Curriculum Management Audit of the Wauwatosa School District

1

• Curriculum Management Audit of the Wauwatosa
  School District
• On site review June 4-6, 2008
• Audit Report September 2008

2
Team Members

• Betty Bates, M.S., Educational Consultant,
  Dekalb, Texas
• Patricia Dickson, M.A., Educational Consultant,
  Los Gatos, CA
• Mark Weinberg, M.A., Director of Academic
  Accountability, Michigan
• Dr. Audrey Hains, Lead Auditor, Consultant,
  Florida

3
Audit Criteria

• 1 Control
• 2 Direction
• 3 Connectivity and Equity
• 4 Feedback
• 5 Productivity

Close Gaps
Close Gaps
Gaps
Gaps
Recommendations
Findings
Findings
What is
What should be
Quality Control
4
Alignment of the Three Elements
Written Curriculum

• Quality Control

Taught Curriculum
Tested Curriculum
5
Sources for the Audit

• Documents
• On-site Observation
• Interviews

6
What You Asked the Audit To Do

• Review Districts current state of planning
• Review Districts current state of execution
• Review Districts evaluation practices as they
  pertain to curriculum
• With intent to provide a system that is flexible,
  adaptable, and supportive of a continuous
  improvement model to create and sustain high
  levels of student achievement in a complex and
  rapidly changing learning environment.

7
Standard 1 The School District Demonstrates Its
Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel.

• Finding 1.1 Existing policies and
  Administrative Regulations/Procedures are
  inadequate to provide for local control of the
  curriculum. However, if proposed policies are
  adopted in addition to the existing policies,
  then policies would be rated as adequate by audit
  standards.
• Working with NEOLA for past 2 years
• Planned adoption by December 2008
• Missing program integration and alignment to
  curriculum training for staff in the delivery of
  the curriculum program-centered budget process

8
Finding 1.2 Evidence of planning was found in
the Wauwatosa School District, and most
department and school level plans show
connections to the system-level plan. However,
most plans lack sufficient clarity about
objectives, strategies, and action steps and
there is insufficient monitoring and evaluation
to promote desired change.

• No one Board policy requires comprehensive
  planning process, coordination of all planning,
  prioritization, sequencing, or monitoring of a
  long range plan
• Audit criteria met Vision/Direction emergent
  fluid planning, deliberate congruent actions,
  aligned professional development (some areas)
• Audit criteria not met data driven, budget
  planning, day-to-day decisions (lack of prior
  planning)
• Direct action limited by lack of clarity about
  objectives, strategies, and action steps
• Monitoring of implementation and evaluation of
  progress inconsistent to determine effectiveness
  reports are made to Board
• Lack of clear definition of Curriculum Council
  scope of work, authority, decision making process
• Sample comment We dont execute things well.
  We give the public a prioritized list but not the
  steps on what to do next.

9
Finding 1.2 - Planning

• Long Range Plan in early stages of implementation
• 6 goals reasonable but very broad requiring
  in-depth work on multiple fronts
• 31 major actions/strategies with 12-69 action
  steps under each goal- many taking place
  simultaneously some inadequate linkage with
  goal
• Primary responsibility heavy on Director of
  Student Learning or TBD
• Very ambitious possible???
• Not fiscally identified or prioritized-
  Addressed when funding needs emerged
• Lacking in-depth staff development for
  implementation differentiated curriculum
  achievement data analysis
• Some overlapping of objectives and action plans
• Lacking over-all evaluation process of Long Range
  Plan
• Long Range Plan Coordinator first step in
  monitoring plan

10
Finding 1.2 School Plans

• Criteria met congruence and connectivity with
  district plan reasonable and clear (but broad)
  emergent (annual change)
• Criteria not met change strategies (staff
  development) integration of goals and actions
  evaluation plan (some specific some not)
  monitoring evaluation
• Consistency among all school plans lacking

11
Finding 1.3 The organization chart does not
meet audit criteria for determining sound general
management of the school district. Job
descriptions do not provide clear specifications
of responsibilities, relationship, and linkage to
curriculum and do not match the current
organization chart.

• Span of Control Supt. exceeds range of 7-12
  for direct supervision
• Chain of Command positions reporting to more
  than one supervisor (Content Team Leaders report
  to 3)
• Logical Grouping of Functions team approach to
  evaluation of Principals some evaluators not
  educators
• Separation of Line and Staff Functions met
• Scalar Relationships Coordinators on same level
  as Directors Supervisors as Specialists, etc.
  (not similar responsibilities, authority,
  compensation)
• Full Inclusion met
• DRAFT policies require development and use of job
  descriptions
• Job Descriptions 17 percent determined adequate
  or above
• Received 19 job descriptions for 43 positions on
  Organization Chart not all match current Chart

12
Standard 2 The School District Has Established
Clear and Valid Objectives for Students

• Finding 2.1 A curriculum development plan is
  provided in new board policy and administration
  procedures but lacks necessary components to
  effectively direct district curriculum design and
  delivery.
• Policy and Administrative Procedure 7003
• Met 2/3 of audit criteria philosophical
  framework, periodic review cycle roles and
  responsibilities some format and components for
  guides use of state and national standards
  focused student objectives/expectations belief
  regarding assessment of curriculum staff
  development linkage monitoring delivery of
  curriculum communication plan regarding
  curriculum
• Not met stages of curriculum development
  multiple contexts and cognitive types not
  required differentiation of instruction and
  selection of student objectives procedures for
  use of assessment data procedures for conducting
  formative and summative evaluations
• Comment Weve gotten too fragmented over the
  years. The problem has become glaring and
  theres no way to do the vertical articulation.

13
Finding 2.2 The scope of the district curriculum
is adequate with the inclusion of Build Your Own
Curriculum documents.

• Audit permits 30 leeway - written curriculum
  for every course
• 96.5 of the subjects and courses offered have
  written curriculum including Build Your Own
  Curriculum- 304 guides analyzed
• Board Policy requires hard-copy for every course
  not followed
• Comment We do have some independent
  practitioners that close the door and do their
  own thing.
• Comment Theres a need for a written
  curriculum, particularly in language arts. We
  need a curriculum thats institutionalized, not a
  cult of personality. We cant have a curriculum
  that requires seeing it from only one persons
  perspective.

14
Finding 2.3 The district curriculum guides do
not meet minimum aligned audit criteria for high
quality curriculum to direct instruction and
improve student achievement.

• Clarity and specificity of objectives 2.23
  (possible 3) lacking specificity on quality of
  performance inclusion of time allocation varied
• Assessment - 0.47 most guides did not address
  assessment of the objective
• Prerequisite skills 3
• Major instructional resources - 0.97 most vague
  or no reference
• Instructional approaches 0.93 vague or no
  reference
• Lacking common vocabulary and format

15
Finding 2.3 Curriculum Guides (Further Analysis
of 4 core content areas for Internal Consistency)

• Replication of WI Model Academic Standards in
  some but absent in others (Math, Science)
• Articulation of standards most samples showed
  extensions of prior learning through the grades
  Social Studies least
• Congruence of Instructional Resources,
  Strategies, Assessment with Objectives lacking
  or weak
• Cognitive complexity ranged from knowledge
  through evaluation
• Allows for wide variations on what gets taught as
  well as level of mastery
• Expectation/direction for rigor and extension of
  learning beyond basic information????

16
Standard 3 The School District Demonstrates
Internal Consistency and Rational Equity in Its
Program Development and Implementation.

• Finding 3.1 Achievement gaps among student
  groups are likely to persist without a change in
  expectations and practices that include
  addressing the imbalance in racial representation
  in programs, disciplinary actions, and comparison
  with teacher demographics.
• Beliefs We believe in respecting and promoting
  diversity We believe in excellence District
  commitment
• Long Range Plan All students will demonstrate
  proficiency of the WI Model Academic Standards
  All students will be prepared for post high
  school courses
• Disproportional representation students and
  staff in gender and ethnicity lack of role
  models someone to turn to
• More males in Sp. Ed., Limited Eng., Title I,
  Elem. GT
• More females in HS AP courses
• More Af. Am. In Sp. Ed program, Title I
• More Asian students in ELL, GT, AP
• More White students in GT

17
Finding 3.1 Achievement Gaps

• Students with disabilities, low SES students,
  Af.Am. lowest performing subgroups ELL lower
  than Eng. proficient
• Females outperformed males
• Years to Parity if you continue practices that
  you are doing with no changes, parity between
  groups will be reached
• Few groups in 2 yrs. many never for some the
  gap will be greater
• Concerns about GT program ELL program Sp Ed
  program meeting the needs of the students????
  Dependent on teacher
• More males suspended and expelled
• More Af. AM. Students expelled and retained more
  White students suspended
• District dropout rate lower than state but wont
  remain if current dropout rate continues for
  males, Asians, Af. Am., and students with
  disabilities
• Only females and White students met or exceeded
  NCLB Graduation rate
• Unsuccessful in overcoming the predictable
  variable of race, poverty, and gender

18
Finding 3.2 Staff development is inadequately
planned, coordinated, monitored, and evaluated
system-wide and does not consistently provide
sufficient in-depth training for successful
implementation in the classroom leading to
increased student achievement.

• Wide variety offered- valued and supported by
  policy
• Criteria met policy mission variety of
  approaches
• Partially met data-driven necessary funding
  research-based approaches
• Not met system-wide coordination framework for
  integrating innovations to mission long range
  approach systematic approach aligned with
  district goals phases of change process
  (initiation, implementation, institutionalization)
  based on learning process follow-up
  application expectation for staff development
  role evaluation process with results based on
  actual changes in behavior
• Weakest moving learning into practice much at
  awareness level in-depth knowledge for
  implementation lacking
• Professional Learning Communities and Early
  Release Time - newly initiated - unresolved
  issues consistent implementation guidelines for
  use of specialists alignment with district
  initiatives
• Comment There should be comprehensive staff
  development for everyone administrators and all
  staff. We need a subject-area focus-a systemic
  approach.

19
Finding 3.3 Instructional practices are not well
aligned with the districts stated expectations
for effective teaching and learning.

• District expectations productive, task-centered
  learning environments opportunities for active
  student participation and choice varied teaching
  methods use of technology for instruction
  alignment to State Standards academic rigor
  focus on thinking process differentiation
  frequent feedback to learners
• Observation done near end of school year after
  HS final exams some on fieldtrips
• Some of the expectations observed in classrooms
• Mostly, traditional, teacher-centered, whole
  group instruction strategies focused on knowledge
  and comprehension types of thinking

20
Standard 4 The School District Uses the Results
from System-Designed and/or Adopted Assessments
to Adjust, Improve, or Terminate Ineffective
Practices or Programs.

• Finding 4.1 Student and program assessment
  planning is inadequate to guide systemic decision
  making for improving student achievement.
• Scattered evidence of assessment planning Board
  policies, Long Range Plan lacking a formalized,
  systematized process
• 47 of criteria met
• Criteria met Bd. Policy list of assessment
  tools, direction on use of diverse assessment
  strategies connection between district, state,
  and national assessments overall assessment
  procedures and analysis procedures regarding
  curriculum effectiveness addressing equity
  issues communicating assessment results
• Criteria not met formative and summative
  assessment system frequent diagnostic assessment
  for differentiated instruction roles and
  responsibilities of staff in assessment
  requiring aligned assessment examples in
  curriculum component of program assessment and
  use of this data staff development on
  assessment monitoring use of formative and
  summative assessments use of program assessment
  data for cost-benefit analysis.
• Lacking systemic approach/process that would
  yield and utilize data effectively
• Need to develop attitude and process that asks
  how do we know this is effective

21
Finding 4.2 The scope of assessment is
inadequate to guide curriculum and instructional
decision making.

• Audit has 30 leeway assessment for every
  course desired 70 of courses assessed is
  adequate
• District K-12 assessment 22 of courses taught-
  inadequate
• All assessed in reading and most in math no
  common assessments for science and social studies
• State assessments mainly WKCE tests no
  additional common assessments in HS
• Had tried to implement Level II assessments but
  ceased using as a system still used in
  communicative arts and world language courses
• Piloted MAP assessments this past year reading,
  language usage, math

22
Finding 4.3 Student performance on the state
tests is at or above state averages, but trend
data show little change in average student
passing rates over a five-year period.

• Overall achievement stable in most subject areas
  and grade levels high performing district
• District Goal 2007-08 decrease number of grade
  3-8 and 10 students who do not score proficient
  or higher on WKCE-CRT by 10 percent used for
  analysis of test scores
• Little progress being made some areas decline in
  number of students meeting goal
• Data Retreats initiated to analyze data for use
  in the classroom no measurable impact noted
• Comment Using assessment to drive teaching is
  the area Id like to focus on next.

23
Finding 4.4 There is no formalized systemic
procedure to adopt, implement, continue, or
eliminate a program or intervention.

• Number of programs/interventions implemented at
  District level and more at school level no
  formalized process for development,
  implementation, or evaluation of these endeavors
• 101 total 23 District level 78 school level
• Indepth analysis of ELIP (Early Literacy
  Intervention Program) put on ice due to small
  number of students served
• Met all criteria for effective innovation and
  intervention design documented need, allocation
  of resources purpose of program process for
  implementing program including staff development
  resources needed identified for short and long
  term implementation formative and summative
  assessment tied to program
• Challenge for district find effective and
  efficient means to gather and analyze data
  common measures that will provide comparisons
• Comment We start too many initiatives without
  asking the questions that need answering.

24
Standard 5 The School District Has Improved
Productivity.

• Finding 5.1 Long range planning provides some
  direction for the budgeting process, but
  budgeting practices do not permit educational
  priorities to be connected to the financial plan
  of the district, nor do they permit or encourage
  cost-benefit analyses.
• Long Range Plan budgetary amounts not noted for
  action items
• Board policies expect development of budget to
  needs of curriculum- no expectation that budget
  presented in cost-benefit analyses
• Business Services Director meets with
  Superintendent to set priority needs based on
  Long Range Plan
• Criteria partially met flexibility permitted in
  budget allocations based on changing needs or
  priorities priorities set by key educational
  staff including teacher and Principal suggestions
• Criteria not met connections between assessments
  of effectiveness and allocation of resources
  cost benefits in curriculum programming budget
  request presented with evaluation of results
  budget requests compete for funding based upon
  evaluation of criticality of need and
  effectiveness of performance
• Approach used was justification for reduction
  Comment I dont know how they make budget cuts.
  They just do it.

25
Finding 5.2 The integration of technology as an
instructional tool for advancing student learning
is inadequately planned for execution of district
expectations.

• Compliance with State law long range plan
• Long Range Plan action steps include
  integration of technology into learning process
  not required in Bd. Policy
• 70 of criteria met to be adequate 64 was met
• Criteria met in Technology Plan program
  philosophy/vision comprehensive view measurable
  student goals and objectives ongoing program
  assessment comprehensive staff training with
  standards internet access standards role of
  school library implementation budget site plans
  aligned with District plan
• Criteria not met Board policy requiring
  integration technology standards for each site
  for needs assessment ongoing student assessment
  school site equipment standards maintenance
  budget
• Comment Teachers willingness to integrate
  technology in the classroom varies. Part of the
  problem is that there never has been a good
  approach (to staff development) in the past it
  was more autonomous.
• Use of technology varies comment It is more
  often by choice that a teacher uses technology.

26
Recommendations

• Recommendation 1 Revise planning efforts to
  provide clear direction, coordination,
  prioritization, and sequencing of all initiatives
  at all levels of the system. Require consistent
  monitoring and reporting of progress on all plans
  to key stakeholders to promote accountability and
  alignment to district goals.
• Adopt DRAFT policies and augment as each
  recommendation notes
• Board Policies development to include
  preplanning, monitoring, evaluation, relationship
  to budget, prioritization of goals/action plans
• Include District planning and adherence to in job
  descriptions and appraisal documents
• Use audit criteria to guide District planning,
  (i.e. feasibility, thinking ahead to anticipate
  challenges)
• Reporting on all planning (Technology,
  Curriculum, Assessment) with relationship to Long
  Range Plan monitor and evaluate all
  plans/planning based on this

27
Recommendation 2 Revise and formalize curriculum
management processes to provide district-wide
direction for the design, delivery, monitoring,
and evaluation of quality aligned curriculum for
all subjects taught.

• Adopt and augment DRAFT and existing policies
• Need a systematic approach umbrella framework
  formalized process for development,
  implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of
  curriculum for all departments/curriculum areas
• Use audit criteria for direction
• Develop consistent format, common vocabulary
• One curriculum area for 1st year
• Get teacher input along the way regarding DRAFTs,
  piloting use of guide
• Provide training for all staff on using this
  curriculum guide monitor use of guide in
  classrooms
• Accelerate the process with 2 curriculum areas
  the next year, etc.

28
Recommendation 3 Accelerate progress in
overcoming system inequities and inequalities
based on ethnicity, gender, disability, and
socioeconomic status as one of the district-wide
initiatives in the planning process.

• Reaffirm high expectations for achievement of all
  students policy of commitment to equal access to
  all services and equitable distribution of
  resources
• Include in action steps of Long Range Plan
• Monitor and analyze formative and summative data
  pertaining to equity on a consistent basis
• Review site-based decisions using policy
  direction
• In-depth training for all staff on cultural
  diversity through instructional
  strategies/decisions establish a common
  vocabulary
• Coaching and modeling of differentiated
  instruction
• Monitoring of implementation of staff training

29
Recommendation 4 Establish a centralized
professional development program that provides
coordinated training in the essential
competencies for the effective delivery of the
written curriculum, including institutionalization
of district expectations for best practices.

• Adopt and augment existing policies and DRAFT
  policies- evaluation of staff development in
  terms of student achievement and staff competence
  in classroom
• Assign responsibility to one Central Office
  person focus on district priorities, delivery
  and assessment of curriculum and learning
• 3-5 key areas of focus over 3-5 yrs. in-depth
  training
• Establish, implement, and monitor clear
  expectations and procedures for Professional
  Learning Communities

30
Recommendation 5 Implement and support through
adequate staff development a balanced assessment
system, coupled with procedures to use the data
to guide instructional decisions, for initiation,
revision, continuation, or elimination of
classroom, school, and district practices,
programs, and interventions.

• Adopt and augment policies and DRAFT policies-
  student and program evaluation formalized process
  for initiation, implementation, and evaluation
• Framework for formalized process of assessment
  develop a mind set about evaluation
• Require use of evaluation data for
  decision-making
• Assign assessment responsibilities to one central
  person District and school evaluations
• In-depth professional development for
  administrators and teachers on use and analysis
  of data timely availability a necessity
• Develop in-house or purchase common assessments
  provide in-depth professional development on use
  prior to implementation, during implementation,
  and in use of data collected
• Monitor the use of assessment data in classroom
  and use in curriculum and program development and
  revision/elimination

31
Recommendation 6 Develop an organization chart
with corresponding written job descriptions and
appraisals that will provide sound management
with focus on the design and delivery of
curriculum.

• Policy require organization chart that meets
  audit criteria (Adopt DRAFT policy on job
  descriptions)- policy that aligns staff appraisal
  instruments with job descriptions
• Emphasize curriculum design and delivery
  responsibilities in all job descriptions and
  appraisal instruments (Audit criteria)
• Phasing in of changes to present Organization
  Chart new hirees

32
(No Transcript)
33
Organization Chart

• Intent supervision/evaluation of Principals to
  Superintendent direct line
• Intent compact number reporting to
  Superintendent change Director of Recreation to
  Supervisor of Recreation reporting to Director of
  Business Services eliminate Technology
  Coordinator- change to Supervisor of
  Assessment/Evaluation reporting to Director of
  Student Learning Change title of LRP/Alumni
  Coordinator to LRP/Alumni Administrative
  Assistant reporting to Superintendent
• Intent establish assessment/evaluation system
  Supervisor of Assessment/Evaluation
• Intent - systematize curriculum and delivery of
  curriculum Content Team Leaders and
  Instructional Technology Specialist report to
  Supervisor of Student Learning
• Intent align technical aspect of technology
  Communication Technology Specialist and
  Co-Network Specialists report to Director of
  Business Services through Manager of Business and
  Grounds
• Learning Coordinators rotating positions with
  expertise in curriculum area that data
  demonstrates need

34
Recommendation 7 Develop and implement a
budgeting process that aligns district and
building level resources to curricular goals and
strategic priorities. Include systematic
cost-benefit analyses using assessment data to
assure that expenditures are producing desired
results and are directed to the areas of greatest
need.

• Adopt and augment policies pertaining to
  budgeting process that will provide cost-benefit
  analyses
• Include financial estimates in Long Range Plan
  use these in process of prioritizing action steps
  based on need
• Initiate and implement curriculum-driven budget
  process through open communication with all staff
  and community
• Initiate and implement cost-benefit analysis
  process in developing the budget through open
  communication
• Maintain role and responsibility of
  Superintendent the oversight of financial
  decision making that aligns long range planning
  across the district

35
Audit PremisesDistrict School Responsibilities

• School Based
• Means
• Instruction
• Strategies
• Groupings
• Processes
• Resources
• Programs
• (all accountable to system)

• System Based
• Ends
• Mission
• Standards
• Goals and Priorities
• Student Objectives
• Student Assessments