Curriculum Management Audit

1
Curriculum Management Audit

• International Curriculum Management Audit Center
• Phi Delta Kappa International
• May 1999

2
Presentation Overview

• The nature of the audit
• The focus of the audit
• How the audit was conducted
• The five essential standards used by the audit
  team
  
• What the auditors expected to find in each
  standard ...
  
• Followed by what the auditors found in each
  standard
  
• What the audit team recommended
• The new 5-year district goals
• The planning system model used for each goal
• The collaborative decision-making model

3
The commission

• On October 5, 1998, the Board of Education
  commissioned Phi Delta Kappa International to
  conduct a district-wide curriculum management
  audit.
• Reveal the extent to which the district has
  developed and implemented a sound, valid,
  operational system of curriculum management.
  
• The audit is an exception audit.
• An effective, efficient district maximizes the
  use of human and financial resources in the
  education of its students.
  
• Such a district assures taxpayers that their
  fiscal support is optimized.

4
Curriculum Continuity
Taught Curriculum
Written Curriculum
Quality Control
Assessed Curriculum
5
Data Sources of Audit

• Documents
• Examples include written board policies,
  administrative regulations, curriculum guides,
  memoranda, budgets, state reports, accreditation
  documents, site plans, test scores, demographic
  data, CBEDS.
• Interviews
• 181 stakeholders including Board members,
  Superintendent, parents, teachers, principals,
  classified staff, organization officers,
  community leaders, and students.
• Site Visits
• All 31 sites were visited.
• Visitations included classrooms, offices, gyms,
  labs, playgrounds, hallways, restrooms,
  maintenance areas.

6
Five Essential Standards

• 1. VUSD demonstrated control of resources,
  programs, and personnel.
  
• 2. VUSD established clear and valid objectives
  for students.
  
• 3. VUSD demonstrated internal consistency and
  rational equity in its program development and
  implementation.
  
• 4. VUSD used results from district-designed or
  district-adopted assessment to adjust, improve,
  or terminate ineffective practices or programs.
  
• 5. VUSD improved its productivity.

7
Auditors Expected to Find

• 1. Control of resources, programs, and
  personnel.
  
• Centrally defined curriculum adopted by Board.
• Policies that set an operational framework and
  permit accountability.
  
• Policies that reflect state requirements, local
  program goals, and improvement systems driven by
  achievement data.
  
• Administrative structure that facilitates
  design/delivery of curriculum.
  
• Direct line of authority from central office to
  principals and teachers.
  
• Organizational efforts that focus on improving
  system effectiveness.
  
• Documented central office planning for the
  attainment of goals, objectives, and mission over
  time.
  
• Clear mechanism to define and direct change
  innovation.

8
Findings

• 1. Control of resources, programs, and
  personnel.
  
• Lacks an adequate framework to ensure quality
  curriculum management and control.
  
• Many outdated policies dont provide structure
  for curriculum management.
  
• Board began reviewing and updating policies this
  year.
  
• District planning is fragmented
• Several versions of mission statement district
  goals exist.
  
• Campus plans dont match written policies
• Organization does not meet criteria for sound
  organizational management.
  
• Line of responsibility from Board to classroom
  teacher is interrupted.
  
• Job descriptions dont clearly delineate
  relationship of function to curriculum.
  
• District does not have an effective decision
  making structure.
  
• Stakeholders are not consistently involved in
  decision making.
  
• Communication mechanism throughout the system is
  absent.

9
Auditors Expected to Find

• 2. Establish clear and valid objectives for
  students.
  
• System-wide Board goals objectives that address
  all program/courses.
  
• Local initiatives that align and respond to
  national or state expectations.
  
• Comprehensive short/long-range curriculum
  management planning.
  
• Knowledge use of current best
  practices/emerging curriculum trends.
  
• Written curriculum that addresses both current
  and future student needs.
  
• Major programmatic initiatives designed to be
  cohesive.
  
• Provision of explicit direction for
  Superintendent professional staff.
  
• A framework that exists for systemic curricular
  change.

10
Findings

• 2. Establish clear and valid objectives for
  students.
  
• A comprehensive curriculum development plan does
  not exist.
  
• The district is reacting to frequently changing
  state frameworks standards.
  
• Programs across grades sites are inconsistent
  and not connected.
  
• Curriculum guide coverage is adequate at
  elementary high school but lacking at the
  middle school level.
  
• Curriculum delivery is inconsistent throughout
  the district.
  
• Instruction tends to be teacher directed with
  little interactive student learning.
  
• Monitoring of curriculum delivery varies from
  school to school.
  
• Several endeavors throughout the district are
  being employed to address the curriculum needs
  of students.
  
• There is no district-wide process for introducing
  or eliminating programs or courses.

11
Auditors Expected to Find

• 3. Internal consistency and rational equity.
• Documents that reveal internal connections at
  different levels in system.
  
• Predictable consistency through a coherent
  rationale for content delineation within the
  curriculum.
  
• Equity of curriculum or course access and
  opportunity.
  
• Allocation of resource flow to areas of greatest
  need.
  
• A curriculum clearly communicated to all
  stakeholders.
  
• Professional development programs to enhance
  curricular design/delivery.
  
• Curriculum that is monitored by central office
  and site administration.
  
• Teacher and administrator responsiveness to Board
  policies, currently and over time.

12
Findings

• 3. Internal consistency and rational equity.
• Actual articulation between grades and between
  schools was not found.
  
• Articulation occurs on some levels/some campuses
  but lacks consistency.
  
• No policy ensured equity and fairness in the
  distribution of district resources.
  
• Resources did not flow to areas where students
  with needs were identified.
  
• Disparities exist in course offerings in the high
  schools.
  
• Disparities were evident.
• Disparities exist in GATE and special education
  programs, fund raising, disciplinary actions, and
  dropout rate.
  
• Differences in the treatment of students by
  gender ethnicity were noted.
  
• Staff development was found to be inadequate as a
  means of improving teaching toward student
  achievement.

13
Auditors Expected to Find

• 4. Assessment results drive practice and
  program.
  
• Formative summative assessment system linked to
  Board policy.
  
• Knowledge use of current curricular
  assessment best practices.
  
• An assessment plan that uses diverse strategies
  and varied purposes.
  
• Timely relevant database to analyze student
  achievement trends.
  
• A vehicle to determine the effectiveness of a
  program.
  
• A system to relate a programmatic budget enable
  sites to analyze cost benefit.
  
• Organizational data gathered and used to
  continually improve system functions.
  

14
Findings

• 4. Assessment results drive practice and
  program.
  
• No evidence of a written long-range plan or a
  coordinated district-wide plan for assessment and
  program evaluation.
  
• Program evaluation does little to help decision
  makers set priorities based on needs or costs
  benefits.
  
• No Board policy providing adequate direction in
  designing or implementing a comprehensive plan.
  
• A great deal of testing takes place but the scope
  of assessment is inadequate to reading/language
  arts and mathematics.
  
• Results on state and district assessments were
  inconsistent.
  
• Large differences in performances exist between
  various student groups.
  
• Little documentation to indicate efforts to close
  the gap or how the gap was changing.

15
Auditors Expected to Find

• 5. Improved productivity.
• Congruence among curricular objectives, results,
  and financial allocations.
  
• A database/network that tracks costs to results,
  provides sufficient fiduciary control, and is
  used to drive policy and operational decisions.
  
• Specific means to attain better results in the
  schools over a specified period of time.
  
• Planned interventions that raise pupil
  performance levels and maintain those levels
  within the same cost parameters.
  
• Facilities conducive to effective delivery of
  instructional programs.
  
• District and school climate conducive to
  continual improvement.
  
• Support systems that function in systemic ways.

16
Findings

• 5. Improved productivity.
• Financial condition sound and sufficient.
• Student achievement and program performance did
  not drive the budget.
  
• No process was identified for the development,
  implementation, monitoring and evaluation of
  educational activities and programs.
  
• Unsuccessful programs were not modified or
  terminated.
  
• Successful programs were not duplicated.
• Disparities exist among district facilities.
• Physical space, inadequate infrastructure
  maintenance hinder some schools.
  
• Planning activities for instructional uses of
  technology have been inconsistent and
  disjointed.
  
• District direction and support are lacking for
  technology acquisition, staff development, and
  maintenance.
  

17
Recommendations

• 1. Develop a comprehensive set of Board policies
  addressing curriculum quality control.
  
• 2. Create organizational structures that guide
  decision-making, curriculum, and human
  resources.
  
• 3. Develop/implement a systemic planning
  process.
  
• 4. Develop a comprehensive curriculum management
  plan.
  
• 5. Focus staff development activities on
  improving staff instruction and sustaining
  student achievement gains.
  
• 6. Develop a plan that allocates district
  resources to areas of need ensuring equity for
  all students.
  
• 7. Design a comprehensive program-driven
  budgeting process.

18
District Goals 1999 - 2004

• Increase student success (Dr. Anthony Escobar)
• Curriculum Management Audit findings (John
  Stockton)
  
• Maximize resources and funding (Audit Manager)
• Improve communication (Georgia Renne)
• Build District infrastructure (Scott Smith)
• Expand and renovate facilities (Don Trigg)
• Enhance the Districts public image (Silvia
  Salcido)

19
System Planning

• 1. Mission
• 2. Critical Analysis
• 3. Assumptions
• 4. Components
• 5. Objectives
• 6. Evaluation
• 7. Action Plans

• 8. Plan Integration
• 9. Planning Budget Timeline Relationship
• 10. Multi-year Planning Goal Feasibility
• 11. Linkage Documents
• 12. Stakeholders Involvement
• 13. Monitoring

20
Collaborative Decision -Making
Business Community Parents
Business Community Parents
21
(No Transcript)