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

This chapter reviews the educational service delivery of the Rosebud-Lott Independent School District (RLISD) in the following sections:

A. Instructional Program Delivery
B. Student Performance
C. Special Programs
D. Safety and Security
E. Co-curricular and Extracurricular Programs

B. STUDENT PERFORMANCE

A key function of a school district leadership team is to design and implement a successful instructional delivery system. Because of the statewide assessment, Texas students were already operating in an accountability system when the federal government enacted the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. This act requires every U.S. public school that receives federal funds to develop and implement an accountability system which measures and reports student achievement on tests.

Since 1993, Texas has rated and accredited districts and schools based upon specific performance measures. These performance measures include the reading, writing and math portions of the TAAS, dropout rates and attendance rates. TEA evaluates districts annually and reports the results of its evaluation to each district, school and to the general public. TEA also assigns an accreditation rating to each school and district that it bases on the performance of the school or district on the statewide assessment test.

TEA bases its school accountability ratings primarily on the percent of students in all grades passing the TAAS in reading, mathematics, writing and social studies. TEA also considers dropout rates in its accountability ratings. Districts and schools must meet specific TAAS performance standards and dropout rates to achieve different TEA ratings. TEA examines the TAAS performance standards and dropout rates in two ways before it awards a performance rating. First, the entire student body of the district or school must meet the TAAS performance standards and dropout rates. Then TEA examines the performance results and dropout rates of each demographic group-African American, Asian Pacific, Hispanic, Anglo and economically disadvantaged. Each demographic segment of the district or school must meet or exceed the TAAS performance standard and dropout rate to achieve a certain performance rating. If a single demographic group does not meet the performance expectations, TEA will award a lower accountability rating.

Students in grades 3-8 and 10 must take TAAS tests. The TAAS has tests in reading, mathematics, writing, science and social studies. Reading and mathematics are given in grades 3-8 and 10. Schools give the writing portion only in grades 4, 8 and 10. Students take the science and social studies portion in grade 8 only. TEA only considers the results of those students who enrolled in the district as of late October in the school year.

In 2002-03, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) replaced the TAAS as Texas' primary means of student evaluation. Districts administered the TAKS to students in grades 3-11. Students take the math portion of the test in grades 3-11. Districts administer the reading portion of the test to students in grades 3-9; they administer the English language arts test in grades 10 and 11. Students take TAKS writing tests in grades 4 and 7; social studies in grades 8, 10 and 11; and science in grades 5, 10 and 11. The exit-level examinations are administered in grade 11. The 2003 accountability system will provide a transition from the current accountability rating system that uses TAAS results and annual dropout rates to the new accountability rating system that will use TAKS results and longitudinal completion rates. TEA also assigns an accreditation rating to each school and district that it bases on the performance of the school or district on the statewide assessment test.

The Commissioner of Education will announce the final performance indicators and accountability standards that TEA will use to rate districts and schools in 2004. TEA cannot calculate TAKS improvement measures until it receives the results from the second year of statewide testing in the summer of 2004. TEA will base the 2004 ratings on performance results from the 2003-04 school year. When the Commissioner of Education announces the 2004 accountability decisions, TEA will apply those decisions to 2002-03 performance data to the extent possible. Accountability data that TEA provides to each district and campus with the December 2003 evaluations will identify any indicators and student groups for which 2002-03 performance falls below the 2004 accountability standard. Districts will receive the notification that 2003 student performance either meets or does not meet 2004 standards.

Exhibit 2-7 presents TEA's accountability ratings for districts and campuses.

Exhibit 2-7
TEA's Accountability Ratings
2001-02

Rating Applicability/Explanation
Exemplary
  • District and campus: At least 90 percent passing (reading, writing and mathematics all students and each student group* and social studies all students only) and a dropout rate of 1 percent or less for all students and each student group.
  • District: At least 90 percent of all students only passing (social studies).
Recognized
  • District and campus: At least 80 percent passing (reading, writing and mathematics all students and each student group and social studies all students only) and a dropout rate of 2.5 percent or less for all students and each student group.
  • District: At least 80 percent of all students only passing (social studies).
Academically Acceptable/Acceptable
  • District/Campus: At least 55 percent passing (reading, writing and mathematics all students and each student group and 50 percent passing social studies all students only) and a dropout rate of 5 percent or less for all students and each student group.
  • District: At least 50 percent of all students only passing (social studies).
Academically Unacceptable/
Low-performing
  • District/Campus: Below 55 percent passing (reading, writing and mathematics all students and each student group and below 50 percent passing social studies all students only) and a dropout rate above 5 percent or less for all students and each student group.
  • District: Below 50 percent all students only passing (social studies).
Alternative Education (AE): Commended, AE: Acceptable,
AE: Needs Peer Review, or
AE: Not Rated
  • Campuses that applied and were identified as eligible to be evaluated under alternative education procedures.
Charter schools
  • At the district level, open-enrollment charter schools receive the label Charter School. At the school level, they are given one of the four rating categories listed above, based on the regular accountability system.
Not rated
  • These campuses include those that do not serve students within the 1st- through 12th-grade span, such as pre-Kindergarten centers and early education through Kindergarten schools.
Unacceptable: Special Accreditation Investigation
  • Districts have undergone an investigation as mandated in Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code.
Suspended: Data Inquiry
  • District and campus: serious errors in data reporting that affected one or more of the base indicators used for determining accountability ratings. The errors were of such magnitude that the results were deemed unsuitable for ratings purposes.
Source: TEA, AEIS, 2001-02.
*Student groups are African American, Hispanic, Anglo and Economically Disadvantaged.

In 2002, TEA changed the ratings evaluation criteria. TEA increased the TAAS standards for reading, writing and mathematics at the Academically Acceptable/Acceptable level to 55 percent passing for all students; evaluated TAAS social studies results at the "all students" level for grade 8; implemented more rigorous dropout rate standards for Recognized (from 3 percent to 2.5 percent); and made similar changes to the dropout rate standards for Academically Acceptable/Acceptable (from 5.5 percent to 5 percent).

In 2001, the Legislature enacted the Gold Performance Acknowledgment (GPA) system to acknowledge districts and campuses for high performance on additional indicators that do not affect accountability ratings. The GPA system replaces the system of Additional Acknowledgments that were part of the accountability system since 1994. The GPA is similar to the former acknowledgment system in that any district or campus rated Academically Acceptable/Acceptable or higher may be considered for acknowledgment under the GPA system.

All of the previous Additional Acknowledgment indictors are part of the GPA, although the standards for acknowledgment may have changed. The GPA also includes indicators that the state did not previously use for acknowledgments. In 2002, TEA awarded GPA to districts and campuses that met the acknowledgment standard on one or more of nine measures. Exhibit 2-8 lists the nine measures that qualify schools and districts for GPA recognition.

Exhibit 2-8
TEA Gold Performance Acknowledgment System
2002-03

Measure Awarded to:
Attendance Rate for Grades 1 - 12 Districts and campuses
Campus Comparable Improvement: Mathematics Campuses only
Campus Comparable Improvement: Reading Campuses only
Algebra I End-of-Course Examination Results Districts and campuses with grades 7 and above
Advanced Academic Course Completion Districts and campuses with grades 9 and above
Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate
Examination Results
Districts and campuses with grades 11 and 12
College Admissions Test Results Districts and campuses with graduates
TAAS/TASP Equivalency Districts and campuses with graduates
Recommended High School Program Participation Districts and campuses with graduates
Source: TEA, Accountability Manual, Section IV 2002.

Exhibit 2-9 shows the current Accountability Rating System that TEA uses. This system will change because of the switch to the TAKS.

Exhibit 2-9
TEA Accountability Ratings 2001-02

Rating Applicability/Explanation
Exemplary District and school
Recognized District and school
Academically Acceptable District
Acceptable School
Academically Unacceptable District
Low Performing School
Alternative Education (AE): Acceptable, AE: Needs Peer Review, or AE: Not Rated Schools that applied and were identified as eligible to be evaluated under alternative education procedures.
Charter schools At the district level, open-enrollment charter schools receive the label Charter School. At the school level, they are given one of the four-school rating categories listed above, based on the regular accountability system.
Not rated These schools include those that do not serve students within the first through twelfth grade span, such as pre-Kindergarten centers and early education through Kindergarten schools.
Unacceptable: Special Accreditation Investigation Districts have undergone an investigation as mandated in Chapter 39 of the TEC.
Unacceptable: Data Quality District: serious errors in data reporting that affected one or more of the base indicators used for determining accountability ratings. The errors were of such magnitude that the results were deemed unsuitable for ratings purposes.
Unacceptable: Data Issues School: serious errors in data reporting that affected one or more of the base indicators used for determining accountability ratings. The errors were of such magnitude that the results were deemed unsuitable for ratings purposes.
Source: TEA, AEIS, 2001-02.

FINDING

RLISD prioritizes the educational growth of students at both the districtwide and campus levels as evidenced by an overall improvement in student performance on the statewide assessment. The 2001-02 and 2002-03 DIPs and the 2001-02 CIPs for all district schools state that the district's mission "is to create a supportive learning environment that nurtures positive self-esteem and physical well-being while enabling students to reach their fullest academic and social potential." Both the updated DIP and the 2001-02 CIPs also prioritize increases in student performance on various assessment instruments. As a result of focusing administrative and staff efforts on overall student performance gains, the district received a Recognized rating while two of its schools-Lott Elementary and Rosebud Intermediate School- received Exemplary ratings in 2001-02. Exhibit 2-10 presents the accountability rating that TEA gave each of the district's schools. RLISD raised TAAS percentage passing rates for all subtests and all tests taken for all students combined in grades 3, 4 and 6 from 2000-01 to 2001-02.

Exhibit 2-10
RLISD Schools and Accountability Ratings
2001-02

School Grades
Served
Percent African
American
Students
Percent Hispanic
Students
Percent Anglo
Students
2001-02
Rating
Rosebud-Lott High School 9-12 13.1% 14.6% 71.6% Recognized
Rosebud-Lott Junior High School 7-8 20.3% 15.2% 64.6% Recognized
Rosebud Intermediate School 4-6 17.1% 25.6% 56.4% Exemplary
Lott Elementary School Kindergarten-6 22.0% 16.8% 61.3% Exemplary
Rosebud Primary School Pre-Kindergarten-3 25.9% 29.2% 43.2% Recognized
Source: TEA, AEIS, 2001-02.

Exhibit 2-11 demonstrates that the district maintained the quality of its academic programs between 1997-98 and 2001-02. With the exception of an Acceptable rating for Rosebud Primary in 1996-97, TEA awarded RLISD schools either a Recognized rating or Exemplary rating from 1996-97 through 2001-02.

Exhibit 2-11
RLISD Schools and Accountability Ratings Report
1996-967 through 2001-02

School 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02
Rosebud-Lott High School Recognized Recognized Exemplary Exemplary Recognized
Rosebud-Lott Junior High School Recognized Recognized Recognized Recognized Recognized
Rosebud Intermediate School Recognized Recognized Exemplary Recognized Exemplary
Lott Elementary School Recognized Recognized Recognized Recognized Exemplary
Rosebud Primary School Recognized Recognized Exemplary Recognized Recognized
Source: TEA, AEIS, 1997-98 through 2001-02.

The district also met TEA's standards for the 2002 Gold Performance Acknowledgements for College Admissions and Recommended High School Program. To receive the College Admission Gold Performance Acknowledgement, at least 70 percent of non-special education graduates from the class of 2001 must have taken the SAT I or the ACT and 40 percent or more of all students and each demographic group must have scored 1,110 on the SAT I or 24 on the ACT. To receive the 2002 Gold Performance Acknowledgement for the Recommended High School Program, 40 percent or more of the district's total 2001 graduates met or exceeded requirements for the Recommended High School Program or the Distinguished Achievement Program

Exhibit 2-12 shows RLISD's overall TAAS passing rates from 1997-98 through 2001-02.

Exhibit 2-12
RLISD Student TAAS Passing Scores Tests
1997-98 through 2001-02

TAAS All Tests Taken 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 Percentage Point
Increase/(Decrease)
1997-98 through
2001-02
All Students 87.0% 85.7% 91.3% 88.9% 88.0% 1.0%
African American 66.2% 74.1% 84.1% 74.0% 71.1% 5.6%
Hispanic 94.5% 79.5% 85.3% 84.2% 91.1% (3.4%)
Anglo 91.1% 90.3% 94.8% 94.3% 91.3% 0.2%
Economically Disadvantaged 79.9% 76.8% 84.1% 82.5% 84.4% 4.5%
Source: TEA, AEIS, 2001-02.

Exhibits 2-13 compares TAAS scores at Rosebud Primary School to state averages for 2000-01 and 2001-02. The primary school scored below the state average for all tests for both years.

Exhibit 2-13
TAAS Reading, Writing, Math and All Tests Taken
All Students Percent Passing
Rosebud Primary School and State
2000-01 and 2001-02

Test Description Year State
Average
Rosebud
Primary School
Reading 2001-02 91.3% 93.1%
2000-01 88.9% 91.2%
Writing 2001-02 88.7% -
2000-01 87.9% -
Math 2001-02 92.7% 86.2%
2000-01 90.2% 84.6%
All Tests 2001-02 85.3% 80.0%
2000-01 82.1% 80.0%
Source: TEA, AEIS, 2000-01 and 2001-02.

Exhibits 2-14 compares TAAS scores at Lott Elementary School to state averages for 2000-01 and 2001-02. The elementary school scored above the state average for all tests for both years.

Exhibit 2-14
TAAS Reading, Writing, Math and All Tests Taken
All Students Percent Passing
Lott Elementary School and State
2000-01 and 2001-02

Test Description Year State
Average
Lott
Elementary School
Reading 2001-02 91.3% 95.2%
2000-01 88.9% 94.6%
Writing 2001-02 88.7% 95.0%
2000-01 87.9% 94.4%
Math 2001-02 92.7% 96.6%
2000-01 90.2% 93.5%
All Tests 2001-02 85.3% 91.0%
2000-01 82.1% 89.8%
Source: TEA, AEIS, 2000-01 and 2001-02.

Exhibits 2-15 compares TAAS scores at Rosebud Intermediate School to state averages for 2000-01 and 2001-02. The intermediate school scored above the state average for all tests for both years.

Exhibit 2-15
TAAS Reading, Writing, Math and All Tests Taken
All Students Percent Passing
Rosebud Intermediate School and State Average
2000-01 and 2001-02

Test Description Year State Average Rosebud
Intermediate School
Reading 2001-02 91.3% 96.6%
2000-01 88.9% 95.8%
Writing 2001-02 88.7% 97.1%
2000-01 87.9% 87.9%
Math 2001-02 92.7% 98.9%
2000-01 90.2% 94.6%
All Tests 2001-02 85.3% 94.6%
2000-01 82.1% 88.5%
Source: TEA, AEIS, 2000-01 and 2001-02.

Exhibits 2-16 compares TAAS scores at Rosebud-Lott Junior High School to state averages for 2000-01 and 2001-02.

Exhibit 2-16
TAAS Reading, Writing, Math and All Tests Taken
All Students Percent Passing
Rosebud-Lott Junior High School and State
2000-01 and 2001-02

Test Description Year State Average Rosebud-Lott
Junior High School
Reading 2001-02 91.3% 94.6%
2000-01 88.9% 94.1%
Writing 2001-02 88.7% 84.8%
2000-01 87.9% 92.9%
Math 2001-02 92.7% 95.4%
2000-01 90.2% 97.1%
All Tests 2001-02 85.3% 86.5%
2000-01 82.1% 89.4%
Source: TEA, AEIS, 2000-01 and 2001-02.

Exhibits 2-17 compares TAAS scores at Rosebud-Lott High School to state averages for 2000-01 and 2001-02. The high school scored above the state average in 2001, while dropping below in 2002.

Exhibit 2-17
TAAS Reading, Writing, Math and All Tests Taken
All Students Percent Passing
Rosebud-Lott High School and State
2000-01 and 2001-02

Test Description Year State
Average
Rosebud-Lott
High School
Reading 2001-02 91.3% 97.1%
2000-01 88.9% 97.3%
Writing 2001-02 88.7% 88.2%
2000-01 87.9% 98.6%
Math 2001-02 92.7% 94.3%
2000-01 90.2% 93.2%
All Tests 2001-02 85.3% 81.7%
2000-01 82.1% 92.0%
Source: TEA, AEIS, 2000-01 and 2001-02.

RLISD raised TAAS percentage passing rates and, in particular, has met the standards for the school accountability ratings as a Recognized district as well as for Gold Performance Acknowledgements for College Admissions and a Recommended High School Program. Two campuses, Lott Elementary and Rosebud Intermediate, have also achieved Exemplary school accountability ratings.

COMMENDATION

RLISD prioritizes student achievement and uses a variety of instructional methods to improve students' academic performance on the statewide assessment instrument.

FINDING

RLISD is taking a proactive role in preparing its students for a college education. The district is one of a select group of Texas districts that participates in the EXPLORE and PLAN programs. These programs are two curriculum-based assessments associated with the SAT or college readiness tests. The programs consist of four achievement tests (English, math, reading and science reasoning) along with a career-planning component. RLISD students take these achievement tests in grades 8 and 10. The EXPLORE and PLAN programs allow students to build an informed educational and career analysis plan, and in essence, allow them to gauge their strengths as they prepare for the college admission process.

COMMENDATION

RLISD prepares students for college by participating in college preparation and assessment programs.

FINDING

RLISD is not including sufficient detail in its annual CIPs, although the board adopted the district's 2002-03 CIPs in January 2003. RLISD did not include funding or budget information linked to strategies included in the district's CIPs for 2001-02 or 2002-03. State law requires schools to update CIPs each year with adequate financial detail for compensatory education expenditures and evaluation of the effectiveness of programs designed to improve the scores of underachieving demographic groups. TEA's Financial Accounting Resource System Guide (FASRG) has guidelines outlining how schools develop and approve an annual CIP.

Smithville ISD (SISD) ensures that funds are effectively documented in its DIP and CIPs and directed toward increasing student performance by using a sound planning process. The process ties budget allocation to its DIP and CIPs. The superintendent coordinates the district's improvement initiatives with the budget development process and requires principals to justify their budget requests in terms of campus improvement needs. SISD reports increased campus accountability and that budgeting falls in line with clearly developed school plans for increasing student performance.

Many districts also include sufficient financial detail in annual CIPs to adequately support updated districtwide student performance goals and individual school and program needs while complying with auditing requirements. By following FASRG annual update requirements, Texas districts are also able to adequately determine if programs addressed toward students who are at risk of dropping out of school were effective.

Recommendation 11:

Link the budgeting process to annual Campus Improvement Plans to include sufficient program and funding detail.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The superintendent, principals, the district improvement committee and campus site-based decision making committees (SBDM) develop annual goals. June 2003
2. The superintendent and principals tie budget allocations to the annual goals presented in CIPs. June 2003
3. The superintendent submits the district and campus annual goals and budget allocations to board. July 2003
4. The board approves the annual goals and budget allocations. July 2003
5. The superintendent, principals and SBDM committees develop district and campus improvement plans with detailed budget allocations and program information and submit them to the board for approval. July 2003
6. The superintendent, principals and SBDM committees implement plans, monitor results and report to the board. Quarterly

FISCAL IMPACT

This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.