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

This chapter reviews the educational service delivery functions of Hays Consolidated Independent School District (HCISD) in the following sections:

A. Curriculum and Instruction
B. Student Performance
C. Gifted and Talented Education
D. Special Education
E. Bilingual/ESL Education
F. Career and Technology Education
G. Title I/State Compensatory Education
H. Guidance Counseling and Social Services
I. Alternative Education Program

G. TITLE I/STATE COMPENSATORY EDUCATION

In addition to regular classroom instruction, other instructional programs provide special support for students who are at risk of dropping out and students whose achievement is below grade level. The federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, originally enacted in 1965, and the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 provide funds for students who do not meet performance standards. TEA allocates Title I funds to districts, based on the number of economically disadvantaged students. Eligibility for free/reduced-price lunch or breakfast is typically used to determine eligibility for Title I programs. The students who actually receive services are selected on the basis of specific educational need, not economic status.

The U.S. Department of Education's recently reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Act of 2002, now called the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, challenges the nation's public schools "to ensure that all children have a fair, equal and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments." Both Title I funds and State Compensatory Education (SCE) funds fall under the NCLB. Districts must identify both the qualifying "at-risk" students and schools with large numbers of "at-risk" students and provide them with resources they need through these federal programs. Funds are intended to be supplemental, which means they should provide resources that would not be available through the regular program. Title I and SCE funds must enhance the regular program and not replace or supplant regular funds.

State-funded compensatory programs began in 1975 with the passage of HB 1126. In 1997, TEC Section 42.152 was amended to include reporting and auditing compensatory education funds. The TEC requires that SCE funds, like Title I funds, be supplemental in nature. SCE rules allow flexibility in student identification and program approaches. As with the federal program, the state funds flow, based on the number of economically disadvantaged students, but the students served need not be economically disadvantaged. These federal and state special programs provide funds to targeted special populations that often have eligibility crossovers.

In 1979, the Texas legislature redirected the focus of the state compensatory education program. One change was that the state began to base district funding allotments on the best six-months enrollment from the preceding school year (October-September) of students participating in the federal free and reduced-price lunch program.

Between 1979 and 1983, major changes occurred in the SCE program. The funding allotment was raised, but it continued to be based on the same enrollment formula. Also, the legislature required that student performance data be used to design and implement local compensatory education programs. SBOE rules on compensatory education were revised to eliminate ties to federal compensatory education funds. Allowable expenditures were redefined to include instructionally related activities. Non-instructional and administrative expenditures were prohibited.

HCISD provides a total of 15 diverse supplemental programs for at-risk students. Six programs target pre-kindergarten through grade 5 students and nine programs target secondary students. (Exhibit 2-50).

Exhibit 2-50
HCISD SCE and Title I Programs
2002-03
Compensatory Education
Strategies		 Campus and Grade
Level of Implementation
At-Risk Counselor Barton, Hay High School, 8, 9-12
XLR8 Credit Recovery Hay High School, 10-12
College Planning/DATA Files Barton, Hays High School, 8-12
Communities in Schools Hemphill Elementary, Green Elementary, Wallace Middle, Barton, Hays High, K-12
Content Mastery Center Hays High, Barton, Dahlstrom Middle, Wallace Middle, Buda Elementary, Elm Grove Elementary, Kyle Elementary, PK-12
Reading Intervention Hay High, Barton, Dahlstrom Middle, All 7 elementary campuses, 2-12
Math Intervention All 7 elementary campuses
In-School Tutoring Barton, Dahlstrom Middle, Wallace Middle
Parent Liaisons Hemphill Elementary, Kyle Elementary, Wallace Middle, PK-7
HOSTS Mentoring Program Fuentes Elementary, PK-5
Dyslexia Reading Support Elm Grove Elementary, Fuentes Elementary, 2-5
ESL Dahlstrom Middle, Wallace Middle, Barton, Hays High, 6-12
Bilingual PK-5
Character Education PK-12
Family field trips to area universities Hemphill Elementary, 3-5
Source: HCISD assistant superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction.

HCISD identifies students as "at-risk," using the 13 PEIMS data standards (Education Code 29.081 (d) (g)). Campus counselors conduct the identification process and send the data to the district PEIMS coordinator. Counselors also monitor the academic progress of at-risk students.

Compensatory education funds are meant to be supplemental funds, used to enhance or increase the level of funding that is normally available from state and local sources. They may not replace state and/or local funds. These funds are used to serve students with educational needs, based on socioeconomic status. Exhibit 2-51 shows 2001-02 HCISD compensatory education expenditures.

Exhibit 2-51
HCISD Campuses, At-Risk Students and Compensatory Funding
2001-02
Campus Number of
Eligible Free
and Reduced-Price
Lunch Students		 Compensatory
Funding		 Compensatory
Expenditures
per Eligible
Student		 Non-Compensatory
Instructional
Funding		 Total
Instructional
Funding		 Total
Enrollment		 Total
Instructional
Expenditures
per Student
High School
Hays High 540 $195,806 $363 $7,873,278 $8,069,084 2,078 $3,883
Junior High School
Barton 205 $61,955 $302 $2,152,133 $2,214,088 610 $3,630
Middle Schools
Dahlstrom 162 $57,246 $353 $2,024,143 $2,081,390 586 $3,552
Wallace 290 $80,907 $279 $2,349,687 $2,430,594 620 $3,920
Elementary Schools
Buda Primary 76 $59,481 $782 $1,172,107 $1,231,588 296 $4,161
Buda 43 $63,122 $1,467 $1,057,152 $1,120,274 255 $4,393
Elm Grove 24 $81,233 $3,384 $1,935,481 $2,016,714 561 $3,595
Fuentes 383 $239,365 $625 $2,460,317 $2,699,682 781 $3,457
Green 468 $337,775 $722 $2,087,182 $2,424,957 646 $3,754
Hemphill 537 $643,119 $1,198 $2,603,890 $3,247,009 723 $4,491
Kyle 305 $265,286 $870 $2,996,948 $3,262,234 727 $4,487
Totals 3,033 $2,085,295 $10,347 $28,712,318 $30,797,614 7,883 $43,323
Source: HCISD assistant superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction.

HCISD designates five campuses as Title I schools: Fuentes, Green, Hemphill and Kyle Elementary and Wallace Middle School. Under federal law, a school may be designated as a Title I schoolwide program if 50 percent or more of its students are low income.

HCISD receives federal funds in five Title I programs. Exhibit 2-52 lists funds and programs offered under each Title I program.

Exhibit 2-52
Federal Title I Program for HCISD
2001-02
Federal Title Program Amount Received Strategies Used
Title I, Part A $574,563 Social workers, intervention teachers in content areas, parent involvement activities
Title II, Part A $249,116 Induction and mentoring of new teachers, professional development for teachers, administrators and paraprofessionals
Title II, Part D $14,897 Professional development
Title IV, Part A $34,403 Drug and violence prevention, community awareness activities
Title V, Part A $53,192 Library and media services materials, professional development
Source: HCISD assistant superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction.

HCISD's 2001-02 SCE audit revealed that expenses charged to teacher salaries were not adequately supported by class schedules or CAPs. In addition, miscellaneous expenses have been charged to State Compensatory intent code 24 without sufficient documentation to support allocation to this program. Finally, testing revealed that students have been classified as at-risk who should have been released from at-risk status before 2001-02, or school personnel could not identify why there were classified as such. TEA's corrective action for HCISD included revising procedures for state compensatory funds and revising a procedures manual for identifying and tracking at-risk students.

The 2001-02 dropout audit showed that HCISD did not have a job description for its PEIMS coordinator. In addition, of the 162 student files tested from the leaver code population, two files were found not to support the leaver code in PEIMS. In both instances, file documentation supported a different PEIMS leaver code than the one used. HCISD's corrective action included modifying the current job description for the MIS coordinator to include the PEIMS coordinator title and reviewing procedures and documentation requirements with campus personnel to ensure that understand the appropriate codes and required documentation.

FINDING

HCISD has not developed, implemented or approved a policy or procedure to measure the individual effectiveness of supplemental programs for its at-risk students. In January 2002, HCISD implemented an administrative regulation to govern evaluation of all campus-based programs. While each campus conducts an annual evaluation of all programs as a component of the comprehensive needs assessment process associated with the development of CAPs, HCISD still lacks a comprehensive evaluation system to evaluate the effectiveness of programs offered through SCE, Title I or other federal programs. As a result, the district cannot ensure that it uses SCE funds to assist at-risk students in the most productive way.

In 2001, Senate Bill 702 amended the TEC sections that govern the SCE program. Senate Bill 702 changed the state criteria for identifying students at risk of dropping out and requires school districts to use student performance data resulting from the basic skills assessment instruments and achievement tests administered under Subchapter B, Chapter 39, to design and implement appropriate compensatory, intensive or accelerated instructional services for students at risk of dropping out, that will enable these students to perform at grade level at the conclusion of the next regular school term. Senate Bill 702 also requires each school district to evaluate and document the effectiveness of the SCE program in reducing any disparity in performance on assessment instruments administered under Subchapter B, Chapter 39, or any disparity in the rates of high school completion between students at risk of dropping out and all other district students.

TEA's Financial Accountability System Resource Guide Section 9.2.7, "Evaluation of State Compensatory Education Programs," reports that school districts must evaluate the effectiveness of their SCE programs and include the results in their DAPs. Districts are instructed to evaluate their compensatory programs by examining test performance and high school completion rates of at-risk versus other students. School districts, however, are not required to perform a program-by-program analysis to determine the effectiveness of each program or strategy.

Recommendation 9:

Develop a comprehensive evaluation system to determine the effectiveness of State Compensatory Education and Title I programs.

Comprehensive program evaluation of the SCE and Title I programs will provide the district with data for making program improvements. These evaluations will also allow HCISD to comply with state regulations.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The elementary and secondary directors of Curriculum evaluate all district federal programs that are not producing desired student results. October 2003
2. The elementary and secondary directors of Curriculum schedule programs not producing desired results for comprehensive evaluation. October - December 2003
3. The elementary and secondary directors of Curriculum coordinate a program evaluation process including surveys, interviews, additional data collection, cost analysis and quality evaluations. Ongoing
4. The assistant superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction recommends programs not producing desired district results for termination or modification. Ongoing
5. The assistant superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction places programs to be evaluated on a rotating schedule. Ongoing

FISCAL IMPACT

This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.