Skip to content
Quick Start for:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary Overview
Summary of Costs and Savings by Recommendation (Exhibit 5)

In March 2001, Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Rylander began a review of the Grape Creek Independent School District (GCISD) as part of a six-district project that also included reviews of the neighboring San Angelo, Veribest, Christoval, Water Valley and Wall school districts of Tom Green County. Based upon more than six months of work, this Texas School performance Review (TSPR) report identifies GCISD's exemplary programs and suggests concrete ways to improve district operations. If fully implemented, the Comptroller's 39 recommendations could result in net savings of nearly $197,000 over the next five years.

Improving the Texas School Performance Review

Soon after taking office in January 1999, Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Rylander consulted school district officials, parents and teachers from across Texas and carefully examined past reviews and progress reports to make the Texas School Performance Review (TSPR) more valuable to the state's school districts. With the perspective of a former teacher and school board president, the Comptroller has vowed to use TSPR to increase local school districts' accountability to the communities they serve.

Recognizing that only 51 cents of every education dollar is spent on instruction, Comptroller Rylander's goal is to drive more of every education dollar directly into the classroom. Comptroller Rylander also has ordered TSPR staff to share best practices and exemplary programs quickly and systematically with all the state's school districts and with anyone else who requests such information. Comptroller Rylander has directed TSPR to serve as a clearinghouse of the best ideas in Texas public education.

Under Comptroller Rylander's approach, consultants and the TSPR team will work with districts to:

  • Ensure students and teachers receive the support and resources necessary to succeed;
  • Identify innovative ways to address the district's core management challenges;
  • Ensure administrative duties are performed efficiently, without duplication, and in a way that fosters education;
  • Develop strategies to ensure the district's processes and programs are continuously assessed and improved;
  • Challenge any process, procedure, program or policy that impedes instruction and recommend ways to reduce or eliminate obstacles; and
  • Put goods and services to the "Yellow Pages Test": government should do no job if a business in the Yellow Pages can do that job better and at a lower cost.

Finally, Comptroller Rylander has opened her door to Texans who share her optimism about the potential for public education. Suggestions to improve Texas schools or the school reviews are welcome at any time. The Comptroller believes public schools deserve all the attention and assistance they can get.

For more information, contact TSPR by calling toll-free 1-800-531-5441, extension 5-3676, or see the Comptroller's Website at www.window.state.tx.us.

TSPR in Grape Creek ISD

GCISD is located in Tom Green County, about 12 miles northwest of the city of San Angelo. The district added its high school in 1996-97 and graduated its first senior class in May 2000. In addition to the new high school, GCISD added a pre-kindergarten program in 1998-99.

GCISD's 2000-01 enrollment totaled 1,151, a nearly 3-percent increase from 1,122 in the previous year. In 2000-01, the district split its elementary school into two schools, using one physical location. The primary elementary school includes pre-kindergarten through grade 3, while the intermediate elementary school includes grades 4 and 5. The middle school is located on the same campus as the elementary schools and includes grades 6 through 8. The high school, serving grades 9 through 12, is located on a separate campus. The district's administrative offices are located nearby. The district is served by the Texas Education Agency's (TEA's) Regional Education Service Center XV (Region 15) in San Angelo.

TSPR contracted with Gibson Consulting Group Inc., an Austin-based firm, to assist with the review. The review team interviewed district employees, school board members, parents, business leaders and community members and held a public forum on Thursday, March 29, at the Grape Creek High School cafetorium from 5 to 8 pm. To obtain additional comments, the review team conducted small focus-group sessions with teachers, principals and board members. The Comptroller's office also received letters and phone calls from a wide array of parents, teachers and community members.

A total of 278 respondents answered written surveys distributed by the review team, including 45 campus and central administrators and support staff, five principals and assistant principals, 53 teachers, 126 parents and 49 students. Details from the surveys and the public forum appear in Appendices A through F.

The review team also consulted two TEA databases of comparative educational information-the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) and the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS).

GCISD selected four "peer districts" for comparative purposes, based on similarities in student enrollment, student performance and community and student demographics. The districts chosen were Celina, Hutto, Shallowater and Troy ISDs.

During its six-month review, TSPR developed 39 recommendations to improve GCISD's operations and save its taxpayers nearly $239,000. Cumulative net savings from all recommendations (savings minus recommended investments or expenditures) would reach nearly $197,000 over a five-year period.

A detailed list of costs and savings by recommendation appears in Exhibit 5. Many TSPR recommendations would not have a direct financial impact but would improve the district's overall operations.

Acknowledgments

The Comptroller's office and Gibson Consulting Group Inc. wish to express their appreciation to the GCISD Board of Trustees, Superintendent Don Ickles, former director of Business and Finance Mae Lay and Teri Deweber, director of Public Information and Grants, as well as district employees, students, parents and community residents who helped during the review.

Grape Creek ISD

In 2000-01, GCISD served 1,151 students. Of these, 76.5 percent are Anglo, 21.1 percent Hispanic, 2.1 percent African-American, 0.2 percent Asian/Pacific Islander and 0.1 percent Native American. Economically disadvantaged students made up 46.7 percent of the total student population. Exhibit 1 compares GCISD's demographic characteristics with those of its peer districts, TEA's Region 15 and the state.

Exhibit 1
Demographics of GCISD, Peer Districts,
Region 15 and the State
2000-01
District Student Enrollment Anglo Hispanic African American Other Economically Disadvantaged
Troy 1,277 77.2% 20.4% 1.5% 0.9% 34.6%
Hutto 1,232 75.1% 18.9% 4.6% 1.4% 15.4%
Shallowater 1,205 70.0% 28.8% 1.1% 0.1% 35.5%
Grape Creek 1,151 76.5% 21.1% 2.1% 0.3% 46.7%
Celina 1,147 79.4% 14.1% 5.3% 1.2% 23.1%
Region 15 50,696 47.8% 47.9% 3.6% 0.7% 53.5%
State 4,071,433 42.1% 40.5% 14.4% 3.0% 49.2%
Source: TEA, PEIMS, 2000-01.

GCISD's enrollment has risen consistently since 1996-97, from 817 students to 1,151 students in 2000-01, a 40.9 percent increase (Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2
GCISD Actual Student Enrollment History
School
Year 		Actual Student
Enrollment 		Percent Change
From the
Prior Year
1996-97 817 N/A
1997-98 929 13.7%
1998-99 1,049 12.9%
1999-2000 1,122 7.0%
2000-01 1,151 2.6%
Source: TEA, AEIS, 1996-97 through 1999-2000 and PEIMS 2000-01.

GCISD's annual budget was nearly $6.4 million for 2000-01. GCISD had the second-lowest property tax rate of its peer districts in 1999-2000, but the highest tax rate for 2000-01 (Exhibit 3).

Exhibit 3
Adopted Tax Rate and Taxable Property Value per Pupil
GCISD Versus Peer Districts
1999-2000 Through 2000-01
District 1999-2000
Taxable Property
Value Per Pupil 		1999-2000
Adopted
Tax Rate 		2000-01
Adopted
Tax Rate
Grape Creek $73,660 $1.475 $1.74
Celina $175,031 $1.633 $1.59
Hutto $194,124 $1.559 $1.62
Shallowater $68,192 $1.384 $1.64
Troy $103,278 $1.560 $1.54
Source: TEA, AEIS, 1999-2000 and TSPR peer surveys, 2000-01.

TEA rated GCISD as "Academically Acceptable" in 1999-2000. The district's 1999-2000 Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) passing rate for all tests taken in grades 3 through 8 and grade 10 was 89.1 percent, above both the Region 15 average of 82.2 percent and the state average of 79.9 percent. The 1999-2000 passing rate was 3.7 percent higher than the district's 1998-99 rate of 85.4 percent.

On August 16, 2001, TEA released the TAAS results for the 2000-01 school year. GCISD received an overall rating of "Academically Acceptable." While the rating remains the same as in 1999-2000, the latest reports show that GCISD made some improvement at the high school level. Of the district's three schools, the high school was rated as Exemplary, up from its 1999-2000 Recognized rating, while the middle and elementary schools retained their status as Recognized schools. Because this information came late in the review process, and because information regarding the cumulative test results will not be available until November 2001, the data presented throughout the rest of this report reflects 1999-2000 information.

GCISD's History of Financial Challenges

GCISD has encountered a number of financial challenges during the last few years. A number of failed bond elections have been proposed to build a new high school, the first in 1992-93. Because the bond elections did not pass, GCISD was forced to send its high school students to Water Valley High School and San Angelo ISD Lakeview High School and to pay a continually increasing tuition rate to these districts. In 1995-96, the district paid $2,100 per student tuition for the nearly 300 GCISD students.

In 1994-95, the district's previous superintendent created a public facilities corporation with the GCISD Board of Trustees as the corporation's board members. The corporation sold $8.5 million in lease-purchase bonds to build a new high school and leased the facility back to GCISD. The new high school opened in 1996-97. The original estimation of costs, however, had excluded operating costs such as salaries and benefits, supplies and utilities. Even so, taxpayers were assured that the tax rate would not increase.

Superintendent Ickles was hired in May 1999, with GCISD more than $925,000 in debt with creditors, including more than $768,000 for the lease-purchase bond payment, $77,000 for a contractual obligation payment and $80,000 for a delinquent note payment. The superintendent soon discovered that Tier II funding-state funding provided to school districts with low property values-could not be used for bond payments on lease-purchase bonds. Since general operating funds could not cover the bond payment, the district was near bankruptcy. At that point, a Citizen's Committee was formed that began investigating the district's options. The committee recommended and the taxpayers supported a more than $9 million May 2000 bond election, which resulted in the tax rate rising 26.5 cents from $1.475 to $1.74.

In 2000-01, GCISD obtained two state Instructional Facilities Allotment grants totaling $397,441 to cover the high school's bond payments.

Of necessity, GCISD has maintained a very lean operation, as evidenced by the fact that TSPR found only limited opportunities for savings. The district is to be applauded for its efforts to become fiscally sound. Today, for the first time in many years, the district is in a position where it can plan effectively for the future.

As GCISD positions itself for the future, the board, Superintendent Ickles and the administrators have a number of challenges to address, including:

  • improving planning efforts.
  • enhancing educational opportunities for students.
  • strengthening internal controls.
  • increasing financial monitoring.
  • maximizing external support.

Key Findings and Recommendations

Improve Planning Efforts

  • Expand the annual strategic plan to a five-year plan linked to the budget and other district planning documents. GCISD's 2000-01 strategic plan provides a basic framework, but does not serve as a long-range plan that comprehensively reviews the district's needs and identifies the resources needed to meet them. The district and campus improvement plans, technology plan, facilities plan and annual budget are not linked to the strategic plan, which also does not address business and management functions such as payroll, personnel management, transportation and food service. By linking all of the district's plans with the resources needed to accomplish their goals, GCISD will be better able to focus on its future.
  • Conduct a facilities study and incorporate its results into a long-range facilities master plan. GCISD has no facilities planning committee other than for the high school, and lacks an up-to-date facilities master plan. In 1994, the Texas Association of School Administrators conducted a facilities evaluation before the district built the new high school, but greater-than-anticipated student growth is straining the elementary/intermediate school, which is overcrowded and poorly maintained. A thorough facilities study would give GCISD the roadmap it needs to properly plan for the expansion and/or replacement of its facilities.
  • Require the Technology Task Force to update GCISD's technology plan and tie it to the district strategic plan. GCISD's 1999-2002 required technology plan does not reflect the district's latest vision and is not up to date because it does not address the district's ongoing grant-funded initiatives, the loss of computer labs in the elementary/intermediate school or the loss of technological capabilities in some classrooms. Updating the district's technology plan and linking it to the overall strategic plan would provide a useful guide for the future.

Enhance Educational Opportunities for Students

  • Incorporate funding sources and performance measures for at-risk students into district and campus improvement plans. GCISD's district and campus improvement plans do not include sources of funds used for students at risk of dropping out, as required by law, nor has the district conducted a needs assessment to show how programs match students' needs. By identifying the resources and programs provided to the at-risk student population in its plans, GCISD can better determine if these programs are helping students succeed.
  • Share teachers that teach advanced courses with neighboring districts. The percentage of GCISD high school students completing advanced courses such as chemistry, physics, advanced foreign languages and computer science is only 10.6 percent, well below the state average of 17.5 percent. Teachers and administrators expressed concern that the needs of their college-bound students are not being met. By entering into a cooperative agreement, possibly through Region 15, and partnering with neighboring districts to obtain teachers for advanced courses either through direct instruction or distance learning, GCISD could ensure that its students become better prepared for college.

Strengthen Internal Controls

  • Store blank check stock in a locked cabinet or locked office at all times and limit access to individuals with check-writing authority.Weak controls over check stock provide opportunities for unsupervised and unauthorized access to blank checks. Blank checks are stored in a lockable safe inside a lockable office until the checks are needed for processing, and each is locked when employees leave the building. During office hours, however, the checks are not secured when Business Office staff are away from their offices or otherwise distracted. By securing blank check stock until needed, the district can eliminate an unnecessary risk of theft or abuse.
  • Develop and document records retention guidelines. GCISD has no records retention guidelines. Consequently, a number of critical documents are no longer available. For example, the district does not have copies of prior budgets or a copy of the depository agreement with its bank. In addition, the director of Technology and Operations does not maintain consistent support documentation for annual budget requests, making it impossible to compare allocated to requested funding. By adopting records retention guidelines, the district will comply with the Texas Education Code and ensure that historic records are available to support future decision-making.

Increase Financial Monitoring

  • Enhance the Public Education Information Management System data submission process. GCISD does not always report accurate information to TEA through PEIMS. For example, in 1999-00, GCISD's accountability rating was downgraded because it reported an inaccurate number of students leaving the district. District and campus-level PEIMS coordinators have other significant responsibilities that often make it difficult to monitor the PEIMS submission closely. By reviewing the entire PEIMS process and staff responsibilities and making changes as needed, the district can ensure that its PEIMS submissions reflect actual events.
  • Allocate utilities, maintenance and janitorial costs to applicable departments and campuses. Utilities and other overhead costs are centrally budgeted in the General Operating Fund and are not charged to campuses and cafeteria operations, making it difficult to match expenditures with cafeteria revenues generated. By using a cost allocation system, GCISD could apply overhead costs appropriately to departmental budgets.
  • Develop plan of action to replenish the general operating fund balance to the equivalent of three months' worth of operating costs. GCISD's 2000-01 beginning fund balance of more than $540,000, maintained to accommodate contingencies and unexpected variations in cash flow, will support only one month of district operations. TEA recommends an optimum fund balance of $1.4 million, according to the district's August 31, 2000 financial statements. By instituting a plan to replenish the fund balance to a reasonable level, the district's can ensure that its finances remain stable.
  • Establish performance measures and a monitoring plan for the custodial services contract. GCISD's custodial contract saves money, but the service delivered is inadequate. The district reduced payroll-related expenses alone by $114,000 with this contract, and also avoided costs for materials and supplies. About 50 percent of the teachers surveyed, however, are dissatisfied with school cleanliness. The district should include performance measures in this contract.
  • Monitor district support functions' employee productivity. The productivity of support functions such as transportation and food service are not being monitored adequately. The district does not track and use measures such as meals served per labor hour to ensure that staffing levels are appropriate. Similarly, bus routing and scheduling are not as efficient as they might be. Monitoring productivity and instituting performance standards could channel additional funds to instruction as opposed to support functions.

Maximize External Support

  • Pursue Qualified Zone Academy Bond (QZAB) funding for the renovation of the elementary/intermediate school. GCISD has not taken advantage of federal interest-free funding to make renovations to the elementary/intermediate school identified in a 1994 facilities study. These needs have only intensified since 1994. By pursuing funding through the federal QZAB program, which allows districts to incur interest-free debt for renovation and repairs, the district may be able to meet its facility needs in a cost-effective manner.
  • Develop strategies to increase the identification of students eligible for free and reduced-price meals.GCISD does not actively encourage parents to complete eligibility forms for free and reduced-price meals. Certain state and federal funds such as Compensatory Education and Title I funds are tied directly to the number of economically disadvantaged students, defined as the number of students identified as eligible for free and reduced-price meals. By intensifying efforts to identify every eligible student, whether they eat in the cafeterias or not, the district will receive about $604 per identified student in additional state and federal funds, or an estimated $14,000 annually if only 23 additional students could be qualified for the program.

Exemplary Programs and Practices

TSPR identified numerous "best practices" in GCISD. Through commendations in each chapter, this report highlights model programs, operations and services provided by GCISD administrators, teachers and staff. Other school districts throughout Texas are encouraged to examine these exemplary programs and services to see if they can be adapted to meet their local needs. TSPR's commendations include the following:

  • The superintendent communicates effectively with the board. The board credits the superintendent for its improved understanding of the financial status of the district as well as an overall improvement in the board's function. At least three days before board meetings, the superintendent provides information packets to board members containing pertinent information regarding the district's financial status, management issues and program information. The superintendent meets individually with board members as needed, and frequently calls and e-mails board members to solicit responses to any questions or concerns.
  • District leadership teams and site-based committees contribute to policy- and decision-making. GCISD's superintendent uses the district leadership team to assist in establishing administrative procedures at the district and campus levels. The district also uses its site-based decision-making (SBDM) committees to involve professional staff, parents and community members in the creation of educational plans, goals, performance objectives and classroom instructional initiatives. In addition to the four SBDM committees (district; elementary, which includes the primary and intermediate schools; middle school; and high school) four complementaryleadership teams provide input to the board and staff on initiatives that affect their respective schools.
  • GCISD has controlled its staffing level, focusing its primary efforts on classroom instruction. Understanding that the vast majority of all district expenditures are for staffing, the district has kept administrative staffing levels low, dedicating its very limited resources for teachers and other student-specific personnel. In 1998-99, the district initiated periodic reviews of all staffing and began assessing teaching and administrative requirements on each campus. As a result, the district eliminated several administrative positions, filled others at lower salaries and reduced the number of auxiliary staff by contracting for maintenance services.Furthermore, from 1997-98 through 2000-01, the district increased its teaching staff by 12 positions and its educational aides by 5.3 full-time equivalents.
  • The Grape Creek Education Foundation has secured thousands of dollars in donations. The mission of the Grape Creek Education Foundation, formed in August 1999, is to enhance the GCISD educational environment. A 12-member board seeks and secures grants, endowments and donations for the enhancement of educational opportunities for persons of all ages in GCISD. Funds can be disbursed to meet physical or professional development needs, extracurricular programs or special project sponsorships. This can include the purchase of equipment, technology, books, curriculum, furniture and facilities as well as support for programs by supplying stipends, money for instructional substitutes/aides, and expenses for field trips and training.
  • The Small Schools Cooperative provides special education services to GCISD students. The most valuable services mentioned by staff include the availability of expert diagnosticians, therapists and psychologists, training materials and literature related to various special education topics, and periodic updates to current state and federal regulations and laws. The Small Schools Cooperative also works closely with Region 15 to provide services to member districts. Community feedback indicated that the special education program in GCISD is respected.
  • GCISD provides outstanding health services to students and staff. GCISD has used innovative preventive practices to improve the quality of health services delivered to students and staff. The nurse maintains a medical card for every student and school staff member. The nurse notes the reason for a visit on each student's medical card, which allows the nurse to track medical issues for all students and detect patterns requiring additional parental or medical attention. In the event of a major medical emergency, or a school security lock-down, the nurse can quickly access important medical information including blood type, previous heart attack, known allergies to medications and other important information, and can quickly assist emergency medical personnel.

Savings and Investment Requirements

Many of TSPR's recommendations would result in savings and increased revenue that could be used to improve classroom instruction. The savings identified in this report are conservative and should be considered minimums. Proposed investments of additional funds usually are related to increased efficiencies or savings or improved productivity and effectiveness.

TSPR recommended 39 ways to save GCISD nearly $239,000 in gross savings over a five-year period. Reinvestment opportunities would cost the district nearly $42,000 during the same period. Full implementation of all recommendations in this report, then, could produce net savings of nearly $197,000 by 2005-06.

Exhibit 4
Summary of Net Savings
TSPR Review of Grape Creek Independent School District
Year Total
2001-02 Initial Annual Net Savings
2002-03 Additional Annual Net Savings
2003-04 Additional Annual Net Savings
2004-05 Additional Annual Net Savings
2005-06 Additional Annual Net Savings
One Time Net (Costs)/Savings 		$16,571
$47,947
$47,947
$47,947
$47,947
($11,500)
TOTAL SAVINGS PROJECTED FOR 2001-2006 $196,859

A detailed list of costs and savings by recommendation appears in Exhibit 5. The page number for each recommendation is listed in the summary chart for reference purposes. Detailed implementation strategies, timelines and the estimates of fiscal impact follow each recommendation in this report. The implementation section associated with each recommendation highlights the actions necessary to achieve the proposed results. Some items should be implemented immediately, some over the next year or two and some over several years.

TSPR recommends that the GCISD board ask district administrators to review these recommendations, develop an implementation plan and monitor its progress. As always, TSPR staff is available to help implement its proposals.