THE BEST SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN TEXAS
FOR LATINO STUDENTS 1998-2001
Kenneth J. Meier
Robert D. Wrinkle
and
Nick A. Theobald
A REPORT OF THE
TEXAS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE PROJECT
NUMBER 18 SEPTEMBER 15
For further information, contact:
http://teep.tamu.edu
Or, in South Texas
Robert D. Wrinkle, Department of Political Science, University of Texas Pan American,
956-381-3341; rdwe116@panam1.panam.edu
The Texas Educational Excellence Project (TEEP) is a joint program of the George Bush School
of Public Service and the Department of Political Science at Texas A&M University. The
project also has research associates at the University of Texas Pan American and Oakland
University. TEEP seeks to apply scholarly research to educational policy issues in order to make
recommendations for greater quality and equity in Texas school systems.
The Best School Districts in Texas for
Latino Students 1998-2001
The education of minority students is of primary concern for education leaders and
policy-makers in Texas. While Latino students have made impressive gains in the last decade,
they continue to lag behind Anglo students in the state’s fundamental measurement of basic
skills, the TAAS. In 1991 41.5 percent of Latino students passed the TAAS, compared with
68.9% for Anglo students, a gap of 27.4 percentage points. Ten years later, Latino students had
reduced to deficit to 14.8 percentage points, scoring an average pass rate of 75.6% in 2001
compared to the average Anglo pass rate that year of 90.4%. Obviously, Latino students are
narrowing the gap. However, these overall gains at the state level, while impressive, are not
equally distributed across all districts. Some Latino school districts have made even more
impressive gains while others have fallen behind. It is the aim of the Texas Educational
Excellence Project to identify school districts that do a better job of educating Latino students.
The programs and policies used by the exemplary districts then may be used as a standard by
which other districts can measure and improve their own performance.
Bangs ISD is an example of one such exemplary district. In 2001, 89.1% of Latino
students in Bangs passed the TAAS. This high pass rate for Latino students helps the district
achieve the highest score in our ranking system. Billy Rankin, Bang’s superintendent, credits
three factors that contribute to their success; “one is a strong ESL program at each campus,
second is a dedicated faculty at each campus that expects every student to be successful
regardless of ethnicity, third is a close-knit student body that values education and is proud to be
part of an exemplary campus.”
Los Fresnos Consolidated is another example of an exemplary district, ranking in the top
five for the past five years. Much of the success of the Los Fresnos school district may be
attributed to the development of a team approach to instruction in the district. Teachers, staff and
parents work together to implement early intervention programs. In recent years, a special focus
has been on the continual development of an aligned curricula for the entire district. This
approach has allowed students and teachers to continue to develop and focus on successful
programs and strategies. Obviously, the Los Fresnos approach works.
Bangs and Los Fresnos are relatively small school districts. As such, many of their
programs and approaches might not immediately transfer to other, larger districts. However,
Ysleta, a much larger district, also continues to have an impressive record of educating Latino
students. In 2001, for example, the Ysleta district has a Latino student pass rate of 83.9%. What
makes this more impressive is that more than half of Ysleta’s students live below the poverty
line. Ysleta’s Teacher Laptop Initiative helps to give teachers the necessary tools they need to
educate the district’s students. Ysleta also recently began a program to assure that all students
have access to computers, both in school and at home. This strong commitment towards their
teachers and students helps Yselta rank high academically among urban districts.
The analytical technique used by the Texas Educational Excellence Project to identify
exemplary performing districts is multiple regression analysis. Simply comparing pass rates
ignores other factors which influence performance, and many of these factors are variables in
which schools have little or no control over. Multiple regression analysis allows us to assess the
impact of certain policy and resource related variables while controlling for other variables. By
the use of this analytical technique, TEEP can develop ratings of overall performance in
educating Latino students by Texas school districts given certain levels of resources, which then
allows us to make more valid comparisons across individual school districts.
The model used in this analysis is based on what the literature identifies as an
“educational production function.” A large literature has been developed which designates
various education production functions to evaluate the outputs of schools to their inputs (Burtless
1996; Smith 1995; Hanushek, 1986; 1989; 1996). In this function, performance (here identified
as Latino pass rates on the TAAS) is a function of various inputs into the process of educating
students. These inputs include the district’s level of operating expenditures, percent of lowincome students, the poverty level of the district, level of education of Latinos in the district, and
various educational policies of the district. The prediction of how well the district should
perform in educating Latino students is a result of the estimation of the established production
function. Thus, with the results of the estimation, we can compare how well districts actually
perform to how well the model predicts they will perform given a certain level of resources.
This difference of actual to predicted is the measure of how well the districts are doing in
educating Latino students. In other words, those districts that actually perform better than
predicted, are those districts that are doing a superior job of educating Latino students.
The 1998-2001 Education Production Function
The dependent variable in our production function is the school district pass rate for
Latino students. Each year, all Texas school districts administer the TAAS exam to students in a
variety of grades. The district average for all grades is our dependent variable. Obviously, it
would be egregious to claim that this variable adequately captures the entire range of learning for
Latino students. However, it is a measure of how well students do in acquiring basic skills.
Thus, by rating school districts on this measure, we have a measure of how well the district does
in teaching basic skills to Latino students. We make no claims that this is an overall measure of
Latino student learning.
Our independent variables are of four distinct types: school district policies, measures of
teacher quality, financial resources available to the district, and environmental constraints. The
school district policies include class size, attendance rates, and percentage of students enrolled in
gifted classes. We expect performance to be negatively related to class size. Larger classes
should reduce student performance on the TAAS. The other two measures should be positively
related to student performance.
Measures of teacher quality include teacher certification (measured as the percent of
district teachers who only have a temporary certificate to teach in their area) and the average
years of teacher experience. We expect that more experienced teachers will have a positive
effect on student performance, while the percentage of noncertified teachers should be negatively
related to performance.
We consider financial resources to be among the most important ingredients that school
districts have to influence student performance. However, the relationship between financial
resources and student performance is a controversial one among educational researchers.
Hanushek, in a variety of works (1986; 1989; 1996) finds no consistent relationship between
money and student performance. For some time this finding has been the conventional wisdom
for educational policy researchers. Lately, however, a number of researchers have qualified
Hanushek’s position. For example, in recent longitudinal studies, Murray (1995), Evans, Murray
and Schwab (1997) and Murray, Evans and Schwab (1995) reported that districts that increased
expenditures had improved student performance. A 1999 study by Bohte found that
expenditures were correlated with higher test scores in Texas, even when controlling for the
previous year’s test scores.
We use three measures of financial resources: instructional funds per pupil; the average
teacher salary for the district and percent of school district funds received from the state. These
measures capture a variety of monetary influences, specific resources devoted to teaching, the
ability to compete for teachers in the market as well as state efforts to overcome local
inadequacies in financial resources. It is our expectation that all relationships will be positive.
Environmental constraints are factors in the district that impede student performance.
Even though schools cannot alter these factors, it is important to control for these factors when
assessing the performance of schools. Among constraints included in our model are the
percentage of Latino families living in poverty in the district, the percentage of poor students in
the district (measured by the percentage eligible for free school lunches) and the percentage of
Latinos age 25 and above in the district with at least a high school education. This education
variable should be positively related to performance and the other two should be negatively
related. Poverty is an especially constraining factor which schools have no control over. Yet,
certain districts are better at addressing the needs of students living in poverty and decreasing the
negative effects that it has on student performance.
The Data
Our analysis is limited to school districts above a certain size (1000 students) and Latino
student population (10%). We do this because Texas has a very large number of school districts
that are either very small or deal with a homogeneous population. The analysis is a pooled time
series of data from 1998-2001. Analytically, all time series need to control for serial correlation
that results from trends in the data. We introduce a series of dummy variable to control for serial
correlation.
The production function equation is shown in Table 1. As can be seen in the table, with
one exception, all of the independent variables are powerful predictors of Latino student
performance. Nine of the 11 variables are statistically significant. These include all three
environmental constraints, two of the school district policies, both teacher qualifications and two
of the financial resources. These coefficients indicate the amount of change in the dependent
variable, Latino pass rates, that is related to a one unit change in the independent variable.
Student attendance is strongly and positively related to student performance, as are the amount of
state aid, instructional funds per student, higher average years of teacher experience and
percentage of Latinos with at least a high school education. Percentage of poor students, higher
rates of non-certified teachers and the percentage of Latino poverty in the school district are
negatively related to performance.
It is important to note that since schools have little, or in the case of the environmental
constraints, no control over the levels of these variables, it would be difficult to greatly improve
scores by simply increasing or decreasing the levels of these variables. For example, districts
would need to increase instructional spending by $250 per student a year to increase pass rates
by one percent. Most districts could not afford such a large increase instructional expenditures,
especially large districts. Yet, certain districts seem better at utilizing the resources they have
available. By comparing the expected pass rate with the actual pass rate, we can identify those
schools that make the most of their resources. To illustrate this analysis, consider the case of Del
Valle ISD. For the period of 1998-2001, they were predicted to have a Latino pass rate of 63.14,
while their actual average pass rate was 77; meaning that 13.86% more Hispanic students passed
the TAAS than predicted. These results allow us to compare school districts as to how well they
perform relative to expectations. Based on this method, the top rated school district for Latino
students in Texas over the 1998-2001 period was the Bangs ISD with a score of 15.06, followed
by Los Fresnos with a 14.49 score.
The top 25 districts are shown in Table 2. The first column is the average pass rate for
Latino students for the 1998-2001 period. The second column is the numerical score (the percent
above or below the predicted pass rate) over the 1998-2001 period by which the districts are
ranked. The third column is the score for the 2001 period. The top-ranked districts represent a
wide spectrum of Texas school districts. Some are quite large, others very small. Some are from
border areas, while others are from large metropolitan areas. In short, these districts are widely
representative of all Texas school districts.
Since our ranking is based on the average scores for 1998 through 2001 there may be
districts that have improved greatly over the last year that are not ranked well. The twenty five
best districts for 2001 are listed in Table 3. There are a few districts that seem to have made
great strides in the last year, such as Hildago which ranks first for 2001, but only 18th. over the
four year period. The Orange Grove school district ranked twelfth in 2001compared to ranking
87th. for the four year period. This is a result of the district showing a 11.79% improvement
over the 2001 expected pass rate compared to performing just 4.32% above the expected pass
rate for the four year period. This one-year performance, if continued, will greatly improve these
districts overall rating in coming years.
Many relatively small school districts can more rapidly move up (or down) our rankings.
It is more difficult for larger school districts to make rapid relative changes, as the number of
students involved is so large. In order to more clearly identify well performing large districts, we
have displayed the larger school districts (those above 10,000 student population) in Table 4.
The format of Table 4 is the same as that of Table 2. The top-rated large school district is
Aldine, with a 1998-2001 score of 9.28, followed by Ysleta (9.20) and Galena Park (8.23).
These districts consistently rank among the higher-performing large districts in the state.
We provide an appendix in which all of the school districts covered in this study are
listed alphabetically, along with their scores. Any person interested in a specific school district’s
rating and ranking may find that information in the appendix.
Conclusion
This report is one of the continuing studies of Texas school districts by the Texas
Educational Excellence Project (TEEP). A major focus of the project is to identify those school
districts that have done an exemplary job of educating Latino students. The analysis of those
districts that have a better than expected level of performance on the TAAS, identifies a set of
role models for other districts. While these districts do not all share a common set of programs
and/or curricula, many of their programs and activities may be identified and transferred to other
districts. All persons interested in the education of minority students in the state should have an
interest in the identification and support of exemplary programs.
The identification of these high-performing districts should not be construed to indicate
that all is well in the education of Latino students in Texas. Latinos continue to lag behind
Anglos in terms of TAAS pass rates, and lead them in dropouts. While progress is being made,
much more needs to be done. Educators and policy-makers cannot afford to rest on their laurels.
The education of minority students is an evolving and necessary policy focus for the state.
References
Accountable Cost Advisory Committee. 1986. "Accountable Cost Study and Recommendations
of the Accountable Cost Advisory Committee to the State Board of Education." Austin,
TX: Texas Education Agency.
Chubb, John and Terry Moe. 1990. Politics, Markets and America's Schools. Washington:
Brookings.
DeHaan, Robert F. 1963. Accelerated Learning Programs. Washington: Center for Applied
Research in Education, Inc.
Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby. Texas SupCt, No. C-8353, (1989).
Evans, William N., Sheila E. Murray, and Robert M. Schwab. 1997. "Schoolhouses,
Courthouses, and Statehouses After Serrano." Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management 16 (Winter), 10-31.
Fuller, Bruce, Costanza Eggers-Pierola, Susan D. Holloway, Xiaoyam Liang and Marylee F.
Rambaud. 1996. "Rich Culture, Poor Markets: Why do Latino Parents Forego
Preschooling?" Teachers College Record 97 (Spring):400-418.
Hanushek, Eric A. and Richard R. Pace. 1995. "Who Chooses to Teach (and Why)?"
Economics of Education Review 14 (June):107-117.
Hanushek, Eric A. 1986. "The Economics of Schooling: Production and Efficiency in Public
Schools." Journal of Economic Literature 24 (September):1141-1177.
Hanushek, Eric A. 1996. "School Resources and Student Performance." In Does Money
Matter? The Effect of School Resources on Student Achievement and Adult Success, ed.
Gary Burtless. Washington: Brookings.
Hanushek, Eric A. 1989. "Expenditures, Efficiency, and Equity in Education: The Federal
Government's Role." American Economic Review 79 (May):46-51.
Hedges, Larry V. and Rob Greenwald. 1996. "Have Times Changed? The Relation between
School Resources and Student Performance." In Does Money Matter? The Effect of
School Resources on Student Achievement and Adult Success, ed. Gary Burtless.
Washington: Brookings.
Lasswell, Harold. 1936. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How? New York: McGraw Hill.
Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street Level Bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Long, Norton. 1952. "Bureaucracy and Constitutionalism." American Political Science Review
46 (September), 808-818.
Meier, Kenneth J. and Joseph Stewart, Jr. 1991. The Politics of Hispanic Education. Albany:
SUNY Press.
Murray, Sheila E. 1995. "Two Essays on the Distribution of Education Resources and
Outcomes." PhD. diss. Department of Economics, University of Maryland.
Murray, Sheila E., William N. Evans and Robert M. Schwab. 1995. "Money Matters After All:
Evidence From Panel Data on the Effects of School Resources." University of Kentucky
and University of Maryland working paper: The Martin School.
Necochea, Juan and Zullmara Cune. 1996. "A Case Study of Within District School Funding
Inequities." Equity & Excellence in Education 29 (September): 69-77.
Nye, Barbara A., Jayne Boyd-Zacharias, B. Dewayne Fulton, and Mark P. Wallenhorst. 1992.
"Smaller Classes Really are Better." American School Board Journal 179 (May): 31-33.
Oropesa, R. S. and Nancy S. Landale. 1997. “Immigrant Legacies.” Social Science Quarterly
78:399-416.
Pate-Bain, Helen, C.M. Achilles, Jayne Boyd-Zacharias, and Bernard McKenna. 1992. "Class
Size Does Make a Difference." Phi Delta Kappan 74 (November): 253-56.
Polinard, J. L., Robert D. Wrinkle and Kenneth J. Meier. 1995. “The Influence of Educational
and Political Resources on Minority Students’ Success,” Journal of Negro Education 64:
463-474.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez. 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
Smith, Kevin B. and Kenneth J. Meier. 1995. The Case Against School Choice. Armonk, NY:
M.E. Sharpe.
Texas Research League. 1986. "Bench Marks for 1986-87 School District Budgets in Texas."
Austin, TX: Texas Research League.
Weiher, Gregory R. 1988. "Why Redistribution Doesn't Work: State Educational Reform Policy
and Governmental Decentralization in Texas." American Politics Quarterly 16 (April):
193-210.
TABLE 1: LATINO EDUCATIONAL PRODUCTION FUNCTION
Variable
Low Income
Coefficient
Standard Error
-.0723
.0125
.0901
.0544
3.1345
.2666
Teacher Salary K
.0631
.1415
Class size
.5091
.2137
-.1812
.0573
Teacher
Experience
.6684
.1223
State Aid
.0532
.0106
High School
Education
.1238
.0171
%Poverty
Background
-.0629
.0149
Per Pupil
Instructional K
4.2960
.8575
Gifted
Attendance
Teacher
Non certification
R2
F=
= .32
64.82
Table 2. The Forty Best Districts for Latinos 1998-2001
Rank District
1 Bangs
2 Los Fresnos Consolid
3 Brazosport
4 Del Valle
5 Grand-Saline
6 Point Isabel
7 Valley-View
8 Angleton
9 Pittsburgh
10 Mount Vernon
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Burnet Consolidated
Monahans-Wickett-Pyo
San Benito Consolida
McGregor
Ferris
Coleman
Rosebud-Lott
Hidalgo
La Marque
South Texas
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Tuloso-Midway
Aldine
Ysleta
Columbia-Brazoria
La Feria
El Campo
Alvin
Barbers-Hill
Eagle Pass
Bishop Consolidated
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Alvarado
Galena Park
Frenship
Eastland
Dumas
Hillsboro
Sweeny
Galveston
Anahuac
40 Calhoun County
Score
15.06
14.49
14.10
13.86
13.36
13.21
12.96
12.92
12.19
11.79
TAAS
90.30
89.32
90.27
77.00
85.65
82.18
84.57
90.63
81.75
86.90
2001 Score
8.70
11.81
13.66
13.75
14.15
14.20
11.69
12.11
10.43
12.23
11.36
11.25
11.07
10.98
10.56
10.38
10.35
9.89
9.71
9.43
83.65
86.63
81.10
87.60
82.88
83.85
85.88
81.43
80.45
93.98
8.21
11.39
10.81
6.93
5.80
1.92
5.02
17.11
9.56
5.67
9.43
9.28
9.20
9.06
8.98
8.77
8.70
8.64
8.53
8.49
81.57
81.38
81.65
84.40
83.43
83.57
79.73
85.78
75.70
84.40
7.93
7.23
7.12
11.86
4.89
5.38
9.83
4.95
6.08
7.19
8.37
8.23
8.11
8.09
7.98
7.88
7.68
7.65
7.51
7.46
77.18
77.30
84.18
82.82
76.18
74.45
86.35
73.05
79.63
80.68
6.83
9.19
6.34
6.81
7.98
6.01
9.07
6.14
2.38
9.49
Table 3. The Best Districts in 2001
1
2
3
4
5
Hidalgo
Hereford
Point Isabel
Grand-Saline
Del Valle
17.11
14.83
14.20
14.15
13.75
6
7
8
9
10
Brazosport
Mount Vernon
Angleton
Columbia-Brazoria
Los Fresnos Consolid
13.66
12.23
12.11
11.86
11.81
11
12
13
14
15
Mexia
Orange Grove
Merkel
Valley-View
Monahans-Wickett-Pyo
11.80
11.79
11.74
11.69
11.39
16
17
18
19
20
Denver City
San Benito Consolida
Ballinger
Pittsburgh
Alvin
11.24
10.81
10.45
10.43
9.83
21
22
23
24
25
La Joya
Groesbeck
La Marque
Calhoun County
Galena Park
9.77
9.67
9.56
9.49
9.19
Table 4. The Best Large Districts for Latinos
Enrollment 15,000+
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Aldine
Ysleta
Galena Park
Goose Creek
McAllen
Harlingen
La Joya
Edinburg
Pharr-San Juan-Alamo
United
9.28
9.20
8.23
6.67
6.11
5.53
5.39
3.95
3.93
3.52
81.38
81.65
77.30
77.20
78.80
80.03
68.72
73.70
76.18
71.63
7.23
7.12
9.19
7.65
6.05
3.90
9.77
2.94
3.46
2.65
Appendix A. All Districts in the Stud
164
310
22
54
323
204
31
27
170
39
82
8
315
76
332
325
337
81
219
1
28
154
60
127
143
100
176
30
134
132
157
362
137
3
61
346
189
181
276
221
199
233
11
79
Abilene
Alamo Heights
Aldine
Alice
Alief
Alpine
Alvarado
Alvin
Amarillo
Anahuac
Andrews
Angleton
Aransas Pass
Aransas County
Arlington
Athens
Austin
Ballinger
Bandera
Bangs
Barbers-Hill
Bastrop
Bay City
Beeville
Bellville
Belton
Big Spring
Bishop Consolidated
Bloomington
Boerne
Borger
Boyd
Brady
Brazosport
Breckenridge
Brenham
Bridgeport
Brooks
Brownfield
Brownsville
Brownwood
Bryan
Burnet Consolidated
Calallen
0.75
-6.39
9.28
6.62
-7.60
-1.50
8.37
8.70
0.65
7.51
4.64
12.92
-6.56
5.12
-7.96
-7.69
-8.41
4.79
-1.85
15.06
8.64
1.03
6.17
2.12
1.59
3.49
0.36
8.49
1.92
1.98
0.98
-11.76
1.82
14.10
6.12
-9.33
-0.52
0.16
-4.40
-1.92
-1.07
-2.46
11.36
4.95
75.35
77.25
81.38
71.32
67.75
76.05
77.18
79.73
71.75
79.63
78.72
90.63
65.47
76.82
67.68
62.67
59.72
81.97
73.18
90.30
85.78
71.15
74.80
74.52
74.82
78.78
69.88
84.40
71.22
78.00
74.22
59.10
77.23
90.27
77.85
64.02
73.57
67.43
66.07
70.45
72.05
68.88
83.65
83.72
3.86
-4.53
7.23
8.18
-10.24
-0.41
6.83
9.83
0.63
2.38
3.88
12.11
-2.67
3.66
-7.86
-5.41
-5.34
10.45
-9.68
8.70
4.95
-1.06
7.01
1.30
3.23
3.58
-0.05
7.19
1.32
2.43
5.81
-2.46
0.20
13.66
2.35
-7.62
3.78
5.13
-7.96
-3.19
1.10
-0.40
8.21
2.94
109
40
125
288
78
300
224
347
326
355
358
237
364
162
178
309
370
229
149
16
172
211
24
304
163
107
155
297
188
291
111
182
239
264
365
75
320
202
51
307
250
201
120
357
198
257
194
Caldwell
Calhoun County
Cameron
Canutillo
Canyon
Carrizo Springs Cons
CarrolltonFarmers Br
Castleberry
Cedar Hill
Celina
Center
Channelview
Chapel Hill
Childress
Clear Creek
Cleburne
Cleveland
Clifton
Clint
Coleman
College Station
Colorado
Columbia-Brazoria
Columbus
Comal
Comanche
Comfort
Community
Connally
Conroe
Copperas Cove
Corpus Christi
Corrigan-Camden
Corsicana
Cotulla
Crane
Crockett
Crosby
Crowley
Crystal-City
Cureo
Cypress-Fairbanks
Dalhart
Dallas
Dayton
Decatur
Deer Park
3.00
7.46
2.38
-5.09
5.06
-5.57
-2.10
-9.34
-7.70
-10.33
-10.95
-2.51
-12.36
0.84
0.28
-6.26
-17.01
-2.35
1.28
10.38
0.44
-1.62
9.06
-5.81
0.77
3.26
1.02
-5.48
-0.44
-5.15
2.85
-0.01
-2.57
-3.84
-12.46
5.12
-7.14
-1.35
6.69
-6.21
-3.04
-1.34
2.51
-10.76
-1.06
-3.46
-0.80
77.65
80.68
75.22
65.85
83.13
65.88
73.95
62.85
73.43
67.03
61.17
71.07
57.22
75.93
80.50
66.65
51.15
.
71.48
83.85
81.65
74.20
84.40
71.50
75.60
78.75
73.88
63.40
75.82
69.77
81.68
73.72
69.78
66.97
57.35
82.68
61.83
75.05
87.90
59.20
72.95
77.60
76.28
59.58
69.15
71.38
77.30
1.76
9.49
-2.17
-0.79
7.31
-4.00
-1.66
-13.17
-7.05
-5.97
-18.21
-1.17
-11.67
8.99
-1.94
-6.40
-20.92
-0.91
0.86
1.92
-2.70
-3.74
11.86
-7.84
2.97
4.34
6.83
-0.36
-4.65
-1.94
2.06
-1.11
-0.55
-5.76
-7.96
2.35
-14.58
-0.50
4.75
-5.11
0.81
-2.95
-4.54
-10.78
0.58
-2.27
0.83
4
301
50
112
294
191
283
167
216
316
305
35
159
29
208
45
71
286
34
215
131
92
93
139
308
26
282
225
66
290
366
293
15
146
105
354
220
311
312
59
33
110
89
313
218
328
32
Del Valle
Denton
Denver City
DeSoto
Devine
Diboll
Dickinson
Dilley
Dimmitt
Donna
Dublin
Dumas
Duncanville
Eagle Pass
Eagle Mt-Saginaw
Early
East-Chambers
East Central
Eastland
Ector County
Edcouch-Elsa
Edgewood
Edinburg
Edna
El Paso
El Campo
Elgin
Ennis
Everman
Fabens
Fairfield
Farmersville
Ferris
Floresville
Flower Bluff
Floydada
Fort Worth
Fort Bend
Fredericksburg
Freer
Frenship
Friona
Frisco
Ft Sam Houston
Ft. Stockton
Gainesville
Galena Park
13.86
-5.61
6.86
2.79
-5.25
-0.62
-4.79
0.70
-1.77
-6.89
-5.96
7.98
0.88
8.53
-1.56
7.15
5.36
-4.87
8.09
-1.72
2.01
3.95
3.95
1.72
-6.26
8.77
-4.76
-2.13
5.87
-5.10
-12.59
-5.19
10.56
1.48
3.34
-10.12
-1.88
-6.45
-6.48
6.31
8.11
2.92
4.26
-6.53
-1.82
-7.78
8.23
77.00
65.88
83.22
79.82
70.13
69.63
62.55
70.80
69.03
59.67
64.60
76.18
75.63
75.70
73.28
92.32
79.07
72.20
82.82
66.38
75.88
70.60
73.70
76.45
66.75
83.57
67.30
72.93
81.38
64.35
61.20
74.50
82.88
72.53
80.40
61.35
64.63
72.43
68.22
80.13
84.18
77.70
77.63
85.25
69.88
65.25
77.30
13.75
-6.12
11.24
0.49
-5.96
0.90
-2.33
-1.13
5.54
-9.02
0.32
7.98
-2.33
6.08
-6.57
7.76
-16.01
-7.09
6.81
-2.63
2.01
3.63
2.94
-0.20
-6.64
5.38
-4.76
-1.25
5.26
-0.08
-13.35
0.09
5.80
0.78
3.26
-7.62
2.36
-7.25
-2.71
2.17
6.34
3.22
7.78
-4.93
-5.90
-9.30
9.19
38
203
91
193
361
179
268
363
85
360
53
113
77
5
247
284
73
295
251
116
101
168
69
273
343
352
353
46
18
36
359
222
217
147
287
246
245
230
214
331
169
41
368
43
260
275
136
Galveston
Garland
Gatesville
George West
Georgetown
Giddings
Glen Rose
Godley
Goliad
Gonzales
Goose Creek
Graham
Granbury
Grand-Saline
Grand Prairie
Grand-View
Grape-Creek
Greenville
Greenwood
Gregory-Portland
Groesbeck
Harlandale
Harlingen
Hayes Consolidated
Hearne
Hempstead
Henderson
Hereford
Hidalgo
Hillsboro
Hitchcock
Hondo
Houston
Hudson
Humble
Huntsville
Hurst-Euless-Bedford
Hutto
Ingleside
Ingram
Irving
Jacksboro
Jacksonville
Jim Hogg County
Jourdanton
Judson
Karnes-City
7.65
-1.46
3.99
-0.77
-11.38
0.18
-3.96
-12.19
4.54
-11.17
6.67
2.70
5.10
13.36
-2.92
-4.82
5.24
-5.31
-3.18
2.62
3.45
0.67
5.53
-4.22
-9.04
-10.07
-10.11
7.02
9.89
7.88
-11.04
-1.93
-1.79
1.45
-4.94
-2.91
-2.89
-2.35
-1.72
-7.91
0.66
7.46
-13.87
7.36
-3.65
-4.36
1.83
73.05
73.22
80.80
76.15
65.88
76.68
75.95
59.95
80.05
60.13
77.20
78.78
78.10
85.65
71.55
75.93
76.82
65.00
76.40
82.82
76.25
71.65
80.03
70.00
63.00
64.00
64.65
78.63
81.43
74.45
61.40
68.07
65.98
77.28
75.68
72.30
77.88
75.68
71.50
67.72
75.05
84.35
53.15
82.20
70.93
73.30
74.65
6.14
-2.37
7.04
2.78
-9.46
1.82
-0.55
-9.74
6.41
-10.13
7.65
3.78
5.61
14.15
-3.58
0.01
2.68
1.47
3.79
2.50
9.67
4.25
3.90
-2.00
-13.45
-8.27
-13.45
14.83
17.11
6.01
-8.53
-0.23
-0.70
-3.14
-6.04
-1.76
-5.57
1.92
3.15
-11.03
-1.46
8.30
-16.89
7.29
-0.24
-4.98
6.72
196
49
119
348
84
314
232
102
329
74
70
192
19
25
185
274
240
223
135
138
319
262
272
345
205
200
253
306
56
161
104
367
158
166
115
2
108
180
255
334
266
80
254
330
356
106
259
Katy
Kaufman
Kennedale
Kermit
Kerrville
Kilgore
Killeen
Kingsville
Klein
La Vega
La Joya
La Grange
La Marque
La Feria
La Porte
La Vernia
Lake Worth
Lake-Travis
Lake-Dallas
Lamar Consolidated
Lamesa
Lampasas
Lancaster
Laredo
Leander
Levelland
Lewisville
Liberty
Liberty-Hill
Little-Elm
Littlefield
Livingston
Llano
Lockhart
Longview
Los Fresnos Consolid
Lubbock-Cooper
Lubbock
Lufkin
Luling
Lyford
Lytle
Madisonville
Magnolia
Manor
Mansfield
Marble Falls
-0.94
6.92
2.52
-9.70
4.54
-6.56
-2.44
3.45
-7.79
5.17
5.39
-0.65
9.71
8.98
-0.09
-4.22
-2.57
-1.99
1.87
1.73
-7.11
-3.77
-4.18
-9.33
-1.51
-1.17
-3.23
-6.01
6.48
0.85
3.40
-13.77
0.91
0.71
2.65
14.49
3.23
0.17
-3.28
-7.97
-3.89
4.95
-3.26
-7.79
-10.44
3.29
-3.56
81.70
78.05
78.52
60.03
78.05
64.60
76.75
75.63
75.20
74.07
68.72
72.13
80.45
83.43
78.07
76.38
61.88
78.60
79.55
74.85
61.03
71.63
65.10
65.53
75.38
72.63
77.78
67.50
83.97
68.63
73.75
60.58
79.40
71.88
71.60
89.32
81.97
72.90
68.63
63.70
67.05
74.13
71.05
66.02
58.60
82.05
68.70
-2.03
5.66
2.83
-1.58
5.86
-11.45
-5.07
5.43
-7.65
4.69
9.77
-2.45
9.56
4.89
4.86
-3.84
-11.21
-4.52
-2.34
0.42
-6.02
-11.34
-0.47
-8.07
1.30
-0.10
-5.45
-11.50
3.29
-2.71
2.04
-8.12
2.97
1.90
-1.44
11.81
0.86
0.82
0.42
-4.35
-3.04
1.17
1.44
-11.02
-16.75
-1.94
7.48
96
339
171
271
62
14
270
322
261
65
174
68
296
318
129
126
64
12
10
341
121
338
122
213
256
244
226
148
263
195
236
184
87
173
298
117
142
52
133
141
210
94
333
187
9
44
340
Marion
Marlin
Marshall
Mathis
McAllen
McGregor
McKinney
Medina Valley
Mercedes
Merkel
Mesquite
Mexia
Midland
Midlothian
Mineola
Mineral Wells
Mission Consolidated
Monahans-Wickett-Pyo
Mount Vernon
Mount Pleasant
Muleshoe
Nacognoches
Natalia
Navasota
Needville
New Braunfels
New-Caney
Newton
North Forest
North East
Northside
Odem-Edroy
Orange Grove
Palacios
Palestine
Pampa
Pasadena
Pearland
Pecos-Barstow-Toyah
Perryton
Pflugerville
Pharr-San Juan-Alamo
Pilot-Point
Pine Tree
Pittsburgh
Plainview
Plano
3.78
-8.60
0.65
-4.15
6.11
10.98
-3.98
-7.53
-3.71
5.88
0.42
5.60
-5.47
-6.97
2.05
2.14
6.01
11.25
11.79
-8.84
2.44
-8.44
2.44
-1.64
-3.35
-2.89
-2.19
1.43
-3.78
-0.86
-2.51
-0.06
4.32
0.43
-5.48
2.58
1.60
6.69
1.97
1.70
-1.60
3.93
-7.96
-0.36
12.19
7.35
-8.79
82.63
61.38
72.57
61.70
78.80
87.60
66.70
65.63
70.90
82.65
76.03
79.52
65.30
72.60
76.28
72.47
80.95
86.63
86.90
59.83
75.75
63.60
74.68
67.05
77.00
72.32
70.65
73.50
64.47
77.82
74.60
76.38
79.10
79.10
66.15
75.80
75.63
87.07
71.02
75.60
79.80
76.18
66.98
71.73
81.75
77.43
74.10
5.16
-17.75
-2.91
-1.28
6.05
6.93
6.02
-12.29
-6.15
11.74
-2.59
11.80
-4.64
-1.57
1.56
5.71
2.54
11.39
12.23
-9.41
8.12
-6.34
-5.16
-1.08
-5.44
-1.99
2.07
1.94
-6.72
-0.06
-3.06
-5.51
11.79
4.59
-8.29
-0.59
1.47
5.60
0.04
2.06
-0.82
3.46
-6.28
3.13
10.43
6.29
-8.66
160
6
150
350
177
241
234
212
86
349
88
335
249
67
97
47
269
209
227
183
17
242
235
83
190
369
278
327
13
58
344
289
267
281
285
165
302
123
197
57
342
336
128
277
299
118
175
Pleasanton
Point Isabel
Port Arthur
Poteet
Presidio
Princeton
Progreso
Randolph Field
Raymondville
Red Oak
Rice Consolidated
Richardson
Rio-Grande-City
Rio Hondo
Robinson
Robstown
Rockdale
Rockwall
Roma
Roosevelt
Rosebud-Lott
Round Rock
Royal
Royse City
San Felipe-Del Rio C
San Elizario
San Angelo
San Diego
San Benito Consolida
San Marcos
San Antonio
Sanger
Santa Rosa
Santa-Fe
Schertz-Cibolo-U. Ci
Sealy
Seguin
Seminole
Shallowater
Sharyland
Sheldon
Sherman
Sinton
Slaton
Smithville
Snyder
Somerset
0.86
13.21
1.28
-9.96
0.33
-2.74
-2.46
-1.64
4.41
-9.93
4.26
-8.00
-3.01
5.73
3.70
6.92
-3.97
-1.58
-2.21
-0.05
10.35
-2.83
-2.49
4.56
-0.53
-14.59
-4.47
-7.76
11.07
6.40
-9.05
-5.09
-3.93
-4.74
-4.85
0.72
-5.72
2.43
-0.94
6.46
-8.86
-8.23
2.07
-4.44
-5.56
2.56
0.37
71.77
82.18
64.85
63.17
61.80
66.88
65.52
91.07
73.50
69.15
73.65
69.48
63.60
79.05
85.50
75.15
72.03
74.70
62.38
74.82
85.88
77.20
67.55
77.30
72.32
55.33
69.65
58.10
81.10
76.43
63.45
70.75
68.32
71.80
72.30
75.10
65.30
77.28
76.00
81.65
66.40
63.58
72.55
70.05
64.10
77.88
72.20
4.72
14.20
4.89
-11.35
5.17
2.42
2.62
-6.38
8.33
-9.08
-0.74
-7.57
-2.41
5.99
2.74
5.19
-2.63
-5.81
-5.88
3.61
5.02
-2.39
-1.39
4.76
-2.26
-6.01
-4.74
-15.55
10.81
7.42
-7.93
-10.05
1.62
-2.41
-2.47
-1.04
-3.30
5.49
2.96
7.86
-4.87
-1.10
2.76
-0.89
-3.70
1.93
1.23
20
231
303
144
258
243
292
156
95
37
153
228
206
324
321
42
55
140
238
151
21
317
99
248
7
265
145
130
114
351
207
279
48
90
98
124
72
103
63
252
152
280
23
186
South Texas
South San Antonio
Southside
Southwest
Spring Branch
Spring
Stafford MSD
Stephenville
Sulpher Springs
Sweeny
Taft
Tatum
Taylor
Teague
Temple
Terrell
Texas City
Tomball
Troy
Tulia
Tuloso-Midway
Tyler
United
Uvalde Consolidated
Valley-View
Venus
Vernon
Victoria
Waco
Waller
Waxahachie
Weatherford
Weslaco
West Oso
West-McLennan
White Settlement
Whorton
Wichita Falls
Willis
Wilmer-Hutchins
Wylie-Collin
Yoakum
Ysleta
Zapata
9.43
-2.40
-5.78
1.51
-3.51
-2.87
-5.19
1.01
3.82
7.68
1.16
-2.31
-1.53
-7.64
-7.33
7.46
6.54
1.71
-2.54
1.25
9.43
-6.94
3.52
-3.00
12.96
-3.86
1.49
2.02
2.69
-10.04
-1.55
-4.52
6.92
4.10
3.66
2.39
5.28
3.41
6.08
-3.21
1.22
-4.70
9.20
-0.24
93.98
73.40
59.80
70.57
67.70
76.57
71.80
79.65
78.32
86.35
71.63
71.55
72.63
70.45
67.45
78.43
79.63
76.35
75.60
75.20
81.57
65.45
71.63
66.13
84.57
66.43
75.35
74.55
71.07
59.47
75.80
70.60
81.40
72.80
77.98
76.80
75.30
77.72
75.45
57.63
77.68
75.80
81.65
65.57
5.67
-2.22
-0.19
3.36
-0.67
-5.43
-8.70
-3.08
2.37
9.07
2.49
-2.62
-5.86
6.82
-5.55
1.76
4.49
2.82
-1.04
0.63
7.93
-3.03
2.65
0.74
11.69
-6.09
2.30
2.01
5.08
-10.48
-3.51
2.55
5.71
2.26
8.30
-0.78
4.42
2.14
7.38
-3.36
1.80
-8.46
7.12
-6.94