,20
0
2,40
0
2,60
0
2,80
0
3,00
0
3,20
0
3,40
0
3,60
0
3,80
0
4,00
0
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
Year
Students
Kin
derg
arte
n E
nrol
lmen
tB
irths
(Adj
uste
d 5
year
s)
KN
Enr
ollm
ent v
s B
irths
Pop
ulat
ion
and
Sur
vey
Ana
lyst
s
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 24
La Marque
ISD
-10.8%
Devers
ISD
109.1%
Dickinson
ISD
7.6%
Goose Creek
Consolidated
ISD
3.5%
Sweeny
ISD
-7.1%Tidehaven ISD
-30.6%
Hull-
Daisetta
ISD
-30%
West Hardin
County
Cons ISD
-2.1%
Damon ISD
-6.3%
Texas
City ISD
0.2%
Humble
ISD
-0.3%
Bay
City ISD
7.8%
Big Sandy
ISD (Polk)
2.5%
Boling
ISD
6.3%
Aldine
ISD
13%
Spring ISD
-0.7%
Brazos ISD
33.9%
Splendora
ISD
-0.8%
Katy ISD
-0.4%
Van
Vleck ISD
-12.8%
Shepherd
ISD
-14.9%
East
Bernard
ISD
-14.1%
Tomball
ISD
4.3%
Houston
ISD
10.3%
Galena
Park ISD
3%
Klein ISD
-3.8%
Deer
Park ISD
-4.2%
El Campo
ISD
5.9%
Sealy ISD
-10.9%
New
Caney ISD
5.9%
La Porte
ISD
-9.1%
Coldspring-
Oakhurst Cons ISD
-12.4%
Wharton
ISD
26%
Cypress-
Fairbanks ISD
-1.9%
New Waverly ISD
-4.6%
Pearland
ISD
-4%
Pasadena
ISD
9.5%
Hardin
ISD
-19.1%
Liberty
ISD
-2.3%
Willis
ISD
1.4%
Dayton
ISD
-2.7%
Stafford
MSD
0%
Alief ISD
19.8%
Spring
Branch ISD
-2.9%
Conroe
ISD
3.7%
Brazosport ISD
3.2%
Barbers
Hill ISD
-1.5%
Crosby ISD
-4.2%
Cleveland
ISD
-7.4%
Tarkington
ISD
-25.2%
Huffman
ISD
-0.8%
Anahuac
ISD
-11.7%
Royal ISD
14.3%
Santa
Fe ISD
2.1%
Friendswood
ISD
-26%
Sheldon
ISD
3.3%
Channelview
ISD
2.4%
North
Forest ISD
15.5%
Richards
ISD
-23.1%
Clear
Creek ISD
-6.7%
Hempstead
ISD
4.1%
Livingston
ISD
-0.3%
Montgomery
ISD
-0.2%
Waller ISD
-5.3%
Magnolia
ISD
-11.5%
Anderson-Shiro Cons
ISD
-18.5%
Hitchcock
ISD
15.4%
Fort
Bend ISD
-10.2%
Columbia-
Brazoria ISD
18.1%
Danbury
ISD
-30.9%
Alvin ISD
6.7%
Angleton
ISD
6.4%
Needville
ISD
-22.9%Galveston
ISD
4%
Lamar
Cons ISD
4.2%
Navasota
ISD
12.3%
�����
(��6
#���/�0����
1��6�
��������
�� ��
1��������
34����
���� ��
��������
1�����
��2���
����������#0��������
D i f f e r e n c e i n 1 s t a n d 5 t h G r a d e E n r o l l m e n t
�!"#$!%
���������������������� ���!���"�����������#$��%������� �%��� ����%�&���� �� ��� �����
CountiesWater Bodies
School Districts<-4.0%-3.9% - 0.0%0.1% - 4.0%4.1% - 10.0%10.1% - 15.0%>15.0%
Positive Percentages: 1st > 5thNegative Percentages: 5th > 1st
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 25
�1st�Grade�vs.�5th�Grade�Enrollment����Fall�2011All�Districts�with�20,000+�Students
Rank District Name1st
GradeFall, 2011
5thGrade
Fall, 2011
TotalEnrollmentFall, 2011
1st > 5th
Grade
1 LAREDO ISD 2,303 1,795 24,788 28.30%2 AUSTIN ISD 7,672 6,374 86,528 20.36%3 ALIEF ISD 4,016 3,353 45,410 19.77%4 KILLEEN ISD 3,657 3,064 40,998 19.35%5 FORT WORTH ISD 7,657 6,438 83,109 18.93%6 SAN ANTONIO ISD 4,596 3,989 54,394 15.22%7 ALDINE ISD 5,403 4,782 64,300 12.99%8 RICHARDSON ISD 3,090 2,750 37,044 12.36%9 AMARILLO ISD 2,692 2,409 32,995 11.75%10 LUBBOCK ISD 2,414 2,162 28,790 11.66%11 DALLAS ISD 14,123 12,654 157,575 11.61%12 HOUSTON ISD 17,253 15,646 203,066 10.27%13 PASADENA ISD 4,309 3,935 52,942 9.50%14 DENTON ISD 2,079 1,920 24,845 8.28%15 EL PASO ISD 4,994 4,637 64,214 7.70%16 LA JOYA ISD 2,336 2,171 28,965 7.60%17 BROWNSVILLE ISD 3,992 3,761 49,655 6.14%18 HURST-EULESS-BEDFORD ISD 1,689 1,593 21,570 6.03%19 CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH ISD 2,048 1,936 26,423 5.79%20 BIRDVILLE ISD 1,835 1,738 23,711 5.58%21 FRISCO ISD 3,573 3,409 40,123 4.81%22 ARLINGTON ISD 4,954 4,738 64,703 4.56%23 IRVING ISD 2,687 2,578 34,770 4.23%24 LAMAR CISD 2,078 1,994 25,278 4.21%25 MIDLAND ISD 1,867 1,792 22,628 4.19%26 ROUND ROCK ISD 3,660 3,524 45,034 3.86%27 CONROE ISD 4,171 4,021 52,664 3.73%28 NORTHSIDE ISD 7,703 7,427 98,110 3.72%29 GOOSE CREEK CISD 1,643 1,588 21,675 3.46%30 GALENA PARK ISD 1,610 1,563 21,861 3.01%31 JUDSON ISD 1,744 1,700 22,503 2.59%32 CORPUS CHRISTI ISD 3,193 3,120 38,678 2.34%33 ECTOR COUNTY ISD 2,375 2,323 28,533 2.24%34 YSLETA ISD 3,255 3,206 44,376 1.53%35 GRAND PRAIRIE ISD 1,970 1,963 26,607 0.36%36 HUMBLE ISD 2,717 2,725 36,076 -0.29%37 KATY ISD 4,692 4,712 62,414 -0.42%38 SPRING ISD 2,836 2,855 36,513 -0.67%39 LEANDER ISD 2,669 2,694 33,309 -0.93%40 EDINBURG CISD 2,612 2,643 33,412 -1.17%41 MCALLEN ISD 1,904 1,929 25,252 -1.30%42 NORTH EAST ISD 5,027 5,105 67,439 -1.53%43 CYPRESS-FAIRBANKS ISD 7,949 8,102 107,960 -1.89%44 GARLAND ISD 4,293 4,383 58,151 -2.05%
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 26
�1st�Grade�vs.�5th�Grade�Enrollment����Fall�2011All�Districts�with�20,000+�Students
Rank District Name1st
GradeFall, 2011
5thGrade
Fall, 2011
TotalEnrollmentFall, 2011
1st > 5th
Grade
45 UNITED ISD 3,171 3,256 42,179 -2.61%46 SPRING BRANCH ISD 2,487 2,560 33,687 -2.85%47 KLEIN ISD 3,306 3,437 46,002 -3.81%48 MCKINNEY ISD 1,878 1,958 24,733 -4.09%49 LEWISVILLE ISD 3,855 4,020 51,920 -4.10%50 PFLUGERVILLE ISD 1,746 1,840 23,070 -5.11%51 SOCORRO ISD 3,120 3,299 43,672 -5.43%52 MANSFIELD ISD 2,383 2,520 32,564 -5.44%53 KELLER ISD 2,567 2,720 33,130 -5.63%54 MESQUITE ISD 2,781 2,962 38,287 -6.11%55 PLANO ISD 4,023 4,293 55,659 -6.29%56 CLEAR CREEK ISD 2,706 2,899 39,209 -6.66%57 FORT BEND ISD 4,754 5,293 69,449 -10.18%58 PHARR-SAN JUAN-ALAMO ISD 2,221 2,480 31,634 -10.44%
Statewide Average 3.9%
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 27
Klein�I.S.D.:�Comparison�of�Grade�1�and�Grade�5�by�School�Zone,�2012�13
School 1stgrade
5thgrade
Difference(1st-5th) % Difference
Benfer 101 120 -19 -16%Benignus 130 151 -21 -14%Blackshear Elementary 149 128 21 16%Brill 96 123 -27 -22%Ehrhardt 99 115 -16 -14%Eiland 81 103 -22 -21%Epps Island 132 128 4 3%Frank 152 109 43 39%Greenwood Forest 125 117 8 7%Hassler 107 107 0 0%Haude 88 115 -27 -23%Kaiser 147 135 12 9%Klenk 127 137 -10 -7%Kohrville 164 140 24 17%Krahn 114 123 -9 -7%Kreinhop 139 141 -2 -1%Kuehnle 101 114 -13 -11%Lemm 86 98 -12 -12%McDougle 112 96 16 17%Metzler 138 155 -17 -11%Mittelstadt 120 116 4 3%Mueller 116 122 -6 -5%Nitsch 124 119 5 4%Northampton 134 145 -11 -8%Roth 122 108 14 13%Schultz 113 131 -18 -14%Theiss 88 117 -29 -25%Zwink 126 104 22 21%Total: 3331 3417 -86 -3%
**Number of students is based on current geo-coded 1st and 5th grade students.
Yellow: 5th > 1st
Green: 1st > 5th
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 28
Histo
rica
l�Growth
�Trend
s�by
�Grade
�and
�Grade
�Group
�in�Klein�I.S.D.
% C
hg.
% C
hg.
% C
hg.
% C
hg.
% C
hg%
Chg
% C
hg%
Chg
% C
hg%
Chg
% C
hg
2002
-03
01-0
2/20
03-0
403
-04/
2004
-05
04-0
5/20
05-0
605
-06/
2006
-07
06-0
7/20
07-0
807
-08/
2008
-09
08-0
9/20
09-1
009
-10/
2010
-11
10-1
1/20
11-1
211
-12/
2012
-13
12-1
3/
00-0
102
-03
03-0
404
-05
05-0
606
-07
07-0
808
-09
09-1
010
-11
11-1
2
EE76
910
.97%
97-8
7.39
%22
913
6.08
%22
6-1
.31%
207
-8.4
1%99
-52.
17%
79-2
0.20
%91
15.1
9%11
526
.37%
140
21.7
4%25
179
.17%
PK74
714
.40%
816
9.24
%86
56.
00%
961
11.1
0%10
165.
72%
1028
1.18
%10
522.
33%
1096
4.18
%11
888.
39%
1211
1.94
%11
12-8
.19%
KG
2215
13.3
6%23
074.
15%
2379
3.12
%27
3214
.84%
2859
4.65
%29
242.
27%
2965
1.40
%30
874.
11%
3121
1.10
%31
370.
51%
3289
4.84
%
123
545.
14%
2492
5.86
%25
241.
28%
2724
7.92
%30
7012
.70%
3122
1.69
%30
70-1
.67%
3221
4.92
%32
320.
34%
3291
1.83
%33
371.
39%
223
352.
28%
2447
4.80
%26
227.
15%
2714
3.51
%29
207.
59%
3240
10.9
6%32
700.
93%
3206
-1.9
6%32
621.
75%
3359
2.97
%34
382.
35%
323
74-1
.41%
2444
2.95
%25
926.
06%
2930
13.0
4%29
540.
82%
3060
3.59
%32
807.
19%
3383
3.14
%33
16-1
.98%
3399
2.50
%34
310.
94%
424
92-0
.24%
2520
1.12
%26
003.
17%
2799
7.65
%31
1211
.18%
3102
-0.3
2%31
722.
26%
3354
5.74
%33
740.
60%
3377
0.09
%34
943.
47%
525
942.
69%
2599
0.19
%26
913.
54%
2856
6.13
%30
366.
30%
3242
6.79
%32
00-1
.30%
3299
3.09
%34
604.
88%
3436
-0.6
9%34
24-0
.34%
627
23-0
.48%
2807
3.08
%28
160.
32%
2984
5.97
%31
094.
19%
3247
4.44
%34
275.
54%
3371
-1.6
3%33
910.
59%
3617
6.66
%36
300.
36%
729
044.
01%
2876
-0.9
6%29
924.
03%
3045
1.77
%31
934.
86%
3267
2.32
%32
980.
95%
3541
7.37
%33
60-5
.11%
3508
4.40
%37
266.
21%
828
04-1
.58%
2926
4.35
%29
791.
81%
3132
5.14
%31
540.
70%
3248
2.98
%33
944.
50%
3371
-0.6
8%35
635.
70%
3412
-4.2
4%35
935.
29%
935
841.
27%
3664
2.23
%38
154.
12%
4147
8.70
%45
088.
71%
3794
-15.
84%
4009
5.67
%40
881.
97%
3911
-4.3
3%40
152.
66%
4088
1.83
%
1028
5324
.21%
2974
4.24
%31
054.
40%
3195
2.90
%32
642.
16%
3367
3.16
%32
84-2
.47%
3358
2.25
%34
793.
60%
3593
3.28
%35
56-1
.04%
1123
07-1
0.96
%22
11-4
.16%
2396
8.37
%23
49-1
.96%
2442
3.96
%31
0026
.95%
3277
5.71
%32
29-1
.46%
3283
1.67
%33
211.
16%
3438
3.53
%
1223
006.
24%
2378
3.39
%23
59-0
.80%
2638
11.8
3%27
684.
93%
2903
4.88
%28
82-0
.72%
3062
6.25
%31
071.
47%
3209
3.28
%31
35-2
.29%
EE-1
2 To
tal
35,3
55
3.31
%35
,558
0.
57%
36,9
64
3.95
%39
,432
6.
68%
41,6
125.
53%
42,7
432.
72%
43,6
592.
14%
44,7
572.
51%
45,1
620.
90%
46,0
251.
91%
46,9
421.
99%
EE-5
th15
880
4.10
%15
722
-0.9
9%16
502
4.96
%17
942
8.73
%19
174
6.87
%19
817
3.35
%20
088
1.37
%20
737
3.23
%21
068
1.60
%21
350
1.34
%21
776
1.99
%6t
h-8t
h84
310.
64%
8609
2.11
%87
872.
07%
9161
4.26
%94
563.
22%
9762
3.24
%10
119
3.66
%10
283
1.62
%10
314
0.30
%10
537
2.16
%10
948
3.90
%9t
h-12
th11
044
4.27
%11
227
1.66
%11
675
3.99
%12
329
5.60
%12
982
5.30
%13
164
1.40
%13
452
2.19
%13
737
2.12
%13
780
0.31
%14
138
2.60
%14
218
0.56
%
% E
E-5t
h44
.92%
44.2
2%44
.64%
45.5
0%46
.08%
46.3
6%46
.01%
46.3
3%46
.65%
46.3
9%46
.39%
% 6
th-8
th23
.85%
24.2
1%23
.77%
23.2
3%22
.72%
22.8
4%23
.18%
22.9
8%22
.84%
22.8
9%23
.32%
% 9
th-1
2th
31.2
4%31
.57%
31.5
8%31
.27%
31.2
0%30
.80%
30.8
1%30
.69%
30.5
1%30
.72%
30.2
9%
PA
SA
-Pop
ulat
ion
and
Sur
vey
Ana
lyst
s
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 29
Galena Park
79.4%
Montgomery
27.7%
Navasota
77.4%
West Hardin County Cons.
50.3%
Hardin
54.2%Willis
60.6%
Tarkington
48.6%
Cleveland
78.4%
Conroe
36.8%
Brenham
57.5%
Splendora
64.8%Magnolia
40.9%
Sweeny
52%
Brazosport
58.1%Tidehaven
65%
Deer Park
44.8%
Lamar Consolidated
47.2%
Pasadena
79.7%
Alief
80.8% La Porte
48.1%
Fort Bend
37.8%
Goodrich
83.3%Richards
64.7%
New Waverly
50.9%
Shepherd
70.5%
Livingston
65.1%Huntsville
62.3%
Coldspring-Oakhurst Cons.
65.2%
Big Sandy
47.5%
Anderson-Shiro Cons.
45.7%
Kountze
50.8%
Dayton
60.6%
Hull-Daisetta
75.9%
Waller
63.9%Hempstead
75.3%
New Caney
63.7%
Huffman
36.6%
Tomball
25.9%
Humble
34.9%
Devers
42.1%
Klein
41.9%
Liberty
58.7%Spring
72.6%Bellville
47.5%
Aldine
84.9%
Cypress-Fairbanks
48.5%
Crosby
49.8%
Sheldon
78.7%North Forest
100%Royal
82.2%
Anahuac
55.3%
Katy
31.2%
Barbers Hill
23.5%
Houston
80.4%
Sealy
56.7%
Goose Creek
63.6%
Spring Branch
58.6%
Channelview
78.7%
Brazos
55.6%
Stafford MSD
64.7%
High Island
63.9%Clear Creek
28%
East Bernard
34.3%
Pearland
26.8%
Alvin
52.8%
Galveston
72.7%
Friendswood
8%
Dickinson
64.1%
El Campo
65.9%
Santa Fe
35.6%
Texas City
66.1%Needville
37.1%La Marque
75.9%
Angleton
60.4%
Boling
55.4%
Hitchcock
83.7%
Wharton
80.3%
Columbia-Brazoria
52.4%
Damon
69.9%Danbury
31.4%
Van Vleck
57.3%
Bay City
73.3%
Grimes San Jacinto
Walker
Montgomery
Liberty
WallerHarris
Austin
Chambers
Fort Bend
WhartonBrazoria
Galveston
Hardin
2011-12 School Year
E c o n om i c a l l y D i s a d v a n t a g e d Po p u l a t i o n
HOUSTON
Source:�Texas�Education�Agency,�Public�Education�Information�Management�System�Division0 9 184.5 Miles
[
CountiesWater Bodies
School Districts0.0% - 30.0%30.1% - 40.0%40.1% - 55.0%55.1% - 65.0%65.1% - 80.0%80.1% - 100%
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 30
Galena Park
5.1%
Montgomery
3.1%
Navasota
11.4%
West Hardin County Cons.
2.2%
Hardin
7.3%
Willis
7.2%
Tarkington
10.1%
Cleveland
11.6%
Conroe
4.7%
Brenham
10.9%
Splendora
7.1%
Magnolia
5.9%
Sweeny
12%
Brazosport
7.3%Tidehaven
7.7%
Deer Park
8.1%
Lamar Consolidated
1.9%
Pasadena
9.6%
Alief
11.5%La Porte
10.1%
Fort Bend
6.8%
Goodrich
2.5%Richards
18.1%
New Waverly
0.7%Shepherd
14%
Livingston
9.3%Huntsville
2.9%
Coldspring-Oakhurst Cons.
5.6%
Big Sandy
-2.1%
Anderson-Shiro Cons.
3.3%
Kountze
10.6%
Dayton
11.1%
Hull-Daisetta
19.5%
Waller
10.5%
Hempstead
1.6%
New Caney
8.4%
Huffman
10.8%
Tomball
5.9%
Humble
9.1%
Devers
-3.3%Klein
8%
Liberty
1.8%
Spring
13%Bellville
12.6%
Aldine
3.8%
Cypress-Fairbanks
14.4%
Crosby
6.9%Sheldon
3.1%North Forest
3%Royal
6.8%
Anahuac
8.3%
Katy
7.1%
Barbers Hill
3.9%
Houston
2.4%
Sealy
7%
Goose Creek
4.7%
Spring Branch
3.1%
Channelview
9.3%
Brazos
10.7%
Stafford MSD
14.5%
High Island
13.2%Clear Creek
9.8%
East Bernard
1.1%
Pearland
4.8%
Alvin
2.4%
Galveston
7.4%Friendswood
2.8%Dickinson
4%
El Campo
2.8%
Santa Fe
6%
Texas City
7.8%Needville
6.1%La Marque
9.3%
Angleton
12.4%
Boling
3.7%
Hitchcock
13.8%
Wharton
12.7%
Columbia-Brazoria
7%
Damon
8.2% Danbury
2%
Van Vleck
11%
Bay City
15.6%
�����#���/�0����
1��6�
��������
�� ��
1����
����
34����
���� ��
��������
1�������2���
���������
�����
,����������������5��-������������
C h a n g e i n t h e E c o n o m i c a l l y D i s a d v a n t a g e d Po p u l a t i o n
�!"#$!%
���������������������� ���!���"�����������#$��%������� �%��� ����%�&���� ' �()�� ����
�
CountiesWater Bodies
School DistrictsDecrease0.1% - 2%2.1% - 5%5.1% - 7.5%7.6% - 10%>10%
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 31
Economically�Disadvantaged�PopulationAll�Districts�with�20,000+�Students
Rank District Name EconomicallyDisadvantaged
TotalEnrollment
PercentEconomically
Disadvantaged
1 FRISCO ISD 4,911 40,123 12.24%2 KELLER ISD 7,173 33,130 21.65%3 LEANDER ISD 7,323 33,309 21.99%4 PLANO ISD 14,363 55,659 25.81%5 LEWISVILLE ISD 14,438 51,920 27.81%6 CLEAR CREEK ISD 10,977 39,209 28.00%7 MCKINNEY ISD 7,175 24,733 29.01%8 ROUND ROCK ISD 13,385 45,034 29.72%9 KATY ISD 19,459 62,414 31.18%10 HUMBLE ISD 12,601 36,076 34.93%11 CONROE ISD 19,362 52,664 36.77%12 MANSFIELD ISD 12,120 32,564 37.22%13 FORT BEND ISD 26,267 69,449 37.82%14 KLEIN ISD 19,287 46,002 41.93%15 DENTON ISD 10,696 24,845 43.05%16 NORTH EAST ISD 30,436 67,439 45.13%17 LAMAR CISD 11,923 25,278 47.17%18 CYPRESS-FAIRBANKS ISD 52,394 107,960 48.53%19 MIDLAND ISD 11,120 22,626 49.15%20 HURST-EULESS-BEDFORD ISD 11,200 21,570 51.92%21 PFLUGERVILLE ISD 12,159 23,070 52.70%22 NORTHSIDE ISD 52,438 98,110 53.45%23 KILLEEN ISD 22,370 40,998 54.56%24 BIRDVILLE ISD 13,274 23,711 55.98%25 RICHARDSON ISD 21,080 37,044 56.91%26 ECTOR COUNTY ISD 16,245 28,533 56.93%27 SPRING BRANCH ISD 19,735 33,687 58.58%28 GARLAND ISD 35,153 58,151 60.45%29 CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH ISD 16,420 26,423 62.14%30 GOOSE CREEK CISD 13,792 21,675 63.63%31 JUDSON ISD 14,362 22,503 63.82%32 AUSTIN ISD 55,318 86,528 63.93%33 LUBBOCK ISD 18,699 28,790 64.95%34 ARLINGTON ISD 42,275 64,703 65.34%35 AMARILLO ISD 22,011 32,995 66.71%36 MCALLEN ISD 16,858 25,252 66.76%37 MESQUITE ISD 26,096 38,287 68.16%38 CORPUS CHRISTI ISD 26,964 38,678 69.71%39 EL PASO ISD 45,708 64,214 71.18%40 SOCORRO ISD 31,498 43,672 72.12%41 GRAND PRAIRIE ISD 19,263 26,607 72.40%42 SPRING ISD 26,512 36,513 72.61%43 UNITED ISD 31,388 42,179 74.42%44 FORT WORTH ISD 64,288 83,109 77.35%45 GALENA PARK ISD 17,351 21,861 79.37%46 PASADENA ISD 42,213 52,942 79.73%47 HOUSTON ISD 163,199 203,066 80.37%48 ALIEF ISD 36,675 45,410 80.76%49 YSLETA ISD 36,055 44,376 81.25%50 IRVING ISD 28,343 34,770 81.52%51 ALDINE ISD 54,602 64,300 84.92%52 EDINBURG CISD 28,489 33,412 85.27%
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 32
Economically�Disadvantaged�PopulationAll�Districts�with�20,000+�Students
Rank District Name EconomicallyDisadvantaged
TotalEnrollment
PercentEconomically
Disadvantaged
53 DALLAS ISD 135,415 157,574 85.94%54 PHARR-SAN JUAN-ALAMO ISD 28,146 31,632 88.98%55 SAN ANTONIO ISD 50,336 54,394 92.54%56 LA JOYA ISD 27,640 28,965 95.43%57 BROWNSVILLE ISD 47,665 49,654 95.99%58 LAREDO ISD 24,077 24,788 97.13%
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 33
�����
���
����
�
��2��
�����
�4����
�
1���������
(��6
$��
#���/�0����
1��6�
�� �
�
1����
����
34����
������
�
���
� �
�
��������
1�����
��2������������
������
��
#'���
���
- 7
8��
.-7
#��
'���
597
)���
�����
.�7
$�� �
��.97
��4
����
-�7
�����
�(�6
.�7
8����
.�7
:��
�(�6
.,7
)���
��'�
-�7
#��
�-,
7
%�;
���
�-<7
���(���
.�7
�����'����!�6�4
��
���
�5�
7
1�����
5,7
�'������� ��
6�.�
7
%�;�1����
-<7
(��
���
�.5
7
(����
���
-�7
�����
5.7
�� ��
5<7
1�����
-.7
:����
5.7
#��==��
�#:
5.7
3���
=-�7
#'���
���0�
-.7
���
��
.,7
�� �
�����
.<7
���
-97
���������
,<7
$�6������
-�7
�4==���
-<7
�4�
��
.�7
>���
5 7
#�������
-,7
�4�
�������
-,7
�����
�;��
�<9
7
#������
5-7
���
�������;
-�7
%���
�����
5�7
>�0����
-�7
����
���6
.<7
���4�
4�
- 7
���
'�����
5<7
����������
-�7
���
�����
<�7
1����
--7
���������
.�7
����
����
.�7
3���
����#���
����
.-7
���0�0�
06,�7
���
����
.�7
���
5<7
���4� �����2���
--7
:�� 4
.57
3����
.�7
3��
�����
.57
%��
������
.57
���������
557
������/�==����
.97
#���6
5<7
����
��-<
7
�������
#������
.-7
%�������
5�7
�����?4�
5�7
:����
<�7
:�06�����
--7
)���
���
� �
�.�
7���
������6
������������
-,7
�4���:
�������
5.7
1���
.�7
1���������
��4
������
�5�
7
3��
�4�0
.�7
����
*�����
597
:��
��--7
$�@��
���
-�7
>�0�
���
�5�7
����#���
&(��6+
5.7
���
��0�
, 7
������
-<7
3�����
--7
8�4
��2�
-�7
#'���
5.7
��4���
-�7
��2��
.�7
����
���
�. 7
(�0��
���=�#�4��
�������
����
������$3
8#�#����
���
Sch
oo
l D
istr
icts
in
th
e H
ou
sto
n M
etro
Are
a
Lege
nd Wat
er B
odie
s
Cou
nty
Bou
ndar
ies
Perc
ent M
et0%
- 60
%
61%
- 65
%
66%
- 70
%
71%
- 75
%
76%
- 80
%
81%
- 85
%
86%
- 98
%
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 34
Klein�I.S.D.
�201
2�Se
lected
�Soc
ioec
onom
ic�Cha
racteristics�fo
r�Klein�I.S.D.�a
s�Co
mpa
red�with�Adjac
ent�a
nd/or�C
ompa
rable�Sc
hool�Districts�in
�the�Hou
ston
�Area
Num
ber
Perc
enta
geN
umbe
rPe
rcen
tage
Num
ber
Perc
enta
geN
umbe
rPe
rcen
tage
Num
ber
Perc
enta
geN
umbe
rPe
rcen
tage
Tota
l hou
sing
uni
ts82
,850
62,9
7010
1,85
692
,198
175,
006
10,0
99,2
42O
ccup
ied
hous
ing
units
78,4
3995
%58
,897
94%
94,4
9293
%85
8,58
093
1%16
4,43
494
%8,
850,
370
88%
Vac
ant h
ousi
ng u
nits
4,41
15%
4,07
36%
7,36
47%
6,61
87%
10,5
726%
1,24
8,87
212
%O
wne
r-oc
cupi
ed57
,518
45,5
0061
,236
64,7
6511
1,75
65,
568,
300
Ren
ter-
occu
pied
20,9
2113
,397
33,2
5620
,815
52,6
783,
282,
070
Age
Und
er 5
yea
rs21
,356
9%13
,691
8%21
,698
8%19
,293
7%42
,819
9%1,
953,
347
8%5
to 9
yea
rs24
,522
10%
12,2
597%
24,3
569%
22,3
719%
43,9
189%
1,98
1,16
38%
10 to
14
year
s18
,821
8%13
,143
7%21
,872
8%24
,465
9%36
,365
7%1,
901,
653
7%15
to 1
9 ye
ars
17,6
057%
15,7
919%
21,0
968%
16,5
416%
33,6
267%
1,89
0,21
77%
5 to
17
year
s54
,378
22%
36,0
6020
%59
,171
21%
58,5
9122
%10
2,07
421
%5,
004,
335
19%
20 to
24
year
s10
,861
4%10
,190
6%16
,772
6%12
,959
5%35
,504
7%1,
873,
910
7%25
to 3
4 ye
ars
31,6
8613
%23
,332
13%
38,3
3214
%38
,634
15%
74,9
4815
%3,
671,
399
14%
35 to
44
year
s41
,950
17%
30,9
7117
%42
,226
15%
40,3
9515
%76
,784
15%
3,51
2,49
014
%45
to 5
4 ye
ars
31,0
0613
%25
,148
14%
38,7
4414
%41
,309
16%
67,0
9814
%3,
449,
260
13%
55 to
59
year
s14
,342
6%11
,664
6%15
,102
5%15
,424
6%30
,504
6%1,
465,
217
6%60
to 6
4 ye
ars
11,7
775%
9,44
95%
11,3
134%
11,3
904%
20,8
644%
1,26
8,20
05%
65 to
74
year
s13
,220
5%8,
713
5%14
,543
5%12
,578
5%21
,234
4%1,
541,
420
6%75
to 8
4 ye
ars
5,59
02%
4,51
53%
7,92
83%
4,89
62%
9,12
22%
844,
061
3%85
yea
rs a
nd o
ver
1,26
51%
1,18
91%
3,26
11%
1,32
41%
3750
1%32
2,34
41%
Med
ian
Age
34.4
35.5
33.1
34.2
32.3
33.7
Cla
ss o
f Wor
ker
Priv
ate
wag
e an
d sa
lary
95
,565
84%
69,9
4780
%10
6,36
782
%10
4,35
981
%20
8,07
683
%8,
974,
528
78%
Gov
ernm
ent
14,3
2813
%13
,467
15%
14,7
1911
%16
,460
13%
24,5
9710
%1,
690,
732
15%
Sel
f-em
ploy
ed3,
814
3%3,
707
4%8,
682
7%7,
472
6%16
,601
7%77
3,81
77%
Unp
aid
fam
ily w
orke
rs22
0%0
0%26
20%
154
0%31
60%
15,9
920%
Inco
me
and
Ben
efits
Tota
l hou
seho
lds
78,4
3958
,897
94,4
9285
,580
164,
434
8,85
0,37
0le
ss th
an $
10,0
002,
954
4%1,
279
2%4,
856
5%1,
461
2%7,
512
5%70
7,89
58%
$10,
000
to $
14,9
992,
464
3%1,
306
2%56
706%
995
1%5,
833
4%51
1,13
96%
$15,
000
to $
24,9
995,
769
7%2,
260
4%8,
638
9%7,
501
9%13
,646
8%1,
038,
328
12%
$25,
000
to $
34,9
993,
925
5%3,
661
6%6,
709
7%4,
856
6%14
,514
9%96
2,08
711
%$3
5,00
0 to
$49
,999
7,69
910
%6,
601
11%
11,7
2812
%10
,242
12%
21,1
0713
%1,
247,
252
14%
$50,
000
to $
74,9
9917
,063
22%
10,0
2317
%15
,537
16%
13,6
6416
%29
,032
18%
1,57
4,04
918
%$7
5,00
0 to
$99
,999
14,8
8319
%9,
684
16%
10,7
4211
%13
,454
16%
21,9
6613
%1,
001,
080
11%
$100
,000
to $
149,
999
13,0
0617
%13
,025
22%
14,1
9715
%16
,930
20%
26,9
4716
%1,
054,
481
12%
$150
,000
to $
199,
999
5,27
57%
5,30
99%
7,73
68%
7,35
89%
11,8
357%
379,
364
4%$2
00,0
00 o
r mor
e5,
401
7%5,
749
10%
8,67
99%
9,11
911
%12
,042
7%37
4,69
54%
Med
ian
hous
ehol
d in
com
e $7
3,38
5$8
4,05
1$6
5,16
8$8
1,51
8$6
4,74
3$4
9,39
2
Kle
in IS
D
Hou
sing
261,
579
244,
001
Tota
l Pop
ulat
ion
180,
055
277,
243
Hum
ble
ISD
Kat
y IS
DC
onro
e IS
DSt
ate
of T
exas
25,6
74,6
81
Cy-
Fair
ISD
496,
536
* D
ata
Gat
here
d Fr
om th
e 20
11 A
mer
ican
Com
mun
ity S
urve
y1-Y
ear E
stim
ates
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 35
Klein�I.S.D.
�201
2�Se
lected
�Soc
ioec
onom
ic�Cha
racteristics�fo
r�Klein�I.S.D.�a
s�Co
mpa
red�with�Adjac
ent�a
nd/or�C
ompa
rable�Sc
hool�Districts�in
�the�Hou
ston
�Area
Kle
in IS
DH
umbl
e IS
DK
aty
ISD
Con
roe
ISD
Stat
e of
Tex
asC
y-Fa
ir IS
D
Educ
atio
nal A
ttain
men
t
Pop
ulat
ion
25 y
ears
& o
ver
150,
836
114,
981
171,
449
165,
950
304,
304
16,0
74,3
91Le
ss th
an 9
th g
rade
8,37
56%
3,88
23%
11,0
886%
5,70
23%
17,2
376%
1,52
9,21
610
%9t
h to
12t
h gr
ade,
no
dipl
oma
9,48
16%
3,49
23%
13,1
568%
7,54
45%
18,4
566%
1,51
3,01
19%
H.S
. gra
duat
e36
,556
24%
22,0
3119
%35
,482
21%
30,5
6518
%69
,968
23%
4,09
9,51
926
%S
ome
colle
ge, n
o de
gree
37,7
2425
%27
,929
24%
38,0
3722
%32
,946
20%
70,9
0123
%3,
632,
685
23%
Ass
ocia
te's
deg
ree
11,2
287%
10,5
149%
10,8
976%
15,7
599%
23,8
788%
1,05
2,28
17%
Bac
helo
r's d
egre
e32
,601
22%
29,9
5426
%41
,592
24%
51,0
4031
%75
,338
25%
2,84
7,50
118
%G
radu
ate
or p
rofe
ssio
nal d
egre
e14
,871
10%
17,1
7915
%21
,197
12%
22,3
9413
%28
,526
9%1,
400,
178
9%H
.S. g
radu
ate
or h
ighe
r88
%94
%86
%92
%88
%81
%B
ache
lor's
deg
ree
of h
ighe
r31
%41
%37
%44
%34
%26
%R
esid
ence
1 y
ear a
go
P
opul
atio
n 1
year
& o
ver
240,
488
177,
043
274,
444
258,
542
489,
835
25,3
27,1
04S
ame
hous
e 20
8,22
387
%15
5,99
888
%21
2,49
777
%22
3,33
186
%42
8,27
787
%20
,984
,855
83%
Diff
eren
t hou
se in
the
U.S
.31
,626
13%
20,0
4011
%58
,658
21%
34,1
1513
%59
,169
12%
4,16
2,98
616
% S
ame
coun
ty25
,689
11%
13,5
068%
32,9
6712
%15
,553
6%48
,274
10%
2,69
0,33
811
% D
iffer
ent c
ount
y5,
937
2%6,
534
4%25
,691
9%18
,562
7%10
,895
2%1,
472,
648
6% S
ame
stat
e3,
955
2%3,
129
2%13
,896
5%14
,774
6%4,
067
1%95
7,92
24%
Diff
eren
t sta
te1,
982
1%3,
405
2%11
,795
4%3,
788
1%6,
828
1%51
4,72
62%
Abr
oad
639
0%1,
005
1%3,
289
1%1,
096
0%23
890%
179,
263
1%C
omm
utin
g to
wor
k
Wor
kers
16
year
s &
ove
r11
1,98
186
,500
128,
585
126,
473
246,
054
11,3
36,4
74C
ar, t
ruck
or v
an--
drov
e al
one
94,4
2684
%73
,486
85%
98,0
3476
%10
5,46
783
%20
4,35
483
%9,
045,
425
80%
Car
, tru
ck o
r van
--ca
rpoo
led
10,0
369%
6,35
67%
18,6
6215
%10
,295
8%21
,260
9%1,
252,
849
11%
Pub
lic tr
ansp
orta
tion
(exc
ludi
ng ta
xis)
1,87
72%
2,02
72%
1,72
41%
2,92
22%
4,53
72%
176,
090
2%W
alke
d33
30%
219
0%1,
163
1%1,
247
1%3,
098
1%19
1,12
82%
Oth
er m
eans
2,02
12%
1,23
81%
1,94
72%
1,78
91%
3,25
81%
196,
031
2%W
orke
d at
hom
e3,
288
3%3,
174
4%7,
055
5%4,
753
4%9,
547
4%47
4,95
14%
Mea
n tr
avel
tim
e to
wor
k (m
ins.
)29
.630
.530
.230
30.3
24.8
* D
ata
Gat
here
d Fr
om th
e 20
11 A
mer
ican
Com
mun
ity S
urve
y1-Y
ear E
stim
ates
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 36
Liberty ISD
21.2%, 19.1%
Grimes
San Jacinto
Montgomery
Liberty
Waller
Harris
Cha
Fort Bend
arton
Brazoria
Galveston
Matagorda
Hardi
La Marque ISD
67.8%, 70.1%
Dickinson ISD
14.6%, 14.9%
Goose Creek CISD
19.8%, 16.3%
Sweeny ISD
18.4%, 16.3%
Hardin ISD
4%, 3.8%
Dayton ISD
10.4%, 8.3%
Stafford MSD
34.6%, 39.2%
Santa Fe ISD
0.5%, 0.5%
Hempstead ISD
30.8%, 27.6%
Hull-Daisetta ISD
19.9%, 13.7%
West Hardin County CISD
0.7%, 0.8%
Damon ISD
0%, 1.1%
Texas City ISD
20.4%, 19.7%
Humble ISD
16.6%, 17.7%
Bay City ISD
17.4%, 16%
Big Sandy ISD
0%, 0%
Boling ISD
14.2%, 10.7%
Aldine ISD
31.4%, 25.9%
Spring ISD
38.5%, 40.3%
Brazos ISD
15.2%, 9.8%
Splendora ISD
1.1%, 1%
Katy ISD
9.3%, 9.6%
Van Vleck ISD
19.8%, 12.7%
Shepherd ISD
8.7%, 6%
East Bernard ISD
7.7%, 6.5%
Tomball ISD
6.9%, 5.3%
Houston ISD
29.2%, 25.1%
Galena Park ISD
20.8%, 16.7%
Klein ISD
15.7%, 14%
Deer Park ISD
2.3%, 2.4%
El Campo ISD
14.4%, 12.6%
Sealy ISD
13.9%, 10.4%
New Caney ISD
3%, 3.1%
La Porte ISD
8.9%, 7%
Coldspring-Oakhurst CISD
24.1%, 23.3%
Wharton ISD
29.8%, 28%
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
14.6%, 16.1%
New Waverly ISD
26.1%, 22.1%
Pearland ISD
16.8%, 16.4%
Pasadena ISD
7.7%, 6.5%
Willis ISD
9.1%, 8%
Alief ISD
37.2%, 32%
Spring Branch ISD
7.6%, 5.1%
Conroe ISD
6.6%, 6%
Brazosport ISD
10.2%, 8%
Barbers Hill ISD
3.4%, 3.3%
Crosby ISD
22.1%, 18.1%
Cleveland ISD
14.1%, 11.6% Tarkington ISD
1%, 0.5%
Huffman ISD
1.8%, 2.1%
Anahuac ISD
20%, 16%
Royal ISD
28.3%, 21.1%
Friendswood ISD
2.2%, 2%
Sheldon ISD
26.8%, 21.5%
Channelview ISD
15.5%, 13.1%
North Forest ISD
71.8%, 64.8%
Richards ISD
10.5%, 4.5%
Clear Creek ISD
8.9%, 8.3%
Livingston ISD
12.9%, 11.1%
Montgomery ISD
5.5%, 3.6%
Waller ISD
15.2%, 10.8%
Magnolia ISD
3.1%, 2.2%
Anderson-Shiro CISD
12.7%, 8.6%
Hitchcock ISD
34.7%, 42.2%
Fort Bend ISD
32.2%, 29.5%
Columbia-Brazoria ISD
14.7%, 11.2%
Danbury ISD
0.6%, 1.1%
Alvin ISD
9%, 13.1%
Angleton ISD
15.7%, 11.7%
Needville ISD
5.3%, 4%
Galveston ISD
30.8%, 23.7%
Lamar CISD
17.4%, 18.6%
Brenham ISD
25.7%, 23%
Navasota ISD
29.2%, 26%
,����������������5��-������������
C h a n g e i n t h e Pe r c e n t o f A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n S t u d e n t s
�!"#$!%
���������������������� ���!���"�����������#$��%������� �%��� ����%�&���� �� ��� ����
�
CountiesWater Bodies
School DistrictsSignificant DecreaseSlight DecreaseStable PercentageSlight IncreaseSignificant IncreaseSubstantial Increase
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 37
Grimes
San Jacinto
Montgomery
Liberty
Waller
Harris
Cha
Fort Bend
arton
Brazoria
Galveston
Matagorda
Hardi
La Marque ISD
19%, 19.5%
Devers ISD
30.5%, 20.8%
Dickinson ISD
40.3%, 46.7%
Goose Creek CISD
48.1%, 55.5%
Sweeny ISD
15.6%, 20.2%
Hardin ISD
7.2%, 11.5%
Liberty ISD
22.9%, 27.7%
Dayton ISD
18.8%, 31.6%
Stafford MSD
37.5%, 42.5%
Santa Fe ISD
12.5%, 18.1%
Hempstead ISD
44.8%, 51.4%
Hull-Daisetta ISD
2.1%, 6.3%
West Hardin County CISD
1.1%, 3%
Damon ISD
40.3%, 43%
Texas City ISD
36.1%, 42.2%
Humble ISD
23%, 30%
Bay City ISD
48.6%, 56.5%
Big Sandy ISD
2.8%, 5.4%
Boling ISD
42.5%, 49.7%
Aldine ISD
62.4%, 69.7%
Spring ISD
35.9%, 41.4%
Brazos ISD
38.5%, 48.5%
Splendora ISD
16.7%, 27.4%
Katy ISD
28%, 34.3%
Van Vleck ISD
20.3%, 28.6%
Shepherd ISD
16.4%, 24.4%
East Bernard ISD
27.8%, 28.6%
Tomball ISD
19.1%, 26.3%
Houston ISD
59.3%, 62.4%
Galena Park ISD
70.1%, 75.5%
Klein ISD
29.1%, 36.6%
Deer Park ISD
39.8%, 46.9%
El Campo ISD
52.5%, 58.4%
Sealy ISD
37.2%, 45.6%
New Caney ISD
32.5%, 46.2%
La Porte ISD
34.2%, 43.2%
Coldspring-Oakhurst CISD
5.5%, 6.6%
Wharton ISD
44.3%, 53.4%
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
35.2%, 42.8%
New Waverly ISD
7.5%, 12%
Pearland ISD
23.9%, 26.7%
Pasadena ISD
74.6%, 81.8%
Willis ISD
24.7%, 31.9%
Alief ISD
45.9%, 50.5%
Spring Branch ISD
53.1%, 58.3%
Conroe ISD
24.9%, 32.9%
Brazosport ISD
41.9%, 49.1%
Barbers Hill ISD
14.7%, 19.5%
Crosby ISD
20.1%, 29.1%
Cleveland ISD
33.8%, 40.2% Tarkington ISD
4.2%, 6%
Huffman ISD
11.6%, 15.2%
Anahuac ISD
23.3%, 27%
Royal ISD
56%, 67.9%
Friendswood ISD
10%, 15%
Sheldon ISD
54.6%, 60.8%
Channelview ISD
64.5%, 74.4%
North Forest ISD
27.3%, 33.6%
Richards ISD
6%, 13.5%
Clear Creek ISD
18.6%, 26%
Livingston ISD
15.4%, 19.2%
Montgomery ISD
9.6%, 12%
Waller ISD
34.5%, 47.2%
Magnolia ISD
19.8%, 28%
Anderson-Shiro CISD
12.1%, 15.2%
Hitchcock ISD
29%, 26.9%
Fort Bend ISD
22.4%, 26.3%
Columbia-Brazoria ISD
21.5%, 26.5%
Danbury ISD
17.9%, 20.4%
Alvin ISD
42%, 44.6%
Angleton ISD
37.3%, 46.2%
Needville ISD
35.5%, 40.8%
Galveston ISD
41.1%, 45.9%
Lamar CISD
45.8%, 46.1%
Navasota ISD
34.9%, 45.1%
,����������������5��-������������
C h a n g e i n t h e Pe r c e n t o f H i s p a n i c S t u d e n t s
�!"#$!%
���������������������� ���!���"�����������#$��%������� �%��� ����%�&���� �� ��� ����
�
CountiesWater Bodies
School DistrictsSignificant DecreaseSlight DecreaseStable PercentageSlight IncreaseSignificant IncreaseSubstantial Increase
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 38
Grimes
San Jacinto
Montgomery
Liberty
Waller
Harris
Cha
Fort Bend
arton
Brazoria
Galveston
Matagorda
Hardi
La Marque ISD
0.3%, 0.2%
Devers ISD
0%, 1.1%
Dickinson ISD
3.6%, 2.7%
Goose Creek CISD
1.2%, 1.3%
Sweeny ISD
0.4%, 0.3%
Hardin ISD
0.2%, 0.2%
Liberty ISD
0.7%, 0.6%
Dayton ISD
0.4%, 0.3%
Stafford MSD
15.6%, 10%
Santa Fe ISD
0.3%, 0.5%
Hempstead ISD
0.7%, 0.7%
Hull-Daisetta ISD
0%, 0.4%
West Hardin County CISD
0.2%, 0%
Damon ISD
0%, 1.1%
Texas City ISD
0.4%, 0.4%
Humble ISD
3.3%, 3%
Bay City ISD
0.9%, 0.7%
Big Sandy ISD
0.2%, 0.4%
Boling ISD
0.2%, 0.2%
Aldine ISD
1.9%, 1.4%
Spring ISD
4.8%, 4.1%
Brazos ISD
0.4%, 0.7%
Splendora ISD
0.2%, 0.1%
Katy ISD
9%, 11.1%
Van Vleck ISD
0%, 0.2%
Shepherd ISD
0.9%, 0.8%
East Bernard ISD
0.2%, 0.2%
Tomball ISD
3.5%, 5%
Houston ISD
3.1%, 3.3%
Galena Park ISD
1.3%, 0.8%
Klein ISD
8.4%, 8.4%
Deer Park ISD
2.2%, 1.5%
El Campo ISD
0.3%, 0.2%
Sealy ISD
0.5%, 0.4%
New Caney ISD
1.3%, 1.5%
La Porte ISD
1.3%, 1.1%
Coldspring-Oakhurst CISD
0.5%, 0.4%
Wharton ISD
1.1%, 0.5%
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
8.5%, 8.1%
New Waverly ISD
0.1%, 0.2%
Pearland ISD
9.5%, 9.7%
Pasadena ISD
3.2%, 2.8%
Willis ISD
0.9%, 0.7%
Alief ISD
12.4%, 12.7%
Spring Branch ISD
5.9%, 6.1%
Conroe ISD
3%, 3.1%
Brazosport ISD
1.7%, 1.5%
Barbers Hill ISD
0.7%, 0.8%
Crosby ISD
0.5%, 0.3%
Cleveland ISD
1.2%, 0.9% Tarkington ISD
0%, 0.1%
Huffman ISD
0.8%, 0.5%
Anahuac ISD
1.4%, 2.3%
Royal ISD
0.4%, 0.1%
Friendswood ISD
4.1%, 5.2%
Sheldon ISD
0.5%, 0.5%
Channelview ISD
1.5%, 1.1%
North Forest ISD
0.1%, 0.1%
Richards ISD
0%, 1.5%
Clear Creek ISD
9.8%, 9.7%
Livingston ISD
0.8%, 0.6%
Montgomery ISD
0.9%, 1.1%
Waller ISD
0.7%, 0.6%
Magnolia ISD
0.4%, 0.6%
Anderson-Shiro CISD
0%, 0.3%
Hitchcock ISD
0.5%, 0.3%
Fort Bend ISD
19.7%, 21.7%
Columbia-Brazoria ISD
0.6%, 0.5%
Danbury ISD
0%, 0.3%
Alvin ISD
4.2%, 7.9%
Angleton ISD
0.7%, 0.6%
Needville ISD
0.6%, 0.6%
Galveston ISD
2.4%, 2.3%
Lamar CISD
4.1%, 5.4%
Brenham ISD
1.5%, 1.5%
Navasota ISD
0.2%, 0.2%
,����������������5��-������������
C h a n g e i n t h e Pe r c e n t o f A s i a n S t u d e n t s
�!"#$!%
���������������������� ���!���"�����������#$��%������� �%��� ����%�&���� �� ��� ����
�
CountiesWater Bodies
School DistrictsSignificant DecreaseSlight DecreaseStable PercentageSlight IncreaseSignificant IncreaseSubstantial Increase
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 39
Grimes
San Jacinto
Montgomery
Liberty
Waller
Harris
Cha
Fort Bend
arton
Brazoria
Galveston
Matagorda
Hardi
La Marque ISD
12.7%, 8%
Devers ISD
61%, 74.2%
Dickinson ISD
41.1%, 33%
Goose Creek CISD
30.7%, 24.9%
Sweeny ISD
65.5%, 59.7%
Hardin ISD
88.6%, 82.2%
Liberty ISD
55.2%, 50.4%
Dayton ISD
70.2%, 57.1%
Stafford MSD
12%, 5.5%
Santa Fe ISD
86.4%, 79.1%
Hempstead ISD
23.4%, 19.2%
Hull-Daisetta ISD
78%, 76.1%
West Hardin County CISD
97.2%, 94.9%
Damon ISD
59.7%, 50.5%
Texas City ISD
42.8%, 36%
Humble ISD
56.8%, 46.3%
Bay City ISD
32.8%, 25%
Big Sandy ISD
70.6%, 69.6%
Boling ISD
43.1%, 37.8%
Aldine ISD
4.2%, 2.1%
Spring ISD
20.6%, 12.9%
Brazos ISD
46%, 39.6%
Splendora ISD
81.7%, 70.7%
Katy ISD
53.5%, 42.3%
Van Vleck ISD
59.9%, 54.8%
Shepherd ISD
73.3%, 68%
East Bernard ISD
64.3%, 64.3%
Tomball ISD
70.2%, 60.3%
Houston ISD
8.3%, 8.1%
Galena Park ISD
7.7%, 5.7%
Klein ISD
46.4%, 37.7%
Deer Park ISD
55.5%, 46.7%
El Campo ISD
32.8%, 27.7%
Sealy ISD
48.2%, 41.9%
New Caney ISD
62.9%, 47.4%
La Porte ISD
55.3%, 45.6%
Coldspring-Oakhurst CISD
69.3%, 67.1%
Wharton ISD
24.5%, 17.4%
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
41.4%, 30%
New Waverly ISD
66%, 62%
Pearland ISD
49.6%, 43.9%
Pasadena ISD
14.2%, 7.9%
Willis ISD
64.6%, 56.4%
Alief ISD
4.4%, 3.6%
Spring Branch ISD
33.2%, 28.2%
Conroe ISD
65%, 54.6%
Brazosport ISD
45.9%, 38.9%
Barbers Hill ISD
80.8%, 74.2%
Crosby ISD
57.2%, 49.4%
Cleveland ISD
50.7%, 45.2% Tarkington ISD
94.3%, 91.7%
Huffman ISD
85.4%, 80.2%
Anahuac ISD
55.2%, 50.8%
Royal ISD
15.2%, 9.4%
Huntsville ISD
48.5%, 42.8%
Friendswood ISD
83.5%, 75.7%
Sheldon ISD
18%, 12.8%
Channelview ISD
18.4%, 10.5%North Forest ISD
0.8%, 0.8%
Clear Creek ISD
62.3%, 52.3%
Livingston ISD
70.1%, 66%
Montgomery ISD
83.6%, 81.3%
Waller ISD
49%, 38.4%
Magnolia ISD
76.3%, 66.9%
Anderson-Shiro CISD
73.7%, 73.9%
Hitchcock ISD
35.5%, 28%
Fort Bend ISD
25.5%, 19.5%
Columbia-Brazoria ISD
62.7%, 58.2%
Danbury ISD
81.2%, 74%
Alvin ISD
44.5%, 32.1%
Angleton ISD
45.8%, 39%
Needville ISD
58.4%, 53%
Galveston ISD
25.5%, 25%
Lamar CISD
32.5%, 28.6%
Navasota ISD
35.5%, 27.8%
,����������������5��-������������
C h a n g e i n t h e Pe r c e n t o f A n g l o S t u d e n t s
�!"#$!%
���������������������� ���!���"�����������#$��%������� �%��� ����%�&���� �� ��� ����
�
CountiesWater Bodies
School DistrictsSignificant DecreaseSlight DecreaseStable PercentageSlight IncreaseSignificant IncreaseSubstantial Increase
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 40
Klein�ISD�Employment�Sector(Out�of�Civilian�Employed�Population�16�Years�and�Over)
Klein ISD Population: 244,001Civilian Employed Population 16 Years and Over: 113,729
Industry % EmployedAgriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 3.7Construction 7.2Manufacturing 15.4Wholesale Trade 5.9Retail Trade 9.2Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 5.5Information 0.8
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 7.1Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services 10.0
Educational services, and health care and social assistance 19.1Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accomodation, and food services 5.6Other services, except public administration 7.2Public Administration 3.4
Klein ISD Employment Sector (Out of Civilian Employed Population 16 Years and Over)
Employed Population: 113,729 (out of 244,001 Total Residents in KISD)As Reported by 2011 American Community Survey Data
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining
4%
Construction7%
Manufacturing15%
Wholesale Trade6%
Retail Trade9%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities
5%Information1%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and
leasing8%
Professional, scientific, and management, and
administrative and waste management services
10%
Educational services, and health care and social
assistance20%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and
accomodation, and food services
6%
Other services, except public administration
7%
Public Administration3%
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 41
Local�Employment�TrendsKlein�I.S.D.
August August Percent2011 2012 Change
City of Houston Employment 929,934 965,199 3.79% Unemployment Rate 8.6 7.1
Harris County Employment 1,882,372 1,953,753 3.79% Unemployment Rate 8.5 7
February August Percent2012 2012 Change
City of Houston Employment 948,092 965,199 1.80% Unemployment Rate 7.3 7.1
Harris County Employment 1,919,127 1,953,753 1.80% Unemployment Rate 7.3 7
Six-Month Employment Trends
Annual Employment Trends
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 42
Tren
ds�in
�Priva
te�Sch
ool�E
nrollm
ent
Klein�I.S.D.
Scho
olA
ddre
ssG
rade
s
% o
f St
uden
tsfr
om K
ISD
Cur
rent
Enro
llmen
t
Estim
ated
Stud
ents
from
KIS
D
% o
f en
rollm
ent
that
are
K
N+
Estim
ate
dSt
uden
tsfr
omK
ISD
in
Enro
llmen
tin
5 y
rs.
Estim
ated
Stud
ents
from
KIS
D
% o
f en
rollm
ent
that
are
K
N+
Estim
ated
Stud
ents
from
KIS
D in
K
N+
Abe
rcro
mbi
e A
cade
my
1710
2 Th
eiss
Mai
l R
oute
Rd.
, Spr
ing,
TX
PK
-5th
98%
130
127
62%
7917
517
262
%10
6
Abi
ding
Wor
d Lu
ther
an S
choo
l17
123
Red
Oak
Dr.,
H
oust
on, T
XK
-8th
50%
114
5710
0%57
150
7510
0%75
App
le G
rove
Sch
ool
1681
6Th
eiss
Mai
lR
oute
Rd.
, Spr
ing,
TX
Inf-T
oddl
ers,
AS
0%0
00%
00
00%
0
App
le T
ree
Sch
ool
1712
7 R
ed O
ak D
r.,
Hou
ston
, TX
PK
-2nd
50%
110
5518
%10
110
5518
%10
Ban
ff S
choo
l at C
ham
pion
s13
726
Cut
ten
Rd.
, H
oust
on, T
XP
K 3
- 12
th45
%12
858
90%
5215
068
90%
61
Cha
mpi
ons
Chr
istia
n A
cade
my
2113
Cyp
ress
Land
ing
Dr.,
H
oust
on,T
XIn
f - 6
th33
%17
056
41%
2320
066
41%
27
Chi
ldre
n of
The
Woo
dlan
ds22
00La
keW
oodl
ands
Dr.,
The
W
oodl
ands
,TX
18m
os-2
nd1%
487
515
%1
510
7715
%11
Xpl
or (f
orm
erly
Chi
ldre
n's
Cou
rtyar
d)86
15 W
. Ray
ford
R
d., S
prin
g, T
XIn
f-K5%
145
70%
015
00
0%0
Chr
ist C
omm
unity
Sch
ool
1488
Wel
lman
Rd.
, C
onro
e, T
X2y
r-6t
h3%
177
563
%3
300
189
63%
119
Con
cord
ia L
uthe
ran
700
E. M
ain
St.,
To
mba
ll, T
X9t
h-12
th25
%45
511
410
0%11
447
511
910
0%11
9
Cun
ae In
tern
atio
nal S
choo
l25
823
Gos
ling
Rd.
, S
prin
g, T
XP
K -
12th
0%61
073
%0
200
073
%0
Esp
rit In
tern
atio
nal S
choo
l48
90 W
est P
anth
er
Cre
ek D
r., T
he
Woo
dlan
ds, T
XTo
ddle
r-11
th0%
00
0%0
00
0%0
Firs
t Bap
tist A
cade
my
600
N M
ain,
C
onro
e, T
XTo
dd-K
0%10
00
10%
011
50
10%
0
Firs
t Bap
tist C
hild
Dev
elop
men
t C
ente
r
1180
1G
roga
nsM
illR
d., T
he
Woo
dlan
ds,T
X6w
ks-K
0%15
00
6%0
200
06%
0
Fras
sati
Cat
holic
Hig
h S
choo
lP
.O. B
ox 1
3164
5,
Spr
ing,
TX
9th-
12th
Gra
nt R
oad
Day
Car
e C
ente
r95
14 G
rant
Rd.
, H
oust
on, T
XP
K -
K0%
00
0%0
00
0%0
Gre
enga
te A
cade
my
1849
0 K
uyke
ndah
l R
d., S
prin
g, T
XK
-1st
95%
150
143
100%
143
250
238
100%
238
Gre
enw
ood
Chr
istia
n S
choo
l12
135
Mig
hty
Oak
D
r., H
oust
on, T
XP
K -
1st
100%
100
100
12%
1210
010
012
%12
Gre
ysto
ne H
ouse
Mon
tess
ori
1000
Eve
rgre
enC
ir., T
he
Woo
dlan
ds,T
XIn
f-K0%
750
8%0
750
8%0
Cur
rent
Enr
ollm
ent
Proj
ecte
d En
rollm
ent i
n 5
Year
s
Sch
ools
list
ed in
ital
ics
are
out
side
the
KIS
D b
ound
arie
sS
choo
ls h
ighl
ight
ed in
gre
en a
re n
ot in
clud
ed in
tota
l
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 43
Tren
ds�in
�Priva
te�Sch
ool�E
nrollm
ent
Klein�I.S.D.
Scho
olA
ddre
ssG
rade
s
% o
f St
uden
tsfr
om K
ISD
Cur
rent
Enro
llmen
t
Estim
ated
Stud
ents
from
KIS
D
% o
f en
rollm
ent
that
are
K
N+
Estim
ate
dSt
uden
tsfr
omK
ISD
in
Enro
llmen
tin
5 y
rs.
Estim
ated
Stud
ents
from
KIS
D
% o
f en
rollm
ent
that
are
K
N+
Estim
ated
Stud
ents
from
KIS
D in
K
N+
Cur
rent
Enr
ollm
ent
Proj
ecte
d En
rollm
ent i
n 5
Year
s
Gre
ysto
ne H
ouse
Mon
tess
ori
1771
0S
Cyp
ress
Vill
as D
r., S
prin
g,
TXIn
f-K75
%75
5613
%7
7556
13%
7
Hor
izon
s E
duca
tion
Cen
ter
8320
Lou
etta
Rd.
, S
prin
g, T
X1s
t-10t
h30
%45
1410
0%14
5517
100%
17
Hou
ston
Lea
rnin
g A
cade
my
Nor
th13
029
Cha
mpi
ons
Dr.,
Hou
ston
, TX
9th
- 12t
h50
%17
910
0%9
6030
100%
30
Lake
woo
d M
onte
ssor
i Sch
ool
1212
7M
alco
lmso
nR
d. O
R
Loue
tta
Rd.
PK
-KN
10%
279
2813
%4
279
2813
%4
Lang
try P
repa
rato
ry A
cade
my
200
Nob
le S
t.,
Spr
ing,
TX
9th
- 12t
h17
%6
110
0%1
102
100%
2
Ligh
t Way
Sch
ools
5125
Sha
dow
Ben
d P
lace
, The
W
oodl
ands
, TX
0%0
0%0
00
0%0
Ligh
thou
se C
hris
tian
Aca
dem
y22
703
Ald
ine
Wes
tfiel
d R
d.,
Spr
ing,
TXK
-12t
h0%
00%
00
00%
0
Lind
er L
earn
ing
Land
14
600
Gla
debr
ook
Dr.,
Hou
ston
, TX
6wks
-PK
0%0
00%
00
00%
0
Mon
tess
ori C
hild
Car
e - S
prin
g /
Kle
in18
026
Stra
ck D
r.,
Spr
ing,
TX
18 M
o - P
K0%
00
0%0
00
0%0
New
Mon
tess
ori H
ouse
of
Chi
ldre
n95
02 M
ills
Rd.
, H
oust
on, T
XP
K -
K0%
100
40%
020
040
%0
Nor
th H
oust
on C
atho
lic H
igh
Sch
ool
(will
ope
n in
Aug
ust 2
013)
P.O
. Box
131
645,
S
prin
g, T
X9t
h-12
th0%
00
0%0
00
0%0
Nor
thla
nd C
hris
tian
Aca
dem
y43
63 S
ylva
nfei
ld
Dr.,
Hou
ston
, TX
6th-
12th
95%
340
323
100%
323
400
380
100%
380
Nor
thla
nd C
hris
tian
Aca
dem
y-E
lem
enta
ry27
00 F
M 1
960,
H
oust
on, T
XK
- 5t
h95
%20
519
510
0%19
525
023
810
0%23
8
Nor
thw
ood
Mon
tess
ori S
choo
l14
901
Wel
com
e La
ne, H
oust
on, T
XP
K-1
st80
%49
39.2
37%
1576
6137
%22
Nor
thw
oods
Cat
holic
Sch
ool
5500
FM
292
0 R
d.,
Spr
ing,
TX
PK
- 8t
h60
%21
012
687
%11
030
018
087
%15
7
Oak
Rid
ge C
hris
tian
Aca
dem
y27
420
Rob
inso
n R
d., C
onro
e, T
XP
K-1
2th
0%12
00
25%
015
00
25%
0
Oak
dale
Priv
ate
Sch
ool
1444
FM
196
0 W
., H
oust
on, T
X6w
ks-
2nd
0%53
60
5%0
600
05%
0
PC
AL
Chr
istia
n S
choo
l92
68 S
tate
Hig
hway
24
2, C
onro
e, T
X0%
00%
00
00%
0
Vic
tory
Chr
istia
n S
choo
l (fo
rmer
ly P
arkw
ay C
hris
tian)
2520
6 P
iney
H
eigh
ts L
n. S
prin
g,
TX9t
h - 1
2th
0%55
010
0%0
100
010
0%0
Sch
ools
list
ed in
ital
ics
are
out
side
the
KIS
D b
ound
arie
sS
choo
ls h
ighl
ight
ed in
gre
en a
re n
ot in
clud
ed in
tota
l
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 44
Tren
ds�in
�Priva
te�Sch
ool�E
nrollm
ent
Klein�I.S.D.
Scho
olA
ddre
ssG
rade
s
% o
f St
uden
tsfr
om K
ISD
Cur
rent
Enro
llmen
t
Estim
ated
Stud
ents
from
KIS
D
% o
f en
rollm
ent
that
are
K
N+
Estim
ate
dSt
uden
tsfr
omK
ISD
in
Enro
llmen
tin
5 y
rs.
Estim
ated
Stud
ents
from
KIS
D
% o
f en
rollm
ent
that
are
K
N+
Estim
ated
Stud
ents
from
KIS
D in
K
N+
Cur
rent
Enr
ollm
ent
Proj
ecte
d En
rollm
ent i
n 5
Year
s
Prim
rose
Sch
ool o
f Cha
mpi
ons
1681
1S
hado
wV
alle
y D
r., S
prin
g,
TXP
K0%
00
0%0
00
0%0
Prim
rose
Sch
ool o
f Im
peria
l O
aks
2114
Ray
ford
Rd.
, S
prin
g, T
XIn
f-KN
0%21
50
12%
00
012
%0
Prim
rose
Sch
ool o
f Spr
ing
- K
lein
2200
3 B
ridge
ston
e Ln
., S
prin
g, T
XIn
f - K
N10
0%18
018
011
%20
210
210
11%
23
Prim
rose
Sch
ool o
f The
W
oodl
ands
6403
Col
lege
Par
kD
r., T
he
Woo
dlan
ds,T
XIn
f-1st
0%12
70
20%
020
00
20%
0
Prim
rose
Sch
ool o
f The
W
oodl
ands
6909
Lake
Woo
dlan
ds D
r., T
he
Woo
dlan
ds,T
XIn
f-K0%
215
07%
025
00
7%0
Pro
gres
sive
Mon
tess
ori S
choo
l20
50 L
ouet
ta R
d.,
Spr
ing,
TX
Inf -
KN
5%72
48%
010
05
8%0
Pro
vide
nce
Cla
ssic
al S
choo
l60
06S
prin
gC
ypre
ss R
d.,
Spr
ing,
TXP
K-1
2th
70%
334
234
97%
227
400
280
97%
272
Red
d S
choo
l 48
20 S
track
Rd.
, H
oust
on, T
XP
K-8
th0%
175
080
%0
250
080
%0
Res
urre
ctio
n Lu
ther
an16
12 M
eado
w E
dge
Ln.,
Spr
ing,
TX
Inf -
PK
0%0
00%
00
00%
0
Ros
a's
Sch
ool
1207
Dol
ly W
right
S
t., H
oust
on, T
XK
- 6t
h0%
00
100%
00
010
0%0
Ros
ehill
Chr
istia
n S
choo
l19
830
FM 2
920
Rd.
, Tom
ball,
TX
PK
-12t
h30
%37
611
387
%98
550
165
87%
144
Sal
em L
uthe
ran
Sch
ool
2260
1Lu
ther
anC
hurc
h R
d.,
Tom
ball,
TXK
-8th
5%47
024
100%
2450
025
100%
25
Sha
dy A
cres
Chr
istia
n S
choo
l73
30 V
ogel
Rd.
, H
oust
on, T
X1s
t - 1
2th
10%
394
100%
460
610
0%6
Spe
ll W
ell S
choo
l17
502
W S
track
D
r., S
prin
g, T
XIn
f - 5
th0%
150
020
%0
175
020
%0
Spr
ing
Bap
tist E
arly
Lea
rnin
g C
ente
r
1027
Spr
ing
Cyp
ress
Rd.
, S
prin
g,TX
PK
-3rd
45%
9041
44%
1815
068
44%
30
Spr
ing
Cyp
ress
Pre
sbyt
eria
n S
choo
l
6000
Spr
ing
Cyp
ress
Rd.
, S
prin
g,TX
PK
0%0
00%
00
00%
0
St.
Ann
e C
atho
lic S
choo
l 11
11 S
Che
rry
St.,
To
mba
ll, T
XP
K -
8th
25%
385
9665
%63
400
100
65%
65
St.
Ant
hony
of P
adua
Cat
holic
S
choo
l
7901
Bay
Bra
nch
Dr.,
The
W
oodl
ands
,TX
PK
-8th
0%48
90
86%
050
80
86%
0
St.
Edw
ards
Cat
holic
Sch
ool
2601
Spr
ing
Stu
ebne
r, S
prin
g,
TXP
K-8
th85
%31
726
988
%23
733
028
188
%24
7
Ste
p by
Ste
p C
hris
tian
Sch
ool
1119
S C
herr
y S
t.,
Tom
ball,
TX
Inf-8
th25
%17
544
43%
1920
050
43%
22
Sch
ools
list
ed in
ital
ics
are
out
side
the
KIS
D b
ound
arie
sS
choo
ls h
ighl
ight
ed in
gre
en a
re n
ot in
clud
ed in
tota
l
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 45
Tren
ds�in
�Priva
te�Sch
ool�E
nrollm
ent
Klein�I.S.D.
Scho
olA
ddre
ssG
rade
s
% o
f St
uden
tsfr
om K
ISD
Cur
rent
Enro
llmen
t
Estim
ated
Stud
ents
from
KIS
D
% o
f en
rollm
ent
that
are
K
N+
Estim
ate
dSt
uden
tsfr
omK
ISD
in
Enro
llmen
tin
5 y
rs.
Estim
ated
Stud
ents
from
KIS
D
% o
f en
rollm
ent
that
are
K
N+
Estim
ated
Stud
ents
from
KIS
D in
K
N+
Cur
rent
Enr
ollm
ent
Proj
ecte
d En
rollm
ent i
n 5
Year
s
Ste
ppin
g S
tone
s Fa
mily
Res
ourc
e an
d C
hild
Dev
elop
men
t
1190
0C
rane
broo
kD
r., T
he
Woo
dlan
ds,T
XIn
f-1st
0%15
20
17%
020
00
17%
0
Sum
mer
field
Aca
dem
y 21
611
Brid
gest
one
Ln.,
Spr
ing,
TX
PK
0%0
00%
00
00%
0
Texa
s M
onte
ssor
i Aca
dem
y11
826
Loue
tta R
d.,
Hou
ston
, TX
PK
-KN
0%0
00%
00
00%
0
The
Chi
ldre
n's
Cou
rtyar
d 91
44 L
ouet
ta,
Spr
ing,
TX
Inf-1
st95
%20
119
149
%94
250
238
49%
116
The
Chi
ldre
n's
Cou
rtyar
d 10
505
Six
Pin
esD
r., T
he
Woo
dlan
ds,T
XIn
f-1st
0%19
00
37%
022
00
37%
0
The
God
dard
Sch
ool
8727
Eas
tloch
Dr,
Spr
ing,
TX
Inf-P
K0%
00
0%0
00
0%0
The
God
dard
Sch
ool
8522
Prin
ceto
n P
l.,
Tom
ball,
TX
Inf-P
K0%
00
0%0
00
0%0
The
Hon
ey T
ree
1862
9S
tate
Hig
hway
249
, H
oust
on,T
XIn
f - P
K0%
00
0%0
00
0%0
The
John
Coo
per S
choo
l1
John
Coo
per D
r.,
The
Woo
dlan
ds, T
XP
K-1
2th
0%10
321
96%
01,
200
196
%1
The
Rub
icon
Aca
dem
y14
211
Hor
sesh
oeB
end,
The
W
oodl
ands
,TX
PK
-10t
h0%
300
80%
030
080
%0
The
Sch
ool o
f Am
azin
g Li
ttle
Min
ds
2322
1A
ldin
eW
estfi
eld
Rd.
, S
prin
g,TX
PK
-K0%
00
0%0
00
0%0
The
Woo
dlan
ds M
onte
ssor
i12
01M
any
Pin
esR
d., T
he
Woo
dlan
ds,T
XTo
ddle
r-K
0%85
05%
010
40
5%0
The
Woo
dlan
ds S
choo
l for
Y
oung
Sch
olar
s
2516
2G
roga
nsP
ark
Dr.,
The
W
oodl
ands
,TX
PK
-2nd
0%0
00%
00
00%
0
Trin
ity L
uthe
ran
Sch
ool
1892
6 K
lein
Chu
rch
Rd.
, Spr
ing,
TX
MD
O-8
th0%
696
078
%0
750
078
%0
Woo
dlan
ds A
cade
my
Pre
para
tory
Sch
ool
2744
0 K
uyke
ndah
l R
d., S
prin
g, T
XK
N-1
2th
1%32
53
100%
350
05
100%
5
Woo
dlan
ds C
hris
tian
Aca
dem
y58
00 A
lden
Woo
ds,
Con
roe,
TX
PK
-12t
h0%
392
094
%0
900
094
%0
Woo
ds P
rivat
e S
choo
l15
002
Lake
woo
dFo
rest
Dr.,
Hou
ston
, TX
2yrs
-3rd
33%
370
122
32%
3940
013
232
%42
TOTA
L:11
,781
2,84
22,
014
14,3
723,
712
2,63
1
Dis
tric
t Enr
ollm
ent:
46,9
4252
,358
Ove
rall
perc
enta
ge o
f stu
dent
s fr
om K
ISD
in p
rivat
e sc
hool
s:4.
11%
4.78
%
Sch
ools
list
ed in
ital
ics
are
out
side
the
KIS
D b
ound
arie
sS
choo
ls h
ighl
ight
ed in
gre
en a
re n
ot in
clud
ed in
tota
l
Population and Survey Analysts October, 2012: Page 46