EDUCATIONAL SERVICE DELIVERY
This chapter discusses DISD's educational service delivery function in nine sections.
- A. Student Performance and Instructional Program Delivery
- B. Special Education
- C. Gifted and Talented Education
- D. Career and Technology Education
- E. Bilingual Education/English as a Second Language
- F. Title I/State Compensatory Education
- G. Health Services
- H. Counseling
- I. Staff Development
If a school district is to meet the needs of the students it serves, it must have a well-designed and well-managed process for directing instructors, maintaining a curriculum, evaluating and monitoring the success of its educational programs and providing the resources needed to support its educational programs.
BACKGROUND
DISD encompasses 351 square miles in Dallas County in north-central Texas and serves the second-largest student enrollment in the state. According to an undated report entitled Dallas Public Schools PEIMS Fall 2000 Enrollment, the district currently serves 161,670 students at 221 locations. Exhibit 2-1 indicates the number of schools in DISD by level and grades served.
Exhibit 2-1 Source: Texas Education Agency (TEA), Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS), 2000-01.
DISD Schools by Level and Grades Served
2000-01
Level Grades Served Number of Schools Elementary Schools EC through Grade 3 6 EC through Grade 6 40 PK only 1 PK through Grade 3 11 PK through Grade 4 1 PK through Grade 5 4 PK through Grade 6 69 K through Grade 3 2 K through Grade 6 12 Grades 4-6 8 Middle Schools Grades 7-8 28 High Schools Grades 9-11 1 Grades 9-12 27 Multi-level EC through 12 1 K through 7 1 Grades 4-8 1 Grades 4-12 1 Grades 6-8 2 Grades 7-10 1 Grades 7-12 3 Grades 8-12 1 Total 221
Early Childhood (EC); Pre-Kindergarten (PK); Kindergarten (K)The Texas Education Agency (TEA) provides information on the results of the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) as well as other demographic, staffing, and financial data to school districts and the public annually through its Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) and its Public Education Information System (PEIMS). TSPR used AEIS and PEIMS reports to examine DISD data over time, and to compare the performance of DISD's students with those in its "peer" districts (a concept explained below), the state as a whole and in Region 10. The latest AEIS data available are for 1999-2000.
During the 2000-01 school year, DISD employed 19,193 total personnel. Professional staff (18,657 total) included 10,101 teachers, 63 central office administrators, 1,844 professional support employees, 1,654 educational aides, and 4,482 auxiliary personnel. DISD's percentage of total staff represented by teachers, professional support personnel and campus administration is slightly higher than in the state as a whole. The share of total staffing represented by central administrators, educational aides and auxiliary workers is lower than the state average. DISD's percentage of teachers with no degree is more than twice the state average, however, they also employ a higher percentage of teachers who hold a masters or doctoral degree than the state average. DISD's percentage of teaching staff with zero to five years of experience is higher than the state average. Their percentage of teaching staff with six to 20 years of experience is below the state average, but the percentage of teaching staff with more than 20 years of experience is slightly higher than the state average. Exhibit 2-2 provides data on staffing and the race/ethnicity, degree and experience of teachers in DISD and the state.
Exhibit 2-2 Source: TEA, Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), 1996-97, PEIMS, 2000-01. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Staff Information
DISD Versus State Average
1996-97-2000-01
Category DISD State 1996-97 2000-01 Percent Inc (Dec) 1996-97 2000-01 Percent Inc (Dec) Staff Teachers 53.1% 52.6% (0.9%) 51.9% 50.1% (3.5%) Professional Support 9.5% 9.6% 1.2% 6.7% 7.9% 17.9% Campus Administration 2.7% 2.7% 0.0% 2.5% 2.4% (4.0%) Central Administration 0.1% 0.3% 200.0% 0.9% 1.0% 11.1% Educational Aides 0.0% 8.6% 860.0% 9.0% 10.2% 13.3% Other Staff 34.7% 23.4% (32.7%) 29.1% 27.7% (4.8%) Race/Ethnicity (Teachers) African American 38.8% 41.5% (7.0%) 8.2% 8.5% 3.7% Hispanic 10.1% 12.0% 18.8% 15.5% 16.8% 8.4% Anglo 49.7% 44.7% (10.1%) 75.6% 73.8% (2.4%) Other 1.6% 1.8% 12.5% 0.8% 0.9% 12.5% Degree Status (Teachers) No Degree 2.5% 3.0% 2.0% 0.9% 1.3% 44.4% Bachelors Degree Only 60.8% 69.5% 14.3% 72.1% 74.8% 3.7% Masters Degree 35.1% 26.0% (25.9%) 26.6% 23.4% (12.0%) Doctorate Degree 1.5% 1.5% 0.0% 0.4% 0.5% 25.0% Experience (Teachers) 0 Years Experience 7.4% 14.1% 90.5% 6.6% 7.8% 18.2% 1-5 Years Experience 25.8% 28.9% 12.0% 26.8% 27.1% 1.1% 6-10 Years Experience 13.6% 13.8% 1.5% 17.4% 18.2% 4.6% 11-20 Years Experience 26.4% 20.9% (20.8%) 29.6% 25.4% (14.2%) 20+ Years Experience 26.7% 22.4% (16.1%) 19.5% 21.5% 10.3% As shown in Exhibit 2-3, average salaries are higher in DISD in all categories than the state average. The average salary for DISD teachers is $3,133 higher (8.2 percent) than the state average; $7,431 higher (16.3 percent) for professional support staff; $6,350 higher (10.9 percent) for campus administrators; and $49,025 higher (65.3 percent) for central administrators.
Exhibit 2-3 Source: TEA, PEIMS, 2000-01.
Staff Information
DISD Versus State Average
2000-01
Staff Category DISD State Average Percent Difference Average Salary (Excluding Supplements) Beginning Teachers $28,609 $27,007 5.9% 1-5 Years Experience $34,030 $28,758 18.3% 6-10 Years Experience $37,048 $33,499 10.6% 11-20 Years Experience $44,012 $39,426 11.6% 20+ Years Experience $56,159 $43,602 28.8% Average Salary (Excluding Supplements) All Teachers $41,492 $38,359 8.2% Professional Support $52,945 $45,514 16.3% Campus Administration $64,602 $58,252 10.9% Central Administration $124,050 $75,025 65.3% DISD selected five Texas school districts to serve as "peer districts" for comparative purposes:Austin, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. These districts share a number of similar characteristics with DISD. They are the largest districts in the state and all have ethnic minority student populations in excess of 65 percent; a majority of students in all of the districts except Austin are economically disadvantaged (Exhibit 2-4).
Exhibit 2-4 Source: TEA, PEIMS, 2000-01.
Demographic Characteristics of Students
DISD Versus Peer School Districts
2000-01
Racial/Ethnic Percentage District Student
EnrollmentPercent
African
AmericanPercent
HispanicPercent
AngloPercent
OtherPercent
Economically
DisadvantagedHouston 208,672 32.1% 54.9% 10.0% 3.0% 77.0% Dallas 161,670 35.9% 54.5% 7.9% 1.8% 74.3% Fort Worth 79,764 30.9% 45.4% 21.4% 2.3% 56.6% Austin 77,862 15.7% 47.8% 33.7% 2.8% 48.0% El Paso 62,412 4.8% 78.5% 15.2% 1.5% 66.8% San Antonio 57,339 10.0% 85.5% 4.2% 0.3% 93.3% State 4,071,433 14.0% 41.0% 42.0% 3.0% 49.2% Exhibit shows that Dallas ISD is the second-largest (after Houston) school district in the state. DISD's property value per pupil is second-highest among the peer districts and almost 50 percent higher than the statewide average. The percentage of DISD students passing the TAAS is lower than in any of the peer districts.
Exhibit 2-5 Source: TEA, AEIS, 1999-2000, PEIMS, 2000-01.
District Property Value per Pupil and Percent of Students Passing the TAAS
DISD Versus Peer Districts
1999-2000
District
Name2000-01
Enrollment2000-01
Property
Value per PupilRank
by
ValuePercent of Students
Passing TAAS
1999-2000Rank
by
PerformanceState 4,071,433 $215,121 N/A 79.9% N/A Austin 77,862 $437,245 1 71.2% 1 Dallas 161,670 $320,262 2 59.9% 6 Houston 208,672 $289,391 3 70.3% 4 Fort Worth 79,764 $176,988 4 70.4% 3 San Antonio 57,339 $136,396 5 65.6% 5 El Paso 62,412 $134,448 6 70.7% 2 According to the 2000-01 PEIMS report, DISD's budgeted instructional operating expenditures per student were third-highest among the peer districts and higher than the averages for Education Service Center Region 10 (Region 10) and the state. DISD's share of budgeted instructional expenditures on regular, career and technology and compensatory education were highest among the peer districts, Region 10 and, with the exception of career and technology, were higher than the state. Yet DISD's expenditures were lowest for special education and bilingual and English as a second language (ESL) education (Exhibit 2-6).
Exhibit 2-6 Source: TEA, PEIMS, 2000-01.
Budgeted Instructional Operating Expenditures
DISD Versus Peer Districts, Region 10 and the State
2000-01
District Total Instructional Operating Expenditures* per student Percent of Instructional Operating Expenditures** Regular
EducationGifted and
TalentedSpecial
EducationCareer &
Technology EducationBilingual &
ESL EducationCompensatory
EducationHouston $3,723 59.0% 1.0% 13.3% 3.1% 15.4% 8.2% San Antonio $3,722 67.0% 0.5% 15.6% 3.2% 9.7% 4.0% Dallas $3,648 72.9% 2.1% 8.7% 4.0% 3.0% 9.3% Austin $3,577 63.1% 0.9% 16.8% 2.8% 12.3% 4.1% Fort Worth $3,322 68.5% 3.8% 11.3% 3.4% 6.4% 6.6% El Paso $3,249 70.1% 0.5% 11.6% 2.9% 8.2% 6.7% Region 10 $3,454 71.3% 2.2% 11.6% 3.8% 4.3% 6.3% State $3,487 70.0% 1.8% 12.5% 4.1% 4.3% 6.6%
*Instruction (Functions 11, 95) and Instructional Leadership (Function 21); ** Functions 11 and 95 only.DISD's expenditures in the 2000-01 school year totaled more than $1 billion or $6,530 per student. Operating expenditures-all expenditures other than debt service and capital outlay-totaled $973.3 million or $6,020 per student. Instructional operating expenditures (spending for activities directly related to interactions between teachers and students, Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program, and the management of teachers) totaled $589.7 million or $3,648 per student. DISD ranks fourth among its peer districts in total expenditures per student, fourth in total operating expenditures per student and third in total instructional operating expenditures per student (Exhibits 2-7 and 2-8).
Exhibit 2-7 Source: TEA, PEIMS, 2000-01.
Total and Per Student Budgeted Expenditures,
Operating Expenditures and Instructional Operating Expenditures
DISD Versus Peer Districts
2000-01
District Total
ExpendituresTotal
Expenditures
Per StudentTotal
Operating
ExpendituresTotal
Operating Expenditures
Per StudentTotal
Instructional Operating
Expenditures*Total
Instructional Operating
Expenditures Per StudentSan Antonio $389,027,895 $6,785 $345,729,804 $6,030 $213,394,736 $3,722 Austin $588,223,609 $7,555 $495,944,900 $6,370 $278,519,445 $3,577 Dallas $1,055,771,633 $6,530 $973,285,604 $6,020 $589,729,907 $3,648 Houston $1,479,105,549 $7,088 $1,338,766,617 $6,416 $776,913,976 $3,723 Fort Worth $518,449,788 $6,500 $461,399,646 $5,785 $264,941,903 $3,322 El Paso $380,427,067 $6,095 $342,553,945 $5,489 $202,795,410 $3,249
*Instruction (Functions 11, 95) and Instructional Leadership (Function 21).Exhibit 2-8 Source: TEA, PEIMS, 2000-01.
Total Budgeted Expenditures Per Student,
Budgeted Operating Expenditures Per Student and
Total Budgeted Instructional Operating Expenditures Per Student
DISD Versus Peer Districts: Ranking
2000-01
District Rank Total Expenditures Per Student Total Operating Expenditures Per Student Total Instructional Operating Expenditures Per Student San Antonio 3 3 2 Austin 1 2 4 Dallas 4 4 3 Houston 2 1 1 Fort Worth 5 5 5 El Paso 6 6 6 As shown in Exhibit 2-9, DISD was highest or second-highest among the peer districts in the share of its resources devoted to instruction, instructional related services and plant maintenance/operation. The district was second-lowest for student transportation, and third lowest for school leadership, co/extracurricular, security and monitoring services and data processing services. DISD's share of expenditures devoted to instruction, instruction-related services, instructional leadership and school leadership are higher than the state average.
Exhibit 2-9 Source: TEA, PEIMS, 2000-01.
Percent of Total Budgeted Expenditures by Function
DISD Versus Peer Districts
2000-01
Expenditure Category Austin Dallas El Paso Fort Worth Houston San Antonio State Instruction 46.2% 54.5% 51.3% 49.2% 51.6% 53.7% 51.3% Instructional-Related 3.0% 3.3% 3.0% 3.3% 3.2% 2.3% 2.6% Instructional Leadership 1.2% 1.3% 2.0% 1.9% 1.0% 1.1% 1.2% School Leadership 5.0% 5.4% 5.7% 5.7% 6.1% 4.9% 5.2% Student Support Services 2.8% 4.3% 4.4% 5.0% 4.1% 5.3% 4.0% Student Transportation 2.7% 1.6% 2.2 2.5% 2.5% 1.4% 2.5% Food Service 4.5% 4.9% 5.8% 5.1% 4.8% 6.5% 4.9% Co/Extra Curricular 1.4% 0.9% 1.7% 1.5% 0.8% 1.2% 2.2% Central Administration 2.5% 2.7% 3.4% 2.1% 3.1% 2.4% 3.5% Plant Maint/Operations 9.7% 10.7% 9.1% 10.2% 10.6% 7.9% 9.6% Securing/Monitoring 0.8% 0.9% 0.6% 1.6% 0.9% 1.2% 0.6% Data Processing 4.4% 1.7% 0.8% 0.9% 2.1% 8.6% 1.1% Other* 15.7% 7.8% 10.0% 11.0% 9.5% 3.4% 11.3% Total 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.3% 99.9% 100.0%
*Includes any operating expenditures not listed above and all non-operational expenditures such as debt service, capital outlay, and community and parental involvement services.
** Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.