A Curriculum Management Audit of the CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY SCHOOLS Charlottesville, Virginia Small Group Instruction at Johnson School International Curriculum Management Audit Center Phi Delta Kappa International Eighth and Union Bloomington, Indiana 47404 November, 2004 i ii A Curriculum Management Audit of the CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY SCHOOLS Charlottesville, Virginia Conducted Under the Auspices of International Curriculum Management Audit Center Phi Delta Kappa International P. O. Box 789 Bloomington, IN 47404-0789 (Copyright use authorization obtained from Curriculum Management Systems, Inc. P. O. Box 857, Johnston, IA 50131) Date Audit Presented: November, 2004 Members of the Charlottesville City Schools Audit Team: Fenwick English Senior Lead Auditor University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Kelly Cross Auditor Boise, Idaho Curtis Cain Auditor Kansas City, Missouri Michael Gibson Auditor Jerome, Idaho Betty Steffy Auditor Chapel Hill, North Carolina iii Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1 Background ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Background Purpose and Scope of the Work .................................................................................... 6 Approach of the Audit ................................................................................................................... 8 II. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 9 The Model for the Curriculum Management Audit ........................................................................... 9 A Schematic View of Curricular Quality Control.............................................................................. 9 Standards for the Auditors ............................................................................................................... 10 Technical Expertise ..................................................................................................................... 10 The Principle of Independence .................................................................................................... 10 The Principle of Objectivity ........................................................................................................ 10 The Principle of Consistency....................................................................................................... 11 The Principle of Materiality......................................................................................................... 11 The Principle of Full Disclosure.................................................................................................. 11 Data Sources of the Curriculum Management Audit ....................................................................... 12 Standards for the Curriculum Audit................................................................................................. 13 III. FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 15 STANDARD 1: A School System Is Able to Demonstrate Its Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel. ............................................................................................................................................. 15 What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Charlottesville City Schools........................................ 15 Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Charlottesville City Schools.................................... 15 Finding 1.1: The School Division’s Table of Organization Does Not Meet Audit Criteria for an Effective Divisional Infrastructure. ..................................................................................... 16 Finding 1.2: The Role of Coordinator in the Division Varies in Effectiveness as Perceived by System Personnel and Parents. Some Coordinators Lack Expertise in Areas for Which They Are Responsible........................................................................................................................ 19 Finding 1.3. School Site Staffing Ratios Are Very Low, Eliminating the Lack of Human Resources as a Cause of the Chronic Achievement Gap. ......................................................... 22 Finding 1.4: A Review of Job Descriptions Shows Few Instructional Personnel Have Formal Linkages to the Effective Design or Delivery of the Curriculum............................................. 23 Finding 1.5: The Teacher and Administrator Appraisal Program Does Not Meet Board Policy Requirements and Does Not Provide Teachers or Administrators with Constructive Feedback to Improve Classroom Performance. ........................................................................................ 28 Finding 1.6: Division Planning Efforts Are Not Integrated and the Scope of the Plans Are Insufficient to Provide Focus and Cohesion for the System .................................................... 32 iv Finding 1.7: Board Policies Are Not Adequate to Provide Direction for Sound Local Curriculum Management Practices. ......................................................................................... 40 STANDARD 2: A School System Has Established Clear and Valid Objectives for Students. ........... 49 What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Charlottesville City Schools........................................ 49 Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Charlottesville City Schools.................................... 49 Finding 2.1: The Division Lacks a Comprehensive Management Plan to Provide for Design, Delivery, Evaluation, and Revision of the Curriculum. ........................................................... 50 Finding 2.2: The Scope of the K-12 Written Curriculum is Adequate to Provide Effective Guidance for Classroom Content Inclusion.............................................................................. 53 Finding 2.3: The Quality of the Written Curriculum is Inadequate to Guide Teaching in order to Promote Deep Alignment and Erase the Achievement Gap................................................. 63 Finding 2.4: The Delivery of the Curriculum is Limited in Differentiation and Does Not Include Much Integration of Technology................................................................................. 68 STANDARD 3: A School System Demonstrates Internal Connectivity and Rational Equity in Its Program Development and Implementation......................................................................................... 73 What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Charlottesville City Schools........................................ 73 Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Charlottesville City Schools.................................... 73 Finding 3.1: Inequities Exist Based on Ethnicity and Gender and Inequalities Exist in Educational Opportunities and Access to the Curriculum and Student Services in the Charlottesville City Schools. .................................................................................................... 74 STANDARD 4: A School System Uses the Results from System-Designed and/or -Adopted Assessments to Adjust, Improve, or Terminate Ineffective Practices or Programs.............................. 85 What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Charlottesville City Schools........................................ 85 Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Charlottesville City Schools.................................... 86 Finding 4.1: The Scope of Student Assessment is Adequate in Language Arts and Mathematics; However it is Inadequate for Program Decision-Making in All Other Content Areas......................................................................................................................................... 86 Finding 4.2: Inconsistencies and Inequities in Educational Practices Stand as Barriers to the Erasure of the Achievement Gap. Years to Parity Analysis Indicates that if Nothing is Changed the Achievement Gap Will Continue to Widen......................................................... 89 Finding 4.3: Despite Board Requests, No Formalized Program Evaluation Approach Exists in the School Division. ............................................................................................................... 104 STANDARD 5: A School System Has Improved Productivity. ........................................................ 109 What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Charlottesville City Schools...................................... 109 Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Charlottesville City Schools.................................. 109 Finding 5.1: Financial Practices for the Division are Reported to be in Compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures by the Independent Auditor. Financial Operations Generally Meet Board Goals and Requests............................................................................ 110 Finding 5.2: The Division Budgeting Process Does Not Connect Resource Allocation to Curricular Priorities, Nor Does It Allow Cost-Benefit Analyses. .......................................... 113 v Finding 5.3: School Facilities are Clean and Well Maintained. Division Planning Efforts Are Adequate But Have Not Included A Centralized Pre-School Program Nor The Need For an Expanded Central Division Office. ........................................................................................ 116 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PDK-CMSi CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT AUDIT TEAM FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY SCHOOLS .............. 123 Recommendation 1: Revise the Division’s Administrative/Organizational Infrastructure; Revise and Realign Central Instructional Coordinators Roles and Responsibilities; Review, Revise and Adopt New Job Descriptions for all Personnel; Revise and Adopt New Evaluative Procedures for Administrators and Teachers to Connect Role Performance to Division-wide Instructional Priorities ............................................................................................................ 123 Recommendation 2: Design and Implement a Program-Driven Budgeting Process that Supports Curriculum Priorities and Leads to the Erasure of the Achievement Gap, while Providing Critical Cost-Benefit Analyses for Board Policy Development and Monitoring of Operations .............................................................................................................................. 127 Recommendation 3: Develop a Multi-Year Divisional Educational Plan Which Connects Division-wide Priorities to School Site Plans. Such a Multi-Year Divisional Plan Should Provide the Focus and Synergy Now Absent within the School Division and Establish Equitable Access to the Curriculum for All Students. Staff Development Should Be Anchored to this Multi-Year Plan and Be Supportive of the Changes In It............................................ 129 Recommendation 4: Design and Implement a Quality Curriculum Management Plan to Provide Consistent and Effective Curriculum Development, Delivery and Review To Define and Implement a More Effective Divisional Curriculum System. Refashion the Assessment Data Gathered to Conform to this Plan. Link the Technology Plan to the Curriculum Management Plan to Insure Alignment and Instructional Integration.................................... 131 Recommendation 5: Develop Revised School Board Policies To Establish A More Responsible and Responsive Framework for Effective Policy Direction and Oversight of the Performance of the School Division....................................................................................... 133 Recommendation 6: Develop and Implement Plans to Replace the Central Office Complex and Re-Evaluate the Placement of Preschool in Existing Elementary Schools...................... 134 V. SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 136 VI. APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................. 138 Appendix A Auditors’ Biographical Data ............................................................................... 139 Appendix B List of Documents Reviewed .............................................................................. 141 vi Table of Exhibits Exhibit 0.1 .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Exhibit 0.2 ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Exhibit 0.3 .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Exhibit 0.4 .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Exhibit 0.5 .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Exhibit 1.1.1 Principles of Sound Organizational Infrastructure and Management........................... 17 Exhibit 1.2.1 The Number of Instructional Administrative Positions in the Charlottesville City Schools as Listed in the 2004-2005 Revised Operating Budget .......................................................... 19 Exhibit 1.2.2 Charlottesville City Schools ......................................................................................... 20 Exhibit 1.3.1 Administrative/Instructional Staffing By School Unit Charlottesville City Schools 2004-05................................................................................................................................................. 22 Exhibit 1.4.1 Curriculum Management Audit Rating Indicators for Job Descriptions ...................... 24 Exhibit 1.4.2 Auditors’ Assessment of Job Descriptions ................................................................... 25 Exhibit 1.5.1 Summative Performance Appraisal Report .................................................................. 29 Exhibit 1.6.1 Planning Documents Reviewed by Auditors ................................................................ 32 Exhibit 1.6.2 Audit Criteria for Assessing System Planning ............................................................. 33 Exhibit 1.6.3 Characteristics of Comprehensive Technology Program Planning and Auditors’ Assessment of District Approach ......................................................................................................... 35 Exhibit 1.6.4 Audit Criteria for Assessing School Improvement Plans ............................................. 38 Exhibit 1.6.5 Auditors’ Analysis of School Improvement Plans ....................................................... 39 Exhibit 1.7.1 Curriculum-Related Board Policies and Regulations Reviewed by the Audit Team ... 41 Exhibit 1.7.2 Quality Criteria for Curriculum Management Policies and Auditor’s Assessment...... 46 Exhibit 2.1.1 Characteristics of a Comprehensive Curriculum Development Plan and Auditors’ Assessment of District Approach ......................................................................................................... 52 Exhibit 2.2.1 Curriculum Documents Provided by the Charlottesville City School .......................... 54 Exhibit 2.2.2 Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and by Grade Level Kindergarten through Fourth Grade ........................................................................................................................... 56 Exhibit 2.2.3 Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and by Grade Level Fifth and Sixth Grades................................................................................................................................................... 57 Exhibit 2.2.4 Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and Grade Level Middle School, Grades 7-8 ............................................................................................................................................ 57 Exhibit 2.2.5 Scope of the Written Curriculum by High School Courses Offered, Grades 9-12....... 58 Exhibit 2.3.1 CMSi Curriculum Guide Audit Criteria for Minimum Guide Components and Specificity............................................................................................................................................. 64 vii Exhibit 2.3.2 Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum on the Basic Minimum Guide Components and Specificity Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 65 Exhibit 2.4.1 Classroom “Snap Shot” Data – Types of Dominant Instructional Activities ............... 70 Exhibit 2.4.2 Classroom Observations of Dominant Teacher Activities............................................ 70 Exhibit 2.4.3 Classroom Observations of Dominant Student Activities ............................................ 71 Exhibit 2.4.4 Classroom Observation of Technology Integration in Classrooms .............................. 71 Exhibit 3.1.1 Student Demographic Information ............................................................................... 76 Exhibit 3.1.2 Charlottesville City Schools Staffing ........................................................................... 76 Exhibit 3.1.3 Gifted Verification Worksheet Grades K-12 ................................................................ 78 Exhibit 3.1.4 Charlottesville High School Advanced Placement Enrollment in Mathematics and Science.................................................................................................................................................. 79 Exhibit 3.1.5 Special Education K-12 ................................................................................................ 81 Exhibit 3.1.6 Walker Upper Elementary Out of School Suspension Data ......................................... 82 Exhibit 3.1.7 Buford Middle School Out of School Suspension Data ................................................ 83 Exhibit 3.1.8 Charlottesville High School Out of School Suspension Data....................................... 83 Exhibit 4.1.1 K – 12 Matrix of the Formal Assessments Administered............................................. 87 Exhibit 4.1.2 Matrix of Typical Formal Assessment*........................................................................ 88 Exhibit 4.2.1 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 through 2003 Grade 3: Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted) ......................................................................................................................................... 91 Exhibit 4.2.2 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 through 2003 Grade 5: Mean Scaled Scores .. 91 Exhibit 4.2.3 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 through 2003 Grade 8: Mean Scaled Scores .. 92 Exhibit 4.2.4 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 through 2003 High School Mean Scaled Scores92 Exhibit 4.2.5 Score Distributions SAT 1: 2004 Mean Scores ............................................................ 93 Exhibit 4.2.6 Longitudinal Advanced Placement Data, 1998-2003 ................................................... 93 Exhibit 4.2.7 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Burnley-Moran Elementary School Grade 3: Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted) ......................................................................................... 95 Exhibit 4.2.8 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Clark Elementary School Grade 3: Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted)........................................................................................................ 96 Exhibit 4.2.9 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Greenbrier Elementary School Grade 3: Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted).................................................................................................... 96 Exhibit 4.2.10 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Jackson-Via Elementary School Grade 3: Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted) ......................................................................................... 97 Exhibit 4.2.11 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Johnson Elementary School Grade 3: Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted)........................................................................................................ 98 Exhibit 4.2.12 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Venable Elementary School Grade 3: Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted)........................................................................................................ 99 Exhibit 4.2.13 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Walker Upper Elementary School100 viii Exhibit 4.2.14 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Buford Middle School................. 101 Exhibit 4.2.15 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Charlottesville High School ........ 102 Exhibit 4.3.1 Steps for Effective Implementation of Program Interventions for Improvement ..... 105 Exhibit 4.3.2 Program Intervention Criteria.................................................................................... 106 Exhibit 5.1.1 Total Funds As Reported by District ......................................................................... 110 Exhibit 5.1.2 Total General Fund Revenues As Reported by District ............................................ 111 Exhibit 5.1.3 Total General Fund Expenditures as Reported by District ........................................ 112 Exhibit 5.1.4 Per-pupil Expenditures ............................................................................................. 112 Exhibit 5.2.1 Components of a Curriculum Driven Budget and Ratings of Adequacy................... 114 Exhibit 5.3.1 Auditors’ Observations During School Visits ........................................................... 116 Exhibit 5.3.2 Comparison of Facilities Planning Efforts to Components of a Long-range Facilities Plan..................................................................................................................................................... 120 Exhibit 5.3.3 Computation of Legal Debt Limit ............................................................................. 122 ix Table of Photographs Photograph 1 Small Group Instruction at Johnson School ................................................................ i Photograph 2 Charlottesville High School’s orchestra program has won many national and international honors. ................................................................................................... 5 Photograph 3 Charlottesville’s High School Band has won so many awards it was inducted into the Band Hall of Fame. Here the band is practicing................................................... 6 Photograph 4 Students enjoying a class discussion at Johnson ...................................................... 23 Photograph 5 Students in a computer lab at Buford Middle School............................................... 23 Photograph 6 PDK auditor pointing out water damage in the hallway at Johnson Elementary School..................................................................................................................... 118 Photograph 7 The high school was undergoing renovation as shown in this photograph at the time of the audit.............................................................................................................. 121 x A CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT AUDIT of the Charlottesville City Schools Charlottesville, Virginia I. INTRODUCTION This document constitutes the final report of a Curriculum Management Audit of the Charlottesville City Schools, Virginia. The audit was commissioned by the Charlottesville City Schools Board of Education within the scope of its policy-making authority. It was conducted during the September 1215, 2004 time period. Some document analysis was performed prior to the audit team arriving for the on-site visitation. A curriculum management audit is designed to reveal the extent to which officials and professional staff of a school district have developed and implemented a sound, valid, and operational system of curriculum management. Such a system, set within the framework of adopted board policies, enables the school district to make maximum use of its human and financial resources in the education of its students. When such a system is fully operational, it assures the district taxpayers that their fiscal support is optimized under the conditions in which the school district functions. Background Historical narratives reviewed by the auditors indicate that there was a public school in Charlottesville in 1871 located on Garrett Street. In 1877 the Town Council established a White public high school at Midway House, now the site of the City Market. The schools were part of the Albemarle County System. A public school for African-American children was established in 1872 on a site near Union Station. Enrollment expanded to the point where the first Jefferson School was established in 1894. It consisted of a brick building with eight classrooms situated on the corner of Fourth and Commerce Streets. The building was used continuously until 1927. The Charlottesville City Schools, Virginia, were organized in 1889. In 1930 the first African-American high school graduates received diplomas upon completing four years of high school. Enrollment continued to grow and at the end of World War II, a city-county school, Burley High School, was opened in 1951. The old White Charlottesville High School was renamed Lane High School in 1924, after James W. Lane, an educator who served in the school system for 45 years, 1874-1919. The name Lane High School was reversed to Charlottesville High School in 1974. The old Lane High School was sold to Albemarle County which occupies it today. Charlottesville was one of the first school districts in Virginia to be confronted with the issue of school de-segregation following the landmark Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954. The Charlottesville Board of Education was presented with a petition in October of 1955 to admit 44 African-American children to the City’s schools. The Board of Education refused to admit the students and pursued legal means for the next two years to avoid the desegregation order. Finally, Judge John Paul of the U.S. District Court for the Fourth Circuit ordered the city to admit the students in September of 1956. There ensued another legal battle in which the city sought to delay desegregation through a variety of tactics, one of which involved gerrymandering attendance zones so that no African-American student could attend a White school. During this period Venable Elementary School and Lane High School were closed. White students were educated in a variety of Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 1 temporary places in the district. African-American children were tutored by a single Venable Elementary School teacher. Judge John Paul ordered Lane High School and Venable Elementary School to reopen in February of 1959. However, the Board of Education was given permission to delay de-segregation until the following September. In the 1959-60 school year de-segregation was begun, but the process was not fully resolved until 1965 when all of the schools in Charlottesville were completely de-segregated, including both students and teachers. However, in 1966 de-segregation was again a hot topic in the debates regarding the location of the junior high schools in the district. It was proposed that one of the three junior high schools be built on the Burley High School site. The protest from the AfricanAmerican community was that this was another ploy to re-segregate the schools. In the end, only two junior high schools were constructed, one on the north side of the district and another on the south side. The vestiges of these battles continue today in several forms in Charlottesville, but perhaps the most obvious and persistent is the achievement gap which exists between White and African-American students in the school district. This gap in several of the district’s schools has not been closed as required in Federal Law 107-110 and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The persistence of the gap and the inability of the district to close it have resulted in the school district being placed on the school improvement list of the State as a school system. Exhibit 0.1 provides a nineteen year enrollment history of the Charlottesville City Schools. Exhibit 0.1 A School by school Enrollment History of the Charlottesville City Schools 1986/1987-2004/2005 Year BurnleyMoran Clark Greenbrier Jackson-Via Johnson Venable Walker Buford CHS Total 1986-87 465 451 316 450 406 347 440 458 1189 4522 1987-88 487 463 348 417 446 354 458 463 1137 4573 1988-89 404 383 271 386 356 271 696 624 1126 4517 1989-90 400 394 293 383 327 252 716 638 1027 4430 1990-91 399 376 265 357 354 246 737 646 1074 4454 1991-92 392 397 225 368 316 263 702 670 1073 4406 1992-93 396 408 258 392 326 267 699 684 1100 4530 1993-94 367 399 256 378 314 296 737 656 1153 4556 1994-95 366 376 273 380 306 256 710 640 1171 4478 1995-96 383 368 256 383 302 258 700 662 1128 4440 1996-97 344 365 233 392 311 233 697 648 1155 4378 1997-98 355 359 276 371 317 252 647 640 1191 4408 1998-99 378 319 280 338 315 278 665 665 1158 4396 1999-00 362 277 258 344 338 278 729 613 1212 4411 2000-01 391 259 254 322 317 259 686 607 1210 4305 2001-02 376 263 262 308 301 269 616 666 1195 4256 2002-03 358 294 261 272 287 281 634 649 1228 4264 2003-04 347 281 257 259 295 273 671 594 1290 4267 2004-05* 358 304 282 280 317 291 668 608 1276 4384 Note: Data source is the Charlottesville City Schools Revised Operating Budget 2004-2005, January 2004, pp. 39-44.*=projected Governance and Administrative Structure Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 2 The Charlottesville City Schools is governed by a seven person appointed School Board. The Board members are shown in Exhibit 0.2. The Superintendent of Schools is Dr. Scottie Griffin. Dr. Griffin became Superintendent in July of 2004. The previous Superintendent was Ronald Hutchinson. Exhibit 0.2 2004 Members of the Charlottesville City School Board Board Member Representing Deirdre Smith, Chair Ward 3 Julie L. Gronlund, Vice-Chair Ward 4 Byron L. Brown Ward 1 Bill M.A. Igbani Ward 1 Ned Michie Ward 2 Muriel D. Wiggins Ward 2 Peggy Van Yahres Ward 1 District Demographics The City of Charlottesville is situated in Central Virginia, about 100 miles southwest of Washington, D.C. and 70 miles northwest of Richmond, Virginia. The city is 10.4 square miles and located in the upper Piedmont Plateau at the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains and at the headwaters of the Rivanna River. Charlottesville is home to the University of Virginia and approximately 40,000 residents live there. It is an area rich in history and colonial cultural heritage. There are nine schools in the district, six elementary schools (Burnley-Moran, Clark, Greenbrier, Jackson-Via, Johnson, and Venable) serving grades pre-school-four; Walker Upper Elementary School serving grades five and six; and Buford Middle School serving grades seven and eight. Charlottesville High School includes grades nine through twelve. There are approximately 4,300 students in the school district (about 95% split between roughly White and African American with 3% Hispanic and 2% Asian being served by 781 personnel including 421 regular, special education, vocational and visiting teachers; 10 librarians; 19 guidance and home school counselors; nearly eight school nurses; 112 regular and special education instructional assistants; 16 school secretaries; 42 custodians and 41 child nutrition personnel (cafeteria). There are also 27 central curriculum, instructional and Book Buddy coordinators. A partial breakdown of personnel in the division for 2004-05 is shown in Exhibit 0.3. These data show that of the total work force, approximately 79% are females. In the teaching force, 71% are White females and 90% of the instructional assistants are White females. In the administration, 64% are White females. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 3 Exhibit 0.3 Ethnic and Gender Breakdown of Charlottesville City Schools Teachers, Administrators and Instructional Assistants 2004 Division Total Teachers Administration Ethnicity % Male Female White 61 316 AfricanAmerican 13 Hispanic Instructional Assistants Ethnicity % Male Female 84.3 15 27 51 14.3 4 1 2 0.7 Other 0 3 TOTAL 75 372 Ethnicity % Male Female 79.2 8 54 61.4 7 20.8 2 34 35.6 0 0 0 0 1 1.0 0.7 0 0 0 0 2 2.0 100.0 19 34 100.0 10 91 100.0 Note: Data extrapolated from CCS Report of Employee Demographics for the 2004-2005 School Session Despite the presence of a long standing achievement gap in the school division, the school system is noted for its excellence in the fine and performing arts which include band, chorus, dance, orchestra, piano, theater and the visual arts. The Charlottesville High School Band has been designated an Honor Band 21 times and was recently inducted into the Honor Band Hall of Fame. The orchestra program is also similarly highly acclaimed and has garnered many national honors. The Advanced Placement Program at Charlottesville offers 18 different courses while 88% of the 2003 AP exams taken by CHS students earned a score of 3 or higher on a five point scale. 64% of the 304 tests taken earned scores of 4 or 5. Similarly in 2003, 15 CHS students were named National Merit Commended Scholars while 4 were cited as National Merit Semifinalists. Of the 2003 high school graduating class, 43% earned an Advanced Studies Diploma. Clearly there is a group of students in the division that is achieving at high levels. However, this picture must be balanced by a group of students not being served well. Exhibit 0.4 presents a picture of Charlottesville City Schools’ students being served in the free and reduced lunch program. The data show that over half of the students in the K-4 part of the school division are receiving free and reduced lunches. Exhibit 0.4 Percentage of Free and Reduced Lunches for K-4 Students Charlottesville City Schools 2003-2004 School Enrollment Number F/R % School F/R % Division F/R Clark 292 221 75.68 24.47 Johnson 300 222 74.00 24.58 Jackson-Via 254 162 63.78 17.94 Greenbrier 262 108 41.22 11.96 Burnley-Moran 340 127 37.35 14.06 Venable 278 63 22.66 6.98 1726 903 52.32 100 K-4 Division Note: Data extrapolated from CCS-Draft Intervention Resource, Free-Reduced Meals Participation 7/6/04 Exhibit 0.5 shows a comparison of budgeted revenues and expenditures for the Charlottesville City Schools, 2001-2004. These data indicate the 2004-05 total general fund expenditures were $45, 570, Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 4 877 of which 77% is allocated for personnel costs. The 2004-05 Revised Operating Budget for the School Division indicated that the salary range for a classroom teacher expected to work 200 days was $35,000-$53,200. The revenue sources for the school district are 67% from the City of Charlottesville and 37% from the State of Virginia. The remainder comes from tuition (2%) and the federal government. Tuition costs cover the inclusion of out- of- district students who desire to attend the schools. In the 2003-04 academic year, 223 students in the district were out-of-district students. Exhibit 0.5 A Comparison of Budgeted Revenue and Expenditures 2001-2004 Charlottesville City Schools Revenues 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 Total City 26,435,025 27,935,025 29,495,025 30,620,025 Net State 13,832,600 13,297,157 13,424,513 14,883,733 Total Tuition 893,260 1,047,651 1,002,333 1,062,033 Total Federal 37,500 18,000 18,000 18,000 41,198,385 42,297,833 43,939,871 45,570,877 Personnel 25,198,053 25,701,837 26,382,164 26,981,058 Employee Benefits 6,327,984 6,517,350 7,132,907 8,065,379 Total Operating Costs 9,672,348 10,078,646 10,424,800 10,524,440 Total General Fund Revenue Expenditures Total General Fund 41,198,385 42,297,833 43,939,871 45,570,877 Expenditures Note: Data sources are Charlottesville City Schools Budget documents, 2004-2005, 2003-04, 2002-03 Charlottesville High School’s orchestra program has won many national and international honors. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 5 Charlottesville’s High School Band has won so many awards it was inducted into the Band Hall of Fame. Here the band is practicing. Some of the numerous trophies won by the Charlottesville High School Band are displayed in the band room. Background Purpose and Scope of the Work The Curriculum Management Audit is a process which was developed by Dr. Fenwick W. English and first implemented in 1979 in the Columbus Public Schools, Ohio. The audit is based upon generally-accepted concepts pertaining to effective instruction and curricular design and delivery, some of which have been popularly referred to as the “effective schools research.” A curriculum management audit is an independent examination of three data sources: documents, interviews, and site visits. These are gathered and triangulated, or corroborated, to reveal the extent to which a school district is meeting its goals and objectives, whether they are internally or externally developed or imposed. A public report is issued as the final phase of the auditing process. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 6 The audit’s scope is centered on curriculum and instruction, and any aspect of operations of a school system that enhances or hinders its design and/or delivery. The audit is an intensive, focused, “postholed” look at how well a school system such as Charlottesville City Schools has been able to set valid directions for pupil accomplishment and well being, concentrate its resources to accomplish those directions, and improve its performance, however contextually defined or measured, over time. The Curriculum Management Audit does not examine any aspect of school system operations unless it pertains to the design and delivery of curriculum. For example, auditors would not examine the cafeteria function unless students were going hungry and therefore were not learning. It would not examine vehicle maintenance charts, unless buses continually broke down and children could not get to school to engage in the learning process. It would not be concerned with custodial matters, unless schools were observed to be unclean and unsafe for children to be taught. The Curriculum Management Audit centers its focus on the main business of schools: teaching, curriculum, and learning. Its contingency focus is based upon data gathered during the audit which impinges negatively or positively on its primary focus. These data are reported along with the main findings of the audit. In some cases, ancillary findings in a curriculum management audit are so interconnected with the capability of a school system to attain its central objectives, that they become major, interactive forces which, if not addressed, will severely compromise the ability of the school system to be successful with its students. Curriculum management audits have been performed in hundreds of school systems in more than twenty-five states, the District of Columbia, and several other countries, including Canada, Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Bermuda. The methodology and assumptions of the Curriculum Management Audit have been reported in the national professional literature in the past decade, and at a broad spectrum of national education association conventions and seminars, including the American Association of School Administrators (AASA); Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD); National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP); Association for the Advancement of International Education (AAIE); American Educational Research Association (AERA); National School Boards Association (NSBA); and the National Governors Association (NGA). Phi Delta Kappa’s International Curriculum Management Audit Center has an exclusive contractual agreement with Curriculum Management Systems, Inc. (CMSi - a public corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware, and owner of the copyrights to the intellectual property of the audit process), for the purpose of conducting audits for educational institutions, providing training for auditors and others interested in the audit process, and officially assisting in the certification of PDK-CMSi curriculum auditors. This audit was conducted in accordance with a contract with Charlottesville City Schools and Phi Delta Kappa International. All members of the team were certified by the International Curriculum Management Center, Inc. The names of the curriculum auditors in this audit included the following individuals: • Dr. Fenwick English, Senior Lead Auditor and the R. Wendell Eaves Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership in the School of Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. • Kelly Cross, Auditor, is a teacher and interdisciplinary team leader at East Junior High School in Boise, Idaho. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 7 • Dr. Curtis A. Cain, Auditor, is the Director of Curriculum and Professional Development for the Park Hill School District near Kansas City, Missouri. • Michael O. Gibson, Auditor, is the Business Manager and Treasurer of the Jerome, Idaho school district. • Dr. Betty E. Steffy, Senior Lead Auditor, is formerly the Deputy Superintendent of Instruction in the Kentucky Department of Education, Frankfort, Kentucky, and Superintendent of Schools of Moorestown, New Jersey. Approach of the Audit The Curriculum Management Audit has established itself as a process of integrity and candor in assessing public school districts. It has been presented as evidence in state and federal litigation concerning matters of school finance, general resource managerial effectiveness, and school desegregation efforts in Kansas, Kentucky, New Jersey, and South Carolina. The audit served as an important data source in state-directed takeovers of school systems in New Jersey and Kentucky. The curriculum management audit has become recognized internationally as an important, viable, and valid tool for the improvement of educational institutions and for the improvement of curriculum design and delivery. The curriculum management audit represents a “systems” approach to educational improvement, that is, it considers the system as a whole rather than a collection of separate, discrete parts. The interrelationships of system components and their impact on overall quality of the organization in accomplishing its purposes are examined in order to “close the loop” in curriculum and instructional improvement. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 8 II. METHODOLOGY The Model for the Curriculum Management Audit The model for the Curriculum Management Audit is shown in the schematic below. The model has been published widely in the national professional literature, most recently in the best selling book, The Curriculum Management Audit: Improving School Quality (1995, Frase, English, Poston). A Schematic View of Curricular Quality Control General quality control assumes that at least three elements must be present in any organizational and work-related situation for it to be functional and capable of being improved over time. These are: (1) a work standard, goal/objective, or operational mission; (2) work directed toward attaining the mission, standard, goal/objective; and (3) feedback (work measurement), which is related to or aligned with the standard, goal/objective, or mission. When activities are repeated, there is a “learning curve,” i.e., more of the work objectives are achieved within the existing cost parameters. As a result, the organization or a sub-unit of an organization, becomes more “productive” at its essential short- or long-range work tasks. Within the context of an educational system and its governance and operational structure, curricular quality control requires: (1) a written curriculum in some clear and translatable form for application by teachers in classroom or related instructional settings, (2) a taught curriculum which is shaped by and interactive with the written one, and (3) a tested curriculum which includes the tasks, concepts, and skills of pupil learning which are linked to both the taught and written curricula. This model is applicable in any kind of educational work structure typically found in mass public educational systems, and is suitable for any kind of assessment strategy, from norm-referenced standardized tests to more authentic approaches. The Curriculum Management Audit assumes that an educational system, as one kind of human work organization, must be responsive to the context in which it functions and in which it receives support for its continuing existence. In the case of public educational systems, the support comes in the form of tax monies from three levels: local, state, and federal. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 9 In return for such support, mass public educational systems are supposed to exhibit characteristics of rationality, i.e., being responsive to the public will as it is expressed in legally constituted bodies such as Congress, state legislatures, and locally elected/appointed Boards of Education. In the case of emerging national public school reforms, more and more this responsiveness is assuming a distinctive school-based management focus which includes parents, teachers, and, in some cases, students. The ability of schools to be responsive to public expectations, as legally expressed in law and policy, is crucial to their survival as publicly-supported educational organizations in the years ahead. The Curriculum Management Audit is one method for ascertaining the extent to which a school system or subunit thereof, has been responsive to these expressed expectations and requirements in its context. Standards for the Auditors While a Curriculum Management Audit is not a financial audit, it is governed by some of the same principles. These are: Technical Expertise PDK-CMSi certified auditors must have actual experience in conducting the affairs of a school system at all levels audited. They must understand the tacit and contextual clues of sound curriculum management. The Charlottesville City Schools Curriculum Management Audit Team included auditors who have been school superintendents, assistant superintendents, directors, coordinators, principals and assistant principals, as well as elementary and secondary classroom teachers in public educational systems in several locations: Arizona California Florida Pennsylvania Indiana Idaho Iowa Kentucky Missouri Washington, D.C. Virginia The Principle of Independence None of the Curriculum Management Audit Team members had any vested interest in the findings or recommendations of the Charlottesville City Schools Curriculum Management Audit. None of the auditors has any working relationship with the individuals that occupied top or middle management positions in the Charlottesville City Schools, nor with any of the past or current members of the Charlottesville City Schools Board of Education. The Principle of Objectivity Events and situations which comprise the data base for the curriculum management audit are derived from documents, interviews, and site visits. Findings must be verifiable and grounded in the data base, though confidential interview data may not indicate the identity of such sources. Findings must be factually triangulated with two or more sources of data, except when a document is unusually authoritative such as a court judgment, a labor contract signed and approved by all parties to the agreement, approved meeting minutes which connote the accuracy of the content, or any other document whose verification is self-evident. Triangulation of documents takes place when the document is requested by the auditor and is subsequently furnished. Confirmation by a system representative that the document is in fact what was requested is a form of triangulation. A final form of triangulation occurs when the audit is sent to Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 10 the superintendent in draft form. If the superintendent or his/her designee(s) does not provide evidence that the audit text is inaccurate, or provides documentation that indicates there are omissions or otherwise factual or content errors, the audit is assumed to be triangulated. The superintendent’s review is not only a second source of triangulation, but is considered summative triangulation of the entirety of audit. The Principle of Consistency All PDK-CMSi-certified Curriculum Management Auditors have used the same standards and basic methods since the initial audit was conducted by Dr. Fenwick English many years ago. Audits are not normative in the sense that one school system is compared to another. School systems, as the units of analysis, are compared to a set of standards and positive/negative discrepancies cited. The Principle of Materiality PDK-CMSi-certified auditors have broad implied and discretionary power to focus on and select those findings which they consider most important to describing how the curriculum management system is functioning in a school district, and how that system must improve, expand, delete, or reconfigure various functions in order to attain an optimum level of performance. The Principle of Full Disclosure Auditors must reveal all relevant information to the users of the audit, except in cases where such disclosure would compromise the identity of employees or patrons of the system. Confidentiality is respected in audit interviews. In reporting data derived from site interviews, some descriptive terms are used which lack a precise quantifiable definition. For example: “Some school principals said that ... ” “Many teachers expressed concern that ... ” “There was widespread comment about ... ” The basis for these terms is the number of persons in a group or class of persons who were interviewed, as opposed to the total potential number of persons in a category. This is a particularly salient point when not all persons within a category are interviewed. “Many teachers said that...,” represents only those interviewed by the auditors, or who may have responded to a survey, and not “many” of the total group whose views were not sampled, and therefore could not be disclosed during an audit. In general these quantifications may be applied to the principle of full disclosure: Descriptive Term General Quantification Range Some ... or a few ... Less than a majority of the group interviewed and less than 30 percent. Many ... Less than a majority, more than 30 percent of a group or class of people interviewed. A majority ... More than 50 percent, less than 75 percent. Most ... or widespread 75-89 percent of a group or class of persons interviewed. Nearly all ... 90-99 percent of those interviewed in a specific class or group of persons. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 11 All or everyone ... 100 percent of all persons interviewed within a similar group, job, or class. It should be noted for purposes of full disclosure that some groups within a school district are almost always interviewed en toto. The reason is that the audit is focused on management and those people who have policy and managerial responsibilities for the overall performance of the system as a system. In all audits an attempt is made to interview every member of the Board of Education and all top administrative officers, all principals, and the executive board of the teachers association or union. While teachers and parents are interviewed, they are considered in a status different from those who have system-wide responsibilities for a district’s operations. Students are rarely interviewed unless the system has made a specific request in this regard. Interviewed Members of the Charlottesville City Schools Superintendent and Central Office Staff School Board Members All principals Teachers’ Organization Officers K-12 Teachers (voluntary, self-referred) Parent-Teacher Organization Officers Students (during site visit) Parents (voluntary, self-referred) Approximately 70 individuals were interviewed during the site visit phase of the audit. Data Sources of the Curriculum Management Audit A curriculum audit uses a variety of data sources to determine if each of the three elements of curricular quality control is in place and connected one to the other. The audit process also inquires as to whether pupil learning has improved as the result of effective application of curricular quality control. The major sources of data for the Charlottesville City Schools Curriculum Management Audit were: Documents These sources consisted of written board policies, administrative regulations, curriculum guides, memoranda, budgets, state reports, accreditation documents, and any other source of information which would reveal elements of the written, taught, and tested curricula and the linkages among these elements. Interviews Interviews are conducted by auditors to explain contextual variables which are operating in the school system at the time of the audit. Such contextual variables may shed light on the actions of various persons or parties, reveal interrelationships and explain existing progress, tension, harmony/disharmony within the school system. Quotations cited in the audit from interviews are used as a source of triangulation and not as summative averages or means. Some persons because of their position, knowledge, or credibility, may be quoted more than once in the audit, but they are not counted more than once because their inclusion is not part of a quantitative/mathematical expression of interview data. Site Visits All building sites were toured by the PDK-CMSi audit team. Site visits reveal the actual context in which curriculum is designed and delivered in a school system. Contextual references are important as they indicate discrepancies in documents or unusual working conditions. Auditors attempted to Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 12 observe briefly all classrooms, gymnasiums, labs, playgrounds, hallways, rest-rooms, offices, and maintenance areas to properly grasp accurate perceptions of conditions, activities, safety, instructional practices, and operational contexts. Standards for the Curriculum Audit The PDK-CMSi Curriculum Management Audit used five standards against which to compare, verify, and comment upon the Charlottesville City Schools’ existing curricular management practices. These standards have been extrapolated from an extensive review of management principles and practices and have been applied in all previous curriculum management audits. As a result, the standards reflect an ideal management system, but not an unattainable one. They describe working characteristics that any complex work organization should possess in being responsive and responsible to its clients. A school system that is using its financial and human resources for the greatest benefit of its students is a district that is able to establish clear objectives, examine alternatives, select and implement alternatives, measure results as they develop against established objectives, and adjust its efforts so that it achieves a greater share of the objectives. The five standards employed in the PDK-CMSi Curriculum Management Audit in Charlottesville City Schools were: 1. The school district demonstrates its control of resources, programs, and personnel. 2. The school district has established clear and valid objectives for students. 3. The school district has demonstrated internal consistency and rational equity in its program development and implementation. 4. The school district has used the results from district-designed or -adopted assessments to adjust, improve, or terminate ineffective practices or programs. 5. The school district has improved its productivity. A finding within a Curriculum Management Audit is simply a description of the existing state, negative or positive, between an observed and triangulated condition or situation at the time of the PDK-CMSi audit, and its comparison with one or more of the five audit standards. Findings in the negative represent discrepancies below the standard. Findings in the positive reflect meeting or exceeding the standard. As such, audit findings are recorded on nominal and ordinal indices and not ratio or interval scales. As a general rule, audits do not issue commendations, because it is expected that a school district should be meeting every standard as a way of normally doing its business. Commendations are not given for good practice. On occasion, exemplary practices may be cited. Unlike accreditation methodologies, audits do not have to reach a forced, summative judgment regarding the status of a school district or sub-unit being analyzed. Audits simply report the discrepancies and formulate recommendations to ameliorate them. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 13 Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page I 4 III. FINDINGS STANDARD 1: A School System Is Able to Demonstrate Its Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel. Quality control is the fundamental element of a well-managed educational program. It is one of the major premises of local educational control within any state’s educational system. The critical premise involved is that, via the will of the electorate, a local Board of Education establishes local priorities within state laws and regulations. A school district’s accountability rests with the school board and the public. Through the development of an effective policy framework, a local school board provides the focus for management and accountability to be established for administrative and instructional staffs, as well as for its own responsibility. It also enables the district to assess meaningfully and use student learning data as a critical factor in determining its success. Although educational program control and accountability are often shared among different components of a school district, fundamental control of, and responsibility for, a district and its operations rests with the school board and top-level administrative staff. What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Charlottesville City Schools A school system meeting PDK-CMSi Curriculum Management Audit Standard One is able to demonstrate its control of resources, programs, and personnel. Common indicators are: • A curriculum that is centrally defined and adopted by the board of education; • A clear set of policies that establish an operational framework for management that permits accountability; • A clear set of policies that reflects state requirements and local program goals and the necessity to use achievement data to improve school system operations; • A functional administrative structure that facilitates the design and delivery of the district’s curriculum; • A direct, uninterrupted line of authority from school board/superintendent and other central office officials to principals and classroom teachers; • Organizational development efforts which are focused to improve system effectiveness; • Documentation of school board and central office planning for the attainment of goals, objectives, and mission over time; and • A clear mechanism to define and direct change and innovation within the school system to permit maximization of its resources on priority goals, objectives, and mission. Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Charlottesville City Schools This section is an overview of the findings that follow in the area of Standard One. The details follow within separate findings. The Table of Organization (T/O) in existence at the time of the audit was inadequate and did not meet audit criteria for a sound infrastructure. While job descriptions existed for many positions, many lacked sufficient specificity regarding qualifications and a large number lacked any linkages to Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 15 effective curriculum design or delivery. Some were over a decade year old. There are several types of instructional coordinator positions in the division, and despite the numbers of them their duties and/or services have been inadequate in making significant headway in erasing the achievement gap. Some coordinators have responsibilities for which they have little expertise and some were stretched too thin. While the system had developed a strategic plan in 2000, it was not referenced by anyone as an important document, nor did it direct the creation of school improvement plans. The linkage between a central focus and school foci was lacking. It was therefore ineffectual in creating a school division focus required to be responsive to NCLB (No Child Left Behind). The Technology Plan reviewed by the auditors had some strong points, but in the main was not completed compared to audit criteria. There was no plan for staff development and staff development was inconsistent and was not connected to division-wide plans, nor was it linked to improved student achievement. Teacher evaluation did not meet the specifications of board policy and was not connected to student achievement. Principal evaluation contained no formal process for goal setting and evaluation. In short, the processes and infrastructure necessary to be responsive to legal and operational contextual conditions required by high stakes testing in the Charlottesville City Schools were inadequate or absent. While the auditors noted that Board policies have recently been revised, they were largely inadequate to support a strong curriculum management system. Finding 1.1: The School Division’s Table of Organization Does Not Meet Audit Criteria for an Effective Divisional Infrastructure. The number and relationship of administrative/professional roles that define the infrastructure of a school division are crucial for deploying the human resources for it to accomplish its mission and attain specific annual goals and objectives. Not only is such deployment critical for attaining desired and required organizational outcomes, it is also a condition for attaining an economy of scale. A functional, accurate, and timely delineation of administrative/professional relationships are generally depicted in graphic form and called the T/O (table of organization). Auditors assessed the T/O of the Charlottesville City Schools using the following criteria: • The extent to which lines of responsibility are functionally delineated and understood by those working in the central office and the schools • Adequacy of administrative staffing: number, groups, and relationships • Lack of duplication in roles and gaps in important tasks and jobs which may be present; and • The extent to which form follows function (or mission) as stated in the form of policy or planning • The school division meeting this standard will be able to demonstrate the following: • A T/O that is current and defines the basis for workload limits of span of control at all levels within the central structure of the system • Data from the system that support a workable notion of span of control • Clear, functional delegation of responsibility where such delegation is vital to obtaining a workable span of control and a clear separation of line and staff to ensure proper accountability Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 16 An appropriate depiction of administrative relationships in graphic form should follow generally accepted management principles. These principles are shown in Exhibit 1.1.1. Exhibit 1.1.1 Principles of Sound Organizational Infrastructure and Management Span of Control The span of control for effective day-to-day supervision requires division responsibility for no more than 12 employees with a range of 712 persons. Chain of Command No employee should have more than one supervisor. Logical group of functions Tasks or functions of a similar nature should be grouped together. Separation of Line and Staff Line (principals and teachers) and staff (support functions to operations) should be separated in order to promote accountability. Scalar Relationships All positions of the same title and generic responsibility should occupy the same horizontal position on the TO Full Inclusion All central functions, particularly functions that facilitate quality control are included in the organizational structure. Auditors reviewed board policies, the T/O (table of organization) provided by district personnel, job descriptions, and related documents to determine if organizational relationships were consistent with audit principles. Interviews of personnel also revealed if the graphic depiction was the way in which organizational relationships operated on a day-to-day basis and to the extent possible, if such relationships were effective. Board policies addressing the design and implementation of the T/O are the following: • Policy AD 01-4 Educational Philosophy indicates that the policy of the School board is to “provide the necessary trained and dedicated leadership, qualified personnel…for every student, regardless of race, color, sex, physical condition, or national origin.” • Policy CA 2-1 Administration Goals stipulates that the “administration is responsible for the direction, leadership and coordination of students and staff in their efforts to reach educational goals adopted by the board.” • Policy CBA 2-2 Qualifications and Duties for the Superintendent defines the major duties of the chief executive officer. • Policy CC 2-8 Administrative Organizational Plan indicates that the authority of the Board is “transmitted through the superintendent along specific channels from person to person as shown in the Board approved organizational chart of the division.” • Policy 2-10 Assignment and Transfer stipulates that “after initial assignment, the subsequent transfer of administrative personnel to any school or other positions within the division is the prerogative of the superintendent.” • Policy CF 2-20 School Building Administration indicates that the principal is the chief executive of the school. Pursuant to these policy stipulations, the Charlottesville City Schools T/O was reviewed as given to the auditors. It is shown in Exhibit 1.1.2. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 17 Exhibit 1.1.2 Charlottesville City Schools Table of Organization 9/04 Superintendent of Schools Deputy Superintendent Principals Director Finance Director & Business HR Director Adm. Support Services Director Special Education & Student Services Assistant Principals Instructional Coordinators Coordinators Accounting payroll Budget/Benefits Data Processing Coordinators Coordinators School Nutrition Special Education Alternative Ed. Ed. Support Services Food/Transportation Coordinators Arts/Publications CLASS Preschool Gifted Education Auditors noted the following in the T/O of the school division: Span of Control: The span of the control of the superintendent is excessive. Counting the seven board members who do not report to the superintendent, but are involved in a great deal of interaction, the superintendent has a total of 21 people reporting to her. The spans of most other personnel on the T/O are in the acceptable range. Chain of Command: There are no violations of chain of command shown on the T/O. However, in a review of job descriptions, the guidance counselors are supervised by both the principal and the Director of Pupil Personnel Services. Counselors are not shown on the T/O. The same is true for the Visiting Teacher, Vocational Evaluator and a variety of Instructional Assistants who are supervised by more than one person. Logical grouping of functions: Functions on the T/O are logically grouped. Separation of line and staff: Graphically, the separation of line and staff is not clear on the T/O. Furthermore, classroom teachers are not shown on the T/O. Teachers are the fundamental line officers of a school division since they deliver the educational program on a day to day basis. Scalar relationships: The T/O reveals that when salary levels are compared (using a 260 day base), most relationships are comparable, except that assistant principals should be placed on the same scalar level as administrative coordinators and other coordinators. The salary range for assistant principals is the same as for leadership coordinators (56k to 72k) Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 18 Full Inclusion: A number of roles are not shown on the T/O. As previously mentioned, classroom teachers are not represented, nor are librarians, counselors, athletic director, nurses, custodians or secretaries. These roles are all important support staff to the line operations. Finding 1.2: The Role of Coordinator in the Division Varies in Effectiveness as Perceived by System Personnel and Parents. Some Coordinators Lack Expertise in Areas for Which They Are Responsible. The auditors found a plethora of different roles entitled “Coordinator” in the Charlottesville City Schools. To attempt to clarify the roles the auditors examined the number of persons occupying administrative roles in the division as represented in the 2004-05 Revised Operating Budget. These are shown in Exhibit 1.2.1. Exhibit 1.2.1. The Number of Instructional Administrative Positions in the Charlottesville City Schools as Listed in the 2004-2005 Revised Operating Budget Position Number Salary Range Budgeted Total Superintendent 1 146,783 146,783 Deputy Superintendent 1 133,536 133,536 Director 3.25 73,535-94,976 (260 days) 302,063 Coordinators 19.92 45,849-72,083 (260 days) 1,302,441 Principals 9.00 62,675-94,976 (260 days) 772,725 Assistant Principals 5.00 56,336-72,083 (260 days) 402,099 Dean of Students 2.00 Not listed 73,863 TOTALS 41.17 3,133,510 These administrative roles account for 6.7% of the total revised budgetary expenditures for 2004-05. Of these, coordinators account for 42% of the anticipated expenditures. Arriving at a precise count of coordinators is made difficult by the fact that the revised budget shows pay tables for five different types of coordinators (3 are marked as leadership with different work days). However, the actual budgetary positions are often undifferentiated as to the type of coordinator position as well as the number of days to be worked. There are coordinators indicated in the finance, maintenance, adult education, suspension center, pre-school program and even for the board of education. The total number of coordinators across all areas listed in the revised operating budget position control comes to 28 including Book Buddy Coordinators. These are shown in Exhibit 1.2.2. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 19 Exhibit 1.2.2 Charlottesville City Schools Total Number of Coordinators Listed in the Revised 2004-05 Operating Budget Budgetary Area Where Coordinator Listed Number of Coordinators Indicated In Position Control School Division Instructional 7.60 7 School sites (Instructional) 7.00 Finance Department 4.00 6 School Sites (Book Buddies) 3.00 (.50 at six sites) Pre-School 1.50 Adult Education 1.00 Maintenance 1.00 CLASS 1.00 Alternative Education 1.00 Board of Education & Support Services .75 Suspension Center .25 TOTALS 28.10 Note: School sites showing Instructional Coordinators in the Exhibit are Burnley-Moran, Clark, Greenbrier, Jackson-Via, Johnson, Venable and Walker. School sites indicating Book Buddy Coordinators are Burnley-Moran, Clark, Greenbrier, Jackson-Via, and Venable. Interview data reveal that most comments regarding coordinators were directed at the central level instructional roles. These comments reveal the kind of perceptual variance reported to the auditors regarding central level coordinator effectiveness as it pertained to curricular and program efficacy and continuity on a district wide basis. • “I think there are too many people at the central office. They’ve been allowed to operate willy-nilly.” • “I never got any feedback from the central office on my school improvement plan.” • “For many years there’s been a lack of strong leadership. There’s been management but not leadership.” • “We don’t see the coordinators that often. They usually get back to me.” • “The curriculum coordinators don’t know what we are doing.” • “A major fault is not having an integrated curriculum across the system.” • “A major weakness is the lack of accountability when for years we have gone along with a dismal graduation rate.” • “Principals looked for assistance from the central office and there wasn’t any help available.” • “The central office hasn’t been able to help us very much with staff development or curriculum development.” Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 20 • “I think we should have a larger emphasis on curriculum and instruction. I think the part we are missing the most is the emphasis on instruction.” • “The Curriculum and Instruction Office has a lot of money and I need them to support my teachers and their efforts to raise student achievement.” • “Lot of gaps among some schools. Is the curriculum designed to help one race or both races?” • “This division is the only place where you can to do a terrible job in your work and get bumped into a central office position.” • “There hasn’t been a consistent reading program.” • “The math curriculum sucks. My daughter is not challenged.” • “There’s been no curriculum alignment in K-4 reading and language arts. There’s no reading program. Science is unheard of, nothing in science, no science skills when they get to the upper schools.” • “Too many remedial programs going on. I’ve asked for substantiation of cost-effectiveness but was denied that info by the former superintendent.” • “We have a really good central office team.” • “The typical curriculum training consists of a division-wide meeting, by content area, to discuss nuances of curriculum." • “The curriculum was revised annually. Very informal. Nothing structured.” • “There’s not a consistent approach to teaching reading in K-4. Our hope is to get a common approach in those tiny schools.” • “It’s very clear that our required remediation is disproportionate for minorities.” • “There’s no set curriculum, no set plan, especially in reading.” • “There’s been a glaring absence of instructional leadership.” • “Reading is the absolute key. Has to be leadership and direction to be a success.” • “Long term in this district—promoted from within, but now these folks are outside their level of expertise.” • “The district is heavily staffed. I don’t think anyone is overworked, the people are there—but not in their capacity.” • “There’s not been one over-arching model for curriculum, a lot of jumping around, not a unified approach.” • “I’m shocked to have kids in the ninth grade that can’t read.” • “Coordinators have little experience at the secondary level.” • “We need a scope and sequence for the entire district.” • “Is the curriculum designed for White kids? If it is designed for White and Black kids, why aren’t the Black students achieving?” • “There has not been any continuity K-12.” • “Students come to the high school ill prepared for the rigor required, primarily in reading.” Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 21 • “We need an assessment system.” Finding 1.3. School Site Staffing Ratios Are Very Low, Eliminating the Lack of Human Resources as a Cause of the Chronic Achievement Gap. The auditors toured the schools and saw first hand the low class sizes prevalent in the school division. Schools are rich with regular and special education teachers, instructional coordinators, and instructional assistants. The extent of staffing is shown in Exhibit 1.3.1. These data show that the division-wide student/teacher ratio (including regular and special education students) is approximately 12 (11.85) students per class. When instructional assistants are added to this number the division-wide ratio is 9 students per class. Clearly, the human instructional resources in the division are very rich indeed. The chronic achievement gap in the division cannot be caused by the lack of such resources. Rather, the achievement gap has to be connected to other system wide deficiencies. Exhibit 1.3.1 Total Teacher & Instructional Assistant/Student Ratio Total Teacher (Reg./Sp. Ed.)/ Student Ratio Admin./ Student Ratio Total Instructional Asts. (Reg. &Spec..Ed) Total Teachers(Regular, Special Ed. & Voc.Ed. Total Instructional & Book Buddy Coordinators Asst./Assoc. Principals/ Deans of Students Principals Enrollment Administrative/Instructional Staffing By School Unit Charlottesville City Schools 2004-05 School B-Moran 358 1 0 1.50 27.00 11.50 1/358 13.25 9.29 Clark 304 1 0 1.50 30.59 12.00 1/304 9.94 7.14 Greenbrier 282 1 0 1.50 23.05 10.50 1/282 12.23 8.35 Jackson-Via 280 1 0 1.50 28.70 14.50 1/280 9.76 6.48 Johnson 317 1 1.00 1.00 29.00 11.50 1/159 10.9 7.93 Venable 291 1 0 1.50 21.80 9.50 1/291 13.34 9.30 Walker 668 1 1.00 1.00 60.50 11.00 1/334 11.04 9.34 Buford 608 1 2.00 0 54.36 10.00 1/202 11.18 9.45 CHS 1276 1 3.00 0 95.06 7.00 1/319 13.42 12.50 Total 4384 9 7.00 9.5 370.06 97.50 1/274 11.85 9.38 Note: projected 2004-05 enrollment and position control data derived from the revised operating budget, January 2004 Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 22 Students enjoying a class discussion at Johnson Students in a computer lab at Buford Middle School Finding 1.4: A Review of Job Descriptions Shows Few Instructional Personnel Have Formal Linkages to the Effective Design or Delivery of the Curriculum. Job descriptions are written resumes of the duties of persons employed by the school district. They are essential for the purposes of establishing sound clustering of duties and for the establishment of economy of scale. Clear descriptions of duties and qualifications enable accurate assignment in the superior/subordinate chain of command and for the creation of arenas of similar group of functions. Because the auditors were examining an educational organization whose purpose is instructional, nearly all functions should have some connection to the design and/or delivery of curriculum, even supporting roles that are close to line officers (including teachers) in the organization. Only if the purpose of such roles is purely logistically supportive in nature, would this requirement be void. Job descriptions must not only be accurate, but current. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 23 The auditors requested job descriptions for all positions in the Charlottesville City Schools. The auditors rated each job description on four criteria: • Qualifications, • Immediate links in the chain of command, • Functions, duties and responsibilities, and • Relationship to curriculum (where relevant). There were five possible ratings on the four criteria. They are listed in Exhibit 1.4.1. Exhibit 1.4.1 Curriculum Management Audit Rating Indicators for Job Descriptions Charlottesville City Schools 2004 Rating Explanation Missing No statement made. Inadequate A statement is made but it is insufficient and missing details. Adequate The statement is more or less complete, usually missing curricular linkages or sufficient detail regarding curricular linkages/alignment. Strong A clear and complete statement including linkages to curriculum where appropriate or if not appropriate, otherwise quite complete. Exemplary A clear, complete statement with inclusive linkages to curriculum indicated in excellent scope and depth. Seventy job descriptions were reviewed which pertained to instructional or direct support services to instruction. The results are shown in Exhibit 1.4.2. Over half of the job descriptions were not dated. The remainder showed dates from 1990 through 2004. On qualifications, 71% were deemed inadequate. In most cases the qualifications indicated were too general and would not indicate what might differentiate a successful from an unsuccessful candidate. On the criterion of chain of command, 86% were deemed to be adequate, though more than one had more than one supervisor. On the criterion of delineating the functions and duties of the position, 79% were adequate and 19% were strong. However, on the criterion of linkages to curriculum, 71% were missing any such connections at all. In this area, even non-certified personnel should have some input into curricular design issues because they are dealing with students and would be in a position to render judgments about how well the curriculum had been constructed It was interesting to note that all of the job descriptions for principal were lacking in connections to the curriculum except the Head Teacher for the Elementary Summer School. The curricular linkages for the high school department chair and the classroom teacher had adequate connections. Clearly, the lack of expectations for input into curricular matters indicates that at least formally, large numbers of personnel involved with delivering instruction in the Charlottesville City Schools have few organizational expectations for designing a more effective curriculum. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 24 Exhibit 1.4.2 Auditors’ Assessment of Job Descriptions Charlottesville City Schools 2004 Title Superintendent (JD1-1) Associate Supt. C&I (JD1-2) Assistant Supt. Instruction (JD1-3) Director, Adult-Vocational Education.(JD 2-1) Director Human Resources (JD 2-2) Director Hospital Education(JD 2-3) Director of Adm. Support Services(JD 2-4) Director of Special Education(JD-2-8) Supervisor of Assessment and Technical Services (JD 3-1) Coordinator of Personnel (JD 4-1) Coordinator of Data Info. Systems (JD 4-2) Coordinator Career & Technical Ed. (JD 4-3) Coordinator of Food Services(JD 4-4) Coordinator Mathematics Coordinator School/Comm. Relations (JD 4-6) Coordinator 4 Year Old Preschool Ed. (JD 4-7) Instructional Coordinator Elementary & Middle School (JD-4-8) Instructional Coordinator High School (JD- 4-9) Coordinator of Technology Integration (JD 4-10) Coordinator Instruction/Gifted/ESL (JD 411) Coordinator Fine & Performing Arts (JD 4-12) Coordinator Alternative Ed. (JD 4-13) Coordinator Media Services (JS 4-14) Date Qualifications Chain of Command Responsibilities Curricular Linkages 1998 Inadequate Adequate Strong Adequate 2004 Adequate Adequate Strong Strong 2004 Adequate Adequate Strong Strong Not dated Adequate Adequate Strong Adequate 2003 Adequate Adequate Strong Missing Not dated Adequate Missing Strong Missing 2003 Inadequate Adequate Strong Missing 1990 Adequate Adequate Strong Adequate 2004 Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Adequate Adequate Strong Missing Not dated Adequate Adequate Adequate Missing 2003 Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Adequate Adequate Adequate 2003 Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Not dated Adequate Adequate Strong 2003 Inadequate Inadequate Strong Adequate 1990 Inadequate Adequate Strong Adequate 1990 Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate 2004 Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing 2003 Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate 2003 Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Missing Adequate Missing 2004 Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 25 Not Applicable Adequate Not Applicable Exhibit 1.4.2 (continued) Auditors’ Assessment of Job Descriptions Charlottesville City Schools 2004 Title Coordinator of Vocational Education (JD –4-15) Coordinator Instruction History/Health Foreign Language (JD- 4-16) Special Education/Student Services Coord. (JD 4-19) Preschool Special Ed. Coordinator (JD 4-20) Coordinator Instruction/English (JD-4-21) Coordinator of Maintenance (JD- 4-23) Coordinator of Assessment & Staff Development (JD-4-24) High School Principal (JD 51.1) Middle School Principal (JD 5.1.2) Elementary School Principal (JD 5-1.3) Alternative Ed. Principal (JD 5.1.4) H.S. Assistant Principal (JD52.1) Dept. Chair H.S. (JD 5-3) Reading Specialist (JD 5-4) Librarian (JD 5-7) Teacher (JD 5-8) Athletic Director (JD 5-9) School Webmaster (JD 5-10) Head Teacher Elem. Summer School (JD 5-14) Director of Bands, CCHS (JD 5-18) Director of Bands Buford (JD 5-19) Director of Bands Walker (JD 5-20) Asst. Director of Bands CCHS (JD 5-21) Director of Orchestras-CCHS (JD 5-22) Director of Orchestras-Buford (JD 5-23) Date Qualifications Chain of Command Responsibilities Curricular Linkages 1990 Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing 2003 Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Strong Not dated Inadequate Missing Adequate Missing 2002 Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing 2003 Inadequate Strong Strong Strong 1995 Strong Adequate Strong Not Applicable 2002 Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated 2004 Not dated Not dated Not dated 2003 Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Missing Adequate Missing Missing Missing 1990 Inadequate Adequate Adequate Strong Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 26 Exhibit 1.4.2 (continued) Auditors’ Assessment of Job Descriptions Charlottesville City Schools 2004 Title Director of Orchestras-Walker (JD 5-24) Director of Choral Activities CCHS (JD 5-25) Director of Choral Activities Buford (JD 5-26) Director of Choral ActivitiesWalker (JD 5-27) Director of Theatre ArtsCCHS (JD 5-28) Career Ed. Planner (JD 6-1) Guidance Counselor CCHS (JD 6-2.1) Guidance Counselor-MS (JD 6-2.2) Guidance Counselor-Elem. (JD 6-2.3) Nurse (JD 6-3) Psychologist (JD 6-4) Speech-Hearing Specialist (JD 6-5) Visiting Teacher (JD 6-6) Vocational Evaluator (JD 6-7) Facilitator of Drug Abuse Prevention (JD 6-8) Instructional Assistant (JD 71.2) Special Education Instructional Assistant (JD 71.3) Intervention Specialist (JD 71.4) Site Facilitator-Elementary (JD 7-6.1) Assistant FacilitatorElementary (JD 7-6.2) Group Leader (JD 7-6.3) Pre-School Family Support Worker (JD 7-7) Date Qualifications Chain of Command Responsibilities Curricular Linkages Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Adequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Not dated Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Missing Missing Not dated Adequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Not dated Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Missing Strong 1990 Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Adequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Not dated Adequate Adequate Adequate Missing 1992 Adequate Adequate Adequate Missing 2002 Adequate Adequate Adequate Missing 2002 Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 27 Finding 1.5: The Teacher and Administrator Appraisal Program Does Not Meet Board Policy Requirements and Does Not Provide Teachers or Administrators with Constructive Feedback to Improve Classroom Performance. Effective personnel appraisal systems serve to reinforce quality practices to improve student achievement. A well-designed appraisal system supports the delivery of teaching that will maximize student performance. An effective system allows administrators to provide detailed and constructive feedback to teaching staff that improves teaching and learning in the classroom. Utilizing the feedback on specific strengths and weaknesses, teachers and administrators are able to adjust their teaching and with that, student learning. A well-designed and appropriately-utilized appraisal process enables a school system to follow and meet its system plan and/or long-range goals. To determine the extent of the effectiveness of the district’s teacher and administrator appraisal system the auditor’s reviewed: relevant board policy,state guidelines for effective teacher and administrator evaluation, and reviewed a sample for teacher evaluations. Board policy 5-66 requires that the evaluation of instructional personnel shall address “(1) student academic progress and (2) the skills and knowledge of such personnel, including instructional methodology, classroom management and subject matter knowledge.” Board policy 5-16 states that the purpose of professional staff evaluation is to raise the quality of instruction and educational services to the children of the community, to raise the standards of the division as a whole, and to aid the individual to grow and improve. In January, 2000, the Division of Teacher Licensure, Virginia Department of Education published a document entitled Guidelines for Uniform Performance Criteria for Teachers, Administrators, and Superintendents. This document was developed as a result of the Virginia education reform efforts and the 1999 Education Accountability and Quality Enhancement Act (HB2710 and SB1145). Virginia education reform efforts that impact the teacher and administrator evaluation process include: (1) the revision of the Standards of Learning in four basic subject areas – English, mathematics, science, and history and social studies, (2) implementation of new tests to assess the performance of students, schools, and school divisions, (3) revision of the state’s standards of accreditation to establish clear expectations and consequences for students and school performance, and (4) the development of a school report card. (Source: Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, Administrators, and Superintendents, 2000) This document also lists evaluation criteria and indicators for teachers, administrators and superintendents. In defining criteria for administrators, the criteria are meant to apply to building principals, assistant principals, central office staff and supervisors. The criteria are not mandated, but are meant to serve as a guideline for local school divisions. Also included in the guidelines is a list of recommendations for integrating student learning in educator evaluation: • Use student learning as only one component in an educator evaluation system that is based on multiple measures • When judging educator effectiveness, consider the context in which schooling occurs • Use measures of student growth versus a fixed achievement standard or goal • Compare learning gains from one point in time to another for the same students, not different groups of students. • Use fair and valid measures of student learning. Board policy 5-66 requires the evaluation process to include student academic progress. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 28 Teacher Evaluation Performance Appraisal Procedures for the Charlottesville City Schools was included in the Board Policy Manual given to the auditors for review. These procedures outline a process for developing a record of professional growth for teachers and include the following steps: • Two professional growth objectives are mutually agreed upon by the teacher and the evaluator • Objectives reflect priorities for growth • Agreement about evidence of professional growth • Teacher monitors his/her own professional growth • At the end of the year the teacher and evaluator conduct a final review of the growth plan and determine how well the objectives have been attained. • Teacher has an opportunity to prepare a summary of activities (optional) • Summary is attached to the professional growth planning or summative performance appraisal form for inclusion in the teacher’s personnel file. The auditors requested a sampling of teacher evaluations from each level within the system for the 2003-04 school year. All names were redacted to protect the identity of the teachers. The auditors received 10 evaluations from K-4, 38 from 5-8, and 28 from 9-12. Exhibit 1.5.1 presents a summary of those evaluations. Exhibit 1.5.1 Summative Performance Appraisal Report Charlottesville City Schools 2003-04 Performance Criterion 1. Establishes and implements learning objectives consistent with appraisal of student needs, local expectations, and knowledge of human growth and development 2. Plans and provides for involvement of students in the learning process 3. Plans for and utilizes those instructional methods which motivate and enable each student to achieve learning objectives 4. Plans for and utilizes those resources which motivate and enable each student to achieve learning objectives 5. Establishes and maintains an environment which motivates and enables each student to achieve learning objectives Meets Expectations K-4 10 5-8 38 9-12 28 K-4 10 5-8 38 9-12 28 K-4 10 5-8 38 9-12 28 K-4 10 5-8 38 9-12 27 K-4 10 5-8 38 9-12 28 Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 29 Does Not Meet Expectations * K-4 0 5-8 0 9-12 0 K-4 0 5-8 0 9-12 0 K-4 0 5-8 0 9-12 0 K-4 0 5-8 0 9-12 1 K-4 0 5-8 0 9-12 0 Exhibit 1.5.1 (continued) Summative Performance Appraisal Report Charlottesville City Schools 2003-04 6. Plans for and utilizes assessment techniques to monitor student progress and inform instruction 7. Appraises his/her own effectiveness and demonstrates successful application of skills and information acquired to increase effectiveness 8. Participates in school management and shares responsibility for the total school program 9. Establishes relationships with colleagues, students and parents, which reflect recognition of respect for every individual Evaluator Comments (optional) Teacher Comments (optional) K-4 0 K-4 10 5-8 38 5-8 0 9-12 28 9-12 0 K-4 10 K-4 0 5-8 38 5-8 0 9-12 28 9-12 0 K-4 0 K-4 10 5-8 38 5-8 0 9-12 28 9-12 0 K-4 10 K-4 0 5-8 38 5-8 0 9-12 28 9-12 0 55 evaluations included evaluator comments 2 evaluations included teacher comments * This rating is preceded always by placement of the teacher on a performance improvement status. Exhibit 1.5.1 indicates the following: • Of the sample all teachers met 8 of the 9 criteria • One teacher did not meet criteria 4 • 99% of the teachers met all 9 criteria • 73% of the evaluations included evaluator comments • 27% of the evaluations did not include evaluator comments Typical evaluator comments included the following: • “Exceeds expectations in all areas” (n=12) • “Meets expectations in all areas” (n=2) • “Gets better and better every day. Her instruction continues to improve as she strives to meet the varying needs of students. She has a warm, quiet, demeanor in interacting with children particularly in classroom management.” • “…..has shown a great deal of growth this year. She is to be commended for her improved strategies in teaching comprehension, her positive connection to her students and her leadership in using technology in her classes.” • “Please review the informal observations. If an additional conference is desired, please contact us.” (n=10) Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 30 • “performed her responsibilities with confidence. She developed a positive climate in the classroom that facilitated student learning. Her lessons were well planned for effective instruction and showed relevancy. …..put in practice numerous learning strategies to increase student performance in language arts and history. Knowing what she expected from her students made her a consistent, firm, and fair teacher. .... work ethic demonstrates her commitment to making sure that her students reach their learning potential. …..participated in staff development sessions which enhanced teaching skills designed for self-improvement (workshops, curriculum meetings). ….. The evaluator comments section of the summative evaluation was generally used to commend teachers for their hard work. Only one comment listed an area for teacher growth. None of the summative evaluations identified teacher goals for further growth. None of the evaluator comments made reference to teacher goals for the year for the identification of new goals for the next academic year. No summary of activities was attached to any of the evaluations reviewed. In summary, the present teacher evaluation process does not meet board policy expectations for using this process as a vehicle to promote teacher growth over time. Administrator Evaluation Board policy 2-11 states that the evaluation of administrative staff includes procedures for assessing: (1) the effectiveness of the administrator in his/her role as defined by the job description, and (2) the accomplishment of both short and long-range objectives defined early in the year. During interviews building level administrators, central office administrators, supervisors and coordinators were asked if they were formally evaluated last year. Most building level administrators stated that they were not formally evaluated last year. Some coordinators and supervisors indicated that they had been evaluated and some stated that they had not. A sample of comments made about the district appraisal system is included below. • “We get mostly indirect support from the central office.” • “The school division is the only place that I know of that you can do a terrible job in your work and get a raise.” • “There has been no evaluation of administrators.” • “Teachers weren’t being evaluated, some not at all, for three years prior to my arrival.” • “Many staff members had no formal evaluation for years.” • “I have received verbal feedback, but no formal evaluation whatsoever since I started here.” • “Principal evaluates teachers with his own model.” • “There is no evaluation plan for administrators.” • “Our evaluation system is very weak. The last three years I have not received an evaluation.” • “The principal goes to a classroom, evaluates lesson plans and gives feedback. I think that the system is somewhat flawed. That’s pretty much a rubber stamp. Everybody probably gets the same kind of evaluation.” The Charlottesville City Schools teacher and administrator appraisal system does not meet current board policy, lead to division improvement, or enhance the performance of teachers or administrators. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 31 Finding 1.6: Division Planning Efforts Are Not Integrated and the Scope of the Plans Are Insufficient to Provide Focus and Cohesion for the System It is through planning efforts that a complex organization manages change as it strives to be responsive to external and internal mandates. A well-designed and implemented planning process provides the division with a sense of direction and establishes priorities for the utilization of division resources. The division benefits exponentially when components of the division align their plans to the district plan. Long-range plans, when used properly, guide staff actions as they carry out their work. Further, they integrate actions into an approach that yields the kind of synergy and purpose to attain the desired objectives. In order to determine the division’s planning process, planning documents were reviewed and interviews were conducted to determine planning status and implementation. A list of planning documents reviewed is itemized in Exhibit 1.6.1 Exhibit 1.6.1 Planning Documents Reviewed by Auditors Charlottesville City Schools 2004-2005 Document Date Charting the Future: Charlottesville City Schools’ Strategic Plan 2000 Board Priorities 2003-04 Board Priorities 2002-03 Technology Plan 2004-07 Charlottesville School Improvement Plan 2004-05 Buford Middle School Improvement Plan No Date Walker Upper Elementary School Improvement Plan 2004-05 Clark Elementary School Improvement Plan 2004-06 Burnley-Morgan School Improvement Plan 2004-06 Greenbrier School Improvement Plan 2004-06 Jackson Via School Improvement Plan 2004-2006 Johnson School Improvement Plan 2004-05 Venable School Improvement Plan 2004-05 Staff Development Sessions (More will be added) 2004-05 From the documents as well as interviews with building principals, central office administrators and board members the auditors found planning is valued, but in most cases is short term, fragmented, unfocused, and generally ineffective. Exhibit 1.6.2 lists the audit criteria for assessing system planning. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 32 Exhibit 1.6.2 Audit Criteria for Assessing System Planning Charlottesville City Schools 1. Mission General purpose beliefs and educational goals of a school organization. The mission is the foundation upon which all educational programs and services are built. It describes the reason a district exists. Research shows that highly successful organizations (private and public) have a clearly defined and communicated mission. 2. Critical Analysis Collection and analysis of vital data about all facets of the internal and external environment of the school organization. It defines the status of a school organization and describes the future by combining forecasting results with status-check results. 3. Assumptions A prediction of the events and conditions that is likely to influence the performance of a school organization, division, or key individuals. Preparing planning assumptions is a form of forecasting. Assumptions are concerned with what the future will look like and help bridge the gap between needs and action goals in the planning process. 4. Components Means of grouping goals for the purpose of communication and management. All goals will be assigned to a component and each component will consist of one or more goals. 5. Objectives Statements of results that are measurable and that have time limitations. They describe the condition(s) a school organization wants to improve. The desired conditions are then translated into goals. Objectives are written for each goal. As objectives are met, goals are accomplished. 6. Evaluation Statements of evidence that show evidence that an objective is satisfactorily achieved and procedures developed for completing the evaluation. Each objective should be evaluated and the evaluation procedures should be developed at the time the objective is written. 7. Actions Plans Actions to be taken that will help achieve the objectives; Each objective will have one or more activities. A due date, responsible person(s), and cost are significant parts of each activity. 8. Monitoring System for assessing the status of activities, analyzing the results, and reporting outcomes. 9. Stakeholder Involvement All stakeholders in the system (community, board, administrators, staff and possible students are represented in the plan development. 10. Linkage Documents All documents in a system are aligned to the plan. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 33 The Strategic Plan The division strategic plan entitled, Charting the Future: Charlottesville City Schools, was developed in 2000. It contained the district mission statement; goals, objectives, and strategies; and identified the title of the person(s) responsible for the implementing the plan. The three goals in the plan were: 1. To provide quality teaching and learning in every classroom so that each child is provided a supportive learning environment and challenging learning experiences. 2. To support in students and staff the development of a process to ensure an attractive, safe, and orderly school climate which is environmentally responsible and contributes to effective learning. 3. To insure that throughout the school division there is strong instructional leadership with a primary focus on instructional improvement. The plan did not include the following planning audit criteria: Critical Analysis, Assumptions, Evaluation, Monitoring, Stakeholder Involvement or Linkage Documents. The auditors were not presented with any reports detailing the progress the district has made in achieving the goals stated in the plan. Many of the administrators interviewed indicated that the plan was no longer in effect. There was no evidence that periodic progress reports were presented to the board. Some administrators indicated that the board established yearly goals and that these were used to guide planning. Auditors reviewed two board priority documents, one for 2002-03 and one for 2003-04. The priorities listed in the 2002-03 document were repeated in the 2003-04 document. The 2003-04 document also included priorities for Technology and School Community Relations. The auditors received no reports that detailed the divisions’ progress toward meeting these priorities. Again, there was no indication that progress reports regarding the priorities had been presented to the board. It was noted that the 2003-04 priority document included dates that had passed. The quotes below are representative of what the auditors were told during interviews: • “We need a strategic plan.” • “We never got any feedback from the central office on the school improvement plan.” • “Vertical planning is not in place from grade level to grade level. Some grades do very good team planning.” • “There hasn’t been any long-term strategic planning.” • “The school board goals are uneven.” • “We used to have to beg for some update to the strategic plan.” • “We need a five-year plan.” • “I used to beg for program evaluation data” • “There is no program evaluation data. I think a lot of it has to do with protecting their turf.” • “No is division long range plan, there was a strategic plan that was supposed to end last year.” It was also noted by the auditors that the district did not have a staff development plan. The auditors were presented with a listing of staff development sessions that would be offered during the 2004-05 school year. The list included more than one hundred sessions and the auditors were told that more would be added. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 34 Overall the auditors found the past system planning efforts to be inadequate and ineffective. Interviews with board members and administrators, as well as a review of documents ,demonstrated that system planning has lacked overall direction and connectedness. The Technology Plan Computer technology, when used as an instructional tool, has tremendous potential for enhancing the instructional process. The introduction of technology as a teaching and learning tool requires rethinking what will be taught, what teachers and students will need to do differently in the classroom and how learning will be measured. The utilization of technology for data gathering and analysis is also critical to improving the effectiveness of a division. Exhibit 1.6.3 lists the characteristics of comprehensive technology program planning and the auditor’s assessment of the division’s technology plan. Exhibit 1.6.3 Characteristics of Comprehensive Technology Program Planning and Auditors’ Assessment of District Approach Charlottesville City Schools 2004-2005 Characteristic Adequate 1. Board policy or administrative regulation for instructional technology Partially Adequate X 2. Clear statement of program philosophy vision X 3. Comprehensive view of technology X 4. Needs assessment X 5. Measurable student goals and objectives X 6. Ongoing student assessment X 7. Ongoing program assessment X 8. Comprehensive staff training with measurable standards X 9. Hardware and software standards 10. Internet access standards Inadequate X X 11. Role of school library X 12. Implementation budget X 13. Site plans aligned with district plans X Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 35 Exhibit 1.6.3 indicates: • Five of the thirteen criteria were met • Six of the criteria were partially met • Two of the criteria were not met The criteria that were met included: Clear statement of program philosophy vision, comprehensive view of technology, internet access standards, implementation budget and site plan aligned with district plans. A brief summary of the auditors’ evaluation of each criterion is presented below. Board Policy for Instructional Technology: The current school board policy dealing with technology is basically an acceptable use policy and does not specifically address the board’s position regarding instructional technology although the board has identified the integration of technology into instruction as a priority. Clear State of Program Philosophy and Vision: A strong and clear statement of the philosophy and vision for the plan is stated. In part it states that “The Charlottesville City Schools provides opportunities to prepare students and staff to function successfully within an information-focused, technological society. These opportunities allow students to gain skills and proficiencies which will enable them to take advantage of technology as a facilitating factor within the lifelong learning process.” (p. 3. Charlottesville City Schools Technology Plan, 2004-2009). It was stated in the plan that the “uses of technology in communication and for the scientific analysis of student progress,” was one of the 2002-2004 Charlottesville City School Board priorities. It should also be noted that this plan was reviewed by the Office of Educational Technology, Commonwealth Department of Education, and found to be in full alignment with the Educational Technology Plan for Virginia. Comprehensive View of Technology: The plan addresses five areas of educational technology concentration: technology integration, professional development, educational applications, connectivity, and accountability. Under each of these areas goals, objectives and strategies are listed. Needs Assessment Page 10 – 11 of the plan provides a summary of “current needs.” The narrative states that “needs assessments were done throughout the year” but no information is provided regarding the methodology, participation or instrumentation for these needs assessments. The results of these needs assessments, as stated in the plan, point to the need for: staff development, adequate technology staffing, providing data related to student achievement on the SOLs at the classroom level, and dealing with the stress placed on the current infrastructure by the increasing demands on the system. Measurable Goals and Objectives The plan included goals, objectives and strategies but most of the statements did not include the specificity or criteria necessary to measure whether they were achieved. Ongoing Student Assessment Strategies for the ongoing assessment of students were not clear other than Strategy 5, Objective D, Goal 1 that states “Utilize state assessment rubric to measure technology literacy among students.” Ongoing Program Assessment Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 36 The plan did not specify a mechanism for either formative or summative evaluation of the implementation of the plan. The plan did identify the position(s) of the people responsible for implementing the plan. Comprehensive training with measurable standards Many goals, objectives and strategies addressed the need for staff development. A sampling of these included: • Provide technology training at the district level for times after school and on staff development days to include instructional integration and administrative applications. • Include training in instructional strategies for integrating technology in the system’s formal Staff Development Program. • Provide informal and formal training sessions at the building level. • No measurable standards for determining whether these strategies are met were stated in the plan. Hardware and Software Standards No standards were stated in the plan. There were strategies listed that could lead to the development of standards, e.g. “Utilize local software evaluation tool with emphasis on correlations to SOL and local curriculum in determining purchases” and “Reevaluate the process and criteria currently being used for upgrading and/or replacement of software and hardware.” Internet Access Standards Internet Access Standards are detailed in board policy adopted July 1, 1999 and revised September 16, 2004. In addition the plan included a Technology Resource Use Agreement for the elementary, middle and high school level. Role of the School Library The addendum to the plan included the Information Literacy Curriculum/Glossary that targets nine information literacy standards. A technology strand in grades one through four was part of this curriculum. There was also a listing of computer/technology standards for grade five, eight, and twelve. It was not clear whether these standards were developed at the district or state level, nor was it clear where in the curriculum these standards would be placed. Implementation Budget The current technology financial status for 2004-05 (approximation May 04) was included in the plan. It called for a total expenditure of $1,770,795.00. Site Plans Aligned to District Plans The plan called for the development of school technology plans linked to the district and state plan. The 2004 Technology Plan was deemed adequate or partially adequate for eleven of the thirteen criteria auditors use to evaluate the quality of a technology plan. Areas deemed partially adequate or not adequate include division program assessment strategies, student achievement strategies, measurable student goals, specific needs assessment procedures, and staff development targets that are measurable and integrated into the program evaluation plan. Also, while the plan requires that local plans be integrated into the district and state plan, there is no mention of how the technology plan at the building level should be integrated into the district strategic plan. One telling quote regarding student achievement with technology seemed to summarize the sentiment of many of the Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 37 persons interviewed. This person stated, “We have not done anything on technology integration. We are graduating brilliant men and women with few technology skills.” School Site Plans Next the auditors reviewed the individual school improvement plans to determine whether the school plan were connected to the districts’ strategic or long range plan, other plans in the district, or linked to the district’s professional staff development plan. The criteria for reviewing school improvement plan are stated in Exhibit 1.6.4. Exhibit 1.6.4 Audit Criteria for Assessing School Improvement Plans Charlottesville City Schools 2004-2005 1. Easy to Read: The plan is easy to read and understood by all constituent groups 2. Number of Goals: The number of objectives is listed in each plan 3. Number of Strategies: The number of activities, strategies, or specific steps is listed in each plan 4. Critical Analysis: The plan is driven by identified data. Strategies are created to solve specific problems. 5. Method of Evaluation: The method of evaluation is determined when the plan is written 6. Measurable Evaluation: The method of evaluation is based on measurable data 7. Responsible Person(s): The people responsible to carry out the strategies are listed in the action plan 8. Staff Development Needs: The action plan identifies profession development needed to help reach goals 9. Linkage to District Plan: The site plan is linked to other district plans Exhibit 1.6.5 shows the analysis of the district school improvement plans against ten criteria the auditors use to evaluation these plans. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 38 Exhibit 1.6.5 Strategies/ Actions Link-ed to Data Evaluation Plan Measure Person Resp. Link to Staff Dev. Plan Link to Dist. Plans Yes 5 goals 7 strategies No No No Yes No No Yes 56 objectives 99 action steps Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes 8 17 objectives strategies Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes 45 82 objectives strategies Yes No Yes No No No Burley-Moran Yes 13 40 objectives strategies Yes No Yes No No No Greenbrier Yes 5 19 objectives strategies Yes No Yes No No No Yes 12 35 objectives strategies Yes No Yes No No No Yes 7 33 objectives strategies Yes No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No School Charlottesville High School 2004-2005 Buford Middle School No date Walker Upper Elementary 2004-2005 Clark Elementary 2004-2006 Jackson-Via 2004-2006 Johnson 2004-2005 Venable 2004-2005 Easy to Read Goals/ Objectives Auditors’ Analysis of School Improvement Plans Charlottesville City Schools 2004-2005 No 4 goals Not clear Exhibit 6.1.5 provides an overall summary of the information provided in the building school improvement plans: • All plans listed goals and/or objectives; • All plans except the high school plan were linked to data; • No plan was linked to the district strategic plan; and • No plan was linked to the district staff development plan, because one did not exist. In general, the school improvement plans followed a similar format. Most of them listed “evidence of implementation” rather than specific evaluation criteria for determining whether the goals and objectives were met. For example things like “meeting agenda,” “length of time of instruction,” or Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 39 “lesson plans” were listed as evidence of implementation. Some plans included comprehensive student achievement data that were clearly linked to goals and objectives. In other plans the link between school achievement data and the goals and objectives was not as clear. Some of the plans made reference to objectives from earlier years indicating that there was some continuity in this planning process from year to year. Some of the plans were quite comprehensive and specific and others were quite general in nature. None of the plans referenced the district strategic plan, a staff development plan, or the technology plan. Overall, the Charlottesville City Schools planning process has lacked the procedures necessary to guide future goal attainment and the effective use of human and material resources, nor have the plans en toto created the kind of focus and synergy that might be expected to come from the effort. Finding 1.7: Board Policies Are Not Adequate to Provide Direction for Sound Local Curriculum Management Practices. Comprehensive policies provide an operational framework for management of the curriculum by establishing the structure for its design and delivery and a systematic basis for decision-making and standardized practice across a variety of settings. Well-defined curriculum management policies are critical to providing control over and focus for resources, programs, and personnel in a school district. Thus, the analysis and evaluation of curricular policies is an integral component of the curriculum management audit process. In order to serve as an effective guide for decision-making at all levels of the organization, a school district’s policy framework must be accessible and written clearly so that decisions can be make by referencing relevant policies. The policies must reflect the direction set by the Board and focus the resources of the Board toward specific goals. If policies are not clear, specific, and comprehensive, or if they do not exist, administrators and teachers function in a vacuum and curricular practices and procedures become driven by individual idiosyncracies. As a result, quality control within the system may be compromised. To determine the status of policy development in the Charlottesville City Schools, the auditors reviewed district policies and regulations, interviewed board members, central office administrators and building level administrators with respect to curriculum development, implementation, and assessment. The auditors also visited schools within the district to observe the implementation of policy. Those policies and regulations directly related to curriculum quality control are listed in Exhibit 1.7.1. The Charlottesville City School Board has worked with the Virginia School Boards Association in the development and revision of board policies. The polices tend to be general statements and there are few administrative regulations that more clearly define the intent of the policy. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 40 Exhibit 1.7.1 Curriculum-Related Board Policies and Regulations Reviewed by the Audit Team Charlottesville City Schools 2004 -2005 Std Policy No. Title Description Date Approved and/or Last Revision “Adopt board goals and objectives for each aspect of the school system’s operation. Establish basic policies to implement these goals. 1 01-2 School Board Powers and Duties Evaluate the performance and progress of the Charlottesville City School Division against the stated goals and objectives. The measures used shall be: progress toward objectives; and concise and meaningful management reports …..by the superintendent on a regular occurring basis.” 08/8/98/ 10/16/03 “… to provide equal opportunity for every student to achieve maximum intellectual, social, emotional and physical growth” 1,3 1 1,4 01-4 Educational Philosophy 01-5 School Division Goals and Objectives 01-6 Commitment to Accomplishment “… provide the necessary trained and dedicated leadership, qualified personnel, equipment and materials to assure an appropriate education for every student, regardless of race, color, sex, physical condition, or national origin” “… learning opportunities shall be provided that are consistent with personal development and potential. Programs shall allow an individual approach to each student’s learning style and educational needs.” “Evaluation is the only means of learning whether the educational goals adopted by the Board are being achieved. A comprehensive program of evaluation in the public schools should cover: (1) the curriculum and instructional programs, (2) pupils, dropouts, and graduates, (3) school personnel, (4) buildings and equipment, (5 business operations, (6) operations of the School Board. 07/16/98 07/16/98 07/16/98 Appraising the success of the instructional program is particularly important. Only through a keen awareness of the strengths and shortcomings of the program can the School Board have a sound basis for making improvements.” 1,4 1,4 01-7 01-36 Evaluation of School Board Operational Procedures Annual Report Board will evaluate its performance annually. 07/16/98 Requires the superintendent to make an annual report to the board on or before Sept 15 of each school year covering the work of the schools for the year ending June 30 to State Board Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 41 07/16/98 Exhibit 1.7.1 (continued) Curriculum-Related Board Policies and Regulations Reviewed by the Audit Team Charlottesville City Schools 1 2-1 Administrative Goals The administration is responsible for leadership to achieve Board goals 04/03/98 1 2-2 Qualifications and Duties of Superintendent Describes duties of the superintendent 04/03/98 1 2-6 & 2-6(a) Evaluation of Superintendent Outlines procedures for annual evaluation of the superintendent 04/03/98 1 2-8 Administrative Organization Plan Requires annual review and approval by the Board 04/03/98 2-11 Evaluation of Administrative Staff Requires evaluation of “effectiveness of the administrator in his/her role as defined by the job description and the accomplishment of both short and long-range objectives defined early in the year.” 04/03/98 2-15 Professional Development Requires professional development for all administrative staff that leads to “increasing their knowledge, improving their performance, enhancing their staff evaluation techniques and generally upgrading the school division.” 04/03/98 04/03/98 04/03/98, 12/11/03 1 1 1 2-16 Review of Administrative Decisions ‘All questions from staff members concerning the operation of the school division shall first be discussed with the appropriate administrators. The Charlottesville City Schools Board will review only those administrative decisions which have been reported through the office of the superintendent” 1 2-20 School Building Administration “The principal is the chief executive of the school.” Purpose and Mission Statement “The mission of the Charlottesville City Schools is to graduate students who aspire to achieve and who are prepared to participate fully in a free and democratic society. Students will be expected to master a challenging set of academic standards. They will be taught to find and use information, speak and write effectively, make responsible decisions, and work to achieve personal goals. Students will learn to appreciate history, diversity and the achievements of humankind. They will learn to make contributions to the well-being of the community. Upon graduation, students will be prepared to secure employment, continue their education, and adapt skillfully to a changing technological society.” 1 3-1 07/16/98, 03/18/04 Describes learning environment. “A supportive environment includes competent, dedicated teachers using a variety of methods and a classroom atmosphere where students may function and develop according to their abilities.” 1, 2 3-2 Instructional Goals and Objectives “The school’s goals and objectives shall be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Board of Education.” Criteria for school goals are: written in plain language, be stated in measurable terms, consist mainly of measurable objectives to raise student achievement, reduce drop-out rates, and increase the quality of instruction. Results will be reported to the community. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 42 07/16/98 Exhibit 1.7.1 (continued) Curriculum-Related Board Policies and Regulations Reviewed by the Audit Team Charlottesville City Schools 4 3, 4 3-3 Student Achievement 3-5 Standards of Learning, Graduation Requirements and Locally Awarded Verified Credit Achievement of a passing score on the SOL tests along with other criteria will be used to determine promotion/retention 07/16/98 Lists procedures for course credit through SOL test, graduation requirements and types of diplomas 07/16/98 11/21/02 Superintendent shall submit new courses and new educational programs to the Board for approval. 2 3-8 Curriculum Development Curriculum development process includes: identification of division goals, identification of program goals and student learning results, curriculum evaluation and curriculum refinement. 2, 3 3-9 Grouping for Instruction Describes the basis for grouping, approved by the principal 2, 3 3-10 Pilot, Research, Innovative or Experimental Projects Describes requirements for research conducted within the division 2 3-11 Curriculum Guides and Course Outlines “The staff … shall develop curriculum guides and courses of study and shall provide for the review and revision of these documents.” 2,3 3-16 Programs for Gifted Students Requires development of program, annual review and report to Board Text media Selection and Adoption Describes process 3-26 2 3-27 Instructional and Describes process Supplementary Materials Selection 2, 3 3/28; 3/28 (a) 2, 3 2 07/16/98 07/16/98 07/16/98 7/16/98 7/16/98 03/18/04 07/16/98 07/16/98 School Libraries/Media Centers Describes responsibilities 3/29 Guidance and Counseling Programs Defines academic guidance, career guidance, and personal/social guidance 07/16/98 2, 3 3-30 Parental Assistance With Instruction Board encourages parents to provide instructional assistance to students 07/16/98 4 3-33 Testing Program 07/16/98 States that the division annually participates in the Virginia Department of Education prescribed testing program Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 43 07/16/98 Exhibit 1.7.1 (continued) Curriculum-Related Board Policies and Regulations Reviewed by the Audit Team Charlottesville City Schools 1–5 3-45 Alternative States requirements for alternative school programs School Programs 2, 3 3-46 Advanced Placement Classes States that students and parents shall be notified about availability, qualifications, and financial assistance for low income families 1, 2, 3 3-47 Acceptable Use of Technology Outlines practice 5 4-1 Annual Budget 3-48 Selective Enrollment of Non-Public School Students 5-14 Standards For Accreditation School and Instructional Leadership 5-15 Professional Staff Members: Contract Status and Discipline 5-16 Evaluation of Professional Staff 1, 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 5-17 Professional Staff Development “The annual budget will reflect the revenues and expenditures necessary for the effective and efficient operation of the school division.” 5-65 10/21/99 10/21/99 04/3/98 Outlines practice 10/16/97 Board shall maintain schools which meet the standards of accreditation. “The superintendent shall direct each principal to prepare and implement a biennial school plan, which the superintendent shall approve. Principals shall be responsible for instructional leadership and effective school management that promote positive student outcomes, including achievement of individual students.” 02/19/ 98 Defines contract stipulations. No date States purpose of evaluation. “To raise the quality of instruction and educational services to the children of the community, to raise the standards of the division as a whole, and to aide the individual to grow and improve.” 02/19/98 03/04/04 “The goal of the professional development program is to provide better learning experiences in the classroom which result in a positive effect on student performances and attitude.” Board views proficiency with educational technology as vital. 10/21/99 Also includes professional development for administrative personnel that includes, “training in the evaluation and documentation of teacher and administrator performance based on student academic progress and the skills and knowledge of the administrative personnel.” Outlines procedures. Professional Staff 5-44; 5-44(a) Assignments and Transfer Professional Staff Probation and Continuing Contract 10/21/99 O2/19/98 Defines procedures Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 44 10/21/99 Exhibit 1.7.1 (continued) Curriculum-Related Board Policies and Regulations Reviewed by the Audit Team Charlottesville City Schools States expectations for the evaluation process. Criteria for principals, assistant principals and supervisors include “the assessment of the administrator’s skills and knowledge, student academic progress and school gains in student learning and effectiveness in addressing school safety and enforcing student discipline.” Criteria for teachers include, “ student academic progress and the skills and knowledge of such personnel, including instructional methodology, classroom management and subject matter knowledge.” 10/21/99 07/16/98 1 5-66 Supervision of the Evaluation Process 3 7-1 Equal Educational Opportunities Non-discrimination against students and describes criteria for open forum for students Explains School Choice 1, 5 7-47 Federally Mandated School Choice for Students Enrolled in Schools Identified for Improvement 7/45 Admission of Non-Resident Students Outlines process 1, 5 8-1 Facilities Development Goals Board will strive to provide facilities that support the best possible environment for teaching and learning 08/03/00 04/15/04 04/15/04 04/03/98 Policy and Regulation Design The audit employs 26 characteristics of effective policy for curriculum management that are organized into five categories: control, direction, connectivity and equity, feedback and productivity. The auditors examined each policy identified in Exhibit 1.7.1 to determine if it addressed the audit characteristics. A three-step process for determining the adequacy of policy for curriculum management was used. Step 1: The auditors examined each relevant policy to determine if it could be classified under any of the 26 audit characteristics of effective curriculum management or if policy for the criterion was absent. Policies were then listed under the appropriate criterion and adequacy determined. Step 2: The auditors then reviewed policies classified under a criterion. If the collective policies listed under a criterion were adequate to provide direction to decision-making then the auditors used the symbol “X” under the “Adequate” column titled “Quality.” If the policies did not meet the criterion, the column “Inadequate” was marked. Step 3: The final step in determining adequacy is to total the number of criteria that have been met. In order for policies to be characterized as adequate, the auditors must rate 70 percent or more of the criteria as being met. This translates into at least 18 of the 26 criteria meeting the audit characteristics. The auditor’ assessment of adequacy of the Charlottesville City Schools policies is presented in Exhibit 1.7.2 Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 45 Exhibit 1.7.2 Quality Criteria for Curriculum Management Policies and Auditor’s Assessment Charlottesville City Schools 2004 – 2005 Quality Criteria 1. Provide for CONTROL – require • An aligned written, taught and tested curriculum • Philosophical statements of curriculum approach • Board adoption of the curriculum • Accountability through roles and responsibilities • Long-range, system-wide planning 2. Provide for DIRECTION – require • Written curriculum for all subject/learning areas • Periodic review of the curriculum • Textbook/resource adoption by the Board • Content area emphasis • Program integration and alignment to curriculum 3. Provide for CONNECTIVITY AND EQUITY – require • Predictability of the written curriculum from one grade to another • Vertical articulation and horizontal coordination • Training of staff in the delivery of the curriculum • Delivery of the curriculum • Monitoring of the delivery of the curriculum • Equitable access to the curriculum 4. Provide for FEEDBACK - require • • A student and program assessment plan Use of data from assessment to determine program/curriculum effectiveness and efficiency • Reports to the Board about program effectiveness • Use of data to determine efficiency/effectiveness of all district functions 5. Provide for PRODUCTIVITY –require • Program centered budget • Resource allocation tied to curriculum priorities • Environment to support curriculum delivery • Support systems focused on mission delivery • Data-driven decisions for the purpose of increasing student learning • Change process for long-term institutionalization Policies 1-4, 1-6 1-4, 1-5, 3-1, 3-2 3-8 2-1, 2-11, 2-20 1-2, 1-5, 2-11 3-8, 3-11, 3-16 3-11 3-26, 3-27 3-1 Not located Adequate Not Adequate X X X X X X X X X X Not located X Not located 2-15, 5-17 1-2. 2-11, 3-8 1-4, 1-5, 7-1 X X X X 1-6, 1-36, 3-33, 566 5-14 X X X 1-36, 2-1, 1-6 1-2, 5-14 X X 1-4, 4-1, 4-3, 4-1 3-2, 4-4, 8-1 Not located Not located X X Not located Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 46 X X X X Overall, the Charlottesville City Schools policies and regulations are inadequate in design. Only eight of the 45 policies reviewed had been revised since first adopted. The following observations are noteworthy with respect to curriculum management policies. • Of the 26 criteria, only 8 or 30% were adequate • Of the 26 criteria, 18 or 70% were inadequate • For six of the criteria, no board policies directly related to that criterion • In the area of feedback only one criterion was judged adequate • In the area of productivity, only one criterion was judged adequate • The area of control had the most criteria met • Specific areas of inadequate policy for curriculum management included: • Aligning the written, taught, and tested curriculum • Board adoption of the curriculum • Long-range, system-wide planning • Periodic review of the curriculum • Program integration and alignment to curriculum • Predictability of the written curriculum from one grade to another • Vertical articulation and horizontal coordination • Training of staff in the delivery of the curriculum • Delivery of the curriculum • Use of data from assessment to determine program/curriculum effectiveness and efficiency • Reports to the Board about program effectiveness • Use of data to determine efficiency/effectiveness of all district functions • Program centered budget • Resource allocation tied to curriculum priorities • Support system focus on mission delivery • Data-driven decisions for the purpose of increasing student learning • Change process for long-term institutionalization As the policies are now written, they are inadequate to establish the processes and structures to guide administrative decision-making and provide direction for sound curriculum management. Current policies do not establish the necessary framework for consistently managing all phases of curriculum and instructional design and delivery. Many policy statements lack specificity and some policies critical to curriculum quality control are missing. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 47 Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 48 STANDARD 2: A School System Has Established Clear and Valid Objectives for Students. A school system meeting this audit standard has established a clear, valid, and measurable set of pupil standards for learning and has set the objectives into a workable framework for their attainment. Unless objectives are clear and measurable, there cannot be a cohesive effort to improve pupil achievement in the dimensions in which measurement occurs. The lack of clarity and focus denies to a school system’s educators, the ability to concentrate scarce resources on priority targets. Instead, resources may be spread too thin and be ineffective in any direction. Objectives are, therefore, essential to attaining local quality control via the school board. What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Charlottesville City Schools Common indicators the PDK-CMSi auditors expected to find are: • A clearly established, system-wide set of goals and objectives adopted by the board of education that addresses all programs and courses; • Demonstration that the system is contextual and responsive to national, state, and other expectations as evidenced in local initiatives; • Operations set within a framework that carries out the system’s goals and objectives; • Evidence of comprehensive, detailed, short- and long-range curriculum management planning; • Knowledge, local validation, and use of current best practices and emerging curriculum trends; • Written curriculum that addresses both current and future needs of students; • Major programmatic initiatives designed to be cohesive; • Provision of explicit direction for the superintendent and professional staff; and • A framework that exists for systemic curricular change. Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Charlottesville City Schools This section is an overview of the findings that follow in the area of Standard Two. The details follow within separate findings. The school division had no curriculum management plan. Such a plan would establish the coherence required to lift student achievement and erase the achievement gap at all levels in the division. The auditors found documents which, considering only their scope, were adequate to be inclusive of the largest part of the curriculum to be taught. However, these documents were not, en toto, adequate to the task of providing for deep alignment and K-12 coherency and consistency within and across the school system. The documents could not be an effective substitute for a curriculum management plan. The auditors reviewed 83 curriculum guides. While some were found to contain most of the critical elements to effectively guide instruction, many did not contain all of them. The lack of consistency within the guides is a problem in bringing about a clear focus on a division-wide basis, especially for secondary student achievement where the acquisition of basic skills at lower levels is critical for erasure of the achievement gap. Finally the auditors examined the linkage between technology and curriculum delivery when visiting schools and classrooms. Approximately 299 classrooms were visited briefly during the audit, even if Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 49 they had no students at the moment of the visitation. About 71% were categorized. These visitations revealed the dominance of whole group instruction and student seat work as the prevailing forms of instructional activities. The importance of instructional differentiation is one important element of retaining student interest for learning. With the exception of some student computer labs, the use of technology in the classroom during these visits was very sparse. Finding 2.1: The Division Lacks a Comprehensive Management Plan to Provide for Design, Delivery, Evaluation, and Revision of the Curriculum. A school system with a comprehensive curriculum management plan is able to establish guidelines and procedures for the design and delivery of curriculum, and provides a thorough system of quality control. The curriculum management plan expresses the procedural intent of the district leadership and provides direction for curriculum development, implementation, evaluation, and revision. The foundation of the curriculum plan is established in board policy and implemented in administrative procedure. The curriculum plan should function in coordination with other major plans (e.g., the district long-range plan, the budgeting process, and the textbook adoption plan), and should have the flexibility to respond appropriately to the changing requirements of state agencies, as well as to expectations of higher education and the workplace. When a district lacks a comprehensive curriculum management plan, there is potential for disjointed and inconsistent actions which may reduce curriculum effectiveness. The audit team examined a variety of documents to determine if a comprehensive curriculum management plan existed in the Charlottesville City Schools. Those documents included board policies, job descriptions, memoranda from central office administrators, and the Charlottesville City Schools Curriculum Development Plan. Auditors also conducted school site visits and interviewed board members, administrative staff, principals, instructional coordinators, teachers and parents. The following board policies relate to curriculum management: • Board Policy 01-6: Commitment to Accomplishment: This policy states that a comprehensive program of evaluation should cover, 1) the curriculum and instructional programs, 2) pupils, dropouts, and graduates, 3) school personnel, 4) buildings and equipment, 5) business operations, and 6) operations of the School Board. • Board Policy 2-1: Administration Goals: The administration is expected to specialize in planning, organizing, implementing, and evaluating educational programs. • Board Policy 3-8: Curriculum Development: This policy affirms that curriculum is a means to student achievement. The policy also makes clear that the curriculum development process should include, 1) identification of division goals, 2) identification of program goals, 3) curriculum evaluation, and 4) curriculum refinement. Additionally, the administration and faculty are directed to evaluate educational programs and report findings and recommendations to the Board. • Board Policy 3-11: Curriculum Guides and Course Outlines: This policy ask for the superintendent to direct development of curriculum guides and courses of study and to provide for the review and revision of these documents. Although board policies contain components that provide direction for curriculum development and evaluation, no single comprehensive plan was presented that provides a cohesive approach to curriculum management. Board policies reference curriculum planning activities, but do not include specific procedures to carry out the plan. Curriculum documents and interviews support the finding that the design, delivery, evaluation, and implementation of curriculum is disorganized and inconsistent. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 50 The following quotes provide perceptual evidence of a disjointed and inconsistent curriculum approach by the division to curriculum management practices from those interviewed by the auditors: • “The Board is not involved in the curriculum.” • “Specialists create the curriculum.” • “Teachers created the curriculum.” • “The state develops the curriculum.” • “Curriculum is established city-wide.” • “We use Understanding By Design to create curriculum.” • “There is no set curriculum, no set plan, especially in reading.” • “We do not have an integrated curriculum across the district.” • “We do not want the state standards to be the only curriculum.” • “There’s no unifying curriculum.” • “Health has been overlooked for awhile. Not assessed.” • “Our curriculum is not aligned K-4. We’ve been testing our students to get baseline data and focus our instruction.” • “No continuity from elementary to upper elementary, middle schools in shambles.” • “They use the curriculum binders. Use them more and more. Instruction has become more focused on curriculum guides.” • “Teachers created curriculum, in coordination with department heads. Not much follow-up centrally to support this.” • “Not been one over-arching model for curriculum, a lot of jumping around, not a unified approach.” • “The textbook is really not a curriculum.” • “Curriculum not as systematic as it could be.” • “It would be a good thing for the board to be involved in curriculum development.” • “With good instructional leadership we could get a good curriculum.” • “Science is our weakest area. Our teachers feel least comfortable with this area.” • “A patchwork curriculum is in place.” • “Most curriculum from our schools are developed with representatives from each building and the coordinators.” • “Reading is the area that has not done a lot of curriculum work.” • “Our science education is not driven by any curriculum.” • “We have primarily minority students going into high school with extremely low reading levels.” • “There’s been nothing for a reading program. Just initiatives principals have been doing. There is no curriculum alignment in reading and language arts K-4. Science is unheard of.” Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 51 Auditors found documentary evidence of fragmented and disjointed curriculum management efforts over the years. Documents that contained curriculum development procedures or curriculum planning guides were found to exist, but these documents lacked consistency and effective organization, as well as the kind of focus which would lead to deep curriculum alignment and effective delivery of differentiated instruction. As a total compilation, the documents en toto could not be considered a comprehensive curriculum management plan. To illustrate this point, the auditors assessed the documents which they reviewed against the characteristics of a curriculum management plan. The results are shown in Exhibit 2.1.1. The inadequacies of the documents created by district personnel are clear. Exhibit 2.1.1 Characteristics of a Comprehensive Curriculum Development Plan and Auditors’ Assessment of District Approach Charlottesville City Schools September, 2004 Auditors’ Rating Characteristics 1. Describes the philosophical framework for the design of the curriculum (standards-based, results-based, competency-based). 2. Identifies a periodic cycle of curriculum review of all subject areas at all grade levels. 3. Specifies the roles and responsibilities of the Board, central office staff members, and school-based staff members. 4. Describes the timing, scope, and procedures for curriculum review. 5. Presents the format and components of aligned curriculum guides. 6. Directs how state and national standards will be included in the curriculum. 7. Specifies overall assessment procedures to determine curriculum effectiveness. 8. Describes the approaches by which tests and assessment data will be used to strengthen curriculum and instruction. 9. Identifies the design of a comprehensive staff development program linked to curriculum design and delivery. 10. Presents procedures for monitoring curriculum delivery. 11. Establishes a communication plan for the process of curriculum design and delivery as well as celebration of progress and quality. Adequate Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 52 Inadequate X X X X X X X X X X X Overall, Exhibit 2.1.1 shows that four (36 percent) of the system’s past efforts as exemplified in the documents reviewed met the audit’s criteria, and seven (64 percent) did not. The division’s past efforts did not satisfy the audit standard of 70 percent required for adequacy. No formal curriculum revision or curriculum evaluation plan exists, nor is there consistency in the format or content of existing curriculum guide documents. Additionally, the use of assessment data to guide staff development and curriculum revision was not present. Finding 2.2: The Scope of the K-12 Written Curriculum is Adequate to Provide Effective Guidance for Classroom Content Inclusion. Curriculum documents are the work plans that provide direction for teachers in planning classroom instruction. Curriculum documents provide continuity of teaching and vertical alignment throughout a school system. A complete curriculum includes student objectives for all grade levels and courses offered in a district that are connected to state standards. A complete curriculum should include a list of prerequisite skills, instructional materials, classroom strategies, and specific methods of assessment. The lack of a curriculum document for a course or subject area forces teachers to rely on other resources for planning and delivering instruction. The lack of a curriculum document increases the likelihood of fragmentation and inconsistency of instruction across grades, courses, and schools. Auditors expect to find comprehensive curriculum guides for all subject areas and courses taught in a school system. To determine the scope of the Charlottesville City Schools curriculum, auditors examined 83 curriculum and planning documents provided by division personnel (see Exhibit 2.2.1). The audit team also reviewed board policies, course descriptions, state standards, the Charlottesville City Schools website and various folders for elementary, middle and high school. In accordance with audit criteria, the scope of the written curriculum is rated as adequate if 70 percent or more of the subject areas or courses offered have written curriculum guides. Written curriculum guides, for purposes of scope adequacy, are defined as the adopted curriculum used by teachers to guide instruction. The scope of the written curriculum for grades K-8 is adequate by audit standards, however, the scope of written curriculum for grades 9-12 is inadequate. The scope of the written curriculum for core subject areas, those subjects assessed by the State Standards of Learning, was found to be adequate in all grade levels, K-12. Auditors found the overall scope of the written curriculum, for grades K-12, to be adequate to support effective instruction. This finding addresses only the scope or coverage of the written curriculum. The quality of the written curriculum guides is addressed in Finding 2.3. Exhibit 2.2.1 is a listing of curriculum documents presented to the auditors. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 53 Exhibit 2.2.1 Curriculum Documents Provided by the Charlottesville City School September, 2004 Title Writing Curriculum Map, K-8 English Curriculum – Grade 7 English Curriculum – Grade 8 Math Curriculum Binder – Buford Middle School – Grades 7 and 8 English Curriculum Overview – Grade 7 Social Studies and Civics Binder History and Social Studies Curriculum Guide – Grade 7 Civics and Economics Curriculum Guide (3 binders) PE / Health Curriculum Binder Science – Grade 5 Science – Grade 6 (2 binders) Science Curriculum Guide – Grade 7 Science Curriculum Guide – Grade 8 U. S. History Curriculum Guide – Grade 6 Science Curriculum Guide – Grade 4 Science Curriculum Guide Book II – Grade 3 Science Assessment Tools (2 binders) Jackson Via Elementary School Curriculum Notebook Johnson Elementary School Curriculum Notebook Burnley-Moran Elementary School Folder Clark Elementary School Folder Greenbrier Elementary School Packet Venable Elementary School Packet Core Reading and English Binder Math Curriculum Guide – Grade K Math Curriculum Guide – Grade 1 Math Curriculum Guide – Grade 2 Math Curriculum Guide – Grade 3 Math Curriculum Guide – Grade 4 Math Curriculum Guide – Grade 5 Math Curriculum Guide – Grade 6 History and Social Science Curriculum Guide – Grade 5 History Binder – Grade 4 History Binder – Grade 3 History Binder – Grade 2 History and Social Science – Grade 1 History – Grade K Enhanced Scope and Sequence K-5 English SOL Curriculum Framework K-12 Open Court Reading – Grade 5 Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 54 Published 2003 No date No date Revised 2004 2001-2003 No date No date No date No date No date No date No date No date No date No date No date 2004 No date No date No date No date No date No date No date No date No date No date No date No date No date No date No date Revised 2004 Revised 2001 2002 No date No date 2004 No date 2002 Exhibit 2.2.1 (continued) Curriculum Documents Provided by the Charlottesville City School September, 2004 World History Curriculum Guide World History II Curriculum Guide Grade 10 World Geography Curriculum Guide U. S. History Curriculum Guide Government Binder English Curriculum 9-12 Earth Science Curriculum Guide Biology Curriculum Guide Chemistry Curriculum Guide Physics Curriculum Guide Algebra I Resource Notebook Geometry Resource Notebook Mathematics Department Curriculum Documentation Fine and Performing Arts Notebook Grades K-12 Visual Arts Education – Grades K-12 Elementary Art Binder (sample) Exemplary Art Education Curricula: A Guide to Guides Gaining the Art Advantage (magazine) Advanced Marketing Exploring Work and Family Roles Resource Management Parenting Nutrition and Wellness Introduction to Fashion Design Technical Foundations and Transfer Health and Medical Sciences Architectural Drawing Technical Drawing Engineering drawing Career and Technical Education Program Planning Guides Keyboarding Applications Principles of Business Keyboarding (Middle Schools) Business Law Office Administration Business Management Computer Information Systems Word Processing Marketing Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 55 No date No date No date 2003 No date No date No date No date No date No date No date No date No date No date 1989 No date 1994 1999 No date No date No date No date No date No date 2004 No date No date No date 2003 2004 No date 2003 No date No date No date No date No date No date No date Exhibit 2.2.2 shows the course offerings in grades K-4 and identifies the courses that are covered by written curriculum guides. Exhibit 2.2.2 Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and by Grade Level Kindergarten through Fourth Grade Charlottesville City Schools September, 2004 Course Offering K 1 X X English X X Math X X Science X X Physical Education X X History / Social Science X X Health X X Music X X Art X X Fine / Performing Arts Total Percentage of Courses with Guides Key: 2 X X X X X X X X X Blank= Course offered but no guide presented 3 X X X X X X X X X 4 X X X X X X X X X Courses Offered 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 45 Curriculum Guides Presented 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 45 100% X=Offered with guide available As can be noted in Exhibit 2.2.2, all 45 courses offered at the elementary level (100 percent) have written curriculum documents. The scope of curriculum guides at this level meets the audit standard of 70% or more required for adequacy. Exhibit 2.2.3 shows the scope of the written curriculum for the upper elementary, grades 5-6. The exhibit provides a list of subjects taught, and whether a written curriculum guide was presented to the auditors for that subject. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 56 Exhibit 2.2.3 Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and by Grade Level Fifth and Sixth Grades Charlottesville City Schools 2004 Course Offering English Reading Science History Math AP Math Health / PE Fine and Performing Arts Total Percentage of Guides Present 5 X X X X X X X X 6 X x X X X X X X Courses Offered 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 Curriculum Guides Presented 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 100% As can be noted in Exhibit 2.2.3, all 16 courses offered at the upper elementary level (100 percent), have written curriculum documents. The scope of curriculum guides at this level meets the audit standard of 70% or more required for adequacy. Exhibit 2.2.4 shows the scope of the written curriculum at the middle school level, grades 7-8. Auditors examined course offerings and compared these to curriculum guides presented to the auditors. Exhibit 2.2.4 Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and Grade Level Middle School, Grades 7-8 Charlottesville City Schools September, 2004 Curriculum Guides Present English 2 Mathematics 2 United States History 1 Civics X 1 Physical Education X X 2 Health Education X X 2 Life Science X 1 Physical Science X 1 Foreign Language X X 2 Reading X X 0 Fine and Performing Arts X X 2 Totals 16 Percentage of Courses With Guides 89% Key: Blank = Course offered but no guide presented. X = Course offered with guide available. Course Offering 7 X X X 8 X X Courses Offered 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 18 Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 57 As noted in Exhibit 2.2.4, 16 out of 18 courses offered (89 percent) at the middle school level have written curriculum documents. The scope of the written curriculum guides at this level meets audit criteria of 70 percent or more required for adequacy. Exhibit 2.2.5 presents the scope of the written curriculum grades 9-12. A total of 164 courses are listed, and 85 of those courses were found to have a written curriculum guide present. Exhibit 2.2.5 Scope of the Written Curriculum by High School Courses Offered, Grades 9-12 Charlottesville City Schools September, 2004 Course No. Course Title English 1110 English 9-H 1120 English 9-A 1130 English 9 1140 English 9 Applied 1210 English 10-H 1220 English 10-A 1230 English 10 1240 English 10 Applied 1310 AP English Language and Composition 1330 English 11-A 1340 English 11 1350 English 11 Applied 1410 AP English Literature and Composition 1420 English 12-A 1430 English 12 1440 English 12 Applied 1000 English as a Second Language 1020 Creative Writing 1030 Knight Time Review (KTR) 1040 Yearbook Publication 1050 Public Speaking 1165 Humanities Total Percentage of Guides Present in English Courses History 2010 World History 9-H 2015 World History 9-A 2212 World Geography 9 2213 World Geography 9 Applied 2030 World History 10-H Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 58 Course Guide Present Not Present X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 18% X X X X X X X 18 X X X X X Exhibit 2.2.5 (continued) Scope of the Written Curriculum by High School Courses Offered, Grades 9-12 Charlottesville City Schools 2035 World History 10-A 2040 World History 10 2045 World History 10 Applied 2110 AP United States History 2120 United states History-A 2125 United States History 2130 United States History Applied 2210 AP Virginia and United States Government 2215 United States Government-A 2220 United States Government Total Percentage of Guides Present in History Courses Mathematics 3115 Algebra I-A 3120 Algebra I 3130 Algebra I, Part 1 3131 Algebra I, Part 2 3210 Geometry-H 3215 Geometry-A 3220 Geometry 3230 Geometry Part 1 2131 Geometry Part 2 3310 Algebra II-H 3315 Algebra II-A 3320 Algebra II 3330 Algebra III / Trigonometry 3420 Pre-Calculus-H 3430 AP Calculus (AB) 3450 Advanced and Multivariable Calculus 3510 Discrete Mathematics 3530 AP Statistics 3540 Computer Science II-AP 3520 Consumer Mathematics 3535 Computer Science I-A Total Percentage of Guides Present in Mathematics Courses Science 4010 Earth Science H 4015 Earth Science A 4020 Earth Science Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 59 X X X X X X X X X X 7 47% 8 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 71% 6 X X X Exhibit 2.2.5 (continued) Scope of the Written Curriculum by High School Courses Offered, Grades 9-12 Charlottesville City Schools 4212 4213 4025 4135 4110 4115 4120 4125 4230 4210 4215 4220 4330 4310 4315 4320 4130 4312/4313 Earth Science Part 1 Earth Science Part 2 Earth Science Applied AP Biology Biology I-H Biology I-A Biology I Biology I Applies AP Chemistry Chemistry I-A Chemistry I Principles of Chemistry AP Physics Physics I-A Physics I Conceptual Physics Biology II – Human Biology Biology 101/102 Total Percentage of Guides Present in Science Courses Art 9110 9111 9115 9116 9120 9125 9135 9210 9215 9220 9225 9310 9315 9320 9325 9330 9410 9411 9415 Art I Art I - Intermediate Art II Art II - Intermediate Studio Art AP Portfolio Studio Art Photography Introduction to Theatre Acting Technical Theatre Charlottesville Players Symphonic Band WW Symphonic Band BP Wind Ensemble Marching Knights Jazz Ensemble Chorus 1 Chorus 2 Charlottesville Singers Exhibit 2.2.5 (continued) Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 60 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 7 33% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 Scope of the Written Curriculum by High School Courses Offered, Grades 9-12 Charlottesville City Schools 9500 Beginning Orchestra 9238 Intermediate Orchestra 9510 Concert Orchestra 9515 String Ensemble 9610 Introduction to Piano 9700 Introduction to Dance 9710 Intermediate / Advanced Dance Total Percentage of Guides Present in Art Courses Foreign Language 5110 French I-A 5115 French I 5120 French II -A 5125 French II 5130 French III-A 5135 French III 5136 French III/IV-H 5140 French IV-H 5150 AP French Language 5315 German I-A 5320 German II-A 5330 German III-A 5340 German IV-H 5350 AP German Language 5415 Latin I-A 5420 Latin II-A 5430 Latin III-A 5440 Latin IV-H 5450 AP Vergil 5361 AP Latin Literature 5010 Spanish I-A 5015 Spanish I 5020 Spanish II-A 5025 Spanish II 5030 Spanish III-A 5035 Spanish III 5040 Spanish III/IV-H 5050 AP Spanish Language 5580 AP Spanish Literature Total Percentage of Guides Present in Foreign Language Courses Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 61 X X X X X X X 26 100% 0 0% 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 30 Exhibit 2.2.5 (continued) Scope of the Written Curriculum by High School Courses Offered, Grades 9-12 Charlottesville City Schools Health / Physical Education 7010 Health Ed. 9 7020 Physical Education 9 7030 Health 10 7040 Physical Education 10 Total Percentages of Guides Present in Health/Physical Education Courses Occupational Courses 6151 Keyboarding 6152 Computer Processing and Applications 6621 Office Administration 6612 Computer Information Systems 6625 Word Processing / Desktop Publishing 6640 Computer Programming for Business/Internet 6132 Business Law 6136 Business Management 6740 Office Specialist 6115 Principles of Business and Marketing 8120 Marketing 8130 Advanced Marketing 8125 Internet Marketing and Web Page Design 8135 International Marketing 8248 Introduction to Fashion Design and Merchandising 8232 Child Development / Parenting 8229 Nutrition and Wellness 8225 Family Relations 8219 Resource Management 8403 Technology Foundations 8405 Mechanical Drawing / Computer-Aided Design 8436 Engineering Drawing / Computer-Aided Design 8437 Architectural Drawing / Computer-Aided Design 8431 Construction Technology Total Percentage of Guides Present in Occupational Courses X X X X 2 50% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 24 96% Total Courses Offered Courses With Written Curriculum Guides Courses Without Written Curriculum Guides Percent of Courses With Written Curriculum Guides Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 62 2 X 1 164 85 79 52% Exhibit 2.2.5 shows that 52 percent of the courses offered in high school, grades 9-12, had written curriculum guides. The majority of courses without guides were electives. However, all of the core subject areas (those assessed by the State Standard of Learning), had a written curriculum guide present. Therefore, the scope of the written curriculum at this level is considered adequate to guide teaching and learning according to audit standards. Exhibits 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, and 2.2.5 show the following: • Of the elementary courses, 100 percent are covered by curriculum guides. • Of the upper elementary courses, 100 percent are covered by curriculum guides. • Of the middle school courses, 89 percent are covered by curriculum guides. • Of the high school courses, 52 percent are covered by curriculum guides. • Of the core subject areas in grades K-12, 100 percent are covered by curriculum guides. In summary, the scope of the written curriculum is adequate in the Charlottesville City Schools. The elementary and middle school have complete coverage. The high school has many elective courses without written curriculum, but the coverage is considered adequate by audit standards. Finding 2.3: The Quality of the Written Curriculum is Inadequate to Guide Teaching in order to Promote Deep Alignment and Erase the Achievement Gap. Effectively designed curriculum begins with written curriculum documents that guide instruction through an aligned sequence, and are based on learning objectives adopted by the Board of Education for the district. Effective curriculum guides state prerequisite skills that coincide with the learning objectives and indicate specific major resources (text, videos, kits, and other instructional materials) and strategies useful for delivering the learning. Effective curriculum guides should also identify an assessment process that is linked to the desired objectives. They need to be user-friendly and accessible as “stand alone” documents that are easy for teachers to translate into day-to-day lessons. In order to determine the quality of the written curriculum for the Charlottesville City Schools auditors reviewed and rated 83 curriculum guides and documents provided by the division (see Exhibit 2.2.1). Auditors examined these documents using five curriculum guide component criteria. These criteria and their ratings are listed in Exhibit 2.3.1. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 63 Exhibit 2.3.1 CMSi Curriculum Guide Audit Criteria for Minimum Guide Components and Specificity Criterion Description One Clarity and specificity of objectives • no goals/objectives present • vague delineation of goals/learner outcomes • states tasks to be performed or skills/concepts to be learned • states for each objective the what, when (sequence within course/grade), how actual standard is performed, and amount of time to be spent learning Two Congruence of the curriculum to the assessment process • no evaluation approach • some approach of evaluation stated • states skills, knowledge, concepts which will be assessed • each objective is keyed to district and/or state performance evaluation Three Delineation of the prerequisite essential skills, knowledge, and attitudes • no mention of required skill • states prior general experience needed • states prior general experience needed in specified grade level • states for each objective the “match” between the basic text/instructional resource(s) and curriculum objective Four Delineation of the major instructional resources • no mention of textbook or instructional tools • names the basic text/instructional resource(s) • names the basic text/instructional resource(s) and supplementary materials to be used • states for each objective the “match” between the basic text/instructional resource(s) and curriculum objective Five Clear approaches for classroom use • no linkage cited for classroom use • overall, vague statement on linkage for approaching the subject • provides general suggestions on approach • provides specific examples on how to approach key concepts/skills in the classroom The scope of curriculum documents covered numerous courses (see Finding 2.2); however, individual courses did not always have a single document that addressed all of the five audit criteria. Components required for an effective curriculum guide were spread among two or more documents for each course. The Virginia Department of Education website provided objectives, and some form of assessment, scope and sequence, and resources. Curriculum binders and folders intermittently presented additional strategies, resources, and more detailed scope and sequence guides. The curriculum documents combined contain some or part of the curriculum guide criteria components. Therefore, due to the multitude of documents representing courses offered by the Charlottesville City Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 64 Schools, the audit team based the rating of curriculum quality on a combination of documents presented by division personnel for the four core subject areas. The core areas of instruction in grades K-12 are English, mathematics, science, and history and social science. These four subject areas are identified in the Virginia Standards of Learning Sample Scope and Sequence and the Virginia Standards of Learning Curriculum Framework. State requirements call for the assessment of these four subjects based on the Virginia Standards of Learning. Students are tested on mastery of the four core area standards. Overall, most of the curriculum documents were found to have some components of the audit criteria for quality curriculum, but the rating of these documents shows that the quality is inadequate. Exhibit 2.3.2 presents the auditors’ ratings for each of the K-12 core subject areas, based on a combination of curriculum guides and documents. The mean ratings for each criterion and the mean for the total curriculum ratings are calculated. Exhibit 2.3.2 Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum on the Basic Minimum Guide Components and Specificity Criteria Charlottesville City Schools 2004 Criteria Grade Level 1 Obj. 2 Eval. 3 S&S 4 Res. 5 Link Total Rating Science 4 3 3 2 3 3 14 Science 3 3 3 2 3 3 14 Science 2 2 2 2 2 3 11 Science 1 3 2 2 2 2 11 Science K 2 2 2 2 2 10 Math 4 2 2 3 1 0 8 Math 3 3 2 3 1 0 9 Math 2 2 2 3 1 0 8 Math 1 2 3 3 2 0 9 Math K 2 3 2 1 0 8 History / Social Science 4 2 2 2 2 2 10 History / Social Science 3 3 3 3 2 3 14 History / Social Science 2 2 3 3 2 3 13 History / Social Science 1 3 2 2 2 3 12 History / Social Science K 2 1 2 2 3 10 English / Language Arts 4 2 3 2 2 1 10 English / Language Arts 3 2 2 3 2 1 10 English / Language Arts 2 2 2 3 2 1 10 English / Language Arts 1 2 2 3 2 1 10 English / Language Arts K 2 2 3 2 1 10 2.3 2.3 2.5 1.9 1.6 10.6 Elementary Curriculum Mean Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 65 Exhibit 2.3.2 (continued) Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum on the Basic Minimum Guide Components and Specificity Criteria Charlottesville City Schools 2004 Grade Level 1 Obj. 2 Eval. 3 S&S 4 Res. 5 Link Total Rating Science 5 3 3 2 2 3 13 Science 6 3 3 2 3 3 14 Math 5 3 2 3 3 3 14 Math 6 3 2 2 3 3 13 History / Social Science 5 3 2 2 2 2 11 History / Social Science 6 3 2 3 2 3 13 English / Language Arts 5 2 3 3 2 2 12 English / Language Arts 6 2 2 3 2 2 11 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.6 12.5 Grade Level 1 Obj. 2 Eval. 3 S&S 4 Res. 5 Link Total Rating Science 7 3 2 2 2 3 12 Science 8 3 3 2 2 3 13 Math 7 3 2 3 3 2 13 Math 8 3 2 3 3 2 13 History / Social Science 7 3 2 2 2 2 11 History / Social Science 8 3 2 2 2 3 12 English / Language Arts 7 2 2 3 2 3 12 English / Language Arts 8 3 2 3 2 3 12 2.9 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.6 12.4 1 Obj. 2 Eval. 3 S&S 4 Res. 5 Link Total Rating Earth Science 2 2 2 2 1 9 Biology 2 2 2 2 2 10 Chemistry 2 2 2 2 1 9 Physics 2 1 1 3 2 9 Algebra I 3 2 3 3 3 14 Geometry 3 2 3 3 3 14 Algebra II 2 2 3 3 1 11 World History 3 3 2 2 1 11 World History II 2 2 1 0 1 6 Upper Elementary Curriculum Mean Middle School Curriculum Mean High School Curriculum Grade Level World Geography 3 3 2 2 1 11 U. S. History 2 2 1 1 1 7 Government 3 2 2 2 2 11 3 2 2 2 2 11 English 9 Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 66 Exhibit 2.3.2 (continued) Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum on the Basic Minimum Guide Components and Specificity Criteria Charlottesville City Schools 2004 Grade Level 1 Obj. 2 Eval. 3 S&S 4 Res. 5 Link Total Rating English 10 3 2 2 2 2 11 English 11 3 2 2 2 2 11 English 12 3 2 2 2 2 11 2.6 2.1 2.0 2.1 1.7 10.5 High School Curriculum Mean Mean Elementary 10.6 Mean Upper Elementary 12.5 Mean Middle School 12.4 Mean High School 10.5 Overall Mean for K-12 Curriculum 11.5 As can be noted in Exhibit 2.3.2: • The overall curriculum for core subject areas in grades K-12 is inadequate to effectively guide instruction in the classroom. • Thirty two out of 52 core subject curriculum documents presented to the auditors (62 percent) received a rating of lower than 12, which is considered inadequate by audit standards. • All subject areas rated had student learning objectives listed in curriculum documents. • All subject areas rated mentioned some form of assessment. • All subject areas rated listed some prior experience needed. • Clarity and specificity of objectives was rated highest in upper elementary, middle and high school curriculum documents. • Mention of prerequisite skills was rated highest in elementary, grades K-4. • Congruence of the curriculum to assessment procedures was rated lowest in the upper and middle school curriculum documents. • Clear approaches for delivery of instruction in the classroom received the lowest score in both the elementary and high school curriculum documents. • Math curriculum in grades K-4 made no mention of approaches for classroom use. • The format and content of written curriculum documents found on the Virginia Department of Education website and in curriculum binders/folders is inconsistent. • Pacing guides were not found in all curriculum documents. In summary, the scope and sequence of core subject area written curriculum documents is inconsistent and does not include adequate clarification of prerequisite skills needed. Additionally, Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 67 the scope and sequence does not provide a specific amount of time to be spent learning each objective. Although some form of assessment is provided in the documents reviewed, the assessments are not generally keyed to district and/or state evaluations. The curriculum documents lack sufficient information to effectively provide teachers with adequate work plans to guide their teaching, engage in deep alignment, and erase the achievement gap. Finding 2.4: The Delivery of the Curriculum is Limited in Differentiation and Does Not Include Much Integration of Technology. The delivery of the curriculum is a key determinant of a district’s capacity to impact student achievement. Effective delivery of the curriculum begins with well written curriculum guides or courses of study that identify student learning goals and include strategies to achieve those goals. The integration of technology in the classroom is essential for preparing students for an everchanging technological society, and should be part of the curriculum delivery. In addition to the written curriculum, congruent expectations for the delivery of the curriculum in the classroom need to be specified in board policy, in job descriptions, and in teacher evaluation procedures. Staff development needs to be aligned with these expectations, and to provide teachers the opportunity to develop their knowledge of curriculum delivery. Administrators need to monitor instruction and to provide teachers with feedback about their teaching so that teachers may improve their teaching, and consequently, improve student performance. The team of auditors reviewed board policies, job descriptions, and other documents to determine expectations for the delivery of the curriculum, and the use of technology in the Charlottesville City Schools. The auditors conducted site visits to each school in the district and spent a brief time in most classrooms. The auditors interviewed central administrators, principals, teachers, board members, and parents in order to collect data on the delivery of curriculum and the integration of technology. The following board policies reference instructional practices: • Board Policy 01-5: School Division Goals and Objectives states that “A responsive environment includes competent, dedicated teachers using a variety of techniques”. Yet, classroom instruction was found by auditors to be limited and uninteresting • Board Policy 01-6: Commitment to Accomplishment states that evaluation in the public schools should cover school personnel, and that “evaluation is the only means of learning whether the educational goals adopted by the Board are being achieved”. There is no specific procedure for evaluation of curriculum delivery present. • Board Policy 3-2: Instructional Goals and Objectives calls for the school staff and community representatives to review the extent to which the school has met its goals and objectives, and to analyze the school’s student performance data. There is no mention of specific procedures to conduct this evaluation, or of who is responsible for its completion. The following objectives from the Charlottesville City Schools Strategic Plan (2000) refer to instructional practices and the use of technology in the classroom: • Goal 1, Objective 4, Strategy 1 asks for a school plan with “a strong instructional focus at each school in order to ensure that all staff members contribute to the effort to sustain a highly focused instructional climate”. There is no mention of specific procedures or evaluative measures used to achieve this goal. • Goal 1, Objective 7, Strategy 3 is the “review of the school technology plan to ensure that strategies to promote the use of technologies as instructional tools are included”. There is no Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 68 mention in the Strategic Plan of any evaluation to determine whether technology is being integrated as an instructional tool. • Goal 3, Objective 1, Strategy 3 is to “assess annually the performance of each administrator utilizing a defined set of goals and expectations related specifically to the focus on instruction and student achievement”, yet there is no formal procedure for the assessment of teachers or administrators. Comments related to classroom practice and integration of technology were noted during interviews with board members, teachers, administrators, and parents. The following are some representative comments: • “We are not serving multiple intelligences in our schools now.” • “I’m not sure how we integrate technology into the learning program.” • “Our instructional department is in shambles” • “Teachers weren’t being evaluated, some not at all.” • “Teacher evaluation is not good enough. There’s no observation for tenured teachers.” • “Instructional support is missing.” • “People don’t realize they have low expectations. It’s very hard to change.” • “A major fault is not having an integrated curriculum across the district.” • “We need desperately to educate all children.” • “I think we should have a larger emphasis on curriculum and instruction. I think the part we are missing the most is the emphasis on instruction.” • “I don’t think remediation has to be drudgery.” • “We have the data we have and adjusted our pacing guide to help our teachers and students.” • “We need to focus on creating continuity through K-12.” The auditors found that the Board of Education policies provide only general expectations and guidelines for curriculum delivery and evaluation. No board policies were found that address integration of technology in the classroom (see also Finding 1.X). The curriculum documents reviewed do not provide adequate information regarding instructional strategies (see Finding 2.3) and procedures for monitoring the delivery of the curriculum are vague and inconsistent. Classroom visits also contributed to the data collected by auditors on instructional practices and integration of technology. Although the visits were brief, the auditors found students to be generally on-task, and teachers attentively working. The predominant activities observed were students involved in group work or seat work, and teachers providing direct instruction. Instances of varied approaches to learning, use of technology, and active participation were infrequent. Exhibit 2.4.1 presents the “Snap Shot” data from the school site visits. Data includes the time of day of classroom visits, the number of classrooms visited, the number of classrooms categorized, and the dominant instructional activity present in each school. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 69 Exhibit 2.4.1 Classroom “Snap Shot” Data – Types of Dominant Instructional Activities Charlottesville City School District September 2004 Classrooms Time Visited Number Visited Classrooms Categorized Burnley-Moran PM 29 19 Whole group 53% Clark AM 28 20 Whole group 45% Greenbrier PM 27 19 Whole group 70% Jackson-Via AM 31 23 Seat work 30% Johnson PM 33 26 Whole group 79% Venable AM 26 20 Seat work 19% Walker Upper AM 54 26 Seat work 43% Buford Middle PM 22 18 Seat work 78% Charlottesville High AM 49 41 Seat work 49% Whole group 59% Seat work 43% School TOTALS 299 212 Dominant Instructional Strategy Exhibit 2.4.2 presents the percentages of teacher activities observed during classroom visits, and the overall teacher activities in the division. Exhibit 2.4.2 Classroom Observations of Dominant Teacher Activities Charlottesville City Schools September, 2004 At desk Direct Instruction Small Group Monitoring/ Assisting Other Burnley-Moran Elementary 0% 63% 5% 32% 5% Clark Elementary 0% 60% 5% 30% 5% Greenbrier Elementary 0% 47% 0% 53% 0% Jackson-Via Elementary 9% 39% 0% 35% 17% Johnson Elementary 4% 92% 4% 0% 0% Venable Elementary 10% 35% 0% 45% 10% Walker Upper Elementary 8% 46% 42% 0% 4% Buford Middle School 17% 39% 0% 44% 0% Charlottesville High School 17% 56% 0% 0% 0% Average Percentages 7% 53% 6% 27% 5% School Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 70 Exhibit 2.4.3 presents the percentages of student activities observed during classroom visits, and the overall student activities in the division. Exhibit 2.4.3 Classroom Observations of Dominant Student Activities Charlottesville City Schools September, 2004 Seat Work Whole Group Silent Reading Off Task Lab Hands on Small Group AV Present. Burnley-Moran Elementary 0% 53% 5% 16% 0% 11% 0% Clark Elementary 25% 45% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% Greenbrier Elementary 26% 47% 0% 0% 11% 16% 0% Jackson-Via Elementary 30% 26% 0% 13% 22% 9% 0% Johnson Elementary 4% 69% 0% 0% 0% 27% 0% Venable Elementary 25% 20% 5% 10% 20% 10% 10% Walker Upper Elementary 42% 0% 8% 8% 35% 8% 0% Buford Middle School 78% 0% 0% 6% 6% 6% 6% Charlottesville High School 29% 49% 0% 0% 17% 5% 0% 29% 34% 3% 6% 13% 11% 2% School Average Percentages Exhibit 2.4.4 presents the overall use of computer technology in the classrooms observed by the team of auditors. Exhibit 2.4.4 Classroom Observation of Technology Integration in Classrooms Charlottesville City Schools September, 2004 Total Computers Computers in Use Percent Computers in Use Classrooms Integrating Computers Burnley-Moran Elementary 63 1 1.5% 3% Clark Elementary 65 1 1.5% 4% Greenbrier Elementary 75 26 35% 15% Jackson-Via Elementary 51 1 2% 3% Johnson Elementary 52 0 0% 0% Venable Elementary 87 0 0% 0% Walker Upper Elementary 77 23 30% 2% Buford Middle School 90 20 22% 9% Charlottesville High School 197 29 15% 14% Total 757 101 13% 5.6% School Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 71 Exhibits 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, and 2.4.4 indicate the following: • The two dominant activities observed throughout the division are whole group participation and seatwork tasks. • Direct instruction is the dominant teacher activity observed in the division. • Whole group participation is the dominant student activity observed in the division. • Three classrooms visited in the division (two percent) were engaged in AV presentations. • Six classrooms visited in the division (three percent) were engaged in silent reading. • Five out of nine schools did not have silent reading as a dominant activity. • Thirteen percent of the total computers in the division were being used in the classroom. • In two out of nine schools visited, no computers were being used by students. • Overall, less than 6% of the classrooms visited in the Charlottesville City Schools were integrating the use of computers. If the data in Exhibits 2.4.2, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, and 2.4.4 can be assumed to be typical of daily instruction in the Charlottesville City Schools, then the auditors conclude that overall, K-12 teaching practices do not reflect much instructional differentiation. Diversification of classroom instruction promotes a stimulating environment for learning and accommodates a wide range of learning styles and abilities. Classrooms observed were generally free from disruptive episodes that hinder instructional time spent, but class time was used predominately for direct instruction in a whole group setting. As a steady diet, such dominant practices cannot be effective with all children all of the time. In summary, instructional practices observed were quite limited and did not represent a variety of teaching strategies or learning styles. Evaluation of classroom instruction is informal and inconsistent, and there is minimal integration of technology in the classrooms throughout the division. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 72 STANDARD 3: A School System Demonstrates Internal Connectivity and Rational Equity in Its Program Development and Implementation. A school system meeting this Curriculum Management Audit standard is able to show how its program has been created as the result of a systematic identification of deficiencies in the achievement and growth of its students compared to measurable standards of pupil learning. In addition, a school system meeting this standard is able to demonstrate that it possesses a focused and coherent approach toward defining curriculum and that, as a whole, it is more effective than the sum of its parts, i.e., any arbitrary combinations of programs or schools do not equate to the larger school system entity. The purpose of having a school system is to obtain the educational and economic benefits of a coordinated and focused program for students, both to enhance learning which is complex and multiyear in its dimensions, and to employ economies of scale where applicable. What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Charlottesville City Schools The PDK-CMSi auditors expected to find a highly-developed, articulated, and coordinated curriculum in the school system that was effectively monitored by the administrative and supervisory staffs at the central and site levels. Common indicators are: • Documents/sources that reveal internal connections at different levels in the system; • Predictable consistency through a coherent rationale for content delineation within the curriculum; • Equity of curriculum/course access and opportunity; • Allocation of resource flow to areas of greatest need; • A curriculum that is clearly explained to members of the teaching staff and building-level administrators and other supervisory personnel; • Specific professional development programs to enhance curricular design and delivery; • A curriculum that is monitored by central office and site supervisory personnel; and • Teacher and administrator responsiveness to school board policies, currently and over time. Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Charlottesville City Schools This section is an overview of the findings that follow in the area of Standard Three. The details follow within separate findings. There are a number of challenges that will have to be met and barriers to be overcome before all students can realize high levels of achievement. Equity can be measured by the extent to which individuals and specific groups of students are provided with appropriate resources to respond to their respective needs. The extent to which students representing different ethnic and income groups have access to similar programming and resources that provide comparable educational opportunity can be a measure of equality. The educational success of various groups of Charlottesville City Schools students is being impeded by inequities in educational practices. Equality of access and opportunity to educational programs and services does not exist for all students. Advanced Placement course participation, participation in special education related services, gifted programming and out of school suspension rates of Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 73 subgroups of students are disproportionate when compared to their representation within the overall student population. Consequently, the unique needs of these students are not being met to adequately facilitate their academic success. Finding 3.1: Inequities Exist Based on Ethnicity and Gender and Inequalities Exist in Educational Opportunities and Access to the Curriculum and Student Services in the Charlottesville City Schools. An effective school division reflects a strong commitment to the success of all students. All students are provided with equity and equal educational opportunities. Equity is defined as the state, action, or principle of treating people in accordance with differential needs. This contrasts to the notion of equality, which is the quality or condition of being exactly the same as something else. Equality and equity for all students are expected in areas such as staffing, access to the curriculum, and student services that provide students with equal opportunities to learn. Equity is expected in areas such as advanced placement course participation, student discipline, and gifted student placement. These areas should be proportional to the representation of the different ethnic groups in the student population. To determine the status of equity and equality in Charlottesville City Schools, the auditors reviewed board policies, plans, assessment data, and numerous Charlottesville City Schools Public Schools Standard of Learning data reports. All references in this finding that pertain to student demographics, course offerings, and course participation are based on the division and state data reports and files provided to the auditors. All references in this finding related to staff demographics are based on data reports and files from the human resources software provided to the audit team. In addition, the auditors interviewed board members, central office, parents, community members, administrators, principals, and teachers and conducted site visits to each school to gather additional information. Overall, the auditors found inequities in the areas of advanced placement course participation, gifted student placement, and out-of-school suspensions. Finding 3.1 highlights the student achievement levels of various ethnic groups were found to show different levels of improvement when compared to other groups. The division’s mission statement mentions “The mission of the Charlottesville City Schools is to graduate students who aspire to achieve and who are prepared to participate fully in a free and democratic society. Students will be expected to master a challenging set of academic standards. They will be taught to find and use information, speak and write effectively, make responsible decisions, and work to achieve personal goals. Students will learn to appreciate history, diversity and the achievements of humankind. They will learn to make contributions to the well-being of the community. Upon graduation, students will be prepared to secure employment, continue their education, and adapt skillfully to a changing technological society.” Board Policy 3-2 INSTRUCTIONAL, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES states: “The School Board accepts the overall goals of public education as expressed by the Standards of Quality legislated by the Virginia General Assembly and implemented by State Board of Education regulations. The Charlottesville City School Division is committed to excellence in education and to equality of educational opportunity. Inasmuch as students differ in their rate of physical, mental, emotional and social growth and vary in their needs and abilities, learning opportunities that promote personal development.” According to Charting the Future: A Strategic Plan Charlottesville City Schools Charlottesville, Virginia (2000), “Strategy 1: Establish in each school a committee charged to emphasize and encourage a school culture that produces a climate of high expectations for the achievement of all students.” In the same document “Strategy 2: Monitor grouping practices to ensure that all students Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 74 are in environments that communicate the belief that they will be successful and will achieve high levels of academic performance.” As stated in Charting the Future: A Strategic Plan Charlottesville City Schools Charlottesville, Virginia (2000) “Objective 1: By September 2000 revise procedures, congruent with the Code of Student Conduct, that ensure fair and consistent enforcement of the division expectations for student behavior and support the development of character and intellect.” The auditors found that inequities exist in accessibility to services and programmatic composition. The auditors also found disparity among ethnic student population groups when comparing student participation in advanced placement courses, gifted programming and special education with the total population of students in the ethnic categories. Males were overrepresented in the special education population. Females were over-represented in the out of school suspension population at Charlottesville City High School. While we expect differences to exist, no student group should be disproportionately represented in program participation rates. Similarly, racial groups should not be disproportionately represented in gifted programming, suspension, and/or special education services. This finding can be contrasted with board policies, which indicate that all students should be successful. Student and Staff Ethnic Compositions Proportionate representation in the ethnic composition of staff and students in a school division provides students with role models and contributes to their sense of belonging. The auditors examined the ethnicity of the staff and students to determine if the ethnic representation of the staff was in balance with the ethnic representation of the student population. Board Policy: Regulation: 5-11(a) AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM states: “The objective of this Affirmative Action Program is to assure equal employment opportunity and thereby achieve a multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial and otherwise diverse corps of employees composed of both men and women in the Charlottesville City Schools. Based on its educational experience, expertise and judgment, the Charlottesville City School Board has determined that wide exposure to the ideas and teachings of a diverse corps of employees is necessary and appropriate for all students to provide them with equal educational opportunities, to improve their understanding and personal growth, and to develop fundamental cultural and social values in preparation for their participation as citizens.” Data provided to the auditors on the ethnicity of students is presented in Exhibit 3.1.1 and for review. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 75 Exhibit 3.1.1 Student Demographic Information Charlottesville City Schools June 2003 Classification Number Percentage Total Enrollment 4,227 100% Gender Male 2172 51.38% Female 2055 48.62% Ethnicity White 1901 45% Black 2000 47.31% Hispanic 111 2.63% Asian 90 2.13% American Indian 7 0.17% Other 118 2.79% Economic Status Full Pay Meals 2305 54.53% Free & Reduced 1922 45.47% Special Education # of student eligible 712 16.84 Self-contained 280 6.62 Resource 432 10.22 Source: CCS Data III CD-Rom, School Profiles (9/7/4) Data provided to the auditors on the ethnicity of teaching and building administrative staffing is presented in Exhibit 3.1.2 for review: Exhibit 3.1.2 Charlottesville City Schools Staffing Charlottesville City Schools Spring 2004-05 Ethnicity # of Teachers Teacher ethnicity % # of Bldg. Admin Bldg. Admin. Ethnicity % Black 57 14% 6 23.10% Hispanic 3 0.70% 0 0 Other* 3 0.70% 0 0 White 343 84.50% 20 76.90% Total 406 100.00% 26 100% Source: Report of Employee Demographics for the 2004-2005 School Session, (8/19/4) * Numbers for Asian educators were not provided. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 76 Exhibit 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 reveal the following: • White teaching staff are overrepresented (84.5 percent) in comparison to White students (45 percent). • Hispanic teachers are underrepresented (.70 percent) when compared to Hispanic student population (2.63 percent). • African American teachers are underrepresented (14 percent) when compared to African American student population (47.31 percent). • White building administrators overrepresented (76.9 percent) in comparison to White Students (45 percent). • There were no Hispanic building administrators for this time period. • African American building administrators are underrepresented (23.1 percent) when compared to African American student population (47.31 percent). Samples of comments from the interview process regarding staffing are cited below: • “We do not have minority teachers. We have a building without a minority teacher.” • “We need to see more people of color in the classroom. Some of the avenues need to be opened.” • “Need to see more people of color in classes. It used to be a tapestry.” • “I’m not convinced that the hiring process does not facilitate the hiring of minority staff.” • “There needs to be more emphasis on the recruiting of African American staff.” • “We need a better strategy for the recruitment and retention of minority staff.” • “Not a strong recruitment program for minorities, I think we miss minorities.” In summary, the auditors found the ethnic composition of the teaching staff non-reflective of the student of the student body it is hired to instruct. African American, Hispanic and “Other” teachers are under-represented in the staff ranks. African American building administrators are underrepresented. There are no Hispanic or “Other” building administrators. Gifted Education and Advanced Placement Courses An important factor in a high level of achievement for all student groups is equal access to programs and services. Course offerings are the main conduit for learning the curriculum content within schools. According to Charting the Future: A Strategic Plan Charlottesville City Schools Charlottesville, Virginia states “Strategy 1: Establish in each school a committee charged to emphasize and encourage a school culture that produces a climate of high expectations for the achievement of all students.” .” In the same document “Strategy 2: Monitor grouping practices to ensure that all students are in environments that communicate the belief that they will be successful and will achieve high levels of academic performance.” The auditors were presented with the following policies: Board Policy 3-2 INSTRUCTIONAL, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES states: “The School Board accepts the overall goals of public education as expressed by the Standards of Quality legislated by the Virginia General Assembly and implemented by State Board of Education regulations. The Charlottesville City School Division is committed to excellence in education and to equality of educational opportunity. Inasmuch as students differ in their rate of physical, mental, emotional and Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 77 social growth and vary in their needs and abilities, learning opportunities that promote personal development.” Board Policy: 3-3 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT A. mentions: “Each student should learn the relevant grade level subject matter before promotion to the next grade. For grades in which the Standards of Learning (SOL) tests are given, achievement of a passing score on the SOL tests shall be a part of a set of multiple criteria used in promotion/ retention policies. No promotion/retention policy shall be written in a manner as to systematically exclude students from membership in a grade or participation in a course in which SOL tests are to be administered.” Board Policy: 3-16 PROGRAMS FOR GIFTED STUDENTS File: IGBB states: “Acceptable programs for gifted students provide educational opportunities that enhance their special abilities. It is the intent of the Charlottesville School Board to develop and promote an appropriately differentiated educational program for gifted students. The Division shall use multiple criteria for the identification of gifted students, as prescribed by the Virginia Board of Education. An annual report regarding the Gifted Education Program shall be submitted to the Virginia Department of Education as prescribed by the Virginia Board of Education. The School Board shall establish a local advisory committee to advise in the development of gifted education services and to support the program in the community. Annually, the committee shall review the gifted education program and determine the extent to which the goals established for the program were achieved.” Exhibit 3.1.3 highlights gifted student enrollment for the Charlottesville City Schools. Exhibit 3.1.3 Gifted Verification Worksheet Grades K-12 Charlottesville City Schools Spring 2003-04 Ethnicity Number Percentage Asian 31 3.71 Black 131 15.67 Hispanic 11 1.32 Unspecified 16 1.91 White 647 77.39 Total 836 100 Source: CCS Data III CD-Rom, NCLB_Files_Spring_2003_2004 (9/7/4) As highlighted in Exhibit 3.1.3: • White students account for 77.39 percent of the gifted population but represent 45 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • Hispanic students account for 1.32 percent of the gifted population but represent 2.63 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • African American students account for 15.67 percent of the gifted population but represent 47.3 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 78 Exhibit 3.1.4 displays advanced placement course data for Charlottesville High School. Exhibit 3.1.4 Charlottesville High School Advanced Placement Enrollment in Mathematics and Science Charlottesville City Schools Spring 2003 Mathematics Ethnicity Male % Female % Total % Asian 2 3.39 2 3.39 4 6.78 Black 1 1.70 3 5.08 4 6.78 Hispanic 0 0 1 1.70 1 1.70 Am. Indian 0 0 White 29 49.15 Total 0 21 54.24 0 35.59 50 84.74 45.76 59 100 Science Ethnicity Male % Female % Total % Asian 3 9.68 1 3.23 4 12.91 Black 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hispanic 0 0 3 9.68 3 9.68 Am. Indian 0 0 0 0 0 0 White 11 35.48 13 41.93 24 77.41 54.84 31 100 Total 45.16 Source: Elementary-Secondary Staff information (EEO-5) Report (3/31/2003) As illustrated in Exhibit 3.1.4: • White mathematics students account for 84.75 percent of the advanced placement population but represent 45 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • Hispanic mathematics students account for 1.69 percent of the advanced placement population but represent 2.63 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • African American mathematics students account for 6.78 percent of the advanced placement population but represent 47.3 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • Asian mathematics students account for 6.78 percent of the advanced placement population but represent 2.13 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • American Indian mathematics students account for none of the advanced placement population but represent .17 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 79 • White science students account for 77.42 percent of the advanced placement population but represent 45 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • Hispanic science students account for 9.68 percent of the advanced placement population but represent 2.63 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • African American science students account for none of the advanced placement population but represent 47.3 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • Asian science students account for 12.9 percent of the advanced placement population but represent 2.13 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • American Indian science students account for none of the advanced placement population but represent 0.17 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. Samples of comments from the interview process regarding gifted education and advanced placement courses are listed below: • “The gifted education population is pretty White, upper income…” • “Complaints about gifted program…” • “They’ve tried to be non-restrictive.” • “There are almost no minority students enrolled in AP courses…” • “We have a talent development program. I don’t think it’s as strong as it should be.” African American and Hispanic students are underrepresented in gifted programming. African American, Hispanic and American Indian students are underrepresented in advanced placement courses when compared to the overall student population. Special Education Related Services Data were provided to the auditors pertaining to special education related services. The auditors reviewed the data to determine if disparities by gender or ethnicity existed in special education practices. The auditors noted that African American students were more likely to be found eligible than students of other ethnic backgrounds. The auditors were presented with the following policies related to special education: Board Policy 3-2 INSTRUCTIONAL, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES states: “The School Board accepts the overall goals of public education as expressed by the Standards of Quality legislated by the Virginia General Assembly and implemented by State Board of Education regulations. The Charlottesville City School Division is committed to excellence in education and to equality of educational opportunity. Inasmuch as students differ in their rate of physical, mental, emotional and social growth and vary in their needs and abilities, learning opportunities that promote personal development.” Board Policy: 3-3 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT A mentions: “Each student should learn the relevant grade level subject matter before promotion to the next grade. For grades in which the Standards of Learning (SOL) tests are given, achievement of a passing score on the SOL tests shall be a part of a set of multiple criteria used in promotion/ retention policies. Achievement expectations and participation in SOL testing for students with disabilities will be guided by provisions of their Individualized Education Plans (IEP) or 504 Plans.” Exhibit 3.1.5 shows a disparity in by ethnic groups for special education. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 80 Exhibit 3.1.5 Special Education K-12 Charlottesville City Schools Spring 2004 Ethnicity Male % Female % Total % Asian 5 0.71 3 0.42 8 1.13 Black 293 41.385 123 17.375 416 58.76 Hispanic 11 1.55 4 0.57 15 2.12 Unspecified 14 1.98 5 0.71 19 2.68 White 171 24.15 79 11.16 250 35.31 30.23 708 100 Total 69.77 Source: CCS Data III CD-Rom, _special_ed_09142004 (9/7/4) As highlighted in Exhibit 3.1.5: • White students account for 35.31 percent of the special education population but represent 45 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • Hispanic students account for 2.12 percent of the special education population but represent 2.63 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • African American students account for 58.76 percent of the special education population but represent only 47.3 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • Female students account for 30.23 percent of special education but represent 48.62 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • Males students account for 69.77 percent of special education but represent 51.38 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. Samples of comments from the interview process regarding special education are cited below. • “Our special education program tends to have way too many Black boys.” • “We’re over-identified minority kids as special education.” • “More African American children are identified as EDMR than we wish.” • “Over identified our minority students in special education, I believe we have been cited for this two years in a row.” African American students are overrepresented in special education when compared to the general student population. Although improvements were noted, African American students are also overrepresented in those that are found to be eligible for special education. Out of School Suspensions Suspensions are a way that schools can discipline students who create unsafe or disruptive situations. The auditors reviewed suspension rates at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels to determine equality in student management practices or disparities in the implementation of discipline policies. When used sparingly and to help insure a safe and orderly environment, suspensions have a place in any program of discipline. The auditors requested suspension data to include suspensions by Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 81 school, by gender, and by ethnicity. They were presented only with suspension data by elementary, middle school, and high school. The auditors reviewed the data to determine if disparities by ethnicity existed in suspension practices. The data provided to the auditors pertaining to student suspensions does not indicate that suspensions in Charlottesville City Schools are used sparingly or equitably. The auditors noted that African American students are more likely to be placed in out of school suspension than students of other ethnic backgrounds. The auditors were presented with the following from the Board Priorities 2003-2004, II. Student Conduct A: related to student discipline and suspension: “By 2002-2003, the division and all schools will ensure consistent implementation of a behavior management plan consistent with the Charlottesville Student Code of Conduct.” According to Charting the Future: A Strategic Plan Charlottesville City Schools Charlottesville, Virginia, “Strategy 1: Establish in each school a committee charged to emphasize and encourage a school culture that produces a climate of high expectations for the achievement of all students.” .” The same document highlights “Objective 1: By September 2000 revise procedures, congruent with the Code of Student Conduct, that ensure fair and consistent enforcement of the division expectations for student behavior and support the development of character and intellect.” Strategy 4 states: “Review and revise division-wide expectations regarding actions to be taken in event of serious student offenses.” Exhibit 3.1.6 shows Out of School Suspension data for Walker Upper Elementary. Exhibit 3.1.6 Walker Upper Elementary Out of School Suspension Data Charlottesville City Schools Spring 2003 Ethnicity Male % Female % Total % Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 Black 21 56.76 4 10.81 25 67.57 Hispanic 0 0 0 0 0 0 Am. Indian 0 0 White 9 24.32 Total 81.08 0 3 0 8.11 12 32.43 18.92 37 100 Source: Elementary-Secondary Staff information (EEO-5) Report (3/31/2003) As highlighted in Exhibit 3.1.6: • White students at Walker Upper Elementary account for 32.43 percent of suspensions but represent 45 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • African American students at Walker Upper Elementary account for 67.57 percent of the suspensions but represent 47.3 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • Males account for 81.08 percent of the suspension numbers at Walker Upper Elementary school, but represent 51.38 percent of the general population in Charlottesville City Schools. Exhibit 3.1.7 displays out of school suspension data for Buford Middle School. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 82 Exhibit 3.1.7 Buford Middle School Out of School Suspension Data Charlottesville City Schools Spring 2003 Ethnicity Male % Female % Total % Asian 1 1.01 0 0 1 1.01 Black 39 39.40 40 40.40 79 79.80 Hispanic 0 0 0 0 0 0 Am. Indian 0 0 White 11 11.11 Total 0 8 51.52 0 8.08 19 19.19 48.48 99 100 Source: Elementary-Secondary Staff information (EEO-5) Report (3/31/2003) As displayed in Exhibit 3.1.7: • White students at Buford Middle School account for 19.19 percent of the suspensions, but represent 45 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • African American students at Buford Middle School account for 79.78 percent of the suspensions but represent 47.3 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. Exhibit 3.1.8 highlights out of school suspension data for Charlottesville High School. Exhibit 3.1.8 Charlottesville High School Out of School Suspension Data Charlottesville City Schools Spring 2003 Ethnicity Male % Female % Total % Asian 1 0.62 0 0 1 0.62 Black 50 30.86 65 40.12 115 70.98 Hispanic 0 0 0 0 0 0 Am. Indian 0 0 White 27 16.67 Total 48.15 0 19 0 11.73 46 28.40 51.85 162 100 Source: Elementary-Secondary Staff information (EEO-5) Report (3/31/2003) Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 83 As can be noted in Exhibit 3.1.8 • White students at Charlottesville High School account for 28.39 percent of the suspensions, but represent 45 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • African American students at Charlottesville High School account for 70.98 percent of the suspensions, but represent 47.3 percent of the general student population in the Charlottesville City Schools. • Female students account for 51.85 percent of the suspension numbers at Charlottesville City High School, but represent 48.62 percent of the general population in Charlottesville City Schools. Through the interview process, division staff, board members, and parents made the following comments relative to issues related to suspensions: • “We have all spent weeks overwhelmed by discipline.” • “Difficult population of students to deal with.” • “It has been tough to look at individual kids and see that the all have not been successful.” • “Our priorities need to be focused on all students.” • “Help us!” The auditors found the suspension data to reflect disparities in the number of students suspended in schools and the number of students suspended disproportionate to the total number of students the ethnic categories, specifically African-American students. Overall, the auditors found inequalities within educational programs in the Charlottesville City Schools. The teaching staff is not representative of the student body it is hired to instruct. Minorities are under-represented in the staff ranks. Disparity exists among ethnic student groups in the enrollment of students in special education, advanced placement courses and gifted programming. Specifically, African American and Hispanic students are underrepresented in gifted programming. African American, Hispanic and American Indian students are underrepresented in advanced placement courses when compared to the overall student population. Males are overrepresented in the special education population. Females were overrepresented in the out of school suspension population at Charlottesville City High School. Disparities among ethnic groups are also present in out of school suspension rates. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 84 STANDARD 4: A School System Uses the Results from SystemDesigned and/or -Adopted Assessments to Adjust, Improve, or Terminate Ineffective Practices or Programs. A school system meeting this audit standard has designed a comprehensive system of assessment/testing and uses valid measurement tools that indicate how well its students are achieving designated priority learning goals and objectives. Common indicators are: • A formative and summative assessment system linked to a clear rationale in board policy; • Knowledge, local validation, and use of current curricular and program assessment best practices; • Use of a student and program assessment plan which provides for diverse assessment strategies for varied purposes at all levels -- district, school, and classroom; • A way to provide feedback to the teaching and administrative staffs regarding how classroom instruction may be evaluated and subsequently improved; • A timely and relevant data base upon which to analyze important trends in student achievement; • A vehicle to examine how well specific programs are actually producing desired learner outcomes or results; • A data base to compare the strengths and weaknesses of various programs and program alternatives, as well as to engage in equity analysis; • A data base to modify or terminate ineffective educational programs; • A method/means to relate to a programmatic budget and enable the school system to engage in cost-benefit analysis; and • Organizational data gathered and used to continually improve system functions. A school system meeting this audit standard has a full range of formal and informal assessment tools that provide program information relevant to decision-making at classroom, building (principals and school-site councils), system, and board levels. A school system meeting this audit standard has taken steps to ensure that the full range of its programs is systematically and regularly examined. Assessment data have been matched to program objectives and are used in decision-making. What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Charlottesville City Schools The auditors expected to find a comprehensive assessment program for all aspects of the curriculum, pre-K through the twelfth grade, which: • Was keyed to a valid, officially adopted, and comprehensive set of goals/objectives of the school district; • Was used extensively at the site level to engage in program review, analysis, evaluation, and improvement; • Was used by the policy-making groups in the system and the community to engage in specific policy review for validity and accuracy; • Became the foci and basis of formulating short- and long-range plans for continual improvement; • Was used to establish cost and select needed curriculum alternatives; and Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 85 • Was publicly reported on a regular basis in terms that were understood by the key stakeholders in the community. Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Charlottesville City Schools This section is an overview of the findings that follow in the area of Standard Four. The details follow within separate findings. The current scope of testing (extent of the curriculum formally assessed) is limited to language arts and mathematics for extensive coverage. Other curricular areas are somewhat formally assessed. There is no formal assessment of the complete curriculum in place. A review of the assessment data clearly shows a disparate achievement gap, a pattern that has persisted over an extended time period. A years to parity analysis also shows that if allowed to continue with “business as usual” the achievement gap will not only never close, it is likely to widen. Finally, there is no formal plan of program evaluation in place in the school division. Programs are allowed to continue without any formal assessment regarding their effectiveness or cost, despite many individual board member requests for evaluative data. Finding 4.1: The Scope of Student Assessment is Adequate in Language Arts and Mathematics; However it is Inadequate for Program Decision-Making in All Other Content Areas. Meaningful decisions about curriculum and instructional processes can only be made when a comprehensive set of student achievement data is available in each subject area that comprises the curriculum. An effective assessment program requires that the major learner objectives in each subject area be assessed at each grade level. Without this information the school board, decisionmakers in the district, teachers, students, and the community cannot be adequately informed regarding the status of the educational programs provided by the district, at least with formal assessment data. To determine the scope of the district’s assessment program, the auditors reviewed appropriate policies and documents. Interviews were conducted with teachers, administrators, other staff, board members, and members of the community regarding the coverage of formal assessment in the district. The auditors also acquired information on the testing program required by the district and state information about the testing program required by the district and the state. The auditors found board policy related to testing programs. Board Policy 3-2 INSTRUCTIONAL, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES states: “The School Board accepts the overall goals of public education as expressed by the Standards of Quality legislated by the Virginia General Assembly and implemented by State Board of Education regulations. The Charlottesville City School Division is committed to excellence in education and to equality of educational opportunity. Inasmuch as students differ in their rate of physical, mental, emotional and social growth and vary in their needs and abilities, learning opportunities that promote personal development.” Board Policy: 3-3 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT states “Each student should learn the relevant grade level subject matter before promotion to the next grade. For grades in which the Standards of Learning (SOL) tests are given, achievement of a passing score on the SOL tests shall be a part of a set of multiple criteria used in promotion/ retention policies.” Board Policy: 3-33 TESTING PROGRAMS File: IL mentions “The Charlottesville City School Division annually participates in the Virginia Department of Education prescribed testing program. The Division administers these tests according to state and local directives. In addition to the state testing program, school personnel may administer tests to meet specific needs within a school.” Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 86 In order to determine the scope of formal assessment in the division, the tests listed in Exhibit 4.1.1 were reviewed. Exhibit 4.1.1 K – 12 Matrix of the Formal Assessments Administered Charlottesville City Schools Fall 2004 Subject Area Name of Test Grades English SOL 3,5,8,11 Flanagan Tests for Higher Standards K-11 Advanced Placement 11,12 SOL 3,5, 8,9,10,11 Flanagan Tests for Higher Standards K-11 Advanced Placement 10,11,12 SOL 3,5, 8,9,10,11 Flanagan Tests for Higher Standards K-11 Advanced Placement 10,11 SOL 3,5,,8,9,10,11,12 Flanagan Tests for Higher Standards K-11 Advanced Placement 10,11,12 Computer Science Advanced Placement 11-12 Art Advanced Placement 10,11,12 Foreign Language Advanced Placement 11 Cross-Discipline Assessments SAT 11 Mathematics Science Social Studies SOL: The Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) tests are a criterion-referenced assessment program, administered to students in various grades in English, mathematics, science, and social studies. Exitlevel courses also take SOL tests at the high school level. Flanagan Tests for Higher Standards: Customized educational assessments for use in states which have high-stakes, state-sponsored assessments. These assessments are closely tied in both content and format to the state-sponsored assessments. SAT: The SAT is preparatory examination that is typically administered to students planning to attend college. This assessment focuses on verbal and mathematical aptitude. Advanced Placement: In AP courses all students to enter a universe of knowledge that might otherwise remain unexplored in high school; through AP Exams, students have the opportunity to earn credit or advanced standing at most of the nation's colleges and universities. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 87 Exhibit 4.1.2 presents the scope of formal testing administered by curriculum area in the division. In order for the scope to be considered comprehensive and adequate, 70 percent of the possible curriculum content areas must be formally assessed. Exhibit 4.1.2 Matrix of Typical Formal Assessment* Charlottesville City Schools 2004-05 # of % Grades Tested Tested Test Area K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Language Arts F F F Sl F F Sl F F F Sl F F F S F Sl A A 13 100 Mathematics F F F Sl F F Sl F F F Sl F Sl F Sl F A S F Sl A A 13 100 Science - - F Sl F - Sl F - - Sl F Sl F Sl F A F Sl A - 6 46.15 Social Studies - - F Sl F - Sl F Sl Sl Sl F Sl F Sl F A F Sl A Sl F A 9 69.23 Health/ Safety - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 Physical Educ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 Career and Tech. - - - - - - - - - - - A A 2 15.38 Foreign Languages - - - - - - - - - - - A - 1 7.69 Music - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 Guidance & Counseling - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 Art - - - - - - - - - - A A A 3 23.07 Curriculum Areas Tested 2 2 4 2 2 4 3 3 4 4 5 7 5 47 18 18 63.64 45.45 Percentage of Curr. Areas Tested 18.2 18.2 36.4 Possible Number of Tested Areas: 143 Key: A = Advanced Placement exams S = SAT F = Flanagan Tests for Higher Standards 36.36 27.3 27 36.36 36.36 45.45 32.87 - = no test given Sl = Standards of Learning Test * = Testing for Limited English Proficiency, English Language Learners, Several Groups of Special Education are not included. Source: CHS AP Course Information (not dated); Summary Report, Charlottesville City Schools, 2002/2003 Testing Program (October 2003); http://www.tfhs.net/tfhs-va.htm As highlighted in Exhibit 4.1.2: • Of a possible 143 courses, 47 or 32.87 percent of the curricular areas have a formal assessment program. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 88 • Of a possible 143 courses, twenty-five, or 17.48 percent of the assessments given are state mandated (Standards of Learning assessments). • The scope of assessment in language arts and mathematics is complete (100 percent). • The scope of assessment in all other content areas is below the audit benchmark of 70 percent coverage. Through the interview process, division staff, board members, and parents made the following comments relative to issues related to student assessment: • “We have not really been testing our students so we can get baseline data on our students.” • “We’re testing, testing, testing. With those that don’t do well with tests this emphasizes those who are not doing well.” • “We need someone to tell us what to do with all of this data.” • “No link to test results when revising curriculum….teachers are not accustomed to looking at data.” • “Is the data looked at? Not all school staff is looking at data effectively.” • “I don’t think the current testing we’re using is effective.” • “Build SOL test bank, not in existence now.” Although language arts and mathematics were fully assessed at all levels, the total student assessment scope was inadequate to allow for substantive formal evaluation of the complete curriculum in the Charlottesville City Schools. The division did not provide evidence of a formal student assessment plan. As a result, the board, educators, and parents do not have all of the information they may require to effectively assess the quality of schooling in the Charlottesville City Schools. Finding 4.2: Inconsistencies and Inequities in Educational Practices Stand as Barriers to the Erasure of the Achievement Gap. Years to Parity Analysis Indicates that if Nothing is Changed the Achievement Gap Will Continue to Widen. Consistency in the design and delivery of the curriculum across schools is an important element in providing equal educational opportunity. Achievement for all students is enhanced when the written curriculum is internally consistent, with clear linkages within curriculum guides, adequately articulated across and coordinated within grade levels to provide focus and connectivity to the instructional process. Achieving the goal of success for all students requires that educational opportunities and resources within the division are provided in a manner that acknowledges differences and addresses individual needs To determine the status of equality, equity, and internal consistency of the educational practices in the Charlottesville City Schools, the auditors examined board policies, division plans, and data reports of the Charlottesville City Schools and the Virginia Department of Education. Auditors also interviewed board members, staff, parents, and community members and conducted site visits to numerous schools to determine the extent to which educational programs were delivered equally to all students. Socioeconomic and ethnic data for the SAT were requested prior to and during the site visit, but were not provided to the auditors. The auditors found that certain ethnic groups scored consistently lower than other groups on assessment instruments, and student achievement was also found to vary according to gender. The following policies and documents are pertinent to educational programs and practices: Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 89 Board Policy 3-2 INSTRUCTIONAL, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES states: “The School Board accepts the overall goals of public education as expressed by the Standards of Quality legislated by the Virginia General Assembly and implemented by State Board of Education regulations. The Charlottesville City School Division is committed to excellence in education and to equality of educational opportunity. Inasmuch as students differ in their rate of physical, mental, emotional and social growth and vary in their needs and abilities, learning opportunities that promote personal development.” Board Policy: 3-33 TESTING PROGRAMS File: IL mentions “The Charlottesville City School Division annually participates in the Virginia Department of Education prescribed testing program. The Division administers these tests according to state and local directives. In addition to the state testing program, school personnel may administer tests to meet specific needs within a school.” CS Board Policy: 3-3 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT states “Each student should learn the relevant grade level subject matter before promotion to the next grade. For grades in which the Standards of Learning (SOL) tests are given, achievement of a passing score on the SOL tests shall be a part of a set of multiple criteria used in promotion/ retention policies. Achievement expectations and participation in SOL testing for students with disabilities will be guided by provisions of their Individualized Education Plans (IEP) or 504 Plans. Participation of students identified as limited English proficient shall be determined by a committee convened to make such determinations. Limited English proficient students may be exempted from the SOL tests for one grade level only in grades 3 through 8. In order to be granted verified credit, students must meet the clock hour and testing requirements set forth in the Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia. B. Each student at grades 3 through 8 shall take and be expected to achieve a passing score on the SOL tests for the student's respective grade. Schools shall use the SOL test results as part of a set of multiple criteria for determining promotion or retention of students in grades 3 through 8. No promotion/retention policy shall be written in a manner as to systematically exclude students from membership in a grade or participation in a course in which SOL tests are to be administered. C. Students in middle and secondary schools shall take applicable end-of-course SOL tests following course instruction. Students who pass the course and achieve a passing score on the associated end-of-course SOL test shall be awarded a verified unit of credit in that course. Students may earn verified units of credit in courses for which end-of-course SOL tests are available. Middle and secondary schools may consider the student's end-of-course SOL test score in determining the student's final course grade.” The mission statement for the Charlottesville City Schools states “The mission of the Charlottesville City Schools is to graduate students who aspire to achieve and who are prepared to participate fully in a free and democratic society. Our students will be expected to master a challenging set of academic standards. They will be taught to find and use information, speak and write effectively, make responsible decisions, and work to achieve personal goals. Our students will learn to appreciate history, diversity, and the achievements of humankind. They will learn to make contributions to the well-being of the community. Upon graduation, our students will be prepared to secure employment, continue their education, and adapt skillfully to a changing technological society.” The auditors found that inequalities exist in accessibility to programs and services. There are policies that address equity and program accessibility in the district. As a division, SOL scores have generally improved, but have not kept up with the state’s overall improvement in student performance. The auditors also found disparities based upon gender and ethnicity. While some differences might be expected to exist, no student group should be disproportionately represented in program participation rates. Student Achievement Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 90 Analysis of student performance data revealed discrepancies among students when disaggregated by ethnicity and gender on certain tests. As a division, SOL scores have generally improved, but have not kept up with the state’s overall improvement in student performance in 2003. Ethnically disaggregated SAT data was requested but not provided to the auditors. SAT test scores illustrate a disparity based upon gender. Advanced Placement scores are the lowest in the past years then they have been for a six year period. Division SOL results for 1998 through 2003 are displayed in Exhibits 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 and 4.2.4: Exhibit 4.2.1 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 through 2003 Grade 3: Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted) Charlottesville City Schools 1998 CCS 1999 CCS 2000 CCS 2001 CCS 2002 CCS 2003 CCS Virginia 2003 Difference CCS/VA 394 399 406 424.8 424.1 435.2 440.4 -5.2 Mathematics 399.7 406.4 421.9 452.9 439.9 466 485.6 -19.6 History & Social Studies 384.1 403.8 410.3 430.5 421.4 453.8 462.2 -8.4 Science 402.8 417.8 420.6 444.1 429.2 461.3 468.1 -6.8 Test English VA 2003 = The Virginia 2003 mean score on form Core 1. Source: Summary Report, Charlottesville City Schools, 2002-2003 Testing Program (October 2003), Virginia Standards of Learning Technical Report, 2002-03 Administration Cycle Exhibit 4.2.2 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 through 2003 Grade 5: Mean Scaled Scores Charlottesville City Schools Test 1998 CCS 1999 CCS 2000 CCS 2001 CCS 2002 CCS 2003 CCS Virginia 2003 Difference CCS/VA English: Writing English: Reading, Lit, & Research 390 412.8 427.5 424.1 421.8 448.2 457.5 -9.3 396.4 392.7 413.3 413.2 430.9 455 457.5 -2.5 Mathematics 360.7 361.3 381.9 387.8 412 427.3 442.4 -15.1 * * * * * 452.1 452.1 0 392.5 404.9 400.3 412.3 421.4 431.8 446.8 -15 History & Social Studies Science *= SOL not given that year. VA 2003 = The Virginia 2003 mean score on form Core 1. English reports are combined on the report. Source: Summary Report, Charlottesville City Schools, 2002-2003 Testing Program (October 2003), Virginia Standards of Learning Technical Report, 2002-03 Administration Cycle Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 91 Exhibit 4.2.3 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 through 2003 Grade 8: Mean Scaled Scores Charlottesville City Schools 1998 CCS 1999 CCS 2000 CCS 2001 CCS 2002 CCS 2003 CCS English: Writing 394.9 404.1 418.8 420.4 400.8 418 428.5 -10.5 English: Reading, Lit, & Research 391.4 395.3 423.3 410.9 389.4 399.6 428.5 -28.9 382 385.4 408 408.8 386.5 406 440.1 -34.1 Algebra 437.3 453.9 472.6 468 476.7 463.5 Geometry 494.9 472.8 526 550.4 526.9 505.9 Test Mathematics History & Social Studies Science Virginia Difference 2003 CCS/VA * * * * * 432.1 448.5 -16.4 409.1 430.8 450.8 448.5 427 432.5 459.5 -27 *= SOL not given that year. VA 2003 = The Virginia 2003 mean score on form Core 1. English reports are combined on the report. Source: Summary Report, Charlottesville City Schools, 2002-2003 Testing Program (October 2003), Virginia Standards of Learning Technical Report, 2002-03 Administration Cycle Exhibit 4.2.4 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 through 2003 High School Mean Scaled Scores Charlottesville City Schools Test English: Writing English: Reading, Lit, & Research 1998 CCS 427.5 1999 CCS 431.2 2000 CCS 449.1 2001 CCS 444.2 2002 CCS 456.6 2003 CCS 461.9 444 438.2 449.2 441.1 464 476.5 486.6 -10.1 406.1 424.7 426.3 401.1 426.4 423.8 452.5 453.1 459.2 -51.4 -26.7 -35.4 388.2 479.4 437.7 433.4 392.7 491.8 428.7 431.3 442.5 466.5 446.3 446 -49.8 25.3 -17.6 -14.7 426.4 442.9 415.2 421.5 441.9 422.5 435.4 451 442.5 -13.9 -9.1 -20 Algebra I Geometry Algebra II 369.9 391.8 389.4 373.5 402.7 408 World Geography World History I World History II VA & US History * 422.1 * 383.9 * 410 411.2 374.3 Earth Science Biology Chemistry 393.4 420 421.4 402 423.1 411.2 Mathematics 391.3 392.6 413.6 433 407.6 427.7 Social Studies * * 424 441 405.5 411.9 399.3 395 Science 404.7 417.5 421.9 431.2 406 420.4 Virginia Difference 2003 CCS/VA 486.6 -24.7 *= SOL not given that year. VA 2003 = The Virginia 2003 mean score on form Core 1. English reports are combined on the report. Source: Summary Report, Charlottesville City Schools, 2002-2003 Testing Program (October 2003), Virginia Standards of Learning Technical Report, 2002-03 Administration Cycle Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 92 Exhibits 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 highlight: • General improvement in SOL test scores is noted from 1998 to 2003. • In one case, 5th grade History and Social Studies, Charlottesville City Schools student performance is on track with the state of Virginia. • In most of the test areas and in most grades, Charlottesville City Schools performance is not keeping pace with that of the state of Virginia in 2003. SAT results for 2004 are displayed in Exhibit 4.2.5: Exhibit 4.2.5 Score Distributions SAT 1: 2004 Mean Scores Charlottesville City Schools Area Male Female Difference Total Verbal 569 523 46 544 Math 577 489 88 530 Source: 2004 College Bound Seniors- A Profiles of SAT Program Test-Takers (not dated) As highlighted in Exhibit 4.2.5: • Difference of 88 points in mean scores in math scores between females (489) and males (577) in 2004. • Difference of 46 points in mean scores in verbal scores between females (523) and males (569) in 2004. Advanced placement results for 1998-2003 are displayed in Exhibit 4.2.6: Exhibit 4.2.6 Longitudinal Advanced Placement Data, 1998-2003 Charlottesville City Schools Spring 2003 Year % Earning Scores of 3, 4, 5 1998 91% 1999 91% 2000 91% 2001 94% 2002 90% 2003 88% Source: Summary Report, Charlottesville City Schools, 2002-2003 Testing Program (October 2003) Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 93 As illustrated in Exhibit 4.2.6: • The percentage earning a 3, 4, 5 on Advanced Placement tests was lower in 2002 (90 percent) then in any of the previous four years. • The percentage earning a 3, 4, 5 on Advanced Placement tests was lower in 2003 (88 percent) then in any of the previous five years. Through the interview process, division staff, board members, and parents made the following comments relative to issues related to student assessment: • “[We] would like student achievement to be higher.” • “Our students are very high achieving or are at the other end without very many in the middle. We don’t fit the normal bell curve.” • “Our greatest problem is the achievement of students.” • “What happens when the school gets the data? Each school is supposed to go through and identify areas of strengths and weakness.” • “Focus on mean scores to show achievement of all students. Consistent improvement in means scores, this is the case division-wide also.” • “We’re testing, but not taking time to learn what we need to learn from it.” The federally mandated No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires that schools and school divisions achieve 100 percent proficiency for its students in grades 3-8 and high school in the areas of reading/language arts and mathematics by the end of the 2013-1014 school year. Each school division must assess the current performance of its students and determine the extent to which the overall student group and each of the subgroups required by No Child Left Behind are on track to achieve the desired level of proficiency mandated by the law. Each school division has begun to focus on the analysis of student achievement data and comparisons with the state average performance (Finding 4.2) as well as with the annual performance targets that have been set by the state. In the Charlottesville City Schools, the auditors found that African Americans score consistently lower than White students on the SOL tests and all grade levels. In several cases, if nothing is changed, the achievement gap would never close. The Charlottesville City Schools No Child Left Behind Local Consolidation Application 2003-04 states “The analysis of student performance data 2002-2003 indicates a need for improvement in the identified subgroups, but especially students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, LEP students and black students”. The auditors prepared tables that show the student performance by establishing a starting point (1998) and ending period (2003) and comparing the test result differences between African American and White students during these two years of examination. The exhibits show the gap between student achievement in each of the SOL tested content areas. (The analysis could not be completed for newer SOL tests that were not administered in 1998). A column provides a timeline for African American students to achieve parity with their White classmates’ 2003 SOL scores. These data reflect a projection of the achievement future of Charlottesville City School students if nothing is changed. In some instances, parity will require some time if conditions and achievement issues are not addressed. In other cases, parity will never be reached because the gap is growing. Disaggregated Elementary SOL results for 1998 and 2003 are displayed in Exhibits 4.2.7, 4.2.8, 4.2.9, 4.2.10, 4.2.11, and 4.2.12: Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 94 Exhibit 4.2.7 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Burnley-Moran Elementary School Grade 3: Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted) Charlottesville City Schools Test Cohort Group 1998 2003 English Black Students 351.7 382.2 White Students 429.8 458.8 Difference -78.1 -76.6 Black Students 366.5 390.4 White Students 462.3 504.1 Difference -95.8 -113.7 Black Students 368.7 417.8 White Students 416.1 491.5 Difference -47.4 -73.7 Black Students 360.6 416.5 White Students 434.7 494 Difference -74.1 -77.5 Mathematics History & Social Studies Science Years to Parity 255.3 Never Never Never Source: Summary Report, Charlottesville City Schools, 2002-2003 Testing Program (October 2003) As illustrated in Exhibit 4.2.7: • At Burnley-Moran Elementary School if the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the English SOL test will close in 255.3 years. This is the longest projected timeline for achieving parity in the entire division. • If the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the Mathematics, History & Social Studies, and Science SOL tests will never close. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 95 Exhibit 4.2.8 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Clark Elementary School Grade 3: Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted) Charlottesville City Schools Test Cohort Group 1998 2003 English Black Students 343.9 381.9 White Students 354.6 416 Difference -10.7 -34.1 Mathematics History & Social Studies Science Black Students 314.8 397 White Students 347.5 421.2 Difference -32.7 -24.2 Black Students 345.7 400.6 White Students 353.8 419.6 Difference -8.1 -19 Black Students 352.8 401.2 White Students 367.1 443.2 Difference -14.3 -42 Years to Parity Never 14.2 Never Never Source: Summary Report, Charlottesville City Schools, 2002-2003 Testing Program (October 2003) As highlighted in Exhibit 4.2.8: • At Clark Elementary School if the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the Mathematics SOL test will close in 14.2 years. • If the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the English, History & Social Studies, and Science SOL tests will never close. Exhibit 4.2.9 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Greenbrier Elementary School Grade 3: Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted) Charlottesville City Schools Test Cohort Group 1998 2003 English Black Students 357.6 409.9 White Students 460.1 493.4 Difference -102.5 -83.5 Black Students 347 444.9 White Students 509.2 517.8 Mathematics History & Social Studies Difference -162.2 -72.9 Black Students 363.2 436.8 White Students 427.4 499.6 Difference -64.2 -62.8 Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 96 Years to Parity 21.97 4.08 224.28 Exhibit 4.2.9 (continued) SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Greenbrier Elementary School Grade 3: Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted) Science Black Students 368.5 433.9 White Students 474.2 512.4 Difference -105.7 -78.5 14.4 Source: Summary Report, Charlottesville City Schools, 2002-2003 Testing Program (October 2003) As displayed in Exhibit 4.2.9: • At Greenbrier Elementary School if the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the English SOL test will close in 21.97 years. • If the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the Mathematics SOL test will close in 4.08 years. This is the shortest projected timeline for achieving parity in the entire division. • If the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the History & Social Studies SOL test will close in 224.28 years. • If the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the Science SOL test will close in 14.4 years. Exhibit 4.2.10 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Jackson-Via Elementary School Grade 3: Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted) Charlottesville City Schools Test Cohort Group 1998 2003 English Black Students 371.9 409.9 White Students 433.8 463.7 Difference -61.9 -53.8 Black Students 360.5 438.4 White Students 432.3 484.5 Difference -71.8 -46.1 Black Students 371.8 418.9 White Students 410.8 475.1 Difference -39 -56.2 Black Students 380.8 418.4 White Students 450.7 475.5 Difference -69.9 -57.1 Mathematics History & Social Studies Science Years to Parity Source: Summary Report, Charlottesville City Schools, 2002-2003 Testing Program (October 2003) Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 97 33.2 8.96 Never 22.3 As highlighted in Exhibit 4.2.10: • At Jackson-Via Elementary School if the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the English SOL test will close in 33.2 years. • If the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the Mathematics SOL test will close in 8.96 years. • If the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the History & Social Studies SOL test will never close. • If the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the Science SOL test will close in 22.3 years. Exhibit 4.2.11 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Johnson Elementary School Grade 3: Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted) Charlottesville City Schools Test Cohort Group 1998 2003 English Black Students 377.7 412.1 White Students 418.6 490.4 Difference -40.9 -78.3 Black Students 372.4 447.9 White Students 443.9 539.7 Difference -71.5 -91.8 Black Students 367.8 443.4 White Students 402.3 528.1 Difference -34.5 -84.7 Black Students 379.9 448.1 White Students 445 534.7 Difference -65.1 -86.6 Mathematics History & Social Studies Science Years to Parity Never Never Never Never Source: Summary Report, Charlottesville City Schools, 2002-2003 Testing Program (October 2003) As illustrated in Exhibit 4.2.11: • If the current student achievement patterns persist at Johnson Elementary School the gap between African American and White students on the English, Mathematics, History & Social Studies, and Science SOL tests will never close. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 98 Exhibit 4.2.12 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Venable Elementary School Grade 3: Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted) Charlottesville City Schools Test Cohort Group 1998 2003 English Black Students 374.7 428.9 White Students 467.5 485.5 Difference -92.8 -56.6 Black Students 351.5 462.8 White Students 484.4 534.6 Difference -132.9 -71.8 Black Students 340.5 438.5 White Students 428.4 499.5 Difference -87.9 -61 Black Students 369.2 454.7 White Students 464.3 517.8 Difference -95.1 -63.1 Mathematics History & Social Studies Science Years to Parity 7.81 5.87 11.33 9.85 Source: Summary Report, Charlottesville City Schools, 2002-2003 Testing Program (October 2003) As displayed in Exhibit 4.2.12: • At Venable Elementary School if the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the English SOL test will close in 7.81 years. • If the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the Mathematics SOL test will close in 5.87 years. • If the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the History & Social Studies SOL test will close in 11.33 years. • If the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the Science SOL test will close in 9.85 years. Disaggregated Upper Elementary SOL results for 1998 and 2003 are displayed in Exhibit 4.2.13: Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 99 Exhibit 4.2.13 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Walker Upper Elementary School Grade 5: Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted) Charlottesville City Schools Test Cohort Group 1998 2003 English: Writing Black Students 362.7 409.5 White Students 422.3 484.6 Difference -59.6 -75.1 Black Students 365.2 419 White Students 431 492.2 Difference -65.8 -73.2 Black Students 332.5 393.4 White Students 392 457.5 Difference -59.5 -64.1 English: Reading, Lit, & Research Mathematics History & Social Studies Science Black Students 418.7 White Students 482.9 Difference 0 -64.2 Black Students 364 392.7 White Students 424 469.2 Difference -60 -76.5 Years to Parity Never Never Never **** Never Source: Summary Report, Charlottesville City Schools, 2002-2003 Testing Program (October 2003) **** = test not administered that year As highlighted in Exhibit 4.2.13: • If the current student achievement patterns persist at Walker Upper Elementary School the gap between African American and White students on the English (Writing and Reading, Literature & Research), Mathematics, History & Social Studies, and Science SOL tests will never close. Disaggregated Middle School SOL results for 1998 and 2003 are displayed in Exhibit 4.2.14: Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 100 Exhibit 4.2.14 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Buford Middle School Grade 8: Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted) Charlottesville City Schools Test Cohort Group 1998 2003 English: Writing Black Students 377 391.8 White Students 413.2 459.6 Difference -36.2 -67.8 Black Students 360.9 368.2 White Students 424.6 446.5 Difference -63.7 -78.3 Black Students 357.3 374.2 White Students 409.2 451.3 Difference -51.9 -77.1 Black Students 433.3 442.5 White Students 437.2 467 Difference -3.9 -24.5 Black Students 487 447 White Students 485 509.7 Difference 2 -62.7 English: Reading, Lit, & Research Mathematics Algebra I Geometry I History & Social Studies Science Black Students 401 White Students 455.1 Difference 0 -54.1 Black Students 385.9 404.4 White Students 434.9 473.5 Difference -49 -69.1 Years to Parity Never Never Never Never Never **** Never Source: Summary Report, Charlottesville City Schools, 2002-2003 Testing Program (October 2003) **** = test not administered that year As illustrated in Exhibit 4.2.14: • If the current student achievement patterns persist at Buford Middle School the gap between African American and White students on the English (Writing and Reading, Literature & Research), Mathematics, Algebra I, Geometry I, History & Social Studies, and Science SOL tests will never close. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 101 Disaggregated High School SOL results for 1998 and 2003 are displayed in Exhibit 4.2.15: Exhibit 4.2.15 SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Charlottesville High School Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted) Charlottesville City Schools Test Cohort Group 1998 2003 English: Writing Black Students 384.9 416 White Students 452.3 488.6 Difference -67.4 -72.6 Black Students 395.5 437.6 White Students 476.5 499.2 Difference -81 -61.6 Black Students 360.2 386.5 White Students 377.2 422.6 Difference -17 -36.1 Black Students 365.8 386.5 White Students 407 457.4 Difference -41.2 -70.9 Black Students 350.4 371.4 White Students 406.3 444 Difference -55.9 -72.6 English: Reading, Lit, & Research Algebra I Geometry I Algebra II World Geography World History I World History II Virginia & US History Black Students 387.4 White Students 407 Difference 0 -19.6 Black Students 386.6 460.2 White Students 440.7 501.8 Difference -54.1 -41.6 Black Students 392.7 White Students 456.3 Difference 0 -63.6 Black Students 325.4 388.3 White Students 420.7 460.3 Difference -95.3 -72 Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 102 Years to Parity Never 15.87 Never Never Never **** 16.64 **** 15.45 Exhibit 4.2.15 (continued) SOL Assessment Results Spring 1998 and 2003 Charlottesville High School Mean Scaled Scores (Unadjusted) Earth Science Biology Chemistry Black Students 363.1 394.7 White Students 423 447.4 Difference -59.9 -52.7 Black Students 391.6 404 White Students 443.8 468.6 Difference -52.2 -64.6 Black Students 372.9 380.8 White Students 440.8 453.4 Difference -67.9 -72.6 36.6 Never Never Source: Summary Report, Charlottesville City Schools, 2002-2003 Testing Program (October 2003) **** = test not administered that year As displayed in Exhibit 4.2.15: • At Charlottesville High School, if the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the English: Reading, Literature & Research SOL test will close in 15.87 years. • If the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the World History SOL test will close in 16.64 years. • If the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the Virginia & US History SOL test will close in 15.45 years • If the current student achievement patterns persist, the gap between African American and White students on the Earth Science SOL test will close in 36.60 years • If the current student achievement patterns persist the gap between African American and White students on the English (Writing), Algebra I, Geometry I, Algebra II, Biology and Chemistry SOL tests will never close. Through the interview process, division staff, board members, and parents made the following comments relative to issues related to ethnicity and student achievement in the division: • “There is disparity between Black and White. When the test scores come out, you see a wide gap. Polarization.” • “It’s almost like we are operating two different divisions. population, those who do well and those who do poorly.” • “Staff members don’t necessarily see the potential in the disadvantaged students.” Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 103 There’s a bi-modal student • “They talk about the achievement gap, but not at the expense of their own children.” • “Division-wide African American students are not performing as well as White students.” • “Why are not all our kids performing at a high level?” • “We live in a racist town, don’t address achievement gap because it’s a socio-economic issueonly care about high SES, high achieving kids.” • “There’s a lot of gaps among some schools, a lot of gaps among the races. How do we close it?” • “There’s soft prejudice, the person is unaware that they are expecting less. A muffled low expectation.” • “People are only concerned with their own community.” • “We have this huge bi-modal population with struggling readers.” • “Our priorities need to be focused for all students.” • “It’s a good school system. It’s a very divisive system. It’s a dual system.” • “I don’t think the current testing we’re using is effective.” • “There’s disparity between Blacks and Whites, low and high income. Hardly anyone in the middle. Test scores come out and you see the disparity.” Overall, the student achievement level of African American students is consistently lower than that of White students in the Charlottesville City Schools. Specifically, an analysis of the 1998 and 2004 SOL test results indicate African American students under-performed in comparison to their White counterparts on most SOL tests at the elementary, upper elementary, middle school and high school levels and in some cases increased. In most cases, little progress has been made and in some cases the differences in test scores between the two populations have widened. If these patterns are not addressed, parity will not be achieved. If the current trends related to student achievement continue unabated, the Charlottesville City Schools will not meet the NCLB mandated levels of improvement. Finding 4.3: Despite Board Requests, No Formalized Program Evaluation Approach Exists in the School Division. Productivity in the context of educational settings refers to the ability of the organization to demonstrated improved results over time with the same or reduced resources. Typically the success indicators for educational productivity are stated in terms of criteria such as improved student achievement as measured by specific assessments, improved student attendance, diminishing disciplinary incidents, and similar results. Officials with either school-wide or division-wide responsibilities often seek new strategies to address old and new problems, which they perceive as impediments to improved student learning and attainment of goals and results. An effective school division receives and uses feedback information from such sources as student test performance, discipline records and dropout data, follow-up studies of former students, and surveys of parents and staff. The division did not present a division-wide plan that was linked to and directed toward school improvement plans. A program should be based on an identified problem or set of problems, clarified by data in the identified process, linked to goals of the school and division, and be well-designed, adequately funded, fully implemented, and evaluated. The process of effective programming includes the steps outlined in Exhibit 4.3.1: Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 104 Exhibit 4.3.1 Steps for Effective Implementation of Program Interventions for Improvement Charlottesville City Schools September 2004 1. Assess the current situation. 2. Diagnose data collected. 3. Identify the problem 4. Propose and examine alternatives. 5. Select an alternative that best addresses the problem. 6. Develop a formal plan (with goals and measurable objective to address the problem. 7. Provide fiscal and personnel resources as needed through redistribution of resources. 8. Implement, with well-defined mechanisms for monitoring progress. 9. Evaluate the activity. 10. Adjust activity as needed, based on data gathered through the evaluation process. 11. Implement, based on adjustments needed. Programs that do not follow this process often do not address division needs, establish goals, or sustain productivity. Implementation or program interventions must be managed carefully to promote intended outcomes. Provided documents that direct action related to program evaluation include: Board Policy: 01-6 states: “A comprehensive program of evaluation in the public schools should cover: (1)the curriculum and instructional programs, (2) pupils, dropouts, and graduates, (3) school personnel, (4) building and equipment, (5) business operations, (6) operations of the School Board. Appraising the success of the instructional program is particularly important.” As stated in Charting the Future: A Strategic Plan Charlottesville City Schools Charlottesville, Virginia (2000) “Strategy 2: Through creative thought and the careful study of valid research, identify program innovations that will enhance the quality of the learning experiences offered to students.” The auditors found the school division has not established formal processes and procedures necessary to promote effective selection of programs or actions for interventions. Some schools have developed procedures for reviewing data from site-selected intervention programs that could respond to needs or problems. The Curriculum Management Audit uses five criteria to determine the adequacy of a division’s design for programming (listed below). These were not found in relationship to program evaluation in the school division: Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 105 Exhibit 4.3.2 Program Intervention Criteria Charlottesville City Schools September 2004 1. The intervention relates to documented needs, assessments of operational curriculum effectiveness, and allocations of resources. 2. Documents exist to define the purpose of the program, why it addresses the system need, how it will impact the students’ achievement, and plans for implementation. 3. A detailed process for implementing the program is provided including strong communication and staff development components. 4. Human, material, and fiscal resources needed are identified to initiate the program (short-term) and to sustain the program (long-term). 5. Formative feedback and summative evaluation criteria are identified which are tied to program goals, objectives and expectations. Samples of comments from the interview process regarding programming interventions are listed below. • “I feel there is very little evaluation of programs. We add programs to programs as opposed to taking anything away.” • “I don’t think we have done a good job of assessing which programs give us the best benefit for the financial effort.” • “We have not done a good job of assessing programs and what they do for us. There so many intervention efforts I can’t name them.” • “Interventions need to be best practices- interventions need to be 8-12 weeks, with documentation, instructionally based, not just foolishness”. • “Programs are different in different schools.” • “Why aren’t our students utilizing these programs?” • “There’s no program evaluation data. I think a lot of it has to do with protecting their turf.” • “We have lots of data but the Board could not tell who was doing well. Data was not used in the past.” • “Prior administration just not that data oriented.” • “The system leads towards the squeaky wheel.” • “There’s too much focus on the gifted.” • “Very little involvement in the evaluation of the curriculum.” • “What we wanted was an analysis of the programs.” • “People evaluate programs on how they make you feel.” • “Very little evaluation of programs, if any. People have absolutely no evidence that they work. It’s not a factor in continuing them.” Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 106 • “We don’t really get much data unless we request it. We don’t get enough data. I’d like to see updates and where we are. We need more local information about where the kids are.” The auditors found no evidence of a comprehensive program plan in place. Additionally, the audit team found no division plan for formally monitoring and evaluation programming. While some programs demonstrated elements of coordination, they did not yield adequate planning documentation when compared to audit criteria. The primary deficiency in programs reviewed was the evaluation component, a deficiency that precludes future data-driven decisions about program effectiveness connected to cost-benefit determinations. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 107 Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 108 STANDARD 5: A School System Has Improved Productivity. Productivity refers to the relationship between system input and output. A school system meeting this standard of the PDK-CMSi Curriculum Management Audit is able to demonstrate consistently improved pupil outcomes, even in the face of diminishing resources. Improved productivity results when a school system is able to create a consistent level of congruence between major variables in achieving enhanced results and in controlling costs. What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Charlottesville City Schools While the attainment of improved productivity in a school system is a complex process, caused in part by the lack of a tight organizational structure (referred to as “loosely coupled”), common indicators of a school system meeting this audit standard are: • Planned and actual congruence among curricular objectives, results, and financial allocations; • A financial data base and network that are able to track costs to results, provide sufficient fiduciary control, and is used as a viable data base in making policy and operational decisions; • Specific means that have been selected or modified and implemented to attain better results in the schools over a specified time period; • A planned series of interventions that have raised pupil performance levels over time and maintained those levels within the same cost parameters as in the past; • School facilities that are well-kept, sufficient, safe, orderly, and conducive to effective delivery of the instructional program; and • Support systems that function in systemic ways. Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Charlottesville City Schools This section is an overview of the findings that follow in the area of Standard Five. The details follow within separate findings. The auditors examined the general financial trends of the school division as reported in the district’s external audit reports. These trends show that expenditures are closely matched to revenues. Interview data indicate that the school division has been more than adequately resourced, although the budget has been tight. The district’s budgeting process has not been connected to its curricular priorities in ways that enable either the Board or the administration to engage in specific types of cost benefit analyses. This situation has been exacerbated by the fact that program evaluation has not been carried out to any great extent, despite much board sentiment for such evaluations. School facilities are clean and well maintained with only a few problems reported, most dealing with heating and air conditioning situations. A centralized pre-school program does not exist, though many in the division would clearly like it to be centralized. The most pressing facility need is for a central division administrative office in which all of the administrative staff could be housed in one place. At the present time, part of the division central office staff is housed at Charlottesville High School, taking up much needed classroom and instructional space. Preliminary analyses indicate that the school division does have the bonding capacity to resolve these issues. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 109 Finding 5.1: Financial Practices for the Division are Reported to be in Compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures by the Independent Auditor. Financial Operations Generally Meet Board Goals and Requests. The PDK auditors requested and were provided management letters and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports compiled by the City of Charlottesville and audited by the independent auditing firm KPMG Peat Marwick. While the PDK auditors found in the division’s external audit that it was in compliance with fiduciary guidelines and generally accepted accounting practices for governmental agencies, KPMG Peat Marwick noted some problems with timing of materials needed to meet the burdens of completing a comprehensive financial report in the management letter for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2001. Since that date two additional annual reports were completed and citations were not reported by KPMG Peat Warwick. The City of Charlottesville confirms that citations were absent in the management letters in their possession for the Fiscal Years ending June 30, 2002 and June 30, 2003. A general review of the division’s financial condition is shown in Exhibit 5.1.1 with data extrapolated from the last three years of available reports. Exhibit 5.1.1 Total Funds As Reported by District Charlottesville City Schools 2001-2003 Fiscal Year Total Assets Total Liabilities Total Fund Equity Total Revenues Total Expenditures 2001 $ 9,349,232 $ 6,884,909 $ 2,464,323 $ 47,949,018 $ 47,964,471 2002* $ 12,391,172 $ 5,857,469 $ 6,533,703 $ 45,457,520 $ 44,358,596 2003 $ 12,176,125 $ 6,017,546 $ 6,158,579 $ 46,212,193 $ 46,587,317 * In Fiscal Year 2002 the Division converted to the GASB 34 reporting requirements. Source - Charlottesville City Comprehensive Annual Financial reports The changes in accounting to meet the GASB 34 pronouncement are noted with fully accrued assets and liabilities beginning in Fiscal Year 2002. Total fund equity then reflects depreciated assets. To determine the financial trends of the Charlottesville City Schools, the PDK auditors reviewed board policies related to budgeting, budget documents, annual financial statements included in the independent auditor’s report, and any accompanying management letters. The PDK auditors also conducted interviews of board members and staff members regarding the budget development process. The PDK auditors reviewed the division’s polices and found five policies that relate directly to financial matters of the division. • Policy 4-1 Annual Budget states “The preparation of the annual school budget is a cooperative activity directed by the Charlottesville City School Board and the superintendent with input from the staff, parents, the community and City Council. The superintendent, after receiving input, will prepare an annual budget for the Charlottesville City School Board’s approval. The annual budget will reflect the revenues and expenditures necessary for the effective and efficient operation of the school division.” And, “The management of the school budget is a continuing process and is the primary function of the Charlottesville City School Board and the superintendent.” Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 110 • Policy 4-3 TRANSFER OF FUNDS was recently revised (May 20, 2004) and states “The superintendent or his/her designee shall be responsible for administering the division budget in accordance with board policies and applicable state and federal regulations, and laws; therefore, the superintendent or his/her designee will use appropriate fiscal planning and management methods, modeled after the best accepted business practices and directed toward the educational goals of the division.” • Policy 4-22 LOCAL FUNDS states “The Charlottesville City School Board receives local funds for school operation from revenues generated through a tax levy set annually by the Charlottesville City Council.” • Policy 4 -23 STATE FUNDS states “State funds, both categorical and general, are based on objective formula. The Charlottesville School Division shall file the required reports to secure the amount of State funds to which it is entitled.” • Policy 4-24 NON-LOCALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS states “Individuals, community groups and outside agencies applying for private, state and/or federal funding for programs or grants which may require the commitment of school funds, facilities and/or personnel must have prior Charlottesville City School Board approval before submitting such application.” The PDK auditors reviewed the division’s annual budget documents for three years and the annual financial reports prepared by the City of Charlottesville. According to division documents, revenues as reported in Exhibit 5.1.2 remain stable. Exhibit 5.1.2 Total General Fund Revenues As Reported by District Charlottesville City Schools 2001-2005 Fiscal Year City Appropriation State Incentive & Categorical (net of transfers) State SOQ Tuition & PREP Other Total Revenues 2001-02* $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 45,457,020 2002-03* $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 46,212,193 2003-04 $ 29,495,025 $ 11,719,624 $ 1,939,889 $ 829,333 $ 191,000 $ 44,174,871 2004-05 $ 30,620,025 $ 12,933,271 $ 1,950,462 $ 910,777 * Categorical breakdown of revenue sources was not provided to auditors Source - Charlottesville City Schools Operating Budget $ 91,000 $ 46,605,535 According to division documents, expenditures as reported in Exhibit 5.1.3 are closely matched to the division’s revenues. The annual financial report referenced a net change in unrestricted fund balance for Fiscal Year 2002 of $67,089 and a Loss of ($157,164) in Fiscal Year 2003. Exhibit 5.1.3 Total General Fund Expenditures as Reported by District Charlottesville City Schools 2001-2005 Fiscal Year Personnel Services Benefits Contractual Obligations Operating Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 111 Program transfers Total Expenditures 2001-02* $ 25,064,237 $5,923,386 $6,756,399 $2,607,128 $ 711,755 $ 41,062,905 2002-03* $ 25,714,263 $6,475,300 $6,552,187 $2,688,838 $ 912,163 $ 42,342,751 2003-04 $ 26,382,164 $7,132,907 $7,185,543 $2,689,100 $ 785,157 $ 44,174,871 2004-05 $ 27,055,029 $7,777,523 $7,918,975 $2,691,077 $ 1,162,931 $ 46,605,535 * Actual results for fiscal year 2001-02 and 2002-03, following years are budgeted figures Source - Charlottesville City Schools Operating Budget Another measure of budgeting effectiveness is the ability to meet demands for programs within the Division. Exhibit 5.1.4 provides a review of Charlottesville City School’s per pupil expenditure and the rating of the Division against all schools in the state of Virginia. The Division is reported to be consistently the 4th ranked in this category. Exhibit 5.1.4 Per-pupil Expenditures Charlottesville City Schools 2001-2005 Fiscal Year Average Daily Membership Per Pupil Expenditure State Rank 2001-02 4,192 $ 11,239 4th 2002-03 4,248 $ 11,391 4th 2003-04 4,190 $ 11,845 4th 2004-05 4,190 $ 12,305 4th Source: Charlottesville City Schools Operating Budget 2004-05 Some of the representative comments from interviews with board members, administration and staff regarding the division’s budget and finances were as follows: • “Resources are not an issue – we have a lot of resources, special programs, after school.” • “Financial resources are adequate to provide for needs of teachers and students.” • “Budgetary issues are the most challenging. We receive 40% of any new money taken in by the City. The people complain their taxes are too high.” • “Clearly we have the money to do what we want to do; class size is heaven, 17 per class average.” • “Area is blessed with a lot of resources.” • “We are a well-resourced school division. It is a town that cares about education.” • “We have high achievers and low achievers. I think we have the money to serve both. I think we should serve both groups.” • “I’ve never been turned down for anything I needed.” Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 112 Finding 5.2: The Division Budgeting Process Does Not Connect Resource Allocation to Curricular Priorities, Nor Does It Allow Cost-Benefit Analyses. The control of costs is dependent on the existence of clear linkages between curricular priorities and budget development. Cost-benefit analyses require a clear delineation of costs compared to documented system gains or results obtained from allocations. In such a school system linkages provide for a budgetary process that is driven by curriculum needs, priorities and goals. The budget should be a transparent reflection of a school division’s educational priorities. Within such a school system a conscious decision has been made by policy makers and key administrators regarding the priorities that drive the budget and budget priorities are based on the needs of the students as indicated by performance data. A close linkage between curricular priorities and funding choices is therefore a necessity. The PDK auditors reviewed documents and interviewed both staff and board members regarding the budgeting process that is in place in the Charlottesville City School Division. The key document in this review was the 2004-2005 Revised General Fund Budget. PDK auditors also reviewed division policy regarding the budgeting process. • Policy 4-1 Annual Budget states “The preparation of the annual school budget is a cooperative activity directed by the Charlottesville City School Board and the superintendent with input from the staff, parents, the community and City Council. • Policy 01-4 Educational Philosophy states “3. Appropriate funds fairly and equally.” PDK auditors found that the board polices are inadequate to support a curriculum-driven budgeting process. The policies do not address connections between assessment and allocation of resources, nor do they provide direction in the use of cost benefit analysis of program components. PDK auditors found the current district budget development process to be lacking in most of the criteria for effective curriculum-driven budgeting. These components and ratings assigned to the local budgeting process are found in Exhibit 5.2.1. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 113 Exhibit 5.2.1 Components of a Curriculum Driven Budget and Ratings of Adequacy Charlottesville City Schools 2004-2005 Ratings Criterion Adequate Inadequate 1. Tangible, demonstrable connections are evident between assessments of curriculum effectiveness and allocations of resources. X 2. Rank ordering of program components is provided to permit flexibility in budget expansion, reduction, or stabilization based on critical needs or priorities. X 3. Cost benefits of curriculum program components are delineated in budget decision-making. X 4. Each budget request or submittal is described in terms of performance or results which permit evaluation of consequences of funding or non-funding. X 5. Budget requests compete with each other for funding based upon the evaluation of criticality of need and relationship to achievement of curriculum effectiveness. X 6. Priorities in budget allocations are set by key educational staff participating in the decision-making process. 7. Teacher and principal suggestions and ideas for budget priorities are incorporated into the decision-making process. X X As indicated in Exhibit 5.2.1 auditors determined that the current budget development process followed in the Charlottesville City School Division is inadequate to support the design and delivery of curriculum. Explanations of the seven component ratings are as follows: Tangible, demonstrable connections: Although budget preparation is expected to meet the needs of the division, auditors were unable to locate documents that provided a clear connection between student assessment data and budget priorities. The Revised General Fund Budget June 3, 2004 stated that reallocations made necessary by state funding reductions be made to “maintain class sizes; move toward consistency in K-4 instructional programming;” auditors were unable to determine how these goals were connected to student assessment data. Rank ordering of program components: This component involves the delineation of a particular program or initiative into its components that can be considered for budgetary purposes. No evidence of this was noted. Cost Benefits: This criterion addresses the formal and informal quantitative analysis of what the division received in return for an investment in a program or initiative. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 114 Evaluation of funding consequences: This component considers the impact of funding or nonfunding a program or initiative. There was no evidence provided the auditors that revealed the consequences of funding or not funding any of the division’s existing programs. Competition of budget requests based on connection to need: Auditors did not find evidence that budget requests were rank ordered by need within the division to meet division goals. Although there is some indication by staff that this may occur informally, auditors were not provided formal documentation of the process. Priorities set by key educational staff: Auditors found evidence that the board established priorities in planning and that key members of the staff participated in the budgeting process. Teacher and principal input regarding budget priorities: Auditors were not provided evidence that teachers were involved in establishing budget priorities for their schools. Principal interviews indicated that they were involved in establishing priorities within their school The following comments were representative of the opinions expressed by those interviewed regarding the current Charlottesville City Schools budgeting process; • "The board has never been involved in the budget." • “The bad thing about the budget process is that everything has to be approved by April 15th.” • “The superintendent develops a draft budget. We generally follow their recommendation. We meet monthly for lunch with the city council and they contain on-going discussions about budget matters.” • “The administration comes up with a budget based on expectations presented to the board where we have a month to review it. It is not a rubber stamp approval but most of it is set in stone.” • “I feel there is very little evaluation of programs. We add programs to programs as opposed to taking anything away.” • “The budget is tight.” • “I would like the board to include a budgeting component in the strategic plan.” • “The budget depends upon how the superintendent wants to do it. It is her budget.” • “I don't think we have done a good job of assessing which programs give us the best benefit for the financial effort.” • “Do we have a data base to evaluate cost and effectiveness?” • “We need an analysis of these programs, ‘I begged for that’ – there’s no end of year report whether the program is successful.” • “I’d like the board to have a budget based on priorities.” • “Use funds – special education and curriculum & instruction – clarify their roles and how they can help schools.” • “We need more autonomy in determining how the out-of-district student funds go. We have no say where the money goes.” • “People always want to implement ideas in the schools, but they are not coordinated, time is spent trying to piece things together. We need a coordinated effort of what we want for our children. Stop fragmenting the children’s day by saying yes to everything.” Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 115 The PDK auditors found that the budget development process in the Charlottesville City Schools shows little connection between division curriculum priorities and budget decisions. The budget documents and interviews indicated that resources are available to meet the demands placed on the school system, but priorities are established based on previous year’s programs plus new initiatives without analysis of the cost benefit to the division. Finding 5.3: School Facilities are Clean and Well Maintained. Division Planning Efforts Are Adequate But Have Not Included A Centralized Pre-School Program Nor The Need For an Expanded Central Division Office. The physical condition of a school division’s facilities is an important factor in its ability to deliver effective curriculum. Facilities that are well maintained, clean, and safe allow for a learning environment that supports the learning process. Inadequate space hinders the effective delivery of instruction. The learning environment can also be impacted by poor temperature control or improper ventilation. Facilities that are not code compliant for handicapped access and meet the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements can cause equity issues at the building and division levels. The auditors visited six elementary schools, the upper elementary school, the middle school and the high school. While at the site, all instructional and support spaces were visited, and made note of any deficiencies that impacted the delivery of the curriculum. Auditors also noted safety and accessibility concerns. Through division documents and interviews, the auditors were aware of recent facility decisions, including the movement of the centralized preschool program into each of the elementary school buildings. It was reported that some of the elementary buildings do not have lunchroom space, although the auditors did not observe all buildings while meals were served. The absence of a separate lunch room facility can lead to inefficiencies in the use of space programmed for other uses that must accommodate student lunch periods. The auditors found that the facilities were generally adequate to meet program needs and were clean and well maintained. Exhibit 5.3.1 shows the findings of the auditors in each building visited. Exhibit 5.3.1 Auditors’ Observations During School Visits Charlottesville City Schools 2004-2005 Campus Burnley-Moran Elementary School • • Clark Elementary School • • • Greenbrier Elementary School • • • • Observations Very clean and well maintained. Building has an elevator to meet handicap access issues. Very clean and good maintenance effort. One stairwell lacked ADA compliance. Building has an elevator to meet ADA requirements Small playground area and small campus. Generally clean. Lighting was dark in some hallways. Did not have a cafeteria for students to eat breakfast and lunch. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 116 Exhibit 5.3.1 (continued) Auditors’ Observations During School Visits Charlottesville City Schools 2004-2005 • Very clean and well maintained. • Elevator added to outside of building to Jackson-Via Elementary School meet ADA requirements. • Very clean and well maintained. • Gutters in front don't function very well. • Roof leaks have occurred. S. C. Johnson Elementary School • HVAC units in basement shut off because of noise. • Very clean and well maintained. Venable Elementary School Walker Upper Elementary School Buford Middle School • • • • • • • • • • Charlottesville High School • Central Administrative Offices • • Generally clean and maintained. Have issues with HVAC. Building doesn't have student lockers. Some water damage visible in the ceilings. Generally clean and well maintained. Roof has leaked with resulting water damage. Large crack in the atrium that was fixed. Teachers report they can't override controls in a new HVAC system. Large portions of the building are under construction to provide needed space for programs. Very clean and well maintained given the construction in the building. Contains approximately one-half of the administrative offices. Clean and well maintained. Building is very crowded. Inadequate conference space. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 117 PDK auditor pointing out water damage in the hallway at Johnson Elementary School The auditors noted that all facilities were clean and well maintained. The schools were found to be in compliance with handicapped access needs. Some problems were found with HVAC units in buildings that were too noisy and therefore turned off when instruction was occurring so as to not interfere in the teachers’ presentations. Some minor leaks were observed with damage to ceilings. S. C. Johnson Elementary reported a potential safety problem with icicles accumulating at the front entrance. The Central Administrative Offices were found to be inadequate to meet the needs of the division’s administrative staff with half the staff occupying space at Charlottesville High School and technology equipment stored in space that would normally be the library-media center. The auditors reviewed the division’s policies to determine if there were statements related to facilities and found the following policies describing facilities and facility planning. Policy 3-2 INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES states “The school environment shall be conducive to learning. The physical environment facilitates and enhances the learning experiences available to each student. A supportive environment includes competent, dedicated teachers using a variety of methods and a classroom atmosphere where students may function and develop according to their abilities. Safety, comfort, and appearance are vital components of the school environment.” Policy 4-4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN states “The Charlottesville School Board CIP Subcommittee reviews long-range building maintenance and equipment needs of the schools. This School Board Subcommittee develops a priority list…” , and “City Council has set a policy that at least 3% of the General Fund revenues will be programmed into capital improvements.” Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 118 Policy 4-5 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES states “Except in Emergencies or for reasons of economy, the purchase of major pieces of equipment such as school buses shall be scheduled so that annual budgetary appropriations for capital purposes either will be of similar size or will show a continuous trend without severe fluctuations.” Policy 8-1 FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT GOALS states “The Charlottesville City School Board will consistently strive to provide new and remodeled facilities that will offer the best possible physical environment for learning and teaching.” Policy 8-2 FACILITIES PLANNING states “The Charlottesville City School Board is responsible for the regular operation and orderly development of all school facilities. The Board will concern itself with both short and long-range planning.” The superintendent shall present to the School Board annually a five year Capital Improvement Program which will include recommendations and alterations regarding timing, location, costs and savings associated with: • New Building requirements • Restoration and renewal of existing school facilities Decisions pertaining to educational specifications for new buildings and renovations will be developed after there has been input from a broad-based committee representing the staff and the community. The committee will present, through the superintendent, its recommendations for facilities utilization, development and closure.” Auditors reviewed division documents regarding facilities and long-range planning for facility needs. The division administration presented the auditors with the planning document ‘Charlottesville School Talk 2000 – Facilities Survey Phase II’ and the State of Virginia mandated ‘Safety Audit 2003-04.’ An analysis of these planning documents along with the current years Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) prepared to meet policy requirements was completed using eight components of a comprehensive long-range facility plan. This analysis is shown in Exhibit 5.3.2. A shortage of space in the division has required the storage of computer equipment in the high school media center Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 119 Exhibit 5.3.2 Comparison of Facilities Planning Efforts to Components of a Long-range Facilities Plan Charlottesville City Schools 2004-2005 Components of a Comprehensive Long-range Facilities Plan 1. Philosophy statements that review the community aspirations and the educational mission of the District and their relationship to short- and long-range facilities goals. 2. Enrollment projections which take into account any known circumstances which may change the pupil population. 3. The current organizational patterns of the district and an identification of possible organizational changes necessary to support the educational program. 4. Identification of educational program needs to be considered by designers of capital projects for renovation or addition of school facilities. 5. A detailed evaluation of each facility including assessment of structural integrity, mechanical integrity and efficiency, energy efficiency, operations and maintenance, and health and safety requirements. 6. Prioritization of needs for renovation of existing facilities and the provision of additional facilities. 7. Cost analysis of potential capital projects to meet the educational needs of the division, including identification of revenues associated with capital construction. 8. Procedures for the involvement of all stakeholders of the school community in the development and evaluation of long-range facilities plan. District Planning Efforts Planning documents presented to the auditors contain an assessment of the school division’s mission but does not offer specific steps beyond grade configurations for the purpose of the planning effort. Enrollment projections were present and were current. The plan evaluated current and potential school configurations to meet the division’s educational program. An assessment of educational programs was present in the plan. Auditors were not provided detailed evaluation instruments for facilities. Capital improvement plans were prioritized annually for renovation of facilities. Cost analysis of all projects was included in the planning documents. Stakeholders were involved in major assessments in 2000 and 2003. Principals were involved in annual capital improvement plan updates. As Exhibit 5.3.2 indicates, the plans presented to the auditors adequately addressed the components of a long-range facility plan. However, the plans did not provide analysis of the educational program, and did not present detailed evaluation instruments for facilities. Auditors interviewed board members, administrators and staff regarding the facilities in the division. The following comments are typical kinds of comments received: • “No lunchrooms in four elementary schools – they eat in the classrooms” Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 120 • “Not having a lunch room is a good thing” • “Preschool moved from schools to single building about nine years ago, into Jefferson for 7 years; back in schools for three years.” • “[We] Prefer preschool in one building - teachers get more support, things are taken care of, other things besides test scores regarding why things are better in one building.” • “Another strength is the small class sizes and neighborhood schools.” • “Have more facilities than we really need” • “The schools are 99% safe.” • “Our elementary schools are extremely small.” • “One issue that had to be addressed is the division’s pre-school program when the division couldn't afford the buildings for the program or to renovate the building the program occupied. The school board moved the preschool program into the elementary schools.” • “Central office space is extremely small, and we are jammed into a very small space with only one half the administrative team in one spot.” • “The school board has a good understanding of what it takes to maintain buildings and supports us very well. “ • “We have had a constant funding stream to meet our facility needs.” • “We (high school) are using some of our space to meet the storage needs of the division office for technology. “ The high school was undergoing renovation as shown in this photograph at the time of the audit The physical environment of the division’s preschool program was split into all elementary schools to service a centralized division program. Limitations on the division’s ability to expand this program occur when the program is not in a separate facility. Auditors did not find any inadequacies in the Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 121 division’s delivery of this program although some staff, administrators and community members desire a centralized program. The auditors found the division’s central offices to be inadequate to meet the efficiency and effectiveness required of the central administration. Inadequacies include an office structure that is too small to house the full administrative staff. Auditors also found one half of the administrative staff housed in space at Charlottesville High School that will be used by the high school staff if the administrative staff were moved. The auditors found that the library-media center had a large portion walled off to store technology equipment for the division. To gain efficiency the administrative staff needs access to other departments. Coordination of activities is enhanced by close proximity to division resources that now require a trip across town. The existing facility was observed to be landlocked and unable to expand to meet the needs of the full administrative staff. Auditors observed that the division determined facility needs for the preschool program on the premise that funds were not available to provide facilities. Auditors also observed that division facilities were not under discussion for expansion because of a perceived lack of funding. As Exhibit 5.3.3 shows the bonding capacity of the City of Charlottesville far exceeds the current long term debt service of the City and the school division. Exhibit 5.3.3 Computation of Legal Debt Limit Charlottesville City Schools 2002-2003 Fiscal Year Assessed Value of Real Property Debt limit - 10% of Assessed Value Less Current Debt Legal Debt Margin 2001-02 $ 2,541,425,500 $ 254,142,550 $ 54,597,071 $ 199,545,479 2002-03 $ 2,842,231,400 $ 284,223,140 $ 60,370,429 $ 223,852,711 Source - Charlottesville City Annual Reports 2002 and 2003 The auditors were not presented with Fiscal Year 2003-04 data to provide a more current total for the division. However, the report shows a bonding capacity that is expanding at a greater rate than debt incurred by the City of Charlottesville. The division has the bonding capacity to meet the two current facility needs identified in the Charlottesville City Schools. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 122 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PDK-CMSi CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT AUDIT TEAM FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY SCHOOLS Based on the three streams of data derived from interviews, documents, and site visits, the PDKCMSi Curriculum Management Audit Team has developed a set of recommendations to address its findings shown under each of the standards of the audit. In the case of the findings, they have been triangulated, i.e., corroborated with one another. In the case of the recommendations, those put forth in this section are representative of the auditors’ best professional judgments regarding how to address the problems that surfaced in the audit. The recommendations are presented in the order of their criticality for initiating system-wide improvements. The recommendations also recognize and differentiate between the policy and monitoring responsibilities of the board of education, and the operational and administrative duties of the superintendent of schools. Where the PDK-CMSi audit team views a problem as wholly or partly a policy and monitoring matter, the recommendations are formulated for the Board of Education. Where the problem is distinctly an operational or administrative matter, the recommendations are directed to the superintendent of schools as the chief executive officer of the school system. In many cases, the PDK-CMSi audit team directs recommendations to both the Board and the Superintendent, because it is clear that policy and operations are related, and both entities are involved in a proposed change. In some cases, there are no recommendations to the superintendent when only policy is involved or none to the board when the recommendations deal only with administration. Audit recommendations are presented as follows: The overarching goals for the Board and/or the Superintendent, followed by the specific objectives to carry out the overarching goals. The latter are designated “Governance Functions” and “Administrative Functions.” Recommendation 1: Revise the Division’s Administrative/Organizational Infrastructure; Revise and Realign Central Instructional Coordinators Roles and Responsibilities; Review, Revise and Adopt New Job Descriptions for all Personnel; Revise and Adopt New Evaluative Procedures for Administrators and Teachers to Connect Role Performance to Division-wide Instructional Priorities The auditors reviewed the table of organization of the Charlottesville City Schools and found it did not meet audit criteria for a sound and effective organizational infrastructure (see Finding 1.1). In particular the superintendent’s span of control was too large, not all persons in the infrastructure were represented on the T/O, and there were some adjustments in the scalar relationships required. The role of coordinator is ambiguous and confusing within the division (See Finding 1.2). There are at least five different kinds of coordinators and some with the same title have different work days per year. Job descriptions for central office administrators and other system wide positions are out of date and not linked to curricular design and delivery issues (see Finding 1.4). Central office instructional coordinators vary in competence and expertise in carrying out their responsibilities. Some are stretched too thin. Others have not kept up with the latest curricular and instructional concepts, especially in a high stakes testing environment. Others lack experience at grade levels where they have curricular duties. There is not an adequate system-wide focus on curriculum and both horizontal and vertical alignment are lacking. In short, the division is not organized properly to be responsive to the demands being placed on it, especially in closing the long-standing achievement gap. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 123 The fact that on the average class sizes are very low at all schools means that the chronic underperformance of mostly African-American students cannot be due to inadequate resource deployment (see Finding 1.3). Rather, it means that the fault is with the way the district has conceptualized and designed the system of work to be accomplished. The gap is reflective of the lack of a coherent focus on a system wide basis, and the inability of the system to connect the work to the outcomes desired within and across grade levels and schools. In short, both the content of the work to be performed and the connectivity of the work to be performed are not adequate. Without these in place, low class sizes will not in and of themselves usher in higher levels of student performance. In short, the right resources are present, but they are not doing the right things. And the responsibility for doing the right things is a system problem and not a problem of any individual classroom teacher or group of teachers. The failure of the Charlottesville City Schools is a systemic failure. Those with larger system responsibilities are therefore more responsible and accountable for the performance of the system. Both teacher and administrator evaluation protocols are not aligned with board policy, are not connected to system wide priorities, do not promote professional growth, and are not connected to pupil performance (See Finding 1.5). Staff development has not been connected to system wide priorities, nor has it been particularly effective in providing the skills to close the achievement gap. Furthermore, while staff development has been voluntary, those requiring it the most may opt out of receiving the advanced training they need to perform under newly emerging expectations connected to NCLB. The recommendations are presented and indicate what responsibilities are designated for the Board of Education and then those for the Superintendent of Schools to resolve the issues within the findings of the audit. 1.1 Adopt a Revised Organizational Structure It is recommended that a new table of organizational be adopted by the Superintendent and the Board of Education in keeping with Board Policy CC-8 (Administrative Organizational Plan) and 2-10 (Assignment and Transfer). The proposed re-organization of the division is shown below: Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 124 Proposed Table of Organization Charlottesville City Schools Board of Education Superintendent Associate Supt. Gen. Adm. Assistant Supt. Curriculum & Instruction Assistant Superintendent Adm. Support Director HRD Director Special Ed. Director F&B Coordinators Coordinators Principals Instructional Coordinators Coordinators Food/Transportation Alternative Ed. Ed. Support Assistant Principals Teachers The proposed re-organization will reduce the superintendent’s span of control from 21 to 10 by adding an Associate Superintendent for General Administration. This latter administrative officer would have a span of control of 12. All school principals and three directors would report to the Associate Superintendent. While the role of coordinators is shown in the proposed revised organizational structure, this would only continue for the 2004-2005 school year. 1.2 Abolish the Central Role of Instructional Curriculum Coordinator at the End of the 200405 School Year. Replace with K-12 Curriculum Content Specialists and K-12 Program Specialists. Establish a Central Curriculum Council to Improve School Division Curriculum Articulation and Coordination Aimed at Erasing the Achievement Gap. Currently the Revised Operating Budget 2004-2005 position control data show 7.60 division-wide instructional coordinators. Many of these individuals are stretched too thin, have no or little expertise in some of the content areas for which they have responsibilities, or have demonstrated an inability to lead a curricular effort that was successful in closing the achievement gap (See Finding 1.2). It is therefore recommended that at the end of the 2004-05 school year all division-wide instructional curriculum coordinator roles be abolished. In their places two types of division-wide roles would be established. The first would be that of a K-12 Curriculum Content Specialist. This individual would have expertise and experience K-12 in his/her content (math, language arts, reading, science) area. The person would have experience in working in school districts where he/she had demonstrated an ability to close the achievement gap. Most likely this person would have an advanced degree in a content area. He/she would be familiar with the concepts of deep alignment, data driven decisionmaking, technological applications with data, measurement, and various forms of assessment. The second type of role would be a K-12 Program Specialist. These individuals would assume responsibilities for such programs as gifted and special education, the performing and visual arts, early childhood and pre-school, or any other area with a programmatic as opposed to a curriculum content specialization. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 125 After the 2004-05 school year, the title of instructional coordinator would refer to a school site role only. The proposed slate of division-wide offices for the 2005-06 school year might be as follows. Other roles could be established as funding permits: K-12 Curriculum Content Specialists -Mathematics -English-Language Arts -Science -Social Studies K-12 Program Specialists -Reading -Early Childhood and Pre-School Education -Fine and Performing Arts -Special Education and Gifted Current incumbents in the coordinator roles may apply to be considered for the new roles. However, the selection process should be the result of a national search. It is further recommended that a Division Curriculum Council be established to promote the internal articulation and coordination of curriculum in the division. Members of this Council should meet at least once a month with a specified agenda focused on closing the achievement gap. The individuals who comprise the Council would all be K-12 Curriculum Content and Program Specialists, school site instructional coordinators and/or a principal or assistant principal so that each school in the division was represented in the deliberations. The Council should be headed by the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction. The Council’s recommendations, made through the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, are advisory to the Superintendent. 1.3- Revise and Update All Job Descriptions. Job descriptions are not up to date and lack critical ingredients, largely connections to the design and delivery of the curriculum (see Finding 1.4). They must be revised and updated. It is recommended that once a format is determined, that the Director of HRD be authorized to contract out to complete this task with an internal committee appointed by the Superintendent. There should be representation on the committee of division-wide and school site roles, as well as from support staff. Job descriptions should ultimately be adopted by the Board of Education and set forth in policy. 1.4-Revise Administrative and Teacher Evaluation Protocols Currently procedures for evaluating administrators and teachers does not adhere to board policy, do not promote professional growth, and are not connected to pupil performance (see Finding 1.5). It is recommended that the Superintendent appoint a task force of administrators to work with the Director of HRD to revise the evaluation procedure for all school site and division-wide administrators. Similarly, a task force of teachers should be appointed to develop evaluative procedures for teachers. These new protocols should be adopted by the Board of Education and set forth in policy. Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Charlottesville City Schools Board of Education: G.1.1: Receive the audit and direct the Superintendent to submit a response to each audit recommendation with a plan and a timeline for attaining those audit recommendations with which she agrees. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 126 G.1.2: Receive the recommendation of the Superintendent regarding revising the organizational structure of the school division and adopt one she finds workable. G.1.3: Establish a timeline for phasing out of some administrative roles and re-establishing ones recommended by the audit and the Superintendent. G.1.4: Upon receiving a recommendation from the Superintendent, adopt into policy revised procedures for evaluating administrators and teachers based on the recommendation concerning the establishment of a division-wide task force in which administrators and teachers are involved with the Director of HRD. G.1.5: Upon receiving a recommendation from the Superintendent, adopt into policy revised job descriptions for all personnel in the school division. If necessary and recommended by the Superintendent, authorize her to contract out the revision of the job descriptions. Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Charlottesville City Schools Superintendent: A.1.1: Prepare a set of independent observations and recommendations concerning all audit recommendations. A.1.2: Develop an action plan and a timeline by which all recommendations of the audit can be accomplished in the next 3-5 years to be submitted to the Board of Education and annually reviewed. A.1.3: Direct appropriate division-wide personnel to establish procedures to conduct a national search for new division-wide curriculum content and program specialists. A.1.4: Secure recommendations from appropriate division personnel regarding the advisability of contracting out for revising all division job descriptions A.1.5: Establish committees of appropriate division and school site personnel to revise evaluation protocols for teachers and administrators A.1.6: Direct the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction to establish a Curriculum Council that meets monthly with a top priority of erasing the achievement gap and which will provide the internal connectivity to increase curriculum articulation and coordination throughout the division. Recommendation 2: Design and Implement a Program-Driven Budgeting Process that Supports Curriculum Priorities and Leads to the Erasure of the Achievement Gap, while Providing Critical Cost-Benefit Analyses for Board Policy Development and Monitoring of Operations The implementation of a well-designed program-based budgeting process can provide the board and superintendent with an effective and efficient process for allocating resources of the division to match the needs of the division. Program-driven budgeting requires a direct link between curriculum priorities and the allocation of resources. In a time where the use of division resources are becoming an issue it is critical for the board and administration to justify expenditures and resource allocation with supporting student and program performance data. An examination of the current budget documents and interviews with staff members regarding the budget development process showed little connection between curriculum priorities and the allocation of division resources. Program evaluation data are not considered during the budget development cycle (see Finding 4.3), nor does the budget development process include curriculum priorities as a determining factor (see Finding 5.2). Division budget planning contains involvement of stakeholders, but does not include assessment data for programs or rank order division needs in the planning cycle. Providing the public with accurate Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 127 data that reflect expenditures by program area that are supported by program evaluation data can boost confidence in the stewardship of the board and administration. The following action steps should be implemented in the next four to six months so a program-driven budgeting process can begin with the 2005-2006 budget planning cycle. Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Charlottesville City School Board: G.2.1: Direct the Superintendent to design and prepare a list of expanded policies on budget planning, development, and approval which incorporates parameters that focus on goals and priorities and the use of student and program evaluation data in developing the annual budget. G.2.2: Establish with the Superintendent, an expectation that an integrated program evaluation and a budgeting process will be installed that will transition the division to a program-based budgeting process. G.2.3: Participate in training on the program-based budgeting in order to gain an understanding of the process and be prepared to explain the process to stakeholders. Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Charlottesville City School Superintendent: A.2.1: Create and submit for board approval a comprehensive set of policy revisions that establish a program-based budgeting process. A.2.2: Develop a transition plan for moving toward a program-based budget development process by beginning with integrating the budget planning process with a comprehensive improvement process. Include the following steps to begin the move toward program-based budgeting: • Tangible, demonstrable connections are evident between assessments of curriculum effectiveness and allocations of resources. • Rank order of program components is provided to permit flexibility in budget expansion, reduction, or stabilization based on critical needs or priorities. • Cost benefits of curriculum program components are delineated in budget decision making. • Each budget request or submittal is described in terms of performance or results, which permit evaluation of consequences of funding or non-funding. • Budget requests compete with each other for funding based upon the evaluation of criticality of need and relationship to achievement of curriculum effectiveness. • Key educational staff participating in the decision-making process sets priorities in budget allocations. • Teacher and principal suggestions and ideas for budget priorities are incorporated into the decision-making process (see Finding 5.3). A.2.3: Cause to be designed and implement a program evaluation process that links program expenditures to program effectiveness measures. Involve stakeholders in setting program effectiveness measures. A.2.4: Provide staff development training in program-based budgeting for administrative staff members, school improvement committees and board members. A.2.5: Establish budget allocations based on curricular priorities that are supported by program evaluation data and student needs assessment information. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 128 A.2.6: Following budget adoption by the board, monitor the business office staff to determine that they are working cooperatively with the program evaluation staff to monitor expenditures balanced against curriculum priorities as indicated by program evaluation data. By implementing these recommended steps, division leaders will be able to deliberate on the school division’s mission, goals, program results, and resource allocations in a more focused way. They will be able to make decisions more explicitly on questions such as “What is being accomplished?” and “How well are we accomplishing it?” rather than simply “How much did we spend on this program last year?” By creating ways for the program levels of service to compete in a prioritization process, the decision-makers will have a more clearly rational framework for establishing the financial plan. It is expected that the changes in this recommendation may take two to four years to reach fruition. Recommendation 3: Develop a Multi-Year Divisional Educational Plan Which Connects Division-wide Priorities to School Site Plans. Such a Multi-Year Divisional Plan Should Provide the Focus and Synergy Now Absent within the School Division and Establish Equitable Access to the Curriculum for All Students. Staff Development Should Be Anchored to this Multi-Year Plan and Be Supportive of the Changes In It. A variety of plans currently have existed in the Charlottesville City Schools. While a strategic plan was developed several years ago, the document has not provided any systemic linkage between the division and the schools in the division. The budget and facilities plans are not connected to a multiyear divisional educational plan. The lack of a central planning focus is deleterious to not only improved operations, but also to any attempt to control administrative costs. For this reason, the multi-year educational plan should become the driving force for erasing the achievement gap in the school division, with school improvement plans linked to it and all other plans subservient. A new strategic plan may be considered. However, there are several different approaches to strategic planning which consume too much time and are not practical. Too many “pie in the sky” truisms are not what is needed in the school division. What is required is the erasure of the achievement gap based on tangible, practical, proven strategies in the shortest time possible. School site plans should include bold, yet attainable performance targets for each school to raise achievement for all students, using the “years to parity” concept as a benchmark to determine how long it will take to erase the existing achievement gaps (see Finding 4.2). In the construction of the multi-year educational plan, it is a propitious time to re-examine policies and practices regarding equity and fairness. There should be increased access to academic programs and related opportunities for all students. The Superintendent should be charged with the responsibility to eliminate any practice not covered by policy that inhibits the district’s effort to eliminate inequities and inequalities. Equity and equality are the cornerstones of a school division where all students have equal access to opportunity in an educational program that responds to individual needs. The extent to which students in different schools representing different ethnic and socio-economic groups have access to similar programs and resources that afford comparable educational opportunity can be a measure of equality. Equity can be measured by the extent to which individuals and specific groups of students are provided with appropriate resources to respond to their unique needs. Auditors identified several inequities in the Charlottesville City Schools (see Finding 3.1). They found disparities in the areas of student and staff ethnic compositions, advanced placement course participation, gifted education and student groups in the enrollment of students in special education. Disparity among ethnic groups was also present in suspension, retention, attendance and graduation rates. Until these disparities are addressed, not all students will succeed and achieve, and the division will be unable to fulfill its mission. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 129 Staff development and training are the means by which all staff working within the division acquire and/or expand the knowledge, skills, and values needed to create quality systems of education for all learners. A school division that maintains a focused approach to improving student achievement requires a strong staff development program. Effective staff development programs rely on an ability to assess the needs of all staff in order to determine what skills and supports are necessary to align and to integrate with the multi-year educational plan. High-quality staff development programs provide for systemic, coordinated, and varied activities to accomplish their aims. Effective schools and effective school divisions are places where teams meet regularly to focus on data obtained from student work and alter the instructional design and delivery of programs to obtain better results. Too often, staff development is generic, and not aligned with improving student achievement. For newly adopted programs or for programs which have been significantly modified, all personnel within those programs should be part of staff development initiatives to ensure consistency of implementation. If possible, staff development should occur during the normal, school work day. Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Charlottesville City Schools Board of Education: G.3.1: Direct the Superintendent to develop a multi-year educational plan to provide for equal educational opportunities for all students and which erases the achievement gap. It should include: • Equal educational opportunity for all students • Equitable practices in all school buildings and offices of the division. • Adequate training for all division personnel in the implementation of the plan. • Training for users of the plan including, all relevant support staff, administrative staff. G.3.2: Provide funding for the implementation of the plan. G.3.3: Direct the Superintendent to provide periodic assessment and an annual report directly related to the implementation of the plan in the division. Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Charlottesville City Schools superintendent: A.3.1: Adhere to Board of Education direction related to equal educational opportunities. A.3.2: Cause to be designed and implement a comprehensive, multi-year educational plan for use by the division which should include: • Modification of programming and practices contributing to the inequities in staffing practices, course participation at all levels and student discipline. • Modification of programs and practices contributing to inequalities in curricular access and student composition. • Direct appropriate personnel to coordinate student services to provide equal access to all groups of students. • Discontinue site-based decision-practices that promote inequalities. • Employ strategies the lead toward equitable employment of teachers. A.3.3: Establish and communicate clear and concise expectations for all division personnel regarding the plan, including the necessary provisions for staff development to ensure consistency in implementation. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 130 A.3.4: Establish a benchmark that at least seventy percent of courses offered in the Charlottesville City Schools have formal assessments that can be used to improve student achievement. Such evaluative data must become part of the budget development process and be shared with the Board of Education. A.3.5: Provide data management system training for all users in the division. A.3.6: Review years to parity analyses and assessment performance trends to reveal which schools and subgroups will not meet NCLB targets if student achievement occurs at the current pace in most of the grade levels where the SOL’s are administered. Require school principals to address these areas with specific actions toward removal of the achievement gap. A.3.7: Review existing programs and interventions, require that they have systematic method for determining what works and what doesn’t with regard to improving student achievement. A.3.8: Implement research based program innovations which must have a record of success in improving student achievement and the number of innovations implemented must be focused on improving student achievement with a system of objectively evaluating program effectiveness for good decision making to be annually reported to the Board. After an initial window of time, no program should be continued without systematic evaluation of its effectiveness. A.3.9: Provide annual reports to the Board of Education regarding the status of equal educational opportunity and equitable practices within the division. Recommendation 4: Design and Implement a Quality Curriculum Management Plan to Provide Consistent and Effective Curriculum Development, Delivery and Review To Define and Implement a More Effective Divisional Curriculum System. Refashion the Assessment Data Gathered to Conform to this Plan. Link the Technology Plan to the Curriculum Management Plan to Insure Alignment and Instructional Integration. It is necessary that the leaders of the Charlottesville City Schools design and implement a comprehensive curriculum management plan to direct division staff in the development, implementation, monitoring, and review of the written, taught and tested curricula. Without these elements in place and being consistently implemented, the achievement gap will be impossible to erase. The link between the written, taught, and tested curriculum across grade levels, classrooms, and schools is essential to promote consistent student learning outcomes throughout the division. A clear and consistent systemic approach is needed to establish and maintain appropriately aligned content, and to effectively implement and to monitor delivery of the curriculum. At the base, the curriculum management plan should embrace the following elements: • A series of benchmark tests should be constructed and put in place in order to discover as early as possible how many students may be at risk in passing the designated high stakes tests. In-other-words, waiting to assess students until the high stakes test is given is too late. Intervention must occur much earlier. Inevitably this will mean more and not less testing. However, the benchmark tests can be shorter than the high stakes test. • Successful benchmark testing depends on having a good data base which can be used to reconnect assessment data to classroom instruction in order to differentiate instruction and to re-teach material which has not been mastered prior to the high stakes tests. The implication of this is that there must be a data management system also put into place. • Staff development must include training teachers on how to use benchmark data to intervene in learning, differentiate instruction, and to avoid the “drill and kill” approaches that promote student boredom. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 131 • Principals must be trained in knowing how to monitor the curriculum and must know when it is actually being taught. This means principals must be able to differentiate between instruction and curriculum in classroom settings. • Technology in the division is not yet an integrated part of the instructional program (See Finding 2.4). To ensure its alignment and integration, the technology plan should be tightly aligned with the proposed curriculum management plan. An effective curriculum management plan is directed by board policy and implemented by central administration. A quality curriculum management plan is comprised of specific student learning outcomes that are aligned in a logical scope and sequence and are keyed to district and/or state assessments. A quality curriculum management plan also consists of detailed and varied methods for accomplishing the specified learning outcomes. These methods should include specific resources and examples on how to approach key concepts. Auditors found written curriculum documents available for most of the courses and subjects taught in the Charlottesville City Schools, but the curriculum documents need to be revised and reorganized in order to effectively support teaching. The components essential for a quality curriculum guide are currently spread out among too many documents (see Finding 2.3). The written curriculum lacks the specificity and consistency needed to translate curriculum into daily lesson plans or to coordinate efforts among and between schools. Board policies and administrative guidelines need revision to provide quality direction for a comprehensive curriculum management plan. The following recommended actions will provide necessary direction for the design, implementation, and monitoring of the curriculum. Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Charlottesville City Schools Board of Education: G.4.1: Direct the Superintendent to prepare a draft of the following policies to provide direction for a comprehensive curriculum management plan for board review, critique, and adoption: • Create and adopt a policy that directs a comprehensive curriculum management system. The system should include development, delivery, assessment, and monitoring of the curriculum, as well as staff development to support the curriculum management system. • Establish a clearly outlined process for developing “stand alone” curriculum documents that address each component and related operational stages of a quality curriculum guide (see Finding 2.3). • Establish through policy the expectations of varied instructional strategies and methodologies to meet different student needs and to effectively teach the curriculum content, including integration of technology in day to day classroom instruction. Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Charlottesville City Schools Superintendent: A.4.1: Assist the Board in the development of recommended policies. A.4.2: Cause to be developed a comprehensive curriculum management plan that includes the following components: • The division’s philosophical approach to curriculum; • A curriculum review cycle and timeline for all disciplines; • A consistent and organized curriculum guide format which promotes deep alignment; Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 132 • Expectations for the delivery of the curriculum which includes differentiated instruction; • Inclusion of specific examples for teaching key concepts and skills; o instructions for monitoring the curriculum that include specific procedures and criteria o for principals and other staff; • A schedule for curriculum review and adoption that includes use of assessment data to guide curriculum revision; • Selection procedures for instructional resources which are dependent on alignment; • A process for integrating technology into the curriculum; • The development of pacing calendars to ensure that the recommended teaching is actually taught prior to the high stakes test(s) being taken by the students; • A definite linkage to the budgeting process (see Recommendation 2) • A process for communicating curricular revisions to the Board, staff, and community. Recommendation 5: Develop Revised School Board Policies To Establish A More Responsible and Responsive Framework for Effective Policy Direction and Oversight of the Performance of the School Division. A comprehensive set of school board policies is a prerequisite for sound policy direction and oversight of a school district via its superintendent of schools. Policies articulate the intentions of the school board regarding procedures and operations and provide clear direction for administrators, teachers, and other staff members. Such policies promote constancy of purpose in district operations by furnishing reference points for recurring decisions. The current set of policies for the Charlottesville City Schools is inadequate and ineffective on a variety of counts (see Finding 7.1). Without definitive policies, the school board cannot ensure program focus, effectiveness, consistency, productivity, nor accountability. Many Charlottesville City School Board members interviewed expressed frustration and disappointment at the lack of definitive data regarding program effectiveness. The auditors concur that there has been too little reliable evaluative data for the Charlottesville School Board to conduct its business and to remain responsive and accountable to the various sub-publics which it represents. The following guidelines should be considered when dealing with policy changes: • Policies should establish clear direction for the school division • Policies should provide for local initiatives to enhance the division beyond state directives • Policies should ensure consistency of action over time as individual members of the board and administration change office • Policies should guide professional staff members in their individual jobs to improve the performance of the school division • Policies should establish the framework for all parties in the school division to be accountable for their performance towards division priorities • Policies should establish an historical base for the division for the purpose of avoiding contradictory actions Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 133 • Policies should establish a framework of evaluation for all employees of the division and require the development and execution of professional development plans based on systematic evaluation • Policies should delineate levels of decision-making authority Policies should direct educational decisions. The board and the superintendent should put in place specific approaches and procedures to ensure that policies and administrative regulations are continually reviewed and updated and that policies are used in decision making. Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Charlottesville City Schools Board of Education: G.5.1: Establish a board committee to review all policies submitted to the district from the Virginia School Boards Association in view of the commentary of policy deficiencies from the audit team. G.5.2: Revise board policies accordingly and present to the superintendent for response. G.5.3: With the superintendent’s response revise and present to the whole board for adoption. Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Charlottesville City Schools Superintendent of Schools: A.5.1: Facilitate the board policy committee as necessary. Provide responses to its work when requested. A.5.2: Create an administrative regulations handbook that supports and is aligned to board policy. A.5.3: Require each administrator to ensure that staff is aware of, understands, and follows relevant policy. Recommendation 6: Develop and Implement Plans to Replace the Central Office Complex and Re-Evaluate the Placement of Preschool in Existing Elementary Schools. The administrative structure of a school system is the skeletal system of the organization. It is the connective tissue that holds the system together and enables it to perform its work effectively and efficiently. In the Charlottesville City School Division auditors found that the central office complex detracted from the division’s administrators ability to provide efficient and effective service to their constituents. To provide improved service to the student clientele, to members of the public, to professional and support staff employees, and to parents, a central location with sufficient space to accommodate all central office employees and operations at one site should be provided. The Preschool program has been in place in the Charlottesville City Schools for many years and currently has a waiting list of registrants unable to attend because of limitations the division has placed on the program. Stakeholders expressed a concern that the program was divided and placed into the elementary schools. To provide service to these students the division should undertake an evaluation of the value of this program and determine where to house the program in the years ahead based on this evaluation as opposed to funding of a facility addition. Auditors found that the division has sufficient capital capacity to meet the facility needs of the program. Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Charlottesville City School Board: G.6.1: Request from the Superintendent a plan to consolidate administrative functions in a central office complex. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 134 G.6.2: Require the administration to evaluate the preschool program for effectiveness in preparing students for school. This plan should detail the demand for this program as identified by a waiting list of applicants and the best use of facilities to conduct the program. G.6.3: Secure the necessary financial resources to support the facility needs found in these two projects. G.6.4: Hold the superintendent responsible for monitoring and completing the plan to meet the needs of administration and the preschool by requiring periodic reports to the board. Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Charlottesville City School Superintendent: A.6.1: Prepare a plan to consolidate district administrative offices into a central complex containing the following: • A complete needs assessment based on trend data of both the current organizational patterns of the division and identification of possible organizational changes for the division. • Prepare a cost analysis of the potential project including identification of revenue sources associated with capital construction. • Procedures for the involvement of stakeholders of the school community in the development of the facility expansion or renovation plans. A.6.2: Complete an evaluation of the preschool program using the same criteria identified for the implementation of program-based budgeting and provide recommendations to the Board to structure this program to meet the needs of the community. These recommendations for the Charlottesville City Schools reflect the need for a modified infrastructure, redefinition of a number of roles, some new roles with much needed expertise, and a much stronger centralized response to the requirements of NCLB and the kind of external high-stakes testing mandates which accompany it. Without much tighter connectivity between schools in the division, especially in the areas tested, which will provide all students with strong academic skills, the achievement gap will not be closed. One of the challenges facing divisional instructional leaders is how to attain this requirement without losing much needed instructional differentiation. The auditors did not observe much instructional differentiation in the Charlottesville City Schools during the audit site visitations (See Finding 2.4). The balance between such differentiation and consistency/uniformity is very important. While focus and connectivity are crucial curriculum content issues, employing a wide variety of instructional means and methods is the key to combating monotony and student boredom. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 135 V. SUMMARY A curriculum management audit is basically an “exception” report. That is, it does not give a summative, overall view of the suitability of a system. Rather, it holds the system up to scrutiny against the predetermined standards of quality, notes relevant findings about the system, and cites discrepancies from audit standards. Recommendations are then provided accordingly to help the district improve its quality in the areas of noted deficiency. The Charlottesville City Schools represent two communities. One community is being served well in the public schools. The children from this community are deriving a first class education filled with challenging curriculum content and special opportunities. They tend to graduate with Advanced Diplomas and matriculate to colleges and universities. They are mostly White students from middle to upper income families. The second community has a different story to tell. This community’s children are under-performing. They are rarely found in the advanced curricular areas or in the highly specialized performing arts. They are over-represented in special education and in the general curricular tracts. These are children largely from the African-American community. They are not being served as well in the Charlottesville City Schools. The stringent new requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind legislation has brought renewed public attention to this long standing community divide in Charlottesville. The discrepancy between the two communities has been accentuated by the arrival of a new Superintendent in July of 2004, the first African-American female chief executive officer in the history of the school division. She has brought a fresh perspective to old problems as well as an energetic and forceful presence in working to resolve them. The audit was undertaken in the third month of her tenure. The audit team was therefore in a position to examine these long standing issues and some of the changes and prospects for change which have involved and will continue to confront the school division and its constituents. Based on the data gathered from document review, interviews and conversations with board members, administrators, teachers and some parents, site-visitations and observations of the schools in action, the auditors see a former school division, which despite some verbal commitments to resolving the student achievement discrepancy, had not put into place the correct infrastructure, the plans, all of the required functions, nor some of the most critical human competencies, to make sufficient progress towards educating all of the children of all of the people equally well. Despite talk of tight budgets, the auditors found the schools staffed with abundant instructional personnel, nor did the audit team find critical shortages of supplies or materials anywhere in the school division. The raw resource flow to the schools is quite adequate. So the continued presence of the achievement gap cannot be due to a lack of resources. Rather, it has to be due to the fact that the resources (human and materials) are not being used correctly to maximize their impact on student learning. This is a problem of leadership. The dichotomy within the community is accentuated by reactions to change. One community is saying that while change may be necessary, one should proceed slowly and deliberately. Change for this group is perhaps a matter of years. However, change for the other group cannot come too quickly. If one’s interests are not being served well, there is little hesitation to trying to improve them as soon as possible. Delays are likely to be perceived as excuses, protecting one’s turf, outright discrimination, or not wanting to be held accountable for one’s performance. At the bottom of this tension is an often unstated fear that as division policy makers and leaders attempt to reconcile past efforts to serve its most disadvantaged populations better, somehow this signals a disinclination to serve the other population as well. Such a belief belies the most fundamental principle of public education, that is a school system that serves all the children of all the people equally well. On this criterion the Charlottesville City Schools have failed. No matter how good the schools are for some Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 136 children, they are not good enough for all of the children. And until they are good enough for all the children, there is much to do. And it cannot come soon enough. While some members of the community might wish for an elongated period of time to ponder and debate changes, the children are in school only once and then they are gone. No matter how overdue some changes may be, there will always be those for whom no explanation will ever be satisfactory. Indeed, in the history of the Charlottesville City Schools, deliberate delays were employed to block the de-segregation of the school division. This deliberate delaying tactic took over ten years to completely overcome. The balance between contemplation and action has to be prudent. While few want to rush in willy-nilly without due consideration of the costs and attention to alternatives, some windows of decision making do not always present the deliberation time everyone would find comfortable. Currently the Charlottesville City Schools is in school improvement status as a division. No one should be comfortable with this designation. To remove the categorization will require continued strong leadership, courage, and living with some ambiguity in times of change. The public schools lie at the very vortex of the social fabric of the quality of life of the City. No City can survive by only serving one half its constituents well. The future of such a legacy is dire. The Charlottesville City Schools must move forward in the months (not years) to come. The stakes are too high to fail to be responsive. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 137 VI. APPENDICES Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 138 Appendix A Auditors’ Biographical Data Fenwick W. English Lead Auditor Currently Dr. English is the R. Wendell Eaves Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership in the School of Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is the “father” of the curriculum audit, having started the process in1979. He has performed audits all over the world. He is the author/co-author of 21 books including Deep Curriculum Alignment (2001) released by Scarecrow Educational Press.. His practitioner experience includes serving as a middle school principal in California, an assistant superintendent of schools in Florida, and a superintendent of schools in New York. He last led a curriculum audit of Anchorage, Alaska in 2002. He earned his Ph.D. at Arizona State University. Kelly Cross, Auditor Kelly Cross is a teacher and interdisciplinary team leader at East Junior High School in Boise, Idaho. She received her B.A. from the University of California, Santa Cruz, and her M.A. from Boise State University. She is currently a doctoral candidate in Curriculum and Instruction at Boise State University. Mrs. Cross is a member of Phi Delta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, and the National Character Education Partnership. She co-chairs the Idaho State Character Education Committee and serves as a mentor to schools that are implementing reform efforts. She has facilitated character education implementation seminars in Idaho, and was a speaker at the Model Schools Conference in Washington, D.C. Mrs. Cross completed curriculum management audit training in Boise, Idaho in 2002. She received advanced audit training in Big Sky, Montana, in 2004. She previously served on the Mt. Vernon, New York, audit. Curtis A. Cain, Auditor Dr. Curtis Cain is the Director of Curriculum and Professional Development for Park Hill School District (near Kansas City, MO). Dr Cain is the former program manager for the School Improvement Model Center at Iowa State University, where he provided oversight for the production of feedback instruments, performance evaluation handbook development, and the logistics of administering surveys. He has also directed consortium based and district-specific curriculum renewal, realignment and assessment. Dr. Cain’s teaching experience spans grades seven through the university level with an emphasis on the social sciences, performance evaluation, and issues related to diversity. His consulting experience includes facilitating workshops on critical work activities training, teacher performance evaluation, counselor performance evaluation, and administrator performance evaluation. Dr. Cain completed his B.S. degree at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff and his M.S. and Ph.D. at Iowa State University. He received his curriculum audit training in Savannah, Georgia in 1999. He has served on audits in Columbus, Ohio and Baltimore, Maryland and in Bermuda. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 139 Michael O. Gibson, Auditor Mike Gibson is currently serving as the Business Manager-Treasurer of Jerome School District in Jerome Idaho, a position he has held for fourteen years. Prior to joining the school district he spent twenty-one years in the financial services industry serving as Vice President of Operations for Twin Falls Bank and Trust Company. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Arkansas State University and an educational specialist degree in educational administration from the University of Idaho. He has been certified as a Registered School Business Administrator by the Association of School Business Officials (ASBO) International. He also serves on the Accounting, Auditing and Budget committee of ASBO International and as the president of the state affiliate, Idaho ASBO. He is an adjunct faculty member of the University of Idaho, Boise Center. He completed his curriculum audit training in Boise, Idaho in 2003. Betty E. Steffy, Auditor Dr. Steffy is formerly the Deputy Superintendent of Instruction in the Kentucky Department of Education during its first years of implementation of the famous Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA). She has served as a superintendent of schools in New Jersey as well as a director of curriculum in a large, urban intermediate educational agency in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She is the author or coauthor of many books, including Career Stages of Classroom Teachers(1989) and The Kentucky Education Reform: Lessons for America released in 1993. Her most recent co-authored books include Life Cycle of the Career Teacher (2000) and The Three Minute Classroom WalkThrough (2004) both released by Corwin Press. She earned her Ed.D. at the University of Pittsburgh. She completed her audit training in 1988 in Montreal, Canada. Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 140 Appendix B List of Documents Reviewed by the • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Charlottesville City Schools Audit Team Summary Report, Charlottesville City Schools, 2002-2003 Testing Program (October 2003) 2004 College Bound Seniors- A Profiles of SAT Program Test-Takers (not dated) Virginia Standards of Learning Technical Report, 2002-03 Administration Cycle CHS AP Course Information (not dated) Summary Report, Charlottesville City Schools, 2002-2003 Testing Program (October 2003) http://www.tfhs.net/tfhs-va.htm Elementary-Secondary Staff information (EEO-5) Report (3/31/2003) CCS Data III CD-Rom, _special_ed_09142004 (9/7/4) CCS Data III CD-Rom, NCLB_Files_Spring_2003_2004 (9/7/4) Report of Employee Demographics for the 2004-2005 School Session, (8/19/4) CCS Data III CD-Rom, School Profiles (9/7/4) Charting the Future: A Strategic Plan Charlottesville City Schools Charlottesville, Virginia (2000) Charlottesville City School Board Policies and Regulations Board Priorities 2003-2004 (on division website) Charlottesville City Schools Mission Statement (on division website) The Charlottesville City Schools No Child Left Behind Local Consolidation Application 2003-04 Quest Program End-of-Year Review (Spring 2004) David Uhlig-CHS SAT email (9-15-4, 9:24:09AM) Talent Development Program (10/27/03) Quest Memo, Subject Annual Review (6/14/04) Virginia Standards of Learning: Record Description for Division Student Level Records (Spring 2004) CCS Auditors CD-Rom, (9/15/4) Stepping Stones (September 2004) Charlottesville City Schools Fast Facts, 2003-04 Charlottesville City Schools Code of Student Conduct, 2004-05 Virginia Standards of Learning Technical Report 2002-03 Administration Cycle CHS CP Course Information (not dated) Supportive Information Sheet, Charlottesville City Board of Education (9/2/4) Charlottesville City Schools, Report of Employee Demographics for the 2004-2005 School Session (8/19/4) New Technology Plan Gifted Local Plan Special Education Annual Plan School Plans (9) Buford Middle School Curriculum Notebooks Math Curriculum Binder 7th Grade English Binder Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 141 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8th Grade English Binder Social Studies and Civics Binder PE/Health Binder Grade 7 Science Binder Grade 8 Science Binder Jackson Via Elementary School Curriculum Notebooks Johnson Elementary School Curriculum Notebook Clark Elementary School Folders Burnley-Moran Elementary School Packet Venable Elementary School Packet Alternative Education School Pamphlet Walker Upper Elementary School Curriculum (7 binders) Grade 6 History, Science (2), Grade 5 History Science, Core Curriculum Curriculum Pacing Guides Special programs and report cards Charlottesville High School Curriculum Binders and Information U.S. History Grade 11, World History II Grade 10, World History, World Geography Government Program Planning Guide Student Handbook with Master Schedule Curriculum Notebooks, Career Guidance Curriculum Notebook Career Action Planning English Curriculum Notebook Grades 9-12 CHS Curriculum Notebooks Elementary Curriculum Notebooks Science K-3, Grade 2 Assessment Tools Folder Grades K-4 Literacy Benchmarks Folder ESL Fine and Performing Arts Notebooks Textbook Adoption Budget and Information Staff Development Folder Folder on Professional Development Facility planning documents for the next ten years Written documents for the process of hiring, recruiting, especially minority recruiting Written documents regarding personnel performance evaluation process NCLB Consolidated Grant and Allocation of Title 1 Funding Written documents regarding enrollment figures Testing Reports and Test Scores for the past five years School data broken down by race and gender CCS History (old) Florence Bryant Book on CCS Desegregation Experience Website printout history of each school Large map of the district List of schools Organizational chart Science Textbook adoption process Pre School Program Book Pre School VPI application SOL Remediation Initiative CCS Operating Budgets, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 142 • • • • • • • • • Notes of discussion with Parents of 9/8/04 (Focus Group) Notes of Discussion with Teachers of 8/31/04 (Focus Group) Folder Book Buddies Folder CCS Curriculum Development Summary Testing Reports 1998-2003 PALS data OCR data 75 teacher evaluations (names redacted) Management letters to the district from its financial auditor [note: Individual auditors may have read and/or referenced a number of other documents which do not appear on this list during the progress of the audit on site] Charlottesville City Schools Audit Report Page 143