Atherton Investigation Conclusions From the Investigatory Report A.

Atherton Elementary

Regarding the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and Reading tests and re-tests, taking into account all the credible evidence, including the following: statements by twelve (12) students that they received or observed similar types of improper assistance in their respective testing rooms, coupled with the lack of disciplinary issues and/or lack of motive to fabricate their statements; the statistically significant change in Atherton Elementarys STAAR Math and Reading scores between (Grade 4) 2012 and (Grade 5) 2013; significantly higher passage rates on the Grade 5 STAAR tests by students who had performed at the unsatisfactory level in Grade 4 than the District average; material discrepancies between a number of Grade 5 students STAAR Math and Reading scores as compared to their prior test and/or academic performance; an overall decline in students passage rate on the HISD Formative Assessment given two months after the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR tests; and a high number of erasure marks on students test materials, coupled with an above-average rate of wrong to right answer changes for multiple test administrators; it is reasonable to conclude the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and Reading tests and retests at Atherton Elementary were compromised. B. Employee 1

Taking into account all the credible evidence, including the statistically significant change in Atherton Elementarys STAAR Math and Reading scores between (Grade 4) 2012 and (Grade 5) 2013; the statements by five (5) students at two (2) different middle schools that they received improper assistance from Employee 1 on the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and/or Reading tests and/or re-tests, coupled with the similar types of assistance reported by the students; the 100% passage rate of students tested by Employee 1 on the first administration of the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math test and the 94% passage rate of students tested by Employee 1 on the first administration of the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Reading test; the high passage rate on the Grade 5 STAAR tests of students tested by Employee 1 who had performed at the unsatisfactory level in Grade 4; the material discrepancies between a number of Grade 5 students STAAR Math and/or Reading scores compared to their testing and/or academic performance; the decline in students passage rate on the HISD Formative Assessments given shortly after the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR tests; the high number of erasure marks on Employee 1s students test materials, coupled with the above-average rate of wrong to right answer changes; and additional statistical analysis provided, it is reasonable to conclude the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and Reading tests and re-tests were compromised and that Employee 1 provided improper assistance on the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and Reading tests and re-tests. C. Employee 2

Taking into account all the credible evidence, including the statistically significant change in Atherton Elementarys STAAR Math and Reading scores between (Grade 4) 2012 and (Grade 5) 2013; the statements by four (4) students at two (2) different middle schools that they received improper assistance from Employee 2 on the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and Reading tests, coupled with the similar types of assistance reported by the students; the consistency between the student statements

regarding particular test questions and the actual test questions; the high passage rate of students tested by Employee 2 on the first administration of the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and Reading tests; the high passage rate on the Grade 5 STAAR tests of students tested by Employee 2 who had performed at the unsatisfactory level in Grade 4; the material discrepancies between a number of Grade 5 students STAAR Math and Reading scores as compared to their prior test performance and/or academic performance; the decline in students passage rate on the HISD Formative Assessments given shortly after the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR tests; the high number of erasure marks on Employee 2s students test materials, coupled with the above-average rate of wrong to right answer changes; and additional statistical analysis provided, it is reasonable to conclude the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and/or Reading tests were compromised and that Employee 2 provided improper assistance on the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and/or Reading tests. Given the lack of corroborating evidence for the one (1) students statement regarding Employee 2s administration of the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math re-test, the evidence is inconclusive as to whether Employee 2 provided improper assistance on the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math re-test. D. Employee 4

Taking into account all the credible evidence, including the statistically significant change in Atherton Elementarys STAAR Math and Reading scores between (Grade 4) 2012 and (Grade 5) 2013; the statements by two (2) students at two (2) different middle schools that they received improper assistance from Employee 4 on the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and/or Reading tests, coupled with the similar kinds of assistance, testing room conditions, and individuals in the testing room reported by both students; the material discrepancies between the Grade 5 students STAAR Math and/or Reading scores compared to their testing and/or academic performance; the advanced passage rate of one of the students tested by Employee 4 on the first administration of the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math test when the student had previously failed to meet the satisfactory level on the Grade 4 STAAR Math test and performed well below grade level on the Grade 4 Stanford Math test; the high number of erasure marks on Employee 4s students test materials, coupled with the above-average rate of wrong to right answer changes; and additional statistical analysis provided, it is reasonable to conclude the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and/or Reading tests were compromised and that Employee 4 provided improper assistance on the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and/or Reading tests. E. Employee 5

Taking into account all the credible evidence, including the following: the low passage rate of students tested by Employee 5 on the first administration of the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and Reading tests; the consistency between the students Grade 5 STAAR Math and Reading scores as compared to their prior test scores; the low number of erasure marks on Employee 5s students test materials, coupled with the below-average rate of wrong to right answer changes; the lack of corroborating evidence for students statements that Employee 5 administered the May or June re-tests and/or potential bias of students who stated they were upset with Employee 5 because they did not pass the first administration of the Grade 5 STAAR tests; the forthcoming information from Employee 5 regarding the test

administration; and/or the District attendance records indicating that Employee 5 was not working on the days the May 2013 STAAR Reading re-test and the June 2013 STAAR Math and/or Reading re-tests were administered; there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Employee 5 provided improper assistance on the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and/or Reading tests and/or Grade 5 Reading re- test. F. Employee 3

Given the absence of corroborating evidence for the one (1) students statement regarding Employee 3s administration of the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and Reading tests, the evidence is inconclusive as to whether Employee 3 provided improper assistance on the April 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and/or Reading tests. Regarding the May 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and/or Reading re-tests, Employee 3s students were noted as having an above-average rate of wrong to right answer changes on both tests; and one (1) of three (3) students tested by Employee 3 passed the Grade 5 STAAR Math re-test, and two (2) of three (3) students passed the Grade 5 STAAR Reading re-test. None of the students identified on Employee 3s seating charts for the STAAR test were made available to be interviewed or took the HISD Formative Assessments given shortly after the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR tests. Taking into account all the credible evidence, including the following: no student implication regarding the re-tests; the forthcoming information from Employee 3 regarding the Grade 4 STAAR test administration; and that Employee 3 was not noted as having a high number of erasure marks on Employee 3s students test materials; there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Employee 3 provided improper assistance on the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and/or Reading re-tests. G. Employee 6

Taking into account all the credible evidence, including the following: the lack of corroborating evidence for the one (1) students statement implicating Employee 6 in testing improprieties; no STAAR testing materials indicating Employee 6 administered any 2013 Grade 5 STAAR tests; the District attendance records indicating that Employee 6 was not working on the days the May 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Reading re-test and the June 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and Reading re-tests were administered; there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Employee 6 provided improper assistance on the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math test and Reading re-test. H. Employee 7

Without additional information and given the lack of corroborating evidence regarding Employee 7s presence in the testing rooms during the administration of the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and/or Reading tests and/or re-tests, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Employee 7s provided improper assistance, or had knowledge of test administrators providing improper assistance, on the 2013 Grade 5 STAAR Math and/or Reading tests and/or re-tests.