TSPR Grape Creek Independent School District

Chapter 2
EDUCATIONAL SERVICE DELIVERY

This chapter discusses the Grape Creek Independent School District's (GCISD's) educational service delivery system in five sections:

A. Student Performance

B. Curriculum and Instructional Resources

C. Special Programs

D. Health Programs

E. Safety and Security

Effective educational service delivery requires appropriate instruction, highly qualified teachers, adequate resources and a thorough understanding of all students' instructional needs. GCISD students need well-designed and implemented instructional programs. Effective and caring leadership from GCISD's central office and individual schools' administration leads to successful instructional programs.
BACKGROUND
GCISD selected four Texas school districts to serve as peer districts for comparisons: Troy, Hutto, Shallowater and Celina. None of these districts is in the immediate geographic area of GCISD, with two located in central Texas (Hutto and Troy), one in the panhandle (Shallowater), and one in north-central Texas (Celina). 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.
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 Web site (www.tea.state.tx.us). The latest AEIS data, published by TEA in November 2000, are for 1999-2000. In a small district like GCISD, a small number of staff or students can have a large impact on percents. TSPR noted this effect when comparing GCISD to its peer districts.
Exhibit 2-1 presents demographic information for GCISD, the selected peer districts, Regional Education Service Center XV (Region 15) and the state.

Exhibit 2-1
Demographic Characteristics of GCISD
and Peer School Districts
2000-01

Student Enrollment Ethnic Groups Economically
Disadvantaged

District Number 5 Year
Percent Change* Percent
African
American Percent
Hispanic Percent
Anglo Percent
Other Percent Minority Percent 5 Year
Percent Change*

Troy 1,277 6.2% 1.5% 20.4% 77.2% 0.9% 22.8% 34.6% 16.9%

Hutto 1,232 47.9% 4.6% 18.9% 75.1% 1.4% 24.9% 15.4% (33.0%)

Shallowater 1,205 5.4% 1.1% 28.8% 70.0% 0.1% 30.0% 35.5% (9.2%)

Grape Creek 1,151 40.9% 2.1% 21.1% 76.5% 0.3% 23.5% 46.7% 0.9%

Celina 1,147 24.1% 5.3% 14.1% 79.4% 1.2% 20.6% 23.1% 579.0%

Region 15 50,696 (3.8%) 3.6% 47.9% 47.8% 0.7% 52.2% 53.5% 5.1%

State 4,071,433 6.3% 14.4% 40.5% 42.1% 3.0% 57.9% 49.2% 2.3%

Source: TEA, PEIMS, 2000-01. * Percent Change is defined as 2000-01 values minus 1996-97 values divided by 1996-97 values.
For 2000-01, GCISD's enrollment was 1,151, up slightly from 1,122 in 1999-2000. All of GCISD's peer districts are of approximately the same size (Exhibit 2-2). GCISD's enrollment increased faster than its peers, Region 15 or the state from 1996-97 to 2000-01. However, GCISD added a high school during this time, accounting for much of the increase. Hutto ISD did have a larger increase than the other peer districts, but it is in close proximity to a rapidly expanding urban area. A range from 20.6 percent in Celina ISD to 30 percent in Shallowater ISD exists for minority enrollment in the districts. GCISD is in the middle with a minority student population of approximately 24 percent.

Exhibit 2-2
Enrollment Trends for GCISD
and Peer Districts
1996-97 Through 2000-01

District 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Percent Change
1996-97 to
2000-01

Celina 924 970 992 1,024 1,147 24.1%

Grape Creek 817 929 1,049 1,122 1,151 40.9%

Hutto 833 888 977 1,062 1,232 47.9%

Shallowater 1,143 1,188 1,189 1,228 1,205 5.4%

Troy 1,203 1,218 1,231 1,242 1,277 6.2%

Source: TEA, AEIS, 1996-97 through 1999-2000 and PEIMS, 2000-01.
GCISD has the highest percent, 46.7 percent, of economically disadvantaged students among the four peer districts. Between 1996-97 and 2000-01, the percent of economically disadvantaged students in the state has increased by about 2 percent. In GCISD, the percent of economically disadvantaged students remained about the same.
As shown in Exhibit 2-3, GCISD ranks last in instructional expenditures per student, at $2,869 per student, compared to its peer districts. This amount is about $1,000 less than the state average. TEA does not report actual expenditures for Educational Service Centers (ESCs). Approximately 60 percent of the district's instructional expenditures are directed to instruction. GCISD does report a higher percent of expenditures for Special Education and Bilingual/English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction than its peer districts.

Exhibit 2-3
Actual Instructional Expenditures in GCISD and Peer Districts
1999-2000

District Total Expenditures Instructional Expenditures
Per Student* Percent
Regular Percent
Gifted & Talented Percent
Special Education Percent
Career & Technology Percent Bilingual/
English as a Second Language Percent
Compensatory

Celina $8,482,761 $3,798 67.4% 0.1% 13.4% 4.1% 1.0% 8.9%

Hutto $10,722,781 $3,580 68.9% 0.0% 11.0% 5.8% 0.1% 9.7%

Shallowater $9,621,224 $3,261 67.3% 0.4% 11.1% 7.6% 0.3% 9.2%

Troy $9,102,284 $3,168 59.3% 2.3% 15.8% 5.5% 0.3% 13.3%

Grape Creek $7,120,924 $2,869 60.3% 0.3% 21.6% 2.3% 3.2% 8.3%

State $31,639,852,010 $3,738 61.5% 1.7% 15.2% 4.0% 3.7% 11.7%

Source: TEA, PEIMS, 2000-01.
*Includes instruction and instructional leadership expenditures.
As seen in Exhibit 2-4, GCISD reported the highest percent of students identified as special education compared to its peer districts. There are relatively few students enrolled in bilingual or English as a Second Language (ESL) programs in any of these districts. The bilingual/ESL enrollment is significantly lower than the statewide average of 12.5 percent. GCISD ranks in the middle of percent of students enrolled in career and technology education programs.

Exhibit 2-4
Student Enrollment by Program
1999-2000

District Percent Bilingual/
ESL Percent
Career & Technology Percent
Gifted & Talented Percent
Special Education

Grape Creek 2.0% 19.8% 7.8% 17.4%

Troy 0.8% 21.3% 8.3% 16.1%

Celina 3.1% 17.2% 12.1% 13.9%

Hutto 3.4% 17.9% 5.6% 11.7%

Shallowater 2.0% 24.4% 3.9% 9.7%

Region 15 7.3% 22.8% 7.5% 14.0%

State 12.5% 18.6% 8.4% 12.1%

Source: TEA, AEIS, 1999-2000.
Exhibit 2-5 shows the percent of professional staff in various categories. GCISD has the lowest percent of teachers and the highest percent of staff listed as auxiliary workers. GCISD has the lowest percent of staff listed as central administration and the second-lowest percent of campus administration staff. While these data are from 1999-2000, according to the Fall 2000 PEIMS submission, the percent of teachers increased slightly to 54.2 percent from 52.2 percent in 1999-2000. The percent of educational aides increased from 8.9 percent in 1999-2000 to 12.4 percent in 2000-01.

Exhibit 2-5
Professional Staff
GCISD and Peer Districts
1999-2000

Professional Staff Grape Creek Celina Shallowater Troy Hutto Region 15 State Avg.

Teachers 52.2% 54.3% 55.9% 56.1% 57.7% 51.0% 51.3%

Professional Support 4.8% 5.4% 3.4% 6.1% 2.8% 5.9% 7.3%

Campus Administration 2.5% 2.8% 3.8% 3.1% 2.1% 2.6% 2.6%

Central Administration 0.6% 2.5% 2.0% 1.6% 2.1% 0.9% 0.9%

Educational Aides 8.9% 13.1% 13.0% 14.5% 7.7% 11.5% 10.3%

Auxiliary Staff 30.9% 22.0% 21.9% 18.6% 27.5% 28.1% 27.6%

Percent Minority Teachers 3.7% 5.0% 3.7% 1.1% 1.2% 16.3% 26.1%

Source: TEA, AEIS, 1999-2000.
GCISD has a larger percent of teachers with no listed degree than its peer districts (Exhibit 2-6), but equal to the state average. At 6 percent, GCISD has the lowest percent of teachers with a masters degree and is considerably below the state average of 24.3 percent.

Exhibit 2-6
Teacher Degrees
GCISD and Peer Districts
1999-2000

Grape Creek Troy Shallowater Hutto Celina Region 15 State Avg.

No Degree 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1.2%

Bachelors 92.6% 89.7% 81.7% 79.3% 71.3% 81.3% 74.1%

Masters 6.0% 10.3% 18.3% 19.5% 28.7% 17.0% 24.3%

Doctorate 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.5%

Source: TEA, AEIS, 1999-2000.
Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
As seen in Exhibit 2-7, GCISD and its peer districts report a lower annual dropout rate than either Region 15 or the state. GCISD also reports a lower rate than any of its peers. Because the district has only had a high school for four years, important measures applied to other districts such as the graduation rate, longitudinal dropout rate and continuing students are not yet available. GCISD reports a lower attendance rate than any of its peers, a rate equal to Region 15 and slightly above the state average. Attendance rates are a significant portion of the calculation for the amount of state aid a district receives.

Exhibit 2-7
Annual Dropout and Attendance Rate
GCISD and Peer Districts
1999-2000

Grape Creek Shallowater Troy Hutto Celina Region 15 State Avg.

Dropout Rate 0.6% 0.7% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.5% 1.6%

Attendance Rate 95.8% 96.1% 96.3% 96.5% 96.9% 95.8% 95.4%

Source: TEA, AEIS, 1999-2000.
Under the state's school accountability system, TEA assigns annual ratings to each district and school based upon TAAS results, attendance, dropout rates and data quality. In 1999, TEA added two new rating categories: Unacceptable: Data Quality (a district-level rating) and Acceptable: Data Issues (a school-level rating).The accountability system 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 reading, writing and mathematics portions of the TAAS. To achieve a Recognized rating, 80 percent of all students and each student group must pass the same reading, writing and mathematics sections of the TAAS. In 1999-2000, to be rated Academically Acceptable, 50 percent of each student group had to pass TAAS. Beginning in 1999-2000, scores from students with disabilities and from the TAAS Spanish version of reading and mathematics 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 low performing. However, other factors such as data quality can affect ratings.
Exhibit 2-8 shows that three of the five districts were rated Acceptable in 1995-96. While GCISD was rated as Acceptable in 1998-99, due to one student group rating below the 80 percent standard in writing, all student groups were at recognized levels in 1999-2000. Beginning in 1999-2000, a district could also have a restricted rating no higher than Acceptable if there were under-reported leaver code students. A leaver code must be assigned to every student no longer enrolled in the district. If an excessive number of students are reported as unknown, the district rating cannot exceed Acceptable. This rating is only applied at the district level.

Exhibit 2-8
Accountability Ratings
GCISD and Peer Districts
1995-96 Through 1999-2000

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000

Grape Creek Recognized Recognized Recognized Acceptable Acceptable

Hutto Recognized Recognized Acceptable Recognized Acceptable

Troy Acceptable Recognized Acceptable Acceptable Recognized

Celina Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Shallowater Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Source: TEA Accountability Reports, 1995-96 through 1999-2000.
Two additional campuses were listed in the TEA report, but one, Trinity Early Childhood, was not rated because only pre-kindergarten students attend the school. The other campus, Fairview Accelerated, was rated Acceptable under the alternative accountability system. Both of these campuses are part of a shared-service arrangement with other districts.

	Student Enrollment		Ethnic Groups					Economically Disadvantaged
District	Number	5 Year Percent Change*	Percent African American	Percent Hispanic	Percent Anglo	Percent Other	Percent Minority	Percent	5 Year Percent Change*
Troy	1,277	6.2%	1.5%	20.4%	77.2%	0.9%	22.8%	34.6%	16.9%
Hutto	1,232	47.9%	4.6%	18.9%	75.1%	1.4%	24.9%	15.4%	(33.0%)
Shallowater	1,205	5.4%	1.1%	28.8%	70.0%	0.1%	30.0%	35.5%	(9.2%)
Grape Creek	1,151	40.9%	2.1%	21.1%	76.5%	0.3%	23.5%	46.7%	0.9%
Celina	1,147	24.1%	5.3%	14.1%	79.4%	1.2%	20.6%	23.1%	579.0%
Region 15	50,696	(3.8%)	3.6%	47.9%	47.8%	0.7%	52.2%	53.5%	5.1%
State	4,071,433	6.3%	14.4%	40.5%	42.1%	3.0%	57.9%	49.2%	2.3%

District	1996-97	1997-98	1998-99	1999-2000	2000-01	Percent Change 1996-97 to 2000-01
Celina	924	970	992	1,024	1,147	24.1%
Grape Creek	817	929	1,049	1,122	1,151	40.9%
Hutto	833	888	977	1,062	1,232	47.9%
Shallowater	1,143	1,188	1,189	1,228	1,205	5.4%
Troy	1,203	1,218	1,231	1,242	1,277	6.2%

District	Total Expenditures	Instructional Expenditures Per Student*	Percent Regular	Percent Gifted & Talented	Percent Special Education	Percent Career & Technology	Percent Bilingual/ English as a Second Language	Percent Compensatory
Celina	$8,482,761	$3,798	67.4%	0.1%	13.4%	4.1%	1.0%	8.9%
Hutto	$10,722,781	$3,580	68.9%	0.0%	11.0%	5.8%	0.1%	9.7%
Shallowater	$9,621,224	$3,261	67.3%	0.4%	11.1%	7.6%	0.3%	9.2%
Troy	$9,102,284	$3,168	59.3%	2.3%	15.8%	5.5%	0.3%	13.3%
Grape Creek	$7,120,924	$2,869	60.3%	0.3%	21.6%	2.3%	3.2%	8.3%
State	$31,639,852,010	$3,738	61.5%	1.7%	15.2%	4.0%	3.7%	11.7%

District	Percent Bilingual/ ESL	Percent Career & Technology	Percent Gifted & Talented	Percent Special Education
Grape Creek	2.0%	19.8%	7.8%	17.4%
Troy	0.8%	21.3%	8.3%	16.1%
Celina	3.1%	17.2%	12.1%	13.9%
Hutto	3.4%	17.9%	5.6%	11.7%
Shallowater	2.0%	24.4%	3.9%	9.7%
Region 15	7.3%	22.8%	7.5%	14.0%
State	12.5%	18.6%	8.4%	12.1%

Professional Staff	Grape Creek	Celina	Shallowater	Troy	Hutto	Region 15	State Avg.
Teachers	52.2%	54.3%	55.9%	56.1%	57.7%	51.0%	51.3%
Professional Support	4.8%	5.4%	3.4%	6.1%	2.8%	5.9%	7.3%
Campus Administration	2.5%	2.8%	3.8%	3.1%	2.1%	2.6%	2.6%
Central Administration	0.6%	2.5%	2.0%	1.6%	2.1%	0.9%	0.9%
Educational Aides	8.9%	13.1%	13.0%	14.5%	7.7%	11.5%	10.3%
Auxiliary Staff	30.9%	22.0%	21.9%	18.6%	27.5%	28.1%	27.6%
Percent Minority Teachers	3.7%	5.0%	3.7%	1.1%	1.2%	16.3%	26.1%

	Grape Creek	Troy	Shallowater	Hutto	Celina	Region 15	State Avg.
No Degree	1.2%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	1.6%	1.2%
Bachelors	92.6%	89.7%	81.7%	79.3%	71.3%	81.3%	74.1%
Masters	6.0%	10.3%	18.3%	19.5%	28.7%	17.0%	24.3%
Doctorate	0.1%	0.0%	0.0%	1.2%	0.0%	0.1%	0.5%

	Grape Creek	Shallowater	Troy	Hutto	Celina	Region 15	State Avg.
Dropout Rate	0.6%	0.7%	1.0%	1.0%	1.0%	1.5%	1.6%
Attendance Rate	95.8%	96.1%	96.3%	96.5%	96.9%	95.8%	95.4%

	1995-96	1996-97	1997-98	1998-99	1999-2000
Grape Creek	Recognized	Recognized	Recognized	Acceptable	Acceptable
Hutto	Recognized	Recognized	Acceptable	Recognized	Acceptable
Troy	Acceptable	Recognized	Acceptable	Acceptable	Recognized
Celina	Acceptable	Acceptable	Acceptable	Acceptable	Acceptable
Shallowater	Acceptable	Acceptable	Acceptable	Acceptable	Acceptable