Skip to content
Quick Start for:
Chapter 2
EDUCATIONAL SERVICE DELIVERY

This chapter discusses the Christoval Independent School District's (CISD's) educational service delivery system and student performance measures in five sections:

A. Student Performance and Instructional Resources
B. Special Programs
C. Alternative Education Programs and Dropout Prevention
D. Safety and Security

Effective educational service delivery requires appropriate instructional guidance, capable teachers, adequate resources and a thorough understanding of students' instructional needs. Well-designed and implemented instructional programs are essential to meet the needs of all students in a district. Instructional leadership from a district's central office and schools is directly responsible for these programs' effectiveness.

BACKGROUND

CISD selected five Texas school districts to serve as peer districts for comparison purposes: Apple Springs, Brookeland, Leggett, Meadow and Slidell. Meadow ISD is located in the Texas Panhandle, Slidell ISD in north central Texas and the remaining peer districts are in southeast Texas. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) provided information on the state-mandated student achievement test scores, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) and other student performance measures, such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Exhibit 2-1 presents demographic information for CISD, the selected peer districts, Regional Education Service Center XV (Region 15) and the state.

Exhibit 2-1
Demographic Characteristics of CISD,
Peer Districts, Region 15 and State
2000-01
  Student Enrollment Ethnic Groups Economically Disadvantaged
District Number 5 Year
Percent Change*		 Percent
African
American		 Percent
Hispanic		 Percent
Anglo		 Percent
Other		 Percent 5 Year
Percent Change*
Christoval 379 5.3% 0.8% 17.4% 81.8% 0.0% 24.8% (6.1)%
Slidell 336 22.6% 0.0% 8.3% 91.1% 0.6% 27.1% (1.1)%
Meadow 323 2.5% 0.6% 61.6% 37.8% 0.0% 64.1% 9.8%
Brookeland 322 1.9% 14.9% 2.5% 81.1% 1.5% 48.8% (13.8)%
Apple Springs 272 17.7% 20.2% 2.9% 76.5% 0.4% 59.2% 2.8%
Leggett 247 15.4% 22.3% 12.1% 65.6% 0.0% 72.5% 6.3%
Region 15 50,696 -3.8% 3.6% 47.9% 47.8% 0.7% 53.5% 5.1%
State 4,071,433 6.3% 14.4% 40.5% 42.1% 3.0% 49.2% 2.3%
Source: Fall 2000 PEIMS submission.
* Percent Change is defined as 2000-01 values minus 1996-97 values divided by 1996-97 values.

Demographic, staffing and financial data for each school district and school are reported in TEA's Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports. These reports are sent to each school and district and are available on TEA's Internet Web site (www.tea.state.tx.us). The latest AEIS data published by TEA are for 1999-2000. Selected information is available for 2000-01 as submitted by districts to Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) in the fall 2000 data submission. These data will be used whenever possible and when compatible with data from 1999-2000 that cannot be updated. PEIMS information also is available at the TEA Web site.

For 2000-01, CISD's enrollment was 379. Slidell ISD is closest in size to CISD, with a student enrollment of 336. CISD's enrollment has increased 5.3 percent over the last five years. CISD, Meadow and Brookeland have smaller increases in enrollment than the state average. Minority student enrollment ranges from 8.9 percent in Slidell ISD to 62.2 percent in Meadow ISD. CISD has the next to lowest minority student enrollment at 18.2 percent. While Meadow is similar in size to CISD and the other peer districts, the percentage of minority students is quite different from the remaining districts.

CISD has the lowest percentage, at 24.8 percent, of economically disadvantaged students among its five peer districts and has about half the state average of 49 percent. Between 1995-96 and 1999-2000, the number of economically disadvantaged students in the state has increased by about 2 percent. With the exception of Meadow ISD, the peer districts either showed a decrease or a modest increase in the percentage of economically disadvantaged students between 1996-97 and 2000-01. The latest available comparable student performance data are from 1999-2000.

CISD ranks fourth in instructional expenditures per student, at $4,153 per student, compared to its peer districts (Exhibit 2-2).

Exhibit 2-2
Actual Expenditures in CISD, Peer Districts and the State
1999-2000
District Total
Expenditures		 Instructional Expenditures
Per Student*		 Percent
Regular		 Percent
Bilingual/ESL		 Percent
Career
&
Tech.		 Percent Compen-satory Percent
Gifted
& Talented		 Percent
Special Education
Brookeland $2,894,770 $4,662 68.8% 0.0% 5.7% 8.8% 0.4% 12.2%
Meadow $2,582,356 $4,268 50.5% 0.9% 11.6% 26.8% 0.3% 5.0%
Apple Springs $2,194,132 $4,155 57.7% 0.0% 5.9% 11.6% 0.9% 20.0%
Christoval $3,557,949 $4,153 66.3% 0.1% 5.2% 6.4% 0.9% 17.7%
Leggett $2,126,966 $3,970 59.5% 0.1% 4.2% 13.1% 0.5% 22.6%
Slidell $3,417,281 $3,843 71.0% 0.5% 4.1% 7.6% 0.4% 13.4%
State $31,639,852,010 $3,738 61.5% 3.7% 4.0% 11.7% 1.7% 15.2%
Source: TEA, AEIS 1999-2000.
* Includes instruction and instructional leadership expenditures, based on 1999-2000 membership.

These data are from 1999-2000 and reflect actual expenditures during the school year for which student performance is reported. TEA does not publish comparable data for the Educational Service Centers (ESCs).

CISD ranked third among its peers in the amount of instructional expenditures per student ($4,153). Only Slidell ISD and Leggett ISD spent less per student than CISD. Brookeland ISD's instructional expenditures per student ($4,662) ranked highest among the peer districts.

The greatest variances in the expenditure patterns between CISD and its peer districts were found in the percentage of operatingexpenditures directed to Compensatory (Accelerated) Instruction and to special education. While CISD directed 6.4 percent of its operating expenditures to Compensatory Instruction in 1999-2000, Leggett ISD directed 13.1 percent to the program and Meadow ISD directed 26.8 percent to it. CISD and Meadow ISD directed 17.7 percent and 22.6 percent, respectively, of their expenditures to special education, while Meadow ISD directed only 5 percent to it.

CISD ranked first in the percentage of students enrolled in career and technology education programs by a large margin in 1999-2000 (Exhibit 2-3). CISD also reported the highest percentage of students identified as gifted and talented when compared to its peer districts. At 0.8 percent, the percentage of students enrolled in CISD bilingual or English as a Second Language (ESL) programs was significantly lower than the 12.5 percent of students enrolled in bilingual/ESL statewide. Compared to its peer districts, CISD ranked third in the percentage of students receiving special education services, and was 6.4 percentage points higher than the state average.

Exhibit 2-3
Student Enrollment by Program
CISD, Peer Districts, Region 15 and State
1999-2000
District Percent
Bilingual/ESL		 Percent
Career &
Technology		 Percent
Gifted &
Talented		 Percent
Special
Education
Leggett 2.7% 12.2% 9.8% 22.7%
Apple Springs 0.0% 19.2% 3.4% 20.4%
Christoval 0.8% 44.7% 14.6% 18.5%
Slidell 4.4% 26.2% 8.2% 17.2%
Brookeland 0.0% 27.1% 1.4% 16.7%
Meadow 11.1% 26.6% 6.6% 12.6%
Region 15 7.3% 22.8% 7.5% 14.0%
State 12.5% 18.6% 8.4% 12.1%
Source: TEA, AEIS 1999-2000.

CISD had the second highest percentage of teachers with a Masters degree compared to its peer districts and a higher percentage than either Region 15 or the state average. CISD, along with all of its peer districts, reported no beginning teachers (Exhibit 2-4).

Exhibit 2-4
Teacher Degrees
CISD and Peer Districts
1999-2000
  Leggett Christoval Apple Springs Brooke-land Slidell Meadow Region 15 State Avg.
No Degree 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1.2%
Bachelor 66.7% 72.2% 73.9% 80.6% 83.0% 92.4% 81.3% 74.1%
Master 33.3% 27.8% 26.1% 19.4% 17.0% 4.1% 17.0% 24.3%
Doctorate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 0.1% 0.5%
Source: TEA, AEIS 1999-2000.

District Teaching Permits are activated by the local school district and approved by the Commissioner of Education for a degreed person who is uniquely qualified to teach a particular assignment and does not hold any type of teaching credential. A district can activate a Temporary Exemption Permit for a certified, degreed teacher who is not certified for a particular classroom assignment. This exemption cannot be renewed. CISD and Brookeland ISD both reported only one teacher on a special permit, while three of its peer districts, Leggett, Slidell and Meadow, repored more extensive use of this option. The type of teacher permits in use by each district is detailed in Exhibit 2-5.

Exhibit 2-5
Number of Teacher Permits
CISD and Peer Districts
1999-2000
  Christoval Brooke-land Apple Springs Leggett Slidell Meadow
Emergency (certified) 1 1 1 3 4 4
Emergency (uncertified) 0 0 0 0 3 0
Nonrenewable 0 0 0 0 0 2
Temporary classroom Assignment 0 0 0 2 0 5
District Teaching 0 0 1 0 0 0
Temporary Exemption 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: TEA, AEIS 1999-2000.

Under the state's school accountability system, TEA assigns annual ratings to each district and school based upon (1) TAAS, (2) attendance, (3) dropout rates and (4) data quality. In 1999, TEA added two new rating categories. The first is Unacceptable: Data Quality, a district level rating, and the second is Acceptable: Data Issues, a school level rating.The accountability system now includes five ratings for districts: Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, Academically Unacceptable and Unacceptable: Data Quality.

To receive an Exemplary rating, at least 90 percent of all students, as well as 90 percent of African-American, Hispanic, Anglo and Economically Disadvantaged students must pass the TAAS reading, writing and mathematics tests. To achieve a Recognized rating, 80 percent of all students and each student group must pass those tests. To achieve an Academically Acceptable rating, 50 percent of each student group must pass the tests. Beginning in 2000, scores for students with disabilities and for students who took the Spanish version of the TAAS reading and mathematics tests in grades 3 through 6 were included in the accountability calculations. Although the state accountability system also considers attendance and dropout rates, TAAS is the primary determining factor in ratings. According to TEA, failure to meet TAAS standards is the primary reason that a school is rated Academically Unacceptable.

Exhibit 2-6 shows that only Apple Springs ISD was rated Recognized in 1996, while the other districts were rated as Academically Acceptable. Apple Springs ISD maintained this rating in each of the years from 1996 through 2000. CISD was rated as Recognized in 1997, 1998 and 2000. The other districts were rated as Academically Acceptable in each of the years from 1996 through 2000, except for Brookeland ISD, which was rated as Recognized in 1999.

Exhibit 2-6
Accountability Ratings
CISD and Peer Districts
1995-96 through 1999-2000
  1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000
Apple Springs Recognized Recognized Recognized Recognized Recognized
Christoval Acceptable Recognized Recognized Acceptable Recognized
Brookeland Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Recognized Acceptable
Leggett Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Meadow Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Slidell Acceptable Recognized Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Source: TEA Accountability Reports 1995-96 through 1999-2000.

CISD's high school was rated as Recognized, and the elementary as Exemplary, in 2000. Fairview Alternative, part of a cooperative alternative education program located in Wall ISD, was rated as Academically Acceptable under the alternative accountability rating system. The Texas School Directory also lists ten schools that serve students with special education needs. These schools are part of a cooperative of 18 school districts, the Small Schools Cooperative, that serve students with special needs in various locations in Tom Green County. These schools are not individually rated because student TAAS scores from students that attend these special campuses are sent back to each sending district and are included in the applicable district's overall TAAS rating.

CISD had the second highest annual dropout rate (1 percent), but this was lower than the state average of 1.6 percent (Exhibit 2-7). CISD was tied for the third-highest attendance rate (96.1 percent) with Slidell, but more than 1 percentage point lower than Meadow.

Exhibit 2-7
Annual Dropout and Attendance Rate
CISD and Peer Districts
1999-2000
  Apple Springs Meadow Slidell Leggett Christoval Brookeland Region 15 State Avg.
Dropout Rate 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 1.0% 0.6% 1.5% 1.6%
Attendance Rate 96.6% 97.3% 96.1% 94.6% 96.1% 95.7% 95.8% 95.4%
Source: TEA, AEIS 1999-2000.