CSA
Summary
Read the report at California State Auditor ↗
Los Angeles Unified
School District:
Outdated, Scarce Textbooks at Some Schools
Appear to Have a Lesser Effect on Academic
Performance Than Other Factors, but the
District Should Improve Its Management of
Textbook Purchasing and Inventory
June 2002
2001-124
rotiduA
etatS
ainrofilaC
S
T
I
D
U
A
E
T
A
T
S
F
O
U
A
E
R
U
B
The first five copies of each California State Auditor report are free.
Additional copies are $3 each, payable by check or money order.
You can obtain reports by contacting the Bureau of State Audits
at the following address:
California State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 445-0255 or TDD (916) 445-0255 x 216
OR
This report may also be available
on the World Wide Web
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa/
The California State Auditor is pleased to announce
the availability of an online subscription service.
For information on how to subscribe, please contact
David Madrigal at (916) 445-0255, ext. 201, or
visit our Web site at www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa
Alternate format reports available upon request.
Permission is granted to reproduce reports.
� � �
��������� ���� ������
������������� �������������������
������������ �����������������������
June 26, 2002 2001-124
The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:
As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the Bureau of State Audits presents its audit report concerning the
Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) program and policies for providing textbooks and instructional materials
to its schools.
This report concludes that our audit of 16 schools did not reveal any significant disparities in textbook quality and quantity
among high- and low-performing schools. Although both use outdated textbooks, low-performing schools were more likely
to have shortages and restrict textbook use to the classroom. However, we cannot conclude that the higher prevalence of
textbook shortages we found in low-performing schools has a direct relation with their Academic Performance Index.
Several other factors do appear to affect school performance, such as the number of credentialed teachers; the level of parents’
education; and students’ transiency, socioeconomic status, and English proficiency.
LAUSD does not always spend its textbook funds for textbooks and other instructional materials, as state law requires. In
addition, LAUSD spends on average less per student for textbooks and other books and instructional materials than other
large districts in the State. Further, both LAUSD and the California Department of Education can improve their efforts to
monitor compliance with a law requiring publishers to provide any instructional materials free of charge to school districts
in California to the same extent as they provide them to any school district nationwide. LAUSD spends roughly $22 million
per year on textbooks, and we estimate that the value of free materials associated with these purchases could be as much as
$15.6 million to $19.4 million per year.
Finally, LAUSD spent nearly $2 million to implement an electronic textbook inventory system; however, implementation of
the system has been unsuccessful. A centralized textbook inventory system could help LAUSD manage textbook inventories
to ensure that each student has a current textbook, allow it to comply with the state law requiring schools to publish on the
Internet information about the quantity and type of textbooks they use so the public can assess school quality, and aid its
efforts to hold students or their parents accountable for lost or damaged textbooks.
Respectfully submitted,
ELAINE M. HOWLE
State Auditor
�������������������
�������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������� ������������������
CONTENTS
Summary 1
Introduction 5
Chapter 1
Textbook Quality and Quantity Appear to Affect
Student Performance Less Than Do Other Factors 19
Recommendations 37
Chapter 2
Facing Possible Reductions in Textbook Funding,
the Los Angeles Unified School District Needs
Stronger Controls Over Textbook Purchasing
and Inventory 39
Recommendations 58
Appendix A
Selected School Accountability Report Card
Information for the 16 Schools We Visited 61
Appendix B
Status of Prior Recommendations to Improve
Textbook Purchases and Inventory 63
Appendix C
Comparison of Fiscal Year 1999–2000 Average Per
Student Spending for Textbooks and
Other Instructional Materials 69
Responses to the Audit
Los Angeles Unified School District 71
California State Auditor’s
Comments on the Response
From the Los Angeles Unified School District 83
California Department of Education 85
California State Auditor’s
Comment on the Response
From the California Department of Education 89
1
SUMMARY
RESULTS IN BRIEF
The largest school district in California and the
second largest district in the nation, the Los Angeles
Unified School District (LAUSD), serves more than
Audit Highlights . . . 730,000 students in 677 schools. In requesting this audit, the
Legislature was primarily concerned about whether LAUSD’s
Our review of the Los Angeles
low-performing schools are affected by the quality and quantity
Unified School District
of their textbooks. Our audit of 16 schools did not reveal any
(LAUSD) concludes that:
significant differences between high- and low-performing
þ Although we found more schools regarding textbooks. For example, both use outdated
classes in low-performing
texts; however, low-performing schools were more likely to have
schools that did not have
enough textbooks for each shortages and restrict textbook use to the classroom. We cannot
student, we cannot conclude conclude that the higher prevalence of textbook shortages we
that the higher prevalence
found in low-performing schools has a direct relation to their
of textbook shortages has
Academic Performance Index. However, several other factors
a direct relation to their
school performance. do appear to affect school performance, such as the number of
credentialed teachers; the level of parents’ education; and students’
þ Factors such as the
transiency, socioeconomic status, and English proficiency.
number of credentialed
teachers; the level of
parents’ education; and With LAUSD’s budget uncertainties and the potential loss of
students’ transiency and
about $40 per student in Schiff-Bustamante Standards-Based
socioeconomic status
Instructional Materials Program funding, it is increasingly
do appear to affect
school performance. important for LAUSD to have effective control over and use
of its textbooks and textbook funding. However, we found
þ LAUSD does not always
that LAUSD does not always spend its textbook funds for
spend its restricted
textbook and other textbooks and other instructional materials, as state law requires.
instructional materials In addition, LAUSD spends on average less per student for
funds appropriately, and it
textbooks, other books, and instructional materials than other
spends, on average, less per
large districts in the State. For example, in fiscal year 2000–01,
student than other large
districts in the State for San Bernardino Unified School District told us it spent an average
these resources. of $329 per student for books and other instructional materials
while LAUSD spent only $127 per student for books and other
þ LAUSD has made minimal
efforts to ensure that instructional materials.
publishers equitably
provide free instructional
Moreover, LAUSD can improve its control and management over
materials to its schools, as
textbook purchases and inventories. In what is called the most-
state law requires.
favored-nations clause, state law requires publishers to provide
continued on next page free instructional materials to any school district purchasing
textbooks in California to the same extent as they provide them
to school districts elsewhere in the United States. However,
1
þ LAUSD needs to manage its LAUSD has made minimal efforts to ensure that publishers
textbook inventories better are complying with this law, thereby denying some schools
to ensure that each student
the opportunity to receive valuable free instructional materials
has a current textbook
that other schools received when purchasing similar textbooks.
and to assist the public in
assessing school quality. Moreover, the California Department of Education (department)
can do more to ensure that school districts are made aware of
publisher offerings of free instructional materials. LAUSD spends
roughly $22 million per year on textbooks, and we estimate that
the value of the free materials associated with these purchases
could be as much as $15.6 million to $19.4 million per year.
Statewide, in fiscal year 2000–01 schools purchased textbooks
valued at about $488 million, potentially placing the annual
value of free materials at between $346 million and $430 million.
Currently, LAUSD has its schools purchase their own texts.
Centralizing this function would make it easier to monitor
publishers and ensure that they treat schools fairly.
LAUSD spent nearly $2 million to implement an electronic
textbook inventory system that is not widely used. This system
helps manage textbook inventories to ensure that each student
has a current textbook and to facilitate the disposal of obsolete
textbooks. Further, a comprehensive textbook inventory system
would allow LAUSD to comply with the state law requiring
schools to publish on the Internet information about the
quantity and type of textbooks they use so the public can assess
school quality. Finally, a fully operational inventory tracking
system would aid LAUSD’s efforts to hold students accountable
for lost or damaged textbooks.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To make sure students have the best opportunity to succeed
academically, LAUSD should enforce its existing policy requiring
every student to have a textbook for use in class and at home in
core subject areas.
To ensure that publishers are treating all California schools
equitably, the department should modify its regulations or seek
legislation if necessary to require publishers and manufacturers
to report, at a minimum, all offers of free instructional materials
for Kindergarten through grade 12 within 30 working days
of the effective date of the offer. Further, the department
should maintain a comprehensive Web site that contains this
information and should require publishers to report to the
department in a standard electronic format.
2 3
To ensure that its schools are treated fairly by publishers,
LAUSD should make all textbook purchasers aware of the most-
favored-nations clause, ensure that purchasers have access to
current publisher-generated lists of prices and free materials,
and require purchasers to use the lists when ordering textbooks
and free materials. LAUSD should also periodically monitor the
prices its schools pay for textbooks and the free materials they
receive for similar purchases and pursue cost recovery for any
exceptions found.
To improve its textbook-purchasing process and ensure equitable
publisher treatment, LAUSD should centralize its textbook-
purchasing function at LAUSD or its local districts.
To improve its textbook inventory systems and to comply
with the state law requiring it to publish lists of texts used in
its schools, LAUSD should proceed with its plans to develop
a centralized textbook inventory system. The system should
include all texts and other instructional materials at each
school and include ongoing standardized training and both
implementation and technical support.
AGENCY COMMENTS
LAUSD agrees with our audit findings and with most of our
audit recommendations. However, LAUSD does not agree with
our recommendation to consider modifying its technology plan
to aim for a goal of a student-to-computer ratio of five to one
rather than six to one. In addition, LAUSD does not agree that
it should modify its accounting system to include the Interna-
tional Standard Book Number to track purchases of the same
book made by different schools and generate reports that would
allow it to audit publisher invoices. LAUSD states that it lacks
available resources to implement these recommendations.
The department has agreed to study our recommendations.
However, it believes that unless changes to statutes and regulations
are made, it does not have the authority to require publishers
and manufacturers to report all gratis offerings for grades 9
through 12. n
2 3
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
4 5
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has the
largest student enrollment among California’s public
school districts and the second largest in the nation.
With approximately 36,000 teachers, LAUSD serves more
than 730,000 students in 677 schools. Its schools use a variety of
school calendars to serve the student populations in their areas.
Some schools operate on a traditional single-track calendar that
begins on the first week of September and lasts through roughly
the middle of June. Other schools use year-round, or multitrack,
calendars with instruction beginning the first week of July and
concluding during the last week of June. Multitrack education
was envisioned as a way to teach increasing student populations
without building new schools.
LAUSD has three main types of schools: elementary, middle, and
high. Typically, an elementary school comprises Kindergarten
through grade 5; middle school, grades 6 through 8; and
high school, grades 9 through 12. LAUSD also has other
school types, including multilevel schools that comprise
Kindergarten through grade 8 or 12, magnet schools, and
special education schools.
On April 11, 2000, the Los Angeles City Board of Education
(city board) adopted a reorganization plan for LAUSD that
created 11 local districts, each with its own local district
superintendent, business manager, and other administrative
staff. The reorganization took effect in July 2000 with the stated
intent to improve academic achievement by assigning decision-
making responsibility to the local districts, reconstituting the
central office as a service provider, and focusing districtwide
efforts on teaching students to read. Each local district consists of
about 60 schools and between 52,000 and 77,000 students. Figure 1
on the following page shows the boundaries of the 11 local
districts, A through K.
4 5
FIGURE 1
The Los Angeles Unified School District Has 11 Local Districts Overseeing Its Schools
� �
�����������
������������ �������
�������
����������
������
�������
�����
������������� � ���������
�
� ���������
�
�������
��������� ����������
�
������ � ������
����������
���� �
�
�����������
���������
������
�
������
���
�����
�
Source: Los Angeles Unified School District
6 7
Superintendents of the local districts report directly to
LAUSD’s general superintendent as shown in Figure 2. The general
superintendent evaluates the effectiveness of the local districts
using factors such as their ability to achieve educational goals
and to respond to schools’ needs. The yardstick for measuring
LAUSD’s success is the academic achievement of each student.
FIGURE 2
The Los Angeles City Board of Education Oversees
Many Divisions and Units in the District
����������� ��������������
���������������� ����������������
�������
��������������
�������
�����
����������������
����������������
�������������
���������
����� �����
������������ �����������
������������������ ����������������
�����������
����������� ����������� ����������������� �������������
������������ ������������������ ����������������� ��������������������
��������
������������������ ������ ��������
������������ �������������� ����������������
�������� �����
�������������� �����������������
Source: Los Angeles Unified School District
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS ADOPTION PROCESS
Legislation enacted in 1995 required the State Board of
Education (state board) to adopt statewide content standards
designed to establish the academic knowledge, skills, and
abilities that all public schools are expected to teach—and
6 7
students are expected to learn—for the core subjects of language
arts, mathematics, science, and history/social science. The state
board finalized its content standards for these subject areas by
October 1998.
Legislation enacted in 1996 requires the state board to review
the existing curriculum frameworks for conformity with the
new statewide standards and to modify them as needed to bring
them into alignment with the standards. A state curriculum
framework outlines the components of a given course of study
and describes the scope and sequence of knowledge and the
skills all students need to master. In addition, frameworks direct
school districts in the provision of instructional programs and
serve as a guideline for evaluating instructional materials.
The Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials
Commission—a committee of 18 appointees representing the
Senate, the Assembly, and the public—serves as an advisory
body, recommending frameworks and instructional materials
to the state board for approval. Instructional materials are
designed for teachers and students to use as learning resources
and can include textbooks, technology-based materials, other
educational materials, and tests. The state board must ensure
that it reviews and adopts frameworks in each subject area
consistent with six- and eight-year submission cycles and that
it evaluates instructional materials using the criteria set forth in
state law. The state board has approved frameworks for each core
subject area; however, the science framework is in the final stage
of editing.
Once the state board has approved content standards and
a Kindergarten through grade 12 curriculum framework, it
invites publishers to submit instructional materials for possible
placement on its list of adopted materials. The state board
is responsible for adopting instructional materials for use in
Kindergarten through grade 8, and relies on the Instructional
Materials Advisory Panel (IMAP) and the Curriculum Review
Panel (CRP) to assist in evaluating these materials. Schools
must use the state board’s list to purchase textbooks and
other instructional materials. Figure 3 shows the state board’s
instructional materials adoption process.
8 9
FIGURE 3
The State Has Multiple Reviews and Hearings
Before It Adopts Instructional Materials
Source: California Department of Education
*IMAP stands for Instructional Materials Advisory Panel; CRP stands for Curriculum Review Panel. From the time publishers submit
instructional materials for evaluation, it takes the state board roughly six months to render its decision.
8 9
The governing board of each school district is responsible for
adopting instructional materials for use in the high schools
under its control. As shown in Figure 4, LAUSD’s process for
adopting materials for grades 9 through 12 is similar to the
state board’s adoption process. LAUSD invites publishers to
submit instructional materials for inclusion on its authorized
list of materials. Its textbook evaluation committees, composed
primarily of teachers currently teaching the course under review,
examine instructional materials that publishers submit for legal
compliance standards, alignment with state content standards
and frameworks, and instructional appropriateness. A report that
includes the committee’s recommendations is sent to the city
board for approval.
FIGURE 4
The Los Angeles City Board of Education Considers the Adoption of Instructional
Materials After Textbook Evaluation Committees Have Completed Their Reviews
Source: Los Angeles Unified School District
10 11
THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE INDEX
One of the primary measures of student and school performance
is the State’s Academic Performance Index (API), which is the
cornerstone of California’s Public Schools Accountability Act.
The API is a numeric scale, ranging between 200 and 1,000,
that measures the performance of schools, especially the
academic performance of students, to demonstrate comparable
improvement in academic achievement by all numerically
significant ethnic and socioeconomically disadvantaged
subgroups within the schools. A school’s score or placement on
the API is an indicator of the school’s performance. Only test
scores for students enrolled in a school district during the prior
fiscal year may be included in the API.
The State calculates each school’s API and annual percentage
growth target—a required minimum of 5 percent of the
difference between the school’s actual API score and the interim
statewide API performance target of 800, or one API point,
whichever is greater. Only schools with 100 or more test scores
contributing to the API may be included in the district’s API
ranks. Schools with fewer than 100 scores receive an API score
with an asterisk that indicates less statistical certainty. The
State can exclude student scores from the API calculation under
certain circumstances, such as when a student tests more than
one grade out of level (a sixth grader testing lower than fifth
grade or higher than seventh grade, for instance) or when a
student has requested test administration accommodations
(including Braille, timing or scheduling changes, having
the test read aloud or the directions translated, or access to a
bilingual dictionary).
The State measures individual schools’ success by how well
they are moving toward the interim performance goal of 800.
Schools that meet their annual API growth targets are eligible to
receive monetary awards from a variety of programs, including
the Governor’s Performance Award, the School Site Employee
Performance Bonus, and the Certified Staff Performance
Incentive. The State also identifies schools that do not meet or
exceed their growth targets for participation in the Immediate
Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program or the High
Priority Schools Grant Program for low-performing schools.
For each elementary, middle, and high school, the State also
calculates an API rank—a number from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest)
that represents the statewide percentile rank into which the
school falls. Table 1 on the following page shows the API ranks
10 11
for LAUSD schools for fiscal years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. Most
schools in LAUSD fell within ranks 1 through 5 in both fiscal years.
For fiscal year 2000–01, only 104 of 558 schools, or 19 percent of
all LAUSD schools, fell within the ranks of 6 through 10. The API
score varies for elementary, middle, and high schools within each
rank. For example, scores for LAUSD’s rank-1 elementary schools
ranged from 356 to 493, while scores for its rank-1 high schools
ranged from 370 to 484 in fiscal year 2000–01.
TABLE 1
Most Schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District
Were Ranked 1 to 5 on the Academic Performance Index,
in Fiscal Years 1999–2000 and 2000–01
LAUSD Schools LAUSD Schools
Achieving API Rank, Achieving API Rank,
Fiscal Year 1999–2000 Fiscal Year 2000–01
API* Rank Number Percent Number Percent
1 193 34% 187 33%
2 107 19 104 19
3 73 13 72 13
4 37 7 46 8
5 49 9 45 8
6 29 5 25 4
7 23 4 26 5
8 19 3 21 4
9 19 3 15 3
10 16 3 17 3
Totals 565 100% 558 100%
Source: California Department of Education, Academic Performance Index data files,
fiscal years 1999–2000 and 2000–01.
*For purposes of our audit, low-performing schools are ranked in deciles 1 through 5
on the Academic Performance Index (API), and high-performing schools are ranked
6 through 10. Data includes elementary, middle, and high schools with more than
100 test scores contributing to their API.
FUNDING FOR TEXTBOOK PURCHASES
LAUSD’s schools purchase textbooks using funding from seven
general sources making up more than 300 accounts. However,
three sources are designated primarily for the purchase of
textbooks or other instructional materials: the state Instructional
Materials Fund (IMF); Schiff-Bustamante Standards-Based
Instructional Materials Program (Schiff-Bustamante) funds;
and the instructional materials account, a subset of LAUSD’s
12 13
TABLE 2
Los Angeles Unified School District Used a Variety of
Funding Sources to Purchase Instructional Materials in
Fiscal Year 2000–01
Total Expenditures
Instructional Materials Funds Description Amount Percent
Instructional Materials Fund (IMF)
Kindergarten through grade 8 State funds for the purchase of state-adopted instructional materials,
(70 percent)* including software. $ 7,057,455 8.0%
Kindergarten through grade 8 State funds for the purchase of nonadopted instructional materials
(30 percent) that have undergone the State’s legal compliance and social content
reviews. Funds can also be spent on instructional materials that
are exempt from review, such as trade books, maps, globes, and
dictionaries; instructional distance learning; tests; inservice training;
and binding certain basic textbooks. 2,950,373 3.4
Grades 9 through 12 State funds for the purchase of instructional materials adopted by
school districts for grades 9 through 12. 3,941,263 4.5
Schiff-Bustamante Standards-Based State funds for purchasing instructional materials in the core subjects
Instructional Materials Program that are aligned to state-adopted content standards. Materials for
Kindergarten through grade 8 must be purchased from the list of
instructional materials adopted by the state board. Materials for
grades 9 through 12 must be purchased from a list of instructional
materials adopted by the school district. 17,440,085 19.9
Instructional materials account, Local district funds for the purchase of textbooks and other
LAUSD’s general fund instructional materials for Kindergarten through grade 12. These funds
are generally free of conditions and affords schools great spending
flexibility that can include instructional resources and technology. 1,884,209 2.1
Subtotal, instructional materials funds 33,273,385 37.9
Other Funds
Title I funds Federal funds provided to ensure that all children have a fair, equal,
and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and
reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic
achievement standards and assessments. 8,332,857 9.5
Private donations Donations from private citizens or groups. Guidelines vary for the
use of donations to purchase instructional resources and educational
technology. 477,559 0.5
Governor’s performance awards; Schools that demonstrate specified increases in their Academic
School site employee performance bonuses† Performance Index (API) school target or participation rate can use
funding in a manner decided on by the school’s governance team or
council and ratified by the Los Angeles City Board of Education. 14,718 —
High Priority Schools Grant Program for State grant provided to assist the lowest-performing schools in the
Low-Performing Schools and the State in raising student achievement by offering additional resources
Immediate Intervention/Underperforming targeted to student performance. Schools receive between $200 and
Schools Program grants $400 per student with a $200 per student matching requirement.
Currently, although schools with state ranks of 1 through 5 are
eligible for these grants, the California Department of Education is
offering the funds to schools in API rank 1 only. 159,574 0.2
Subtotal, other funds 8,984,708 10.2
Various Funds Various state and local grants, and federal and state categorical
program funding. 45,515,453 51.9
Total, all funds $87,773,546 100.0%
Sources: LAUSD accounting records, LAUSD Information Technology Division, and the California Department of Education
funding Web site.
*The state board’s expenditure policy requires that school districts spend at least 70 percent of their IMF allocation as the
description indicates.
† Schools receive matching funds based on staff bonuses.
12 13
general fund. These three sources supplied $33.3 million, or
38 percent of all funding used for textbook and other instructional
material expenditures for fiscal year 2000–01. The remaining
funds come from a variety of sources, as shown in Table 2 on the
previous page.
As Table 2 illustrates, significant additional funding comes from
various state and federal grants and categorical programs. State
and federal agencies provide these funds to local school districts,
usually for specific purposes, such as school safety or curriculum,
or for children with special needs, such as migrant or special
education students. Grants used by LAUSD for instructional
resource purchases include the Immediate Intervention/
Underperforming Schools Program and state school site block
grants. Categorical funding used by LAUSD for instructional
resource purchases in fiscal years 1999–2000 and 2000–01
included federal Title I, Part A, Improving Basic Programs
Operated by Local Educational Agencies; and Title I, Part D,
Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth
Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk. However, many of
these other sources of funds are limited to supplementing, not
supplanting, primary instructional resource funds, such as the
IMF, Schiff-Bustamante funds, or the instructional materials
account distributions from LAUSD.
In August 2000, LAUSD set aside part of its general fund to fill
emergency textbook needs arising from an unusual growth in
student population or changes in student programs. To obtain
this funding, a school must demonstrate its need and purchase
instructional materials that are on either state or LAUSD
adoption lists for core subjects.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (audit committee)
asked the Bureau of State Audits (bureau) to determine whether
LAUSD’s program and policies regarding textbooks and other
instructional materials result in a disparity in the quantity and
quality of textbooks for a sample of high- and low-performing
schools. For the purposes of our audit, low-performing schools
are ranked in deciles 1 through 5 on the API, which is similar
to the definition the California Department of Education
(department) uses. The audit committee also requested that we
do the following:
14 15
• Use our sample to determine if a correlation exists between
demographic data, such as socioeconomic status and race, and the
quantity and quality of the textbooks used by LAUSD schools.
• Identify funding sources that are available and those LAUSD
uses to purchase textbooks and other instructional materials.
• Identify the total amount LAUSD spent on textbooks and
other instructional materials for the past two years, review its
process for allocating funds, and assess the amounts actually
allocated to the schools in our sample.
• Compare LAUSD’s average amount spent per student over the
past two years for textbooks and other instructional materials
to the amount spent by a representative sampling of school
districts and the statewide average for all school districts.
• Determine whether publishers are providing free instructional
materials to the same extent to all school districts.
• Review LAUSD’s conflict-of-interest policy regarding the
purchase of textbooks and other instructional materials to
determine if it is consistent with the requirements of state law
and whether LAUSD personnel follow the policy.
To gain an understanding of LAUSD and its policies, we reviewed
relevant state laws and regulations as well as district policies
and bulletins distributed to local schools. We also interviewed
staff at the department, LAUSD, and local schools to understand
the extent to which schools and LAUSD understand and have
implemented laws, regulations, and policies relating to textbook
purchases and use.
To determine the quantity and quality of the textbooks and
other instructional materials the schools were using, we visited
eight high-performing and eight low-performing schools in
LAUSD. We selected our sample of schools using department
data from the API for fiscal years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. We
focused solely on elementary, middle, and high schools with
more than 100 test scores contributing to their API. For each
type of school, we sorted in order of API rank (1 through 10),
statewide similar-schools rank1 (1 through 10), and API score
(200 through 1,000) to determine our sample. In total, we
selected three high-performing and three low-performing high
1 Statewide similar-schools rank shows a comparison of each school with 100 other
schools with similar demographic characteristics.
14 15
schools, two high-performing and two low-performing middle
schools, and three high-performing and three low-performing
elementary schools. LAUSD defines elementary schools as
those serving students from Kindergarten through grades 5 or
6, middle schools as those serving students in grades 6 or 7
through 8, and high schools as those serving students in grades
9 through 12. Because our sample focuses on some of LAUSD’s
highest and lowest performing schools, we believe that it is
adequate to determine whether a disparity exists.
At each school, we determined whether each student had a
textbook in the four core subjects for grade 3 at the elementary
schools, grade 7 at the middle schools, and grade 10 at the
high schools. To determine if the number of texts was sufficient
to supply each student with a book for all core subjects, we
compared enrollment counts to inventory records, or in cases
where inventory records did not exist, we counted books in
classrooms or surveyed teachers. Further, we examined LAUSD’s
method of tracking its textbook inventory. In assessing the
quality of textbooks, we determined whether it was on a
current adoption list, subject to the department’s new-edition
substitution process, or was less than seven years old. (Please
refer to Appendix A for our sample of schools.)
To identify the demographics of students in low- and high-
performing schools, we obtained data from the department
and LAUSD. The data files contained information collected
by the schools and submitted to LAUSD and the department
about ethnicity, parents’ education, teachers’ credentials,
and transiency rates, among other items. Parents’ education
data were not as complete as other data elements because the
department relies on schools to report this information and
many schools do not supply complete data; however, sufficient
data existed to perform an analysis. Using electronic analysis
tools, we sorted the data by API rank to gain an understanding
of any other factors that may be influencing the performance
of students.
Although we were unable to identify all funding sources that
LAUSD might use to purchase textbooks, we identified all the
funding sources LAUSD did use to purchase textbooks and
other instructional materials by reviewing its expenditure
data. Further, we spoke with district staff concerning LAUSD
funding-allocation policies and procedures. For the three major
textbook funding sources, we tested LAUSD’s allocations to our
sample of 16 schools. Additionally, we compared the average
16 17
amount LAUSD spent per student for textbooks and other
instructional materials to the average amount spent by a sample
of the 10 largest districts in the State other than LAUSD. We
also surveyed the 10 largest districts in the State to compare
the funding sources used by these districts to those used by
LAUSD. However, we were unable to use data for 2 of them:
Santa Ana Unified School District did not provide a response
to our request, and San Francisco Unified School District did
not provide the data we requested, nor did it respond in a
timely manner. Therefore, we were unable to include these
two districts in our comparison. Moreover, we did not receive
sufficient funding data from four of the eight districts to aid our
comparison of funding sources.
To determine whether publishers of textbooks and other
instructional materials are providing free textbooks and other
instructional materials equally to all school districts, we spoke to
district and school staff, publishers, and staff at the department.
We also obtained a sample of invoices and compared similar
purchases to determine differences, if any, in price and amount
of free materials received. Further, we examined state and district
records and publications containing lists of free materials.
Finally, to determine whether LAUSD has a comprehensive
conflict-of-interest policy regarding the purchase of textbooks
and other instructional materials that is consistent with the
requirements of state law, we compared LAUSD’s conflict-of-
interest and disclosure code with state conflict-of-interest laws
and the policies of the state board and the Fair Political Practices
Commission. In addition, we tested LAUSD’s compliance with its
code by obtaining and reviewing conflict-of-interest disclosures
for employees involved in two recent textbook adoptions. n
16 17
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
18 19
CHAPTER 1
Textbook Quality and Quantity
Appear to Affect Student Performance
Less Than Do Other Factors
CHAPTER SUMMARY
O ur review of eight high-performing and eight
low-performing schools in the Los Angeles Unified
School District (LAUSD) did not reveal any significant
disparities between the quality and quantity of textbooks and
other instructional materials in high- and low-performing
schools. Specifically, we found similar numbers of high- and
low-performing schools in our sample that had classrooms using
outdated textbooks as primary teaching tools. Texts that are not
on the most recent adoption lists of the State Board of Education
(state board) or LAUSD might contain out-of-date information.
Although we found more low-performing schools that did not
have enough textbooks for each student to take and use at home
or had shortages of books for in-class use, we cannot conclude
that the higher prevalence of textbook shortages has a direct
relation to school performance. Recognizing the importance
of students having adequate texts, LAUSD policy requires that
every student have a text in the four core areas of language arts,
mathematics, science, and history/social science, for in-class and
home use. Nonetheless, some LAUSD schools have not ensured
that students have enough textbooks. Resolving these issues may
lead to improved performance for all schools.
Several other factors appear to have a strong link with school
performance, such as the number of credentialed teachers;
parents’ education levels; and the number of students who are
socioeconomically disadvantaged, limited-English-proficient
learners, or transient.2
Finally, we found that there is no longer a disparity in the use
of technology between high- and low-performing schools.
As recently as three years ago, high-performing schools had a
technological advantage in that they had about 60 percent
of the number of students per computer as low-performing schools.
2 LAUSD defines its transiency rate as the percentage of students who enter and leave the
school during the school year.
18 19
However, because of recent purchases, LAUSD has remedied this
condition, and now low-performing schools have a slightly lower
student-to-computer ratio than high-performing schools have.
SOME DISPARITY DOES EXIST IN TEXTBOOK QUANTITY
AND QUALITY BETWEEN HIGH- AND LOW-PERFORMING
SCHOOLS WE REVIEWED
We did not find significant differences in either the quality or
quantity of textbooks used by the eight high-performing and
eight low-performing schools we visited. We did uncover several
classrooms in both the low- and high-performing schools using
outdated texts; however, low-performing schools were more
likely to have shortages in textbooks and to restrict textbook use
to the classroom.
Similar Numbers of Low- and High-Performing Classrooms
Use Outdated Texts as Primary Teaching Tools
Although 13 percent of the classes we reviewed were using older
Of the 879 classes we textbooks as primary teaching tools, we found only a slight disparity
tested, 13 percent use between the eight high-performing and eight low-performing
older textbooks as schools we visited. Older books may contain out-of-date
primary teaching tools, information, thus schools using them may not be best serving
which may not be in the the educational needs of their students.
best interest of students’
educational needs. In assessing the quality of the textbooks LAUSD students use, we
considered three primary factors. First, textbooks appearing on
the lists of texts adopted by the state board or the Los Angeles
City Board of Education (city board) have undergone a rigorous
content review and approval process. Therefore, we would
expect minimal disparities in quality to exist among schools
using adopted texts. Second, on written request by a publisher,
the California Department of Education (department) allows
for a new-edition substitution process, by which a new edition,
not yet adopted by the state board, containing minimal changes
may be used in the classroom with the older text, if the changes
meet the State’s legal compliance requirements. Finally,
state law requires school districts to adopt standards
for determining the obsolescence of instructional materials
such as textbooks. LAUSD’s policy dictates that textbooks are
generally obsolete when (1) they are no longer relevant to the
schools’ instructional program, as when the State adopts new
standards, frameworks, or textbooks for Kindergarten through
grade 8; or (2) they are older than seven years. For example, the
20 21
policy states that certain classics of literature, grammar books,
poetry anthologies, and some history books older than seven years
may still be relevant. For purposes of our audit, textbooks with
copyright dates of 1994 and earlier are obsolete unless they were on
an adoption list or subject to the new-edition substitution process.
TABLE 3
High- and Low-Performing Schools Were Both Likely to Use Outdated Texts
Classes With Outdated Texts
Number of
School API* Rank Classes Tested† Number Percent
Low-Performing
Mary McLeod Bethune Middle 1 54 0 0
Hillery T. Broadus Elementary 1 32 0 0
George Washington Carver Middle 1 58 0 0
Hollywood Senior High 1 92 19 21%
Holmes Avenue Elementary 1 16 0 0
Hyde Park Boulevard Elementary 1 20 0 0
Alain Leroy Locke Senior High 1 63 0 0
Manual Arts Senior High 1 79 45 57
Totals 414 64 15
High-Performing
Granada Hills Senior High 9 51 8 16
Mt. Washington Elementary 9 14 3 21
Alfred Bernhard Nobel Middle 8 72 0 0
Paul Revere Middle 8 71 6 8
San Pedro Senior High 6 119 10 8
William Howard Taft Senior High 9 101 12 12
Wilbur Avenue Elementary 9 20 5 25
Wonderland Avenue Elementary 10 17 2 12
Totals 465 46 10
Combined totals 879 110 13%
Sources: School class enrollment lists, electronic and manual textbook inventory systems, and teacher surveys and interviews.
* Academic Performance Index (API) rank 1 is low-performing and ranks 6 and above are high-performing.
† At each school, we tested a sample of classes in the core subject areas for either grade 3, 7, or 10.
20 21
As Table 3 shows on the previous page, 110 of the 879 classes we
tested (13 percent) were using outdated textbooks as primary
teaching tools. However, we found only a slight disparity
between their use in the 16 schools. Specifically, high- and
low-performing schools were using outdated texts 10 percent
and 15 percent of the time, respectively. At some schools,
One low-performing the texts were severely outdated. One low-performing high
high school uses an school—Manual Arts Senior High School (Manual Arts)—was
English textbook from using an English textbook published in 1979 in four classes. The
1979 in four classes, and teacher told us that he prefers using the older book. Similarly,
one high-performing at one high-performing school, Wilbur Avenue Elementary, a
elementary school uses science book published in 1985 was being used to teach its grade
a science book from 3 classes. The teacher told us that she also uses supplemental
1985 to teach its grade materials to teach students. Another high-performing school,
3 classes. Granada Hills Senior High School, was using an algebra book
published in 1986. According to LAUSD’s Textbook Services
Office coordinator, schools should be using the newer texts,
but teachers sometimes prefer using old texts because they are
more comfortable with the material and have experience using
them. Nonetheless, she also agreed that older texts would not be
aligned to state content standards, might present irrelevant or
out-of-date information, and therefore might not best serve the
students’ educational needs.
Low-Performing Schools in Our Sample Lacked Textbooks in
Core Subjects More Often Than Did High-Performing Schools
Although LAUSD’s policy is that every student must have a
textbook in each core subject for use in class and at home,
we found this policy was not enforced in many schools we
visited. Our review of 16 LAUSD schools revealed that classes
in some low-performing schools had fewer textbooks available
for students than did classes in high-performing schools.
However, both types of schools had classes that lacked textbooks
altogether or that did not have enough textbooks for all students
to take home. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the higher
prevalence of textbook shortages we found in low-performing
schools has a direct relation to their Academic Performance
Index (API).
Although state law requires only that students have sufficient
textbooks in the core subjects, LAUSD requires its schools to
provide all students with textbooks for use in class and at home
in the core subject areas of language arts, mathematics, science,
and history/social science. Table 4 shows that both high- and
low-performing schools are not adhering to this policy.
22 23
4
ELBAT
detseT
eW
sessalC
eroC
ni
stnedutS
rof
skoobtxeT
reweF
daH
sloohcS
gnimrofreP-woL
rof
skooB
tuohtiW
sessalC
tnedutS
yrevE
stnedutS
latoT
yrevE
rof
kooB
sessalC
latoT
fo
rebmuN
skooB
latoT
ni
dellornE
tnedutS
tnecreP
rebmuN
‡detseT
†trohS
skooB
deussI
detseT
sessalC
ssalC
ni
knaR
*IPA
loohcS
gnimrofreP-woL
0
0
45
0
594,1
594,1
Y
1
elddiM
enuhteB
doeLcM
yraM
0
0
23
0
926
926
Y
1
yratnemelE
sudaorB
.T yrelliH
%7
4
85
)301(
471,1
772,1
N
1
elddiM
revraC
notgnihsaW
egroeG
0
0
29
0
592,2
592,2
Y
1
hgiH
roineS
doowylloH
52
4
61
)47(
222
692
N
1
yratnemelE
eunevA
semloH
52
5
02
)89(
013
804
N
1
yratnemelE
draveluoB
kraP
edyH
6
4
36
)801(
025
826
N
1
hgiH
roineS
ekcoL
yoreL
nialA
5
4
97
)101(
202,1
303,1
N
1
hgiH
roineS
strA
launaM
5
12
414
)484(
748,7
133,8
slatoT
gnimrofreP-hgiH
0
0
15
0
766,1
766,1
Y
9
hgiH
roineS slliH
adanarG
0
0
41
0
052
052
Y
9
yratnemelE
notgnihsaW
.tM
0
0
27
0
532,2
532,2
Y
8
elddiM
leboN
drahnreB
derflA
0
0
17
0
156,1
156,1
Y
8
elddiM
ereveR
luaP
3
3
911
)35(
513,3
863,3
N
6
hgiH
roineS
ordeP
naS
0
0
101
0
891,3
891,3
Y
9
hgiH
roineS
tfaT drawoH
mailliW
0
0
02
0
293
293
Y
9
yratnemelE
eunevA
rubliW
0
0
71
0
692
692
Y
01
yratnemelE
eunevA
dnalrednoW
1
3
564
)35(
400,31
750,31
slatoT
%3
42
978
)735(
158,02
883,12
slatot
denibmoC
.sweivretni
dna
syevrus
rehcaet
dna
,smetsys
yrotnevni
koobtxet
launam
dna
cinortcele
,stsil
tnemllorne
ssalc loohcS
:secruoS
.gnimrofrep-hgih
era
01
hguorht
6
sknar
dna
gnimrofrep-wol
si
1
knar
)IPA(
xednI
ecnamrofreP
cimedacA*
saw
koob
dengissa
eht
fo
yrotnevni
etauqeda
nehw
latot
koob
dengissa
eht
hctam
ot
erugfi
tnemllorne
eht
dednema
ew
,skoob
dengissa
dna
tnemllorne
ssalc
neewteb
ssel
ro
skoob
5 fo secnereffid
roF†
.loohcs
eht
ta tneserp
.01
ro
,7 ,3
edarg
rehtie
rof
saera
tcejbus
eroc
eht
ni
sessalc
fo
elpmas
a
detset
ew ,loohcs
hcae
tA‡
22 23
For example, George Washington Carver Middle School had no
health textbooks for four of its core classes.3 According to the
teacher, he uses photocopies of the book to teach. In two other
low-performing schools, we found similar problems with science
books. For example, Hyde Park Boulevard Elementary did not
have any science books for four of its grade 3 classes and had
only five books in another class. The principal at Hyde Park told
us that teachers use science workbooks to compensate for the
lack of textbooks. Similarly, Holmes Avenue Elementary also did
not have science books for its grade 3 classes.
Two of the low-performing high schools we visited also had
no textbooks for some classes. Manual Arts did not have books
One low-performing for two geometry classes. The principal at Manual Arts told
high school did not us that he was aware of the shortage but had been unable to
have textbooks for two purchase geometry books because of LAUSD’s budget freeze
geometry classes, and and the math department’s inability to reach a consensus on
another lacked textbooks which book to purchase. Moreover, four science classes in
for four science classes. Alain Leroy Locke Senior High School (Locke) did not have
textbooks. In April 2002, the science teacher told us that he had
to use photocopies of the textbook and had been waiting since
October 2001 for books to be delivered.
LAUSD policy requires that students be able to use these books
at home as well as in the classroom. Therefore, each student
must be assigned at least one book that can be used in both
places. However, we found widespread use by LAUSD schools
of textbooks restricted to the classroom and not available for
students to take home, commonly referred to as class sets.
According to some teachers, they use class sets because there are
not enough textbooks to assign one to each student. Schools
that use class sets are not complying with LAUSD’s policy.
Table 5 shows that the use of class sets was more prevalent in the
low-performing schools we tested and was most prevalent in the
middle and high schools. For example, Locke used class sets for
39 of the 63 grade 10 core classes we tested (62 percent), mostly
in its English and science classes.
3 Health is not a core subject. However, because George Washington Carver Middle
School teaches science during the first semester and health in the second semester, we
tested health books as part of our review of core subject materials.
24 25
5 ELBAT
esU
moorssalC
ot
detcirtseR
skoobtxeT
fo
steS
desU
sloohcS
gnimrofreP-woL
dna
-hgiH
htoB
latoT
steS
ssalC
gnisU
sessalC
fo
rebmuN
fo
rebmuN
rof
tnemllornE
sessalC
latoT
/revO
skooB
ssalC
ni
skooB
gnisU
sessalC
tnecreP
rebmuN
‡detseT
†)trohS(
steS
steS
ssalC
steS
ssalC
sesU
knaR
*IPA
loohcS gnimrofreP-woL
0
0
45
0
0
0
N
1
elddiM
enuhteB
doeLcM yraM
0
0
23
0
0
0
N
1
yratnemelE
sudaorB
.T yrelliH
%71
01
85
)081(
511
592
Y
1
elddiM
revraC
notgnihsaW
egroeG
4
4
29
3
501
201
Y
1
hgiH roineS
doowylloH
0
0
61
0
0
0
N
1
yratnemelE
eunevA
semloH
0
0
02
0
0
0
N
1
yratnemelE
draveluoB
kraP edyH
26
93
36
)318(
793
012,1
Y
1
hgiH roineS
ekcoL
yoreL nialA
44
53
97
)265(
143
309
Y
1
hgiH
roineS
strA launaM
12
88
414
)255,1(
859
015,2
slatoT
gnimrofreP-hgiH
0
0
15
0
0
0
N
9
hgiH
roineS
slliH adanarG
0
0
41
0
0
0
N
9
yratnemelE
notgnihsaW
.tM
01
7
27
)361(
77
042
Y
8
elddiM
leboN drahnreB
derflA
72
91
17
)003(
092
095
Y
8
elddiM
ereveR
luaP
3
3
911
)73(
56
201
Y
6
hgiH roineS
ordeP
naS
0
0
101
0
0
0
N
9
hgiH roineS
tfaT drawoH
mailliW
0
0
02
0
0
0
N
9
yratnemelE
eunevA rubliW
0
0
71
0
0
0
N
01
yratnemelE
eunevA
dnalrednoW
6
92
564
)005(
234
239
slatoT
%31
711
978
)250,2(
093,1
244,3
slatot
denibmoC
.sweivretni
dna
syevrus
rehcaet
dna
,smetsys
yrotnevni
koobtxet
launam
dna
cinortcele
,stsil
tnemllorne
ssalc
loohcS :secruoS
.gnimrofrep-hgih
era
01
hguorht
6
sknar
dna
gnimrofrep-wol
si
1
knar
)IPA(
xednI
ecnamrofreP
cimedacA
*
saw
koob
dengissa
eht
fo
yrotnevni
etauqeda
nehw
latot
koob
dengissa
eht
hctam
ot
erugfi
tnemllorne
eht
dednema
ew
,skoob
dengissa
dna
tnemllorne
ssalc
neewteb
ssel ro skoob
5 fo
secnereffid
roF†
.tes
ssalc
eht
gnisu
stneduts
fo
sessalc
elpitlum
eht
rof
ecno
ylno
detnuoc
erew
stes ssalC
.loohcs
eht ta tneserp
.01
ro
,7
,3
edarg
rehtie
rof
saera
tcejbus
eroc
eht
ni
sessalc
fo
elpmas
a detset
ew
,loohcs hcae
tA‡
24 25
LAUSD has a policy requiring teachers to report shortages
of textbooks and other instructional materials in writing to
the school administrator. Moreover, state law requires school
districts to hold a public hearing and to determine, through a
resolution, whether each student has, or will have before the
end of the fiscal year, in each subject area, sufficient textbooks
and/or instructional materials that are consistent with the
content and cycles of the curriculum framework adopted by
the state board. The city board adopted such a resolution for
fiscal year 2000–01 on May 22, 2001. However, the resolution is
incomplete. Specifically, each local district was asked to certify
that their elementary schools had sufficient reading and math
books, middle schools had sufficient math and science books,
and high schools had sufficient Algebra 1 books, not that the
Until LAUSD addresses schools had sufficient books for each subject adopted by the
its textbook shortages, state board. According to the assistant superintendent of the
it cannot ensure that Information Technology Division, his interpretation of the
students in classes without law is that the certification must be consistent with the state
textbooks receive the same board’s adoption cycle. However, our interpretation as well as
instruction as their peers in the department’s is that districts must certify each year that
classes that have textbooks each student has sufficient books in each subject for which the
for each student. state board has made an adoption. LAUSD has yet to complete
its determination for fiscal year 2001–02. In any event, despite
its policy and state law, we found that not all LAUSD students
have sufficient textbooks. Until LAUSD addresses its textbook
shortages, it cannot ensure that each student in classes without
textbooks receive the same instruction as their peers in classes
that have textbooks for each student.
OTHER FACTORS MAY HAVE A GREATER IMPACT ON
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
Although we cannot conclude that the disparities we found in
the quantity of textbooks between high- and low-performing
schools have a strong relation with API ranks, we did find other
factors that appear to affect school performance. Demographic
and other data tracked by LAUSD and the department show
that teacher credentialing; parents’ education; and students’
transiency, socioeconomic status, and English proficiency
appear to have an impact on student performance as measured
by the API. As explained in the Introduction, the State takes
all API performance numbers and places schools in 1 of 10
percentile ranks. In the analysis that follows, we show how the
factors just mentioned relate to the API ranks of LAUSD schools.
26 27
Teacher Credentialing and Experience Appear to Affect
Student Performance
Our analysis of LAUSD data for about 560 elementary, middle,
and high schools included in the API in fi scal years 1999–2000
and 2000–01 revealed that LAUSD’s low-performing schools
generally have fewer fully credentialed teachers than its high-
performing schools. A November 1997 report
by the California Commission on Teacher
Teacher Credentialing Glossary
Credentialing (commission) states that the quality of
Basic: Teacher holds a baccalaureate teachers is the single most important determinant
degree from a regionally accredited
of student success and achievement in school.
college or university and must complete
a professional preparation program or The commission is composed of a 20-member
a designated-subject credential. LAUSD
panel, including teachers, administrators, public
continuing and probationary teachers are
in this category. representatives, and department staff, and is
responsible for ensuring that educators are fully
Emergency Permit: A one-year permit prepared and effective.
that is issued to fi ll a temporary staffi ng
vacancy or need and can be reissued up
to four times. Teachers must possess a Figure 5 on the following page represents our
baccalaureate degree, pass the California
analysis of LAUSD’s teacher-credentialing
Basic Educational Skills Test, and have
a minimum number of units, or verify data. The figure shows that low-performing
subject-matter competence. LAUSD schools had fewer teachers who possessed basic
provisional teachers are in this category.
credentials than did high-performing schools in
fi scal year 2000–01.
Waiver: There are two types of waivers:
short-term and variable-term. Short-term
waivers are for one semester or less to
Legislation enacted in July 2000 provides
address an unanticipated or immediate
need by allowing individuals who hold fi nancial incentives to attract fully credentialed
basic credentials to teach outside of teachers to teach in low-performing schools so
their subject area. A variable-term waiver
that school districts can reduce their reliance
can be granted for up to one year to
allow individuals additional time to on emergency permits, among other things.
complete credential requirements, to
Incentives include merit awards for existing
address educational reforms, or recruit in
geographically isolated regions. LAUSD teachers and fi nancial assistance to encourage
temporary teachers are in this category. students and persons seeking career changes who
agree to obtain a teaching credential and seek
Internship: Credential candidates
employment as a teacher. For example, teachers
participate in a credential program
sponsored by an institution of higher certifi ed by the National Board for Professional
education or a program developed by
Teaching Standards are eligible to receive an
a school district. Candidates are able
to teach while completing a credential award of up to $20,000 if they agree to teach at
program. LAUSD district interns and low-performing schools for at least four years.
university interns are in this category.
Additionally, school districts can compete for
grants to attract and retain credentialed teachers
Sources: California Commission on Teacher in low-performing schools. School districts
Credentialing and LAUSD.
may use the funds to offer signing bonuses,
compensation, and housing subsidies to teachers
or improve work conditions.
26 27
FIGURE 5
Low-Performing Schools Had Fewer Teachers With Basic Credentials
Than Did High-Performing Schools in Fiscal Year 2000–01
���������������
���������������������
���������������������
����������������������������
����
��
��
��
��
�
� � �
� � � � � � � � � �� �� � �� � � �
�� �� � �
�
���
�
���
��
��
�� �� �
� � �� �
�
�� ��
�
�� ��
Source: Data from the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Note: For purposes of our audit, low-performing schools are ranked in deciles 1 through 5 on the Academic Performance Index
(API), and high-performing schools are ranked 6 through 10. Data from fiscal year 1999–2000 did not differ significantly. Data
includes elementary, middle, and high schools with more than 100 test scores contributing to their API and an unduplicated count
of teachers. “Other” includes extended substitute teachers.
As part of its Teaching As a Priority Program, LAUSD plans to
(1) increase the number of teachers in its low-performing
schools who possess basic credentials by providing stipends
directly to teachers assigned or transferring to API rank-1 schools
������������������������
�������
28 29
and (2) issue recruitment and retention grants to the local
districts so that they can tailor efforts to local conditions. In
As part of its Teaching addition, for new teachers from outside the State who are
As a Priority Program, assigned to API rank-1 schools, LAUSD plans to reimburse up
LAUSD plans to increase to $2,000 for relocation expenses. LAUSD also plans to contract
the number of teachers with an external evaluator to measure the effectiveness of its
in its low-performing efforts in recruiting and retaining credentialed teachers in the
schools who possess a LAUSD’s low-performing schools using data collected over a
basic credential. three-year period. Although LAUSD’s plans appear reasonable,
it can increase its recruitment efforts by including other
strategies, such as the $20,000 merit award we described earlier.
Parents’ Education and Students’ Transiency, Socioeconomic
Status, and English Proficiency Are Among the Other Factors
That Might Affect Student Performance
Other factors that appear to influence how students perform
in school include the level of education students’ parents
have achieved and students’ socioeconomic status, English
proficiency, and transiency. Our analysis does not reflect actual
test scores for each student but represents the aggregate API
for each school. Although we could not measure the impact
of these factors, we did note that all seem to be important
determinants of student academic success as measured by
the API.
Our analysis of data collected by the department revealed
that high-performing schools reported a higher percentage of
students with parents who had obtained four-year college or
graduate school degrees. State law and regulations require school
districts to collect and report data for every student on the
education level of the highest-educated parent with whom the
student has contact. The schools must check to ensure that all
data fields are complete. However, many schools do not report
complete data on the education levels of parents. Our testing
of parent education levels represents data for roughly 54,000 of
the almost 433,000 students tested (12 percent). Figure 6 on the
following page shows that high-performing schools reported
that 55 percent of their students’ parents possess a baccalaureate
or graduate degree, while only 20 percent of low-performing
school students’ parents had similar educational backgrounds.
28 29
FIGURE 6
High-Performing Schools Had a Higher Percentage of Parents
With Baccalaureate or Graduate Degrees Than Did
Low-Performing Schools in Fiscal Year 2000–01
����������������������
�����������
��� �����������������������������
����
��
��
��
��
�
� � �
� � � � � � � � � �� �� � �� � � �
�� �� � �
�
���
�
���
��
��
�� �� �
� � �� �
�
�� ��
�
�� ��
Source: Data from the California Department of Education.
Note: For purposes of our audit, low-performing schools are ranked in deciles 1 through 5 on the Academic Performance Index
(API), and high-performing schools are ranked 6 through 10. Data from fiscal year 1999–2000 did not differ significantly. Data
includes elementary, middle, and high schools with more than 100 test scores contributing to their API.
Parents’ level of education might have an impact on their
ability to assist with homework and their attitude toward
formal education, which in turn might influence student
performance in school and on assessments. Since 1969, the
National Assessment of Educational Progress has conducted
ongoing nationwide assessments of student achievement in
various subjects. The results of its long-term trend assessments
in reading, mathematics, and science that were administered in
1999 to students aged 9, 13, and 17 found that across all ages
�������������������
�������
30 31
and subject areas, students who reported high parent-education
levels tended to have higher assessment scores, on average, than
did students who reported low parent-education levels.
Another factor likely to affect student performance is school
transiency rates. LAUSD defines transiency rate as the percentage
of students who enter and leave a school during the school
year. LAUSD calculates transiency rates for each school by
(1) combining the number of students entering and leaving the
school after LAUSD takes its fall enrollment count in October
of each year and (2) dividing that figure by the school’s average
10-month enrollment count. In May 1999, the Policy Analysis
for California Education, a nonpartisan, university-based center
FIGURE 7
Low-Performing Schools Had Higher Transiency Rates Than
Did High-Performing Schools in Fiscal Year 2000–01
���
��
��
��
��
��
�
�
� � �
� � � � � � � � � �� �� � �� � � �
�� �� � �
�
���
�
���
��
��
�� �� �
� � �� �
�
�� ��
�
�� ��
Source: Data from the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Note: For purposes of our audit, low-performing schools are ranked in deciles 1 through 5 on the Academic Performance Index
(API), and high-performing schools are ranked 6 through 10. Data includes elementary, middle, and high schools with more than
100 test scores contributing to their API.
��������������
�������
30 31
for education research, issued a report stating that mobility
among students has a number of causes. In some cases, families
move, requiring students to change schools. In other cases,
students and their families are unhappy with the education they
are receiving at one school and change schools to fi nd a more
suitable education. In still other cases, schools can force students
to transfer for both social and academic reasons, such as fi ghting
or poor grades. As shown in Figure 7 on the following page,
some of LAUSD’s low-performing schools had double or in some
cases triple the transiency rates of high-performing schools.
Moreover, according to department data, roughly 79 percent
of students in LAUSD are socioeconomically disadvantaged.
The state board defi nes a socioeconomically disadvantaged
student as one who meets one of two criteria: (1) neither
parent has received a high school diploma or (2) the student
participates in the National School Lunch
Program, which provides eligible students with
Most Common Languages free or reduced-price lunches daily. As shown
Spoken by Limited-English- in Figure 8, low-performing schools reported
Profi cient Learners that between 64 percent and 93 percent of their
Spanish 83.4% student populations fell into the socioeconomically
Vietnamese 2.5 disadvantaged category. High-performing schools
Hmong 1.8 reported a much lower range of between 20 percent
Cantonese 1.7 and 50 percent during the same period.
Filipino (Tagalog) 1.2
Korean 1.1
The percentage of English learners, also known as
Khmer (Cambodian) 1.0
limited-English-profi cient (LEP) students, in a school
Armenian 0.8
also appears to influence school performance.
Mandarin 0.7
California defi nes LEP students as those who do not
Punjabi 0.6
speak English, whose native language is not English,
and who are not currently able to perform ordinary
Source: California Department of Education
classroom work in English. LEP students represent
one of the fastest growing segments of the student
population (Kindergarten through grade 12) in the
United States and constitute more than 25 percent of the total
enrollment in California public schools. About 95 percent of LEP
students speak 1 of the 10 most commonly spoken languages
in the State, and more than 83 percent speak Spanish. LAUSD’s
percentage of LEP students is almost 42 percent, signifi cantly
higher than the State’s 25 percent. Additionally, as shown in
32 33
Figure 9 on the following page , LAUSD’s low-performing
schools had significantly higher percentages of LEP students
(46 percent) than did its high-performing schools (14 percent)
in fiscal year 2000–01.
FIGURE 8
Low-Performing Schools Had Substantially Higher Percentages of Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged Students Than Did High-Performing Schools in Fiscal Year 2000–01
����
��
��
��
��
�
� � �
� � � � � � � � � �� �� � �� � � �
�� �� � �
�
���
�
���
��
��
�� �� �
� � �� �
�
�� ��
�
�� ��
Source: Data from the California Department of Education.
Note: For purposes of our audit, low-performing schools are ranked in deciles 1 through 5 on the Academic Performance Index
(API), and high-performing schools are ranked 6 through 10. Data from fiscal year 1999–2000 did not differ significantly. Data
includes elementary, middle, and high schools with more than 100 test scores contributing to their API.
��������������������
�������
32 33
FIGURE 9
Low-Performing Schools Had Substantially Higher Percentages of Limited-English-
Proficient Students Than Did High-Performing Schools in Fiscal Year 2000–01
���
��
��
��
��
��
�
� � �
� � � � � � � � � �� �� � �� � � �
�� �� � �
�
���
�
���
��
��
�� �� �
� � �� �
�
�� ��
�
�� ��
Source: Data from the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Note: For purposes of our audit, low-performing schools are ranked in deciles 1 through 5 on the Academic Performance Index
(API), and high-performing schools are ranked 6 through 10. Data from fiscal year 1999–2000 did not differ significantly. Data
includes elementary, middle, and high schools with more than 100 test scores contributing to their API.
LAUSD has a diverse student population, with students from
a variety of ethnic backgrounds. Figure 10 shows the student
ethnicity of LAUSD’s low- and high-performing schools.
��������������������
�������
34 35
FIGURE 10
Student Ethnicity in Low- and High-Performing Schools Varied in Fiscal Year 2000–01
���������������
�����
��������
�����
��� ���������������������
����������������������������
����
��
��
��
��
�
� � �
� � � � � � � � � �� �� � �� � � �
�� �� � �
�
���
�
���
��
��
�� �� �
� � �� �
�
�� ��
�
�� ��
Source: Data from the California Department of Education.
Note: For purposes of our audit, low-performing schools are ranked in deciles 1 through 5 on the Academic Performance Index
(API), and high-performing schools are ranked 6 through 10. Data from fiscal year 1999–2000 did not differ significantly. Data
includes elementary, middle, and high schools with more than 100 test scores contributing to their API.
LAUSD IS MAKING PROGRESS TOWARD IMPROVING
ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY AT LOW-PERFORMING SCHOOLS
Access to technology was not one of the several factors we
found to affect the difference in school performance. Because
of LAUSD’s recent efforts, low-performing schools now have
slightly more computers in total, and more computers that
are up-to-date, than high-performing schools have. Both the
department and LAUSD consider a computer up-to-date if it has
multimedia functions with access to CD-ROM, internally or over
��������������������
�������
34 35
a network, and the capacity to access Web-based resources on
the Internet. However, although LAUSD has made significant
progress, it has not yet reached its goal of having one computer
for every six students in all its schools. Moreover, best practices
suggest that LAUSD should modify its goal to one computer for
every five students.
State regulations require school districts participating in its
Education Technology Grant Program to provide an inventory
of technology at each eligible school site. The department, in
collaboration with the California Technology Assistance Project,
conducts yearly surveys of schools in the State to assist them
in meeting multiple reporting requirements for various grants
in a single survey. The survey collects, among other items, data
on equipment such as the number of computers available, age,
location, connectivity to the Internet, and technical support.
As shown in Table 6, between fiscal years 1999–2000 and
2001–02, results from LAUSD’s computer survey indicate that
both low- and high-performing schools dramatically decreased
their student-to-computer ratios in the classrooms. Moreover,
although low-performing schools had 34 more students per
multimedia computer than did high-performing schools in
TABLE 6
Low-Performing Schools Decreased Student-to-Computer Ratio to Below
That of High-Performing Schools From Fiscal Years 1999–2000 to 2001–02
Number of Students Per In-Class Computer
Fiscal Year 1999–2000* Fiscal Year 2000–01 Fiscal Year 2001–02
Low- High- Low- High- Low- High-
Performing Performing Performing Performing Performing Performing
Up-to-date
computers 86 52 20 18 11 13
All computers 16 13 13 11 9 10
Sources: Los Angeles Unified School District technology surveys, fiscal years 1999–2000, 2000–01, and 2001–02; and the
California Department of Education, Academic Performance Index (API) data files for the respective fiscal years.
Note: For purposes of our audit, low-performing schools are ranked in deciles 1 through 5 on the API, and high-performing
schools are ranked 6 through 10. Data includes elementary, middle, and high schools with more than 100 test-scores contributing
to their API. The API ranks for each fiscal year were compared to the LAUSD’s technology survey results for that year.
*For fiscal year 1999-2000, LAUSD’s technology survey does not separately identify Macintosh computers and laptops as well
as IBM laptops. Therefore, this data may not be comparable with the subsequent fiscal years, since these computers have been
presented separately and are included in our up-to-date computer totals.
36 37
fiscal year 1999–2000, by fiscal year 2001–02, low-performing
schools averaged two fewer students per computer than did
high-performing schools.
In part, LAUSD’s progress can also be attributed to the
federal E-Rate program. Authorized by Congress as part of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, E-Rate provides all
public and private schools and libraries access to affordable
telecommunications and advanced digital technologies to
expand their technology capacity and free up resources that
would otherwise have been spent on telecommunication
expenses. Under the program, eligible schools and libraries may
receive discounts ranging from 20 percent to 90 percent on
certain telecommunication services. The level of discount on
eligible equipment and services is based on the percentage of
students eligible for participation in the National School Lunch
Program or other federally approved alternative mechanisms
contained in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. E-Rate
assists LAUSD in its efforts to provide each of its elementary,
middle, and high schools with an appropriate local area network
and an infrastructure that will support the school networks.
In May 2000, the city board approved a five-year instructional
technology plan, which includes a goal of moving toward a
student-to-computer ratio of six to one. However, this goal is
inconsistent with a recommendation made by its consultant
in 1998 that LAUSD adopt the maximum student-to-computer
ratio for ideal learning of five to one. A June 2001 report
issued by the Chief Executive Office Forum on Education and
Technology states that technology can help to improve scores
on standardized tests and to access information that can increase
knowledge. The report also indicates that a reasonable goal for
the number of students per instructional computer is five or less.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To make sure that each student has the best opportunity to
achieve academically, LAUSD should do the following:
• Enforce its existing policy requiring that each student have
a textbook in the core subjects for use in the classroom and
at home.
• Require schools to certify annually that each student has, or
will have prior to the end of that fiscal year, in each subject
36 37
area, sufficient textbooks and/or instructional materials that
are consistent with the content and cycles of the curriculum
framework adopted by the state board.
• Consider adopting a student-to-computer ratio of five to one.
To increase the number of teachers who possess basic credentials
in its low-performing schools, LAUSD should continue its
current recruitment and retention efforts and expand those
efforts to include all financial incentives offered by the State
or federal government. Further, LAUSD should review the
recommendations of its outside evaluator and implement those
recommendations that will further increase its ability to recruit
and retain teachers in low-performing schools. n
38 39
CHAPTER 2
Facing Possible Reductions in
Textbook Funding, the Los Angeles
Unified School District Needs
Stronger Controls Over Textbook
Purchasing and Inventory
CHAPTER SUMMARY
With budget cuts likely and the imminent sunset of a
law that provides a significant amount of funding
for textbooks, effective control and use of textbook
funding and resources are more important than ever. Although
the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has numerous
funding sources it can use for purchasing textbooks and other
instructional materials, it may not be using those funds to
purchase textbooks, as specified by law. In addition, LAUSD
spends on average less than other large districts in the State per
student for textbooks and other instructional materials.
We found that LAUSD can improve its management of textbook
resources. For example, state law requires that publishers
provide instructional materials free of charge to school districts
in California to the same extent as they provide them to
school districts in any other state. However, we found that
some publishers are not equitably providing free instructional
materials to LAUSD schools. Unfortunately, neither the State
nor LAUSD is in a position to detect violations because neither
monitors publishers to ensure that they are complying with the
law. This is disconcerting in light of the hundreds of millions of
dollars at stake statewide.
LAUSD could more easily resolve most of the textbook
management problems we found if it had a central textbook-
purchasing system. For example, centralizing the purchasing
function would make it easier to ensure that publishers treat
schools fairly. LAUSD also needs to improve the way it manages
its textbook inventories and enforce an existing policy to recover
for lost or damaged textbooks. Until it does so, LAUSD will be
unable to comply with a state law requiring it to publish on
its Web site specific information regarding the textbooks used
in its schools. In addition, LAUSD spent nearly $2 million to
38 39
implement an electronic textbook inventory system that is not
widely used; LAUSD administrators blame funding cuts for the
failure of this effort.
Finally, LAUSD can further improve its controls over textbook
purchasing by modifying its conflict-of-interest and disclosure
code to reduce the risk of bias and the appearance of impropriety
in the textbook selection and purchasing processes.
UNCERTAINTIES CONCERNING FUNDING MAKE
EFFECTIVE USE OF TEXTBOOK FUNDS CRITICAL
Both the State and LAUSD are facing critical budget decisions,
and the impact these decisions will have on textbook funding
remains unknown. For example, in July 2002, the Schiff-
School districts stand Bustamante Standards-Based Instructional Materials Program
to lose about $40 per (Schiff-Bustamante) will sunset, and all school districts stand to
student in funding lose about $40 per student in funding. The 2002–03 Governor’s
with the sunset of Budget May Revision contains $250 million in funding for
the Schiff-Bustamante schools to purchase instructional materials for Kindergarten
Standards-Based through grade 12. Although the governor’s proposal also
Instructional Materials includes $150 million of one-time incentive funds for schools
Program. to purchase standards-aligned language arts instructional
materials, it is particularly important that LAUSD use its textbook
funding more effectively. LAUSD spends less on textbooks and
instructional materials per student than do other large districts
in the State. One result of this is that not all students in the
district’s schools have up-to-date textbooks, and some classes
have no textbooks at all, as we pointed out in Chapter 1.
LAUSD’s Use of Textbook Funding Has Been Inappropriate in
Some Instances
Generally, LAUSD fairly allocates funds among all its schools—
roughly $100 million in fiscal year 1999–2000 and $113 million
in fiscal year 2000–01 from the Instructional Materials Fund
(IMF) and the Schiff-Bustamante fund—but it has spent funds
earmarked for textbooks in the core curriculum on other
materials, such as library books. By diverting these restricted
funds, LAUSD fails to maximize its ability to provide basic
textbooks to all its students.
40 41
As discussed in the Introduction, LAUSD takes advantage
of numerous funding sources to purchase textbooks for its
schools. LAUSD generally allocates funds to its schools based on
their gross student enrollment as of October of each fiscal year.
LAUSD told us that it uses this method because it can obtain
the enrollment numbers earlier than it can the average daily
attendance (ADA) numbers. The State allocates the IMF to school
districts based on the ADA numbers of elementary schools
(Kindergarten through grade 8) for the preceding fiscal year and
based on the enrollment data of grades 9 through 12 for the
previous October obtained from the California Basic Education
System. For fiscal year 1999–2000, the eight low-performing
schools we reviewed spent 52 percent of their total allocations
compared to the eight high-performing schools, which used
41 percent of their total allocations. However, in fiscal year
2000–01, the eight low-performing schools spent 57 percent of
their total allocations, compared to 89 percent of all allocations
spent by the eight high-performing schools. Table 7 on the
following page compares the allocations and expenditures
per student at the eight low-performing and eight high-
performing schools we tested, using the funding sources
specifically designated for purchasing textbooks and other
instructional materials.
Although LAUSD’s allocation process appears fair and equitable,
schools may be using funds inappropriately. State law requires
that roughly $250 million in Schiff-Bustamante funds be spent
by school districts throughout the State for the sole purpose of
purchasing instructional materials in the core curriculum that
are aligned to content standards for students in Kindergarten
through grade 12. Additionally, state law allows the State Board
of Education (state board) to specify the percentage of the IMF
that it authorizes districts to use for various purposes. The
state board’s expenditure policy requires that school districts
spend at least 70 percent of its IMF allocation on state-adopted
instructional resources, including software.
40 41
7
ELBAT
,snoitacollA
gnidnuF
ralimiS
ylevitaleR
daH
sloohcS
gnimrofreP-hgiH
thgiE
dna
-woL
thgiE
ehT
*10–0002
dna
0002–9991
sraeY
lacsiF
ni
dereffiD
serutidnepxE
tub
*10–0002
raeY
lacsiF
0002–9991
raeY
lacsiF
sloohcS
gnimrofreP-hgiH
sloohcS
gnimrofreP-woL
sloohcS
gnimrofreP-hgiH
sloohcS
gnimrofreP-woL
tnedutS
reP
tnedutS
reP
tnedutS
reP
tnedutS
reP
tnedutS
reP
tnedutS
reP
tnedutS
reP
tnedutS
reP
noitacollA
serutidnepxE
noitacollA
serutidnepxE
noitacollA
serutidnepxE
noitacollA
serutidnepxE
sdnuF
slairetaM
lanoitcurtsnI dnuF
slairetaM
lanoitcurtsnI
71.72$
01.03$
71.72$
09.31$
05.71$
70.71$
05.71$
05.41$
)tnecrep
07(
8
edarg
hguorht
netragredniK
37.21
38.21
37.21
37.4
05.7
19.3
05.7
99.6
)tnecrep
03(
8
edarg
hguorht
netragredniK
31.13
16.52
31.13
30.32
00.71
84.31
00.71
37.9
21
hguorht
9 sedarG
lanoitcurtsnI
desaB-sdradnatS
etnamatsuB-ffihcS
94.92
38.34
79.72
92.72
00.04
25.7
00.04
92.42
margorP
slairetaM
49.03
84.4
39.92
89.3
48.13
41.4
78.92
84.2
dnuf
lareneg
s’DSUAL
,tnuocca
slairetam
lanoitcurtsnI
64.131$
58.611$
39.821$
39.27$
48.311$
31.64$
78.111$
99.75$
sdnuf
lanoitcurtsni
rehto
dna
koobtxet
,slatoT
.sdrocer
tegdub
dna
gnitnuocca
tcirtsiD
loohcS
defiinU
selegnA
soL
eht
morf
ataD
:ecruoS
6
deknar
era
sloohcs
gnimrofrep-hgih
dna
)IPA(
xednI
ecnamrofreP
cimedacA
eht
no
5
hguorht
1
seliced
ni
deknar
era
sloohcs
gnimrofrep-wol
,tidua
ruo
fo
sesoprup
roF
:etoN
.IPA
eht
no
01
hguorht
.sisab
sdeen
a
no
sloohcs
eht
ot
etacollaer
ot
stcirtsid
lacol
11
sti
ot
sdnuf
etnamatsuB-ffihcS
loohcs
yratnemele
lla
detacolla
DSUAL
,10–0002
raey
lacsfi
nI
*
42 43
LAUSD allocated a total of $92 million in restricted IMF and
Schiff-Bustamante funds in fiscal year 2000–01 either directly or
indirectly through the local district to its elementary, middle,
and high schools. According to LAUSD accounting records, in
fiscal year 2000–01, schools spent $16.2 million in restricted
Schiff-Bustamante and IMF funds to purchase other books that
are not part of the core curriculum, such as library books or test
preparation workbooks and instructional materials. LAUSD staff
suggested that perhaps some of this amount could be the result
of school staff entering incorrect expenditure codes on purchase
orders. However, in one instance, we found that a payment
of $603 was made to a company to purchase materials on
test-taking strategies for high school students, which does not
meet the criteria for spending money from the restricted IMF or
the Schiff-Bustamante fund. We also found that of 14 invoices
we tested, 8 had inappropriate expenditures totaling roughly
$27,000, or 5 percent of the $550,000 total. According to the
acting director of LAUSD’s Business Accounting Branch, the
schools enter on the purchase orders the object codes used to
designate textbook purchases. The Stock Accounting Section
staff perform high-level reviews of the purchase orders but
mainly trust that the school staff have the expertise to use the
correct object codes. However, our sample of a few invoices
indicates that school staff are not always using the correct codes,
which suggests that LAUSD cannot ensure that funds designated
for purchasing textbooks are spent appropriately.
Per-Student Spending on Books and Other Instructional
Materials Is Less in LAUSD Than in Other Districts and Statewide
LAUSD’s spending for textbooks, other books, and instructional
materials compared with 8 of the 10 largest unified school
districts in California was the lowest on a per-student basis.
In fact, LAUSD spent less per student when compared to the
statewide average for per student spending.
42 43
FIGURE 11
Los Angeles Unified School District Spent Less on a Per-Student Basis Than
Did Other Large Districts in the State in Fiscal Year 2000–01
������������
Sources: District information submitted in response to state auditor survey, May 2002. October 2000 California Basic Education
System enrollment data.
Note: Data for Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) includes actual expenditures and does not include accruals. Similarly,
we requested the other districts to report only their actual expenditures. The total amount spent for all grades by Oakland,
San Bernardino, and San Juan includes additional amounts spent by the school district on behalf of schools, but not
identified as either elementary or secondary. The total amount spent by LAUSD includes amounts spent by its 11 local
districts on behalf of schools.
Statewide average is reported in total for all grades because the California Department of Education does not track expenditures
by school type or grade.
���������������
������ ��������������������������
���������� ������
���������������������������
������
�����
������
���������� ������
������
�����
������� �����
������
������
����������� ������
������
������
��������� ������
������
������
������ ������
������
������
������� ������
������
������
�������� ������
������
������
������������� ������
������
���������������� ������
�� ��� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
44 45
As shown in Figure 11, LAUSD spent $127 per student in total
for textbooks, other books, and instructional materials in
fiscal year 2000–01. Most districts, however, greatly outspent
LAUSD. For example, Sacramento Unified School District, the
next highest spending district after LAUSD, spent $154 per
student. Expenditures ranged from a low of $127 per student for
LAUSD to a high of $329 per student for San Bernardino Unified
School District. We present a similar analysis of per-student
spending for textbooks, other books, and instructional materials
for fiscal year 1999–2000 in Appendix C.
BETTER MANAGEMENT OF TEXTBOOK PURCHASING
AND INVENTORIES CAN MAKE MORE TEXTBOOK
FUNDING AVAILABLE
LAUSD can better manage its textbook resources by enforcing a
state law that requires publishers of textbooks to treat schools
fairly, by enforcing an existing policy to recover for lost or
damaged textbooks, and by improving the methods used by
schools to account for textbook inventories and obsolete or
surplus textbooks. LAUSD may also be able to more easily
resolve some of these issues by centralizing its textbook-
purchasing process.
Some Publishers Are Not Treating Schools Fairly
Some publishers are not equitably providing free instructional
materials (commonly referred to as gratis items) to different
schools within LAUSD, as state law requires. Unfortunately,
neither the State nor LAUSD is in a position to detect violations
of the law because neither has an effective system in place to
ensure that publishers are complying with the law. Our analysis
of the gratis items offered by some publishers revealed that
the average value of these items ranges from 71 percent to
88 percent of the purchase price of a textbook.
State law requires When a school purchases students’ editions of a textbook,
publishers to provide any which can cost an average of $60 each, the publisher typically
instructional materials offers items free of charge, as long as the school purchases a
free of charge to school specified minimum number of books. Gratis items can include
districts in California to teacher and student resource materials, such as lesson planners,
the same extent as they practice sets, transparencies, workbooks, computer software, and
provide them to any instructional videos. In some cases, a school can receive gratis
school district nationwide. items based on the number of teachers or students. For example,
one publisher offers a free teacher’s edition for every 25 books
44 45
purchased. Thus, if a school purchased 100 books, it would
receive four free teacher’s editions. State law requires publishers
to provide any instructional materials free of charge to school
districts in California to the same extent as they provide them
to any school district nationwide. The California Department
of Education (department) refers to this law as the “most-favored-
nations clause.” If a publisher willfully fails to meet this
requirement, the publisher is liable to the state board and any
one or more school district boards for three times the total value
of the instructional materials and services that the districts
were entitled to receive free but did not. The superintendent
of public instruction and the department are responsible for
implementing any laws, regulations, or state board policies.
However, publishers have not always treated the schools
within LAUSD the same. For example, during a review of only
15 invoices, we found two cases where schools did not receive
TABLE 8
Two Schools Received Different Free Materials With the Purchase of the
Same Algebra Books
Instructional Materials Price Reseda Manual Arts
Gratis Items Listed on LAUSD’s Price List Received Not Received Received Not Received
Teacher’s edition (1:25 student editions) $ 87.71 8 8 13 19
Assessment success kit (1:teacher) 281.91 0 8 13 0
Student performance pack (1:teacher) 83.43 0 8 13 0
Practice workbook* (1:student) 8.53 400 0 800 0
Student tutorial CD-ROM (1:student) 32.07 0 400 455 345
Teaching resources (1:teacher) 346.11 0 8 13 0
Teaching transparencies (1:teacher) 366.98 0 8 13 0
Algebra video package (1:teacher) 605.97 0 8 0 13
Value of gratis items $4,113.68 $27,004.88 $36,575.67 $20,608.25
Gratis Items Not Listed on LAUSD’s Price List Received Not Received Received Not Received
Skills intervention kit 374.47 8 0 3 10
Secondary math lab toolkit CD-ROM 74.87 0 8 13 0
Solution key 42.23 0 8 13 0
Student’s edition answers on transparencies 253.56 0 8 13 0
Value of gratis items $2,995.76 $2,965.28 $5,941.99 $3,744.70
Total of gratis items schools should
have received $29,970.16 $24,352.95
Sources: Publisher gratis items proposals; Los Angeles Unified School District invoices, price list, and order forms.
* For the purchase of one textbook, schools should receive one practice workbook for each student during each year of the
adoption. The practice workbook is a consumable component of the student performance pack.
46 47
the same gratis items from the same publisher for the same
textbooks. Specifically, in November 2001, both Manual Arts and
Reseda Senior High Schools purchased the same algebra books
within five days of each other; however, Manual Arts received more
gratis items than did Reseda. Additionally, as shown in Table 8,
the publisher shortchanged both Reseda and Manual Arts gratis
items worth more than $29,000 and $24,000, respectively.
In another case, both Mar Vista and Fernangeles Elementary
Schools purchased the same math books. However, they were
shortchanged gratis items worth almost $7,000 and $300,
respectively. Moreover, Mar Vista paid $2,160 for five universal
access kits while Fernangeles received one free from the publisher.4
Furthermore, our analysis of the gratis items offered by
six publishers for certain core subjects revealed that the items
can be valued at between 71 percent and 88 percent of the
purchase price of the textbook. To put this in perspective,
LAUSD spends roughly $22 million for textbooks each year;
Statewide, in fiscal year thus, the value of gratis items could range from between
2000–01, schools purchased $15.6 million and $19.4 million per year. Statewide, in
about $488 million in fiscal year 2000–01, schools purchased about $488 million in
textbooks, potentially textbooks, potentially placing the total annual value of gratis
placing the total annual items at between $346 million and $430 million.
value of gratis items at
between $346 million and Unfortunately, the disparate treatment shown in our examples,
$430 million. as well as in any other cases that may exist, would most likely
not be detected because neither LAUSD nor the State conducts
any monitoring to ensure that publishers comply with the
most-favored-nations clause. While state law allows the state
board and school boards to collect damages for gratis items
not received, it is silent on what their responsibilities are for
enforcing this law.
The Department Could Do More to Ensure That Schools Receive
Fair Treatment
State regulations require publishers and manufacturers to inform
the department in writing of all offers of free instructional
materials for Kindergarten through grade 8 within 30 working
days of the effective dates of the offers so that all school districts
have the opportunity to order the gratis items. However, we
4 Universal access kits include items such as teaching guides, transparencies, wall charts
and organizers, handbooks, and games.
46 47
found that the department can do more to ensure that school
districts are made aware of the offerings. Until the department
takes a more proactive approach to notifying all schools
statewide about gratis items, it cannot ensure that publishers are
complying with the most-favored-nations clause and that the
State is receiving the savings that would result from not paying
for gratis items to which it is entitled.
Although its regulations require publishers to submit in
writing all offers of free elementary instructional materials,
the department does not take sufficient steps to ensure that all
school districts in the State have access to complete publisher
information. Before August 2000, the department distributed
a list of the publishers’ offerings, prices, and gratis items to all
school districts. However, on August 7, 2000, the director of
the department’s Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional
Resources Division (curriculum division) sent a letter to the
publishers and manufacturers of instructional materials
notifying them that it would be their responsibility to notify the
school districts of any and all gratis offerings. The curriculum
division’s prior practice was discontinued because of the
expense associated with reproducing and mailing the lists to
the school districts.
However, the department instructed the publishers to continue
to submit to it their price and gratis offering lists. Although
Although the department the department publishes on its Web site a listing of all state
publishes on its Web site board adopted instructional materials for Kindergarten through
a listing of all materials grade 8 and the price lists and order forms, the only gratis
and their prices for items it lists among the many available are teacher’s editions
Kindergarten through and resource packages. The department also publishes on its
grade 8, the only gratis Web site a list of instructional materials that meet the State’s
items it lists among the legal and social compliance requirements, but this Web site
many available are does not include prices or available gratis items. The director
teachers’ editions and of the curriculum division told us that the curriculum division
resource packages. maintains all gratis item listings and they are available for
public review. However, she plans to update the department’s
Web site to include the gratis items for each of the last four
standards-aligned adoptions for Kindergarten through grade 8
since 1999. Although regulations require publishers to report
to the department in writing, the department can improve the
efficiency of publishing gratis item information on its Web site
by requiring publishers to provide information in a standard
electronic format.
48 49
In our June 1990 report issued by the auditor general titled
A Review of the Purchasing Practices and Conflict of Interest Policies
in the Selection of Textbooks, we also concluded that publishers
were not equitably providing gratis items to all school districts,
as state law requires. We further reported that many districts
were not aware of the gratis items available to them because
publishers were not reporting all items to the department. We
recommended that the department remind districts of the
importance of reporting to it when publishers offer or provide
gratis items that do not appear on the State’s price list or its
publisher-offering list. The director of the curriculum division
told us that while sufficient staff are not available to monitor
all sales transactions with all publishers, the curriculum
division does investigate all complaints from school districts
immediately. However, without sufficient information on the
gratis items publishers offer, school districts cannot determine if
they have received all items available.
LAUSD’s Efforts to Ensure Fair Publisher Treatment Also Are Insufficient
State law places the responsibility for adopting instructional
materials for use in high schools with the governing board of
each school district. Although the law does not provide any
specific requirements for school districts to monitor publisher
compliance with the most-favored-nations clause, by giving
the governing board of each school district the authority to
pursue damages, it implies that local monitoring should occur.
However, similar to the department, LAUSD does not have any
policies or procedures for monitoring publisher compliance with
the law. Consequently, LAUSD cannot ensure that its schools
are aware of current publisher offerings and is missing savings
associated with its purchases.
LAUSD does not have any
policies or procedures LAUSD was not aware of the disparate treatment Manual Arts,
for monitoring publisher Reseda, Mar Vista, and Fernangeles received from publishers
compliance with a until we brought it to the attention of the Textbook Services
state law regarding free Office coordinator and the assistant superintendent of the
instructional materials. Information Technology Division. Even more disturbing, our
interviews with superintendents of the 11 local districts or their
designated staff revealed that 3 local districts were unaware of
the most-favored-nations clause and 2 local districts were aware
of it but did not know its specifics. Moreover, the responses
from the remaining 6 local districts revealed their beliefs that
publishers dictate what is free, schools haggle and bargain with
publishers, and LAUSD’s Textbook Services Office negotiates
with publishers. Some school staff at the schools we visited
48 49
told us that they rely on publishers for information about
available gratis items. However, one publisher’s representative
told us that sometimes he directs customers to speak with their
local representatives to see which gratis items they can receive
based on the number of books they will purchase, the size of
the school, and the number of teachers. Further, we noted that
several publishers’ price lists indicate that the publishers would
provide free materials only on request. Thus if a school did
not have a current price list or did not request gratis items, the
school would most likely not receive the items.
To its credit, on February 26, 2001, LAUSD did provide its
middle and high schools with a price list and order form that
included gratis items available from the publishers for newly
adopted and approved instructional materials for certain math,
science, and social science classes. However, in June 2001,
LAUSD published a list of authorized instructional materials
for its middle and high schools that does not include prices or
indicate whether the items are free. According to the Textbook
Services Office coordinator, LAUSD will continue to distribute
forms and price lists to schools after each state adoption of
instructional materials, but she does not have adequate time or
staff to produce a comprehensive price list and gratis item order
form for all subjects and grades since this could involve working
with more than 300 publishers. If schools are not aware of the
gratis items that publishers offer, they also will be unable to
identify and report to the department or the Los Angeles City
Board of Education (city board) cases in which publishers are
giving more or fewer gratis items than are specified on current
price lists, as we identified in our testing.
Finally, LAUSD may be hampered in its efforts to monitor
free materials until it changes the way it tracks its purchases.
LAUSD may be hampered Specifically, we were hindered in our efforts to test free materials
in its efforts to monitor because the LAUSD accounting system does not include a field
publishers until it improves for the International Standard Book Number (ISBN), which is
its accounting system. a unique number that identifies the publisher and title, nor
does the system include information regarding instructional
materials purchases or gratis items. If LAUSD recorded ISBNs in
its accounting system, it could identify purchases of the same
book made by different schools and generate reports that would
allow it to audit publisher invoices.
50 51
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF TEXTBOOK PURCHASES
MIGHT RESOLVE SEVERAL SHORTCOMINGS
LAUSD might be able to resolve many of the shortcomings in
its process for ordering textbooks if it centralizes this function.
Specifically, LAUSD could reduce inappropriate charges against
restricted state textbook funds, improve its payment record and
ability to do business with preferred vendors, and ensure that
schools receive the same gratis items from publishers. Returning
to a central purchasing system would cost LAUSD roughly
$500,000 annually, but the benefits might outweigh this cost.
Before 1990, the book order section and textbook warehouse
within LAUSD’s Purchasing Branch (branch) were responsible
for verifying the appropriateness of funds, prices, and ISBNs;
consolidating school orders and generating purchase orders;
and receiving and distributing textbook orders to schools.
The branch also handled the collection, sorting, and disposal
of obsolete textbooks. In January 1990, in a report to the
city board, LAUSD identified potential savings of more than
$800,000 that would result from the elimination of the
administrative services the branch provided schools for textbook
purchasing. Additional advantages that LAUSD cited included
freeing up warehouse space and delegating more local control
to schools with minimal, if any, increase in their workloads.
The report also highlighted disadvantages, of which at least two
have come to fruition. Specifically, LAUSD expressed concern
that delays in vendor payments would occur if schools did
not submit invoices promptly as well as a potential increase in
inappropriate charges against state-restricted textbook funds.
Nonetheless, in January 1990, the city board accepted LAUSD’s
recommendation to disband the branch’s function as central
administrator of textbook purchases.
LAUSD’s decentralization of its textbook-purchasing function
has resulted in shortcomings in its ability to order, receive,
LAUSD’s decentralization and pay for textbooks. LAUSD’s policy for textbook purchases
of its textbook purchasing requires schools to refuse to accept back orders or requests
function has resulted in from vendors for extensions beyond 90 days. Purchase orders
shortcomings in its ability outstanding more than 90 days might indicate the extent to
to order, receive, and pay which LAUSD has not made timely invoice payments, has not
for textbooks. received books it ordered, or has canceled an order but failed to
release the funds for other uses. As of March 25, 2002, LAUSD
had more than $6.4 million in outstanding purchase orders
relating to textbook orders that were more than 90 days old.
On May 23, 2002, the LAUSD accounting manager told us that
LAUSD recently canceled purchase orders that were more than
50 51
three years old or were open for only freight charges. In some
cases, LAUSD’s slow payment record has hampered its ability
to conduct business with preferred vendors or caused them to
make continuous inquiries about delinquent payments. Further,
as of May 5, 2002, three vendors have placed LAUSD on credit
hold until they can resolve billing issues.
LAUSD’s decentralization of its textbook-purchasing function
may also have resulted in an increase of inappropriate charges
against state-restricted textbook funds. As we discussed earlier,
before 1990, branch staff were responsible for charging textbook
purchases to the appropriate funding sources for LAUSD schools,
but now staff at each school perform this function. However,
we found some purchases that were inappropriately charged
to restricted Schiff-Bustamante and IMF funds by school staff.
Also, returning to the central administration of textbook
purchases would make it easier for LAUSD to ensure that each
school receives the same gratis items offered by publishers and
avoid any inadvertent payments for gratis items, such as those
previously described. For example, with central administration,
branch staff would consolidate school orders and verify ISBNs
and publisher prices. The branch estimates that returning to a
central purchasing system would cost LAUSD about $500,000
annually. However, the benefits of returning to a central
purchasing system such as ensuring schools receive gratis items
may outweigh the costs.
LAUSD NEEDS TO IMPROVE ITS TEXTBOOK
INVENTORY PROCESS
A March 1998 staff report and an August 1998 consultant’s
report found that many schools’ textbook inventories were
LAUSD spent almost unaccounted for and in disarray and inventory systems were
$2 million to implement lacking. In response, LAUSD spent almost $2 million to
an electronic inventory implement an electronic textbook inventory system in
system; however, 566 schools. However, the implementation of the system
implementation of has been unsuccessful, and LAUSD continues to experience
the system has problems in managing its textbook inventory. Improving the
been unsuccessful. management of textbook inventories would not only help
protect these valuable resources and save LAUSD money but also
enable LAUSD to begin complying with a state law requiring it
to publicly report information regarding the books schools use.
Most important, LAUSD could ensure that each student has a
textbook for all subjects.
52 53
In 1998, in response to media disclosures about the shortage of
textbooks, library books, and instructional materials in LAUSD,
the California Community Foundation (foundation) formed
the Schoolbook Partners Action Committee (committee).
The foundation supports nonprofit organizations and public
institutions with funds for health and human services and
early childhood education, among other areas of need. The
committee’s goal was to evaluate the causes of the book
shortage and to provide solutions. In a report issued in
August 1998, the committee highlighted, among other
things, that LAUSD’s internal systems for book acquisition
and inventory were fundamentally flawed, both in design
and execution. The committee recommended that LAUSD
implement a districtwide, online system for book inventory
control. Appendix B details several of the consultant’s
recommendations and LAUSD’s progress in implementing
the recommendations.
Between May 1999 and August 2000, LAUSD purchased, for
almost $2 million, an inventory system designed to monitor
and account for textbooks and maintain data on textbook
Of the 16 schools we damage. LAUSD’s initial plans were to fully implement the
visited, only 3 had inventory system in its more than 500 elementary, middle, and
fully implemented the high schools by December 2000. To ensure the success of the
automated inventory inventory system, LAUSD required school principals to agree
system LAUSD purchased, to terms such as entering data into the system and establishing
5 had partially effective procedures to preserve and collect moneys for lost or
implemented it, and the damaged textbooks. LAUSD created the Textbook Management
remaining 8 used either a Section, giving it responsibilities such as training school staff
manual system, a different responsible for textbooks, conducting periodic auditing of the
electronic system, or had inventory control process, and assisting schools on an ongoing
no system at all. basis. The section had 11 employees responsible for the schools
within each of the 11 local districts. Between August 1999 and
June 2001, section employees visited each school in their local
districts at least once every six weeks.
Despite LAUSD’s considerable cost and effort to help schools
implement the inventory system, we found that many of
its schools had not done so. Specifically, as of January 2002,
LAUSD reported that 46 schools had never received training,
and 12 schools had received the system but had not set it
up. Moreover, in our visits to 16 schools, we observed that
only 3 had fully implemented the system and 5 had partially
implemented the system. The remaining 8 schools used either a
manual system, a different electronic system, or no system at all.
52 53
According to the assistant superintendent of
Reasons for Not Using the LAUSD’s Information Technology Division (IT
Inventory System
division), due to a potential budget shortfall of
Site visits made by LAUSD’s Textbook Management $153 million in fi scal year 2001–02, LAUSD sought
Section found that 192 schools did not use the
ways to reduce expenditures and as a result it
system for reasons that included the following:
disbanded the Textbook Management Section.
• Staff failed to attend scheduled training.
In July 2001, LAUSD designated four positions
• Inventory system hardware was stolen from
within the Administrative and Support Section
the school.
of the IT division to staff a help line for schools
• Assigned staff were busy with other duties.
and provide training on the inventory system.
• No staff were assigned to textbook duties.
However, even before the cuts, LAUSD reports
• Turnover of staff assigned to textbook duties. show that many schools did not implement the
system. Specifically, before July 2001, district
reports indicate that 192 schools were not using
the inventory system, 242 schools were partially
using it, and 119 were fully using it. LAUSD’s records did not
adequately identify the status for 13 schools.
The assistant superintendent of the IT division told us that the
implementation of the inventory system was only partially
successful because the former cluster offi ces, now the local
district offi ces, did not provide strong support for its use.
However, in our interviews with local district superintendents,
we found that they believe the system has not been successful
because of LAUSD’s budget reductions relating to the
Textbook Management Section and the lack of adequate staff
in the schools to maintain the system. Although LAUSD’s
Business, Finance, Audit, and Technology Committee lists the
development of a centralized textbook inventory system as one
of its technology projects, it reported in May 2002 that this
project is not fully funded.
Nonetheless, LAUSD’s inability to monitor and account for its
textbooks adequately makes it unable to comply with state law,
which requires it to report, among other items, the quantity and
quality of textbooks in its schools. Specifi cally, the Classroom
Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act requires
school districts to prepare school accountability report cards so
that parents can make meaningful comparisons between public
schools before enrolling their children. The report cards must
include an assessment of the quality and currency of textbooks
and other instructional materials, including whether these
textbooks meet state standards, the ratio of textbooks per
student, and the year the textbooks were adopted by the state
54 55
board or the governing board of the school district. However,
LAUSD merely reports the following information on all its school
accountability report cards:
The LAUSD has set a priority on ensuring that a
sufficient number of textbooks to support the school’s
instructional program is available. The instructional
materials are chosen primarily from the textbooks
adopted by the Department of Education. Acquisition
of educational technology and access to current
additional resources to support the instructional
program for all students are priorities in determining
the budget expenditures.
Moreover, an inadequate system for tracking textbooks also
diminishes the ability of some schools to ensure that students
or their parents are accountable for lost or damaged textbooks.
One school reported losing Consequently, schools may not be recovering as many textbooks
950 textbooks in fiscal or as much money as they could. The textbook clerk at
year 2000–01, which can Manual Arts Senior High School told us the school lost about
equate to $57,000. 950 textbooks in fiscal year 2000–01, which can equate to
roughly $57,000. State law requires school districts to establish
rules and regulations governing procedures for recovering
damages if students do not return loaned property, such as
textbooks, on demand. Also according to state law, after students
have received due process and parents or guardians received
proper notification, school districts can withhold a student’s
grades, diploma, or transcripts until the damages are paid.
However, if the student, a parent, or guardian is unable to pay
for the damages or return the property, school districts must
provide a program of voluntary work for the student in lieu of
the payment of monetary damages.
In accordance with state law, LAUSD has established a policy for
ensuring student accountability. LAUSD’s policy requires schools
to provide a voluntary work program and outlines certain
situations in which withholding student grades, diploma, or
transcripts do not apply, such as when a student transfers to
another school or district. The policy also states that schools
must adopt an accounting or inventory system that clearly
identifies the student and the type of school property issued to
the student. If schools do not maintain a system, they cannot
withhold student grades, diplomas, or transcripts.
54 55
During our testing of 16 schools, we found varying degrees of
compliance with LAUSD’s policy. For example, 2 elementary
schools—Wilbur and Wonderland Avenue—do not have
textbook inventory systems. The school principals told us that
their schools did not incur any losses in fiscal year 2000–01.
However, we question the principals’ ability to determine
that no losses occurred without inventory systems to track
the issuance and return of textbooks for the roughly 430 to
660 students enrolled in their schools. In addition, we found
that 7 of the 16 schools were either not aware of or had no plans
to use LAUSD’s voluntary work program. Further, 7 schools
have gone beyond the LAUSD policy by implementing a policy
prohibiting students from participating in school-sponsored
events such as dances and graduation until they repay textbook-
related debts. Finally, we found during our interviews that 5 of
the 11 local district superintendents or their designated staff
were unaware of the methods available for their schools to
recover for lost or damaged textbooks under LAUSD’s policy.
Until it rectifies its textbook inventory control problems and
ensures that local districts and schools are aware of its policy for
lost and damaged textbooks, LAUSD will continue to be unable
to comply with the law or to identify textbook losses and seek
the appropriate restitution.
LAUSD CAN STRENGTHEN ITS CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST
AND DISCLOSURE CODE TO INCLUDE STAFF INVOLVED
IN TEXTBOOK-PURCHASING DECISIONS
LAUSD can further improve its controls over textbook purchasing
by modifying its conflict-of-interest and disclosure code.
LAUSD’s conflict-of- Currently, LAUSD’s conflict-of-interest code does not require
interest and disclosure principals and members of textbook evaluation committees to
code does not require complete an annual disclosure statement that would reveal any
principals or members potential conflicts with textbook publishers or manufacturers.
of the textbook By strengthening its code, LAUSD can further reduce the risk of
evaluation committees bias or the appearance of impropriety in the textbook adoption
to complete an annual and purchasing process.
disclosure statement
that would reveal any State law requires every agency, including school districts such
potential conflicts with as LAUSD, to adopt a conflict-of-interest and disclosure code,
textbook publishers which lists the designated positions involved in making final
or manufacturers. decisions or participating in decisions that foreseeably have a
material effect on any financial interest. Each employee in a
designated position must file an annual statement disclosing
56 57
reportable investments, business positions, interests in real
property, and income held or received during the previous
calendar year. LAUSD’s conflict-of-interest and disclosure
code lists designated positions, such as city board member,
superintendent of schools, and assistant superintendent of
instructional media. However, LAUSD does not require school
principals or their designees, who are often responsible for
authorizing purchases of textbooks and other instructional
materials, to complete the annual statement. LAUSD’s ethics
officer told us that it is in the midst of making major revisions
to the disclosure code, which will include adding principals to
the designated employee list. He expects to submit the most
recently proposed revisions to the city board for approval by the
end of June 2002. In addition, he told us that future proposals
would include the results of LAUSD’s continuous review
of other district and school positions and their changing
responsibilities to see if it is appropriate to add them to the
list of designated positions.
Although the policy is unwritten, LAUSD also requires every
member of its textbook evaluation committees to complete
an abbreviated conflict-of-interest disclosure statement that
requests information on any past, current, or future income
from or business relationships with publishers submitting
materials to the committee. Textbook evaluation committee
members are responsible for evaluating and recommending
textbooks for inclusion on the LAUSD list of authorized
instructional materials for grades 9 through 12. The state board’s
conflict-of-interest code lists instructional materials evaluation
panel member as a designated position. The state board requires
individuals in this position to complete an annual conflict-of-
interest disclosure statement and report investments, business
positions, and income to the extent that they know or have
reason to know that the business entity in which the investment
or business is held or the source of income is a publisher,
manufacturer, or vendor of instructional materials or services
offered to educational institutions in the State.
Until LAUSD revises its conflict-of-interest and disclosure code
to include the positions of principal and textbook evaluation
committee member, it cannot ensure that staff making final
textbook-purchasing decisions or participating in these decisions
are free of conflicts of interest with publishers, manufacturers,
and vendors of instructional materials, including textbooks.
56 57
RECOMMENDATIONS
To make sure that restricted funds are spent appropriately,
LAUSD should do the following:
• Provide training to school accounting staff to ensure that they
are aware of the proper accounting for textbook funds.
• Conduct periodic monitoring of the use of state-restricted
textbook and instructional materials funds to ensure the uses
are appropriate.
To ensure that publishers are treating all California schools
equitably, the department should do the following:
• Modify its regulations or seek legislation, if necessary, to
require publishers and manufacturers to report, at a minimum,
all offers of free instructional materials for Kindergarten
through grade 12 within 30 working days of the effective
date of the offer. Further, the department should maintain a
comprehensive Web site that contains this information and
require publishers to report to the department in a standard
electronic format.
• Establish a hot line to receive complaints regarding unfair
treatment and instruct school districts to contact the hot line
if they receive textbook prices or free materials that differ
from those posted on the department’s Web site.
• When necessary, pursue cost recovery for any violations of the
most-favored-nations clause.
• Work with school districts to identify and remove any other
obstacles that prevent them from effectively monitoring the
most-favored-nations clause.
To ensure that its schools are treated fairly by publishers, LAUSD
should do the following:
• Ensure that school and local district staff involved in purchas-
ing textbooks and other instructional materials are aware of
the most-favored-nations clause and have access to current
publisher price and gratis item lists when placing orders.
58 59
• Modify its accounting system to include ISBNs.
• Collect damages from the publishers identified in our report
for noncompliance with the most-favored-nations clause.
• Conduct periodic monitoring of the prices and gratis items
publishers offer its schools for similar purchases and pursue
cost recovery for any exceptions found.
• Work with the department to identify and remove any other
obstacles that prevent it from effectively monitoring the
most-favored-nations clause.
To improve its textbook-purchasing process and ensure equitable
publisher treatment, LAUSD should consider centralizing its
textbook-purchasing function at LAUSD or the local district level.
To enhance its textbook inventory systems and to comply
with state law requiring it to publish lists of texts used in its
schools, LAUSD should proceed with its plans to develop a
centralized textbook inventory system. The system should
include all texts and other instructional materials at each
school and include ongoing standardized training and both
implementation and technical support.
To improve its ability to identify textbook losses and seek
appropriate restitution, LAUSD should make sure that schools
and local district staff are aware of and are complying with its
student accountability policy for lost or damaged textbooks,
including the maintenance of an accounting or inventory
system that clearly identifies the student and the type of school
property issued to the student.
To strengthen its conflict-of-interest and disclosure code, LAUSD
should do the following:
• Revise the code to include principals and textbook evaluation
committee members in its list of designated positions.
• Continue its plan to review other district and school positions
for inclusion in the code as designated positions.
58 59
We conducted this review under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by
Section 8543 et seq. of the California Government Code and according to generally accepted
government auditing standards. We limited our review to those areas specified in the audit
scope section of this report.
Respectfully submitted,
ELAINE M. HOWLE
State Auditor
Date: June 26, 2002
Staff: Joanne Quarles, CPA, Audit Principal
Tyler Covey, CPA, CMA
Tameka Hutcherson
Daniel Jones
Celina Knippling
60 61
APPENDIX A
Selected School Accountability Report
Card Information for the 16 Schools
We Visited
State law requires school districts to make available school
accountability report cards so parents can effectively
compare public schools and thus make informed
decisions on which school to enroll their children. The school
accountability report card must include data such as the results
of student assessments, class size, teacher credentials and
availability, and attendance. Table A.1 on the following page
includes the selected information from school accountability
report cards for the 16 schools in our sample.
60 61
1.A ELBAT
detisiV
eW
sloohcS
61
eht
rof
noitamrofnI
draC
tropeR
ytilibatnuoccA
loohcS
sloohcS detceleS
yratnemelE eunevA
dnalrednoW
yratnemelE
eunevA
rubliW
hgiH roineS
tfaT drawoH
mailliW
hgiH roineS
ordeP naS
elddiM
ereveR luaP
elddiM leboN
drahnreB
derflA
yratnemelE
notgnihsaW
.tM
hgiH roineS
slliH adanarG
hgiH roineS
strA launaM
hgiH
roineS ekcoL
yoreL nialA
yratnemelE
draveluoB
kraP edyH
yratnemelE
eunevA
semloH
hgiH roineS
doowylloH
elddiM revraC
notgnihsaW
egroeG
yratnemelE
suodaorB
.T yrelliH
elddiM
enuhteB
doeLcM yraM
D
C
C
K
D
A
E
A
G
I
G
J
E
H
B
I
tcirtsiD lacoL
DSUAL
noitisopmoC cinhtE/laicaR /naidnI naciremA
00.0
%09.0
%05.0
%07.0
%05.0
%04.0
%01.1
%07.0
%01.0
%03.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
%01.0
00.0
naksalA
%08.5
06.5
02.7
07.1
05.8
04.62
03.9
07.02
01.0
05.0
%02.0
%05.6
%01.2
%00.0
00.0
%01.0
naisA
03.6
04.7
06.31
09.9
07.71
03.9
09.9
05.7
06.02
01.83
01.64
04.12
02.5
06.01
05.01
05.32
cinapsiH toN/kcalB
00.0
03.0
02.2
03.1
08.0
00.3
01.3
03.3
01.0
05.0
00.0
00.0
07.2
00.0
01.0
01.0
onipiliF
01.21
09.01
05.33
08.75
02.52
05.52
03.93
00.52
01.97
04.06
05.35
01.27
06.76
02.98
08.88
01.67
cinapsiH
00.0
02.0
06.0
07.0
03.0
03.0
00.0
05.0
00.0
01.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
03.0
00.0
rednalsI
cfiicaP
07.57
07.47
04.24
08.72
00.74
00.53
03.73
03.24
00.0
01.0
02.0
00.0
04.22
00.0
02.0
01.0
etihW
602
956
540,3
257,2
644,1
941,1
453
713,3
465,3
234,2
940,1
594
376,2
783,2
810,1
971,2
tnemllornE
latoT
352
397
452,3
892,3
841,2
721,2
204
818,3
775,3
695,2
741,1
646
768,2
335,2
301,1
202,3
yticapac
loohcS
02
04
521
021
97
77
71
821
701
111
14
33
48
47
74
38
smoorssalc fo
rebmuN
ecnadnetta yliad
egarevA
63
88
–
–
–
–
53
–
–
–
461
26
–
–
241
–
netragredniK
201
792
–
–
–
–
551
–
–
–
394
342
–
–
784
–
3–1
sedarG
55
702
–
–
334
763
831
–
–
–
582
141
–
596
192
716
6–4
sedarG
–
–
–
–
928
886
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
853,1
–
781,1
8–7
sedarG
–
–
185,2
012,2
–
–
–
579,2
117,2
595,1
–
–
780,2
–
–
–
21–9
edarG
–
33
17
011
26
83
6
97
451
821
94
6
88
39
22
99
*dedargnU yliad egareva
,slatoT
391
526
256,2
023,2
423,1
390,1
433
450,3
568,2
327,1
199
254
571,2
641,2
249
309,1
ecnadnetta
ataD
)IPA(
xednI
ecnamrofreP cimedacA
001
001
79
09
99
99
89
99
29
48
89
99
09
89
99
89
detset
tnecreP
109
138
946
046
747
667
808
937
514
583
414
604
774
783
124
704
erocs
IPA
01
9
6
6
8
8
9
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
knar ediwetatS
01
9
6
9
6
8
9
9
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
†knar ’sloohcs
ralimiS
noitamrofnI
laitnederC
rehcaeT
fo rebmun
latoT
02
43
221
041
18
08
81
931
851
111
35
52
531
69
95
301
‡srehcaet
71
82
48
611
96
36
21
221
321
07
23
41
201
06
14
85
laitnederc
cisaB
3
5
53
51
41
81
4
22
83
15
42
11
83
34
02
04
laitnederc ycnegremE
0
2
1
–
1
–
–
–
–
3
–
–
1
1
0
1
sreviaw htiw srehcaeT htiw srehcaeT
1
–
8
8
2
1
2
01
11
3
2
2
71
31
9
7
noitacfiitrec laugnilib
.tropeR
esaB
xednI
ecnamrofreP
cimedacA
1002
,noitacudE
fo
tnemtrapeD
ainrofilaC
;sdraC
tropeR
ytilibatnuoccA
loohcS
10–0002
raey
lacsfi
,tcirtsiD
loohcS
defiinU selegnA soL
:secruoS
.sessalc
yad
noitacude
laiceps
ni
era
taht
stneduts
edulcni
yam
hcihw
,margorp
dedargnu
na
ni
si
ohw
stluda
gnidulcxe
tneduts
yna stneserper dedargnU
*
.scitsiretcarahc
cihpargomed
ralimis
htiw
sloohcs
rehto
001
htiw
loohcs hcae fo nosirapmoC
†
.stnelaviuqe
emit-lluf
stneserper
srehcaet fo rebmun
latoT
‡
62 63
APPENDIX B
Status of Prior Recommendations
to Improve Textbook Purchases
and Inventory
In 1998, the California Community Foundation formed
the Schoolbook Partners Action Committee (committee).
The committee’s report, issued in August 1998, contained
numerous findings and recommendations for the Los Angeles
Unified School District. As shown in Table B.1 on the following
page, the committee highlighted the issues that most significantly
affect the textbook shortage, including inventory control and
accountability.
62 63
TABLE B.1
Los Angeles Unified School District Continues to Work on
Implementing Recommendations From the August 1998
California Community Foundation Report, No Bang For Our Books
Recommendation Progress Status Plan
Los Angeles Unified School District LAUSD initiated an Online Surplus Partially LAUSD continues to survey schools
(LAUSD) should implement a Textbook Exchange via LAUSDnet implemented to track the status of the schools’
districtwide online system for in June 1999. However, LAUSD’s implementation of the electronic
textbook inventory control, schools have not used this textbook inventory system.
accessible at all school sites via an exchange system for nearly two Additionally, LAUSD has prepared
Internet site on the World Wide years. another phase to its plan for an
Web. The Intranet site should use electronic textbook inventory
Beginning August 13, 1999,
automated bar coding, or other system that calls for the systems
the Textbook Management
systems, to continuously account to be linked so that LAUSD can
Section of LAUSD’s Purchasing
for and monitor textbook supplies obtain districtwide reporting
Branch trained staff and installed
from all school sites, cluster offices, capabilities from a centralized
inventory control equipment for
and administrative venues. database. However, this project is
an electronic inventory system.
not fully funded at this time.
However, as discussed on pages
52 through 54 the report, LAUSD’s
implementation of the system has
been unsuccessful.
LAUSD has created a proposal for
a central interface with schools for
the electronic inventory system so
there will be a master database of
textbook information.
LAUSD should use a working LAUSD issued a bulletin to its Partially LAUSD will establish a working
group that includes administrators, schools in July 1996 notifying implemented group with representatives from
teachers, parents, and students schools of LAUSD’s policy on each local district. The members
to implement a system designed accountability. LAUSD’s policy of the group will represent the
to hold schools, families, and directs schools to establish recommended participants
students accountable for the accountability systems. As through the local district offices.
responsible use and return of discussed in Chapter 2 of our
books and instructional materials. report, LAUSD further delineated
the schools’ authority to withhold
grades, diplomas, or transcripts
for students with lost or damaged
textbooks. LAUSD has yet to
form a working group, however,
to examine student textbook
accountability issues.
64 65
Recommendation Progress Status Plan
The Los Angeles City Board of Since 1996, LAUSD has authorized Not LAUSD will develop inventory
Education (city board) should schools to sell obsolete textbooks implemented guidelines that require schools
further promote and encourage in Bulletin No. 64 (Rev.), Donation to implement the electronic
the sale, by its schools, of surplus and Sale of Obsolete Textbooks. inventory system. Movement has
textbooks on the open market, LAUSD has done little in terms taken place in the implementation
once it is determined that those of “promoting” surplus textbook of a central collection of textbook
books are not being sought by sales, believing that the textbook inventory data and, with
other schools in LAUSD. inventory system will eventually appropriate funding allocations, a
allow for better identification of review system will be put in place
surplus holdings. However, LAUSD to assist local districts in working
has not ensured that its schools are with schools to promote the
fully using the system. Therefore, exchange or sale of surplus texts.
the system’s use as a tool to better
identify surplus textbooks
is limited.
LAUSD should issue a new, revised, During the district reorganization Implemented LAUSD has fully implemented this
and specific position description in July 2000, LAUSD created recommendation.
for cluster administrators, the position of local district
according them substantial superintendent. The job
responsibilities as instructional description for this position
leaders. Individuals selected to included providing leadership
serve as cluster administrators and direction for the planning,
should have impeccable evaluation, improvement,
credentials in, and commitment and implementation of the
to, instructional excellence. instructional program in all schools
within the local district.
Cluster-level book warehousing LAUSD declined to pursue this Not LAUSD declined to implement this
facilities should be established recommendation. LAUSD’s implemented recommendation.
to strike a balance between the practice is to have schools make
economies of scale implicit in purchases for textbooks directly
operation of a centralized book with the Integrated Financial
purchasing and warehousing System and school purchase
operation and necessary local orders. LAUSD eliminated the
autonomy in decisions about central warehouse in 1990, in part
instructional philosophy and due to concerns with timeliness
approach. of deliveries. LAUSD questions
the need for funding, staff, and
land acquisition for 27 book
warehouses.
At each high school and middle LAUSD created 27 positions Partially LAUSD staff recommended that
school in each cluster, a full for instructional technology implemented LAUSD fund full-time textbook
time school site textbook and applications facilitators during the clerks for secondary and large
instructional materials coordinator, July 2000 district reorganization. elementary schools; however,
who is also an expert on LAUSD staff recommended to the because of budget cuts, LAUSD
instructional technology, should city board that LAUSD fund full- has not yet implemented staff
be employed. Each elementary time textbook clerks for secondary recommendations. In the future,
school should have the services of and large elementary schools. LAUSD staff plan to continue to
a full-time librarian whose duties present this recommendation to
specifically include responsibility the city board.
for textbook supplies and
instructional technology.
continued on next page
64 65
Recommendation Progress Status Plan
To avoid practical problems of LAUSD believes it is moving in this Partially LAUSD plans to continue to move
textbook supply posed by the direction. In its last two adoptions, implemented toward a centralized ordering
insistence of individual faculty LAUSD used a modified centralized approach in the future.
members on using books not purchasing approach. Local
selected by any of their colleagues, districts coordinated purchases
faculties should be required to for their schools with the help of
agree, at the cluster level, on a the central district. LAUSD staff
reasonable list of book options for recommended to the city board
teachers in every subject that schools standardize book
and grade. selections based on department or
grade-level needs. The city board
has moved closer to this in recent
years by limiting the choices
available for the reading/language
arts and mathematic adoptions.
LAUSD should hire an instructional LAUSD has not pursued this Not LAUSD continues to survey schools
materials coordinator at each recommendation, believing that implemented to track the status of the schools’
cluster level to facilitate the the electronic textbook inventory implementation of the electronic
tracking of inventory and issues system will be able to track this textbook inventory system.
pertinent to dissemination of information. However, as discussed Additionally, LAUSD has prepared
instructional materials of all types, on pages 52 through 54 of our another phase to its plan for an
including new media. report, the implementation of the electronic textbook inventory
electronic textbook inventory has system that calls for the systems
been unsuccessful. to be linked so that LAUSD can
obtain districtwide reporting
capabilities from a centralized
database. However, this project is
not fully funded at this time.
The LAUSD superintendent should LAUSD convenes focus groups Not LAUSD believes that this is a good
convene a panel comprising the when it is trying to formulate implemented idea but at present does not plan
principals of high schools and policies. However, LAUSD has not on pursuing this recommendation.
middle schools that reported pursued forming a “best practices”
adequate book supplies during group to try to learn from
the 1997–98 school year. This successful schools.
panel should be charged with
developing, by no later than
January 1, 1999, a zero-based
approach for ensuring adequate
book supplies that draws on their
own experiences and successful
networking methods.
LAUSD and the city board LAUSD staff presented an Implemented LAUSD has fully implemented this
should increase their efforts to instructional technology plan to recommendation.
involve teachers, administrators, the city board. The city board
students, and experts in the adopted this plan on May 9, 2000.
field in developing a new and The plan presented a blueprint for
effective plan to implement new instructional technology in LAUSD
instructional technologies. for five years, fiscal years 2000–01
through 2004–05.
66 67
Recommendation Progress Status Plan
LAUSD should substantially LAUSD awarded challenge grants Implemented LAUSD has fully implemented this
expand inservice training at the elementary and middle recommendation.
opportunities available to school levels. Additionally, its
its teachers on instructional Information Technology Division
technology issues. LAUSD should provides extensive professional
make these training opportunities development. Further, LAUSD
available at the school site or at has expanded inservice training
special conferences for which provided by its Technology
teachers are granted release time Centers, created online courses,
to facilitate their attendance. and sponsored Instructional
Technology Fairs.
LAUSD should thoroughly LAUSD has begun surveying Implemented LAUSD has fully implemented this
investigate the role of textbook schools to determine the types recommendation.
publishing companies in and number of software titles
determining the pace and nature in the classrooms. Additionally,
of the introduction of instructional a list of software titles aligned
technology. to state standards that LAUSD
has approved for its schools
to use is available. The State
requires publishers of state-
adopted materials to provide
electronic support. Finally, more
than 250 elementary schools in
Kindergarten through grade 1
in LAUSD are currently using the
electronic Waterford Early Reading
Program.
LAUSD should adopt what may be The city board adopted LAUSD’s Partially LAUSD is continuing to implement
called the “Rule of Five”: instructional technology plan on implemented its instructional technology plan, as
May 9, 2000. Some of the rules well as the E-Rate, Proposition BB,
1. The maximum computer to
proposed by the report are being and challenge grants.
pupil ratio is 5 to 1 for
implemented because of the plan,
ideal learning.
in addition to the E-Rate match,
2. Teachers need 5 years to fully Proposition BB, and challenge grant
integrate technology into implementations. Furthermore,
their curriculum. LAUSD has notified schools that they
should be moving to a student-to-
3. Five percent of any educational computer ratio of 6 to 1. LAUSD
budget should go to technology. believes that schools either meet that
target, or are moving close to it.
4. Computers have a 5-year
life span.
5. In 5 years, all classes in the
district will be wired.
LAUSD should reintroduce lockers LAUSD is still considering the Partially The city board has passed a
on middle and high school viability of this recommendation. implemented resolution requiring the inclusion
campuses to ease the burdens LAUSD believes that it is primarily of lockers in newly designed
for students of carrying books to, a school decision rather than a middle and senior high schools
from, and around school. district one. However, in new and the re-institution of lockers at
schools, LAUSD is incorporating existing schools.
a lockers option into the overall
planning of the school.
continued on next page
66 67
Recommendation Progress Status Plan
LAUSD should identify and LAUSD has not fully complied with Partially LAUSD will research and distribute
implement ways to encourage this recommendation. LAUSD’s implemented information from schools that have
students to value books. policy is to have schools notify successfully implemented textbook
parents or guardians that it will return and loss policies. LAUSD
hold them responsible for books will assist local districts in working
lost by their children. However, with their local school sites to
as discussed on pages 55 and implement policies that safeguard
56 of our report, LAUSD does textbook collections.
not monitor schools to ensure
compliance with this policy.
LAUSD should make the greater LAUSD’s instructional technology Partially LAUSD plans to continue to
integration of the Internet and plan, adopted in May 2000, is implemented implement and monitor its
other new instructional media creating more access in classrooms instructional technology plan to
into current curricula its top and schools. Additionally, LAUSD’s comply with this recommendation.
instructional materials priority. Information Technology Division
is revising district courses of study
descriptions to include the use
of technology.
LAUSD should continue LAUSD completed all Implemented LAUSD has fully implemented this
the close monitoring of the recommendations related to recommendation.
effects of Proposition 227 but Proposition 227.
begin immediately to produce
contingency plans—including
identification of necessary
financial resources—in the event
LAUSD is compelled to replace
non-English-language textbooks
and instructional materials with
English-only versions.
68 69
APPENDIX C
Comparison of Fiscal Year 1999–2000
Average Per Student Spending
for Textbooks and Other
Instructional Materials
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee asked the Bureau
of State Audits to compare Los Angeles Unified School
District’s average amount spent per student during the past
two years for textbooks and other instructional materials to the
amount spent by a representative sampling of school districts
and the statewide average for all school districts. Figure C.1,
on the following page, presents our comparison for fiscal year
1999–2000. The results of our comparison for fiscal year 2000–01
are shown on page 44.
68 69
FIGURE C.1
Los Angeles Unified School District Spent Less on a Per-Student Basis Than
Did Most Other Large Districts in the State in Fiscal Year 1999–2000
��������������������������
������� ���������������������������
�����
����������
����������
�����������
�������
������
��������
���������
�������������
����������������
�� ��� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
������������
Sources: District information submitted in response to state auditor survey, May 2002. October 1999 California Basic Education
System enrollment data.
Note: Data for Los Angeles Unified School District includes actual expenditures and does not include accruals. Similarly, we
requested the other districts to report only their expenditures. The total amount spent for all grades by Oakland, San Bernardino,
and San Juan includes additional amounts spent by the school district on behalf of schools, but not identified as either elementary
or secondary.
Statewide average is reported in total for all grades because the California Department of Education does not track expenditures
by school type or grade.
���������������
�����
�����
������
������
������
������
������
������
������
������
������
������
������
�����
������
������
������
������
������
������
������
������
������
������
������
������
������
������
70 71
Agency’s comments provided as text only.
Los Angeles Unified School District
Administrative Offices
450 North Grand Avenue, Room A-223
Los Angeles, California 90012
June 17, 2002
Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor*
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Howle,
Enclosed please find LAUSD’s response to your draft audit report entitled “The Los Angeles Uni-
fied School District: Outdated, Scarce Textbooks at Some Schools Appear to Have a Lesser Effect
on Academic Performance Than Other Factors, but the District Should Improve Its Management of
Textbook Purchasing and Inventory”.
The District is pleased to find that your audit revealed that there is no significant disparity between
high performing and low performing schools in regards to the quality and quantity of textbooks and
instructional materials. Also, we are most pleased that our efforts in the area of Instructional Tech-
nology did not go unnoticed. Your findings reflect the positive efforts of our District to provide access
and equity in all educational programs.
1
While LAUSD appreciates the depth that your audit team went to develop the content for this report,
we think the report is presented in a negative tone. In instances where there was an opportunity
to provide a positive statement, only the negative was presented. For example, the title of the
report begins with “The Los Angeles Unified School District: Outdated, Scarce Textbooks at Some
Schools………..” when in the body of the report data presented shows clearly 87% of the 884 class-
rooms visited by your team use up-to-date texts in the instructional program. In another example
relating to the scarcity of textbooks, the body of the report shows clearly 97% of the 884 classes
and the 21,388 students reviewed had textbooks available. The negative reporting manner used
here does not help the public understand that significant changes are being made in public educa-
tion and that student academic performance is improving in this District.
I fully understand the task you have in conducting the audits your department is charged to do. I
also understand the need for continuous review and improvement. Your report has pointed out rec-
ommendations for improvement that the District will undertake.
* California State Auditor’s comments begin on page 83.
70 71
The attached responses have been given serious thought and provide a pathway to improvement
1
in the area of textbooks and instructional materials. I am hopeful that you will adjust some of your
comments to reflect the more positive conditions and improvements your audit team encountered. I
appreciate the time that your staff will take in considering our responses and look forward to receiv-
ing the final copy of your report later this month.
Sincerely,
(Signed by: Roy Romer)
Roy Romer,
Superintendent
72 73
Los Angeles Unified School District
RESPONSE TO DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS TO STATE BUREAU OF AUDITS
“THE LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: OUTDATED, SCARCE TEXTBOOKS AT
SOME SCHOOLS APPEAR TO HAVE A LESSER EFFECT ON ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
THAN OTHER FACTORS, BUT THE DISTRICT SHOULD IMPROVE ITS MAMNAGMENT OF
TEXTBOOK PURCHASING AND INVENTORY”
*************************************************************************************
Introduction
Los Angeles Unified School District is pleased to receive the draft findings of this audit for review.
LAUSD has taken aggressive actions to provide high quality educational programs to the children
and adults of our community. Significant restructuring of the lines of authority within the District
through the eleven Local District Superintendents has brought local school accountability to a real-
ity. At all staff levels, the focus on the development of literacy skills is apparent. As a result, positive
and energetic change is taking place. The findings in this audit confirm that, while LAUSD has to
continue to improve, progress is being made. The Audit Team from the State Bureau of Audits is to
be commended for the thorough and thoughtful analysis done on the information that was collected
during their visits.
LAUSD has taken a leadership role in the selection of textbook materials to be used in the core
subject areas. Expert teachers from the eleven Local Districts and administrators further evaluate
selections from the state adoption list to assure that the materials meet the needs of the Los Ange-
les student population. A limited selection of titles are offered for selection at the Local District level
with Local Districts selecting one title for implementation in their schools. This effort has led to a
standardization of reading and mathematics instruction in addition to providing for a tailored district-
wide staff development program directly related to the textbook materials being used in classrooms.
LAUSD points out the following items as indications of the strategic approach that it has taken
toward the overall improvement of academic achievement for all the students in the many communi-
ties served by the LAUSD:
• The District has implemented State adopted, standards-based reading material in K – 5 and
mathematics programs with standards-based, State adopted material in K – Algebra, through-
out the District.
• The District has developed a comprehensive Secondary Literacy Plan that will be imple-
mented effective July 1, 2002 to ensure instructional improvement and improved academic
achievement in the District’s secondary schools.
• The Los Angeles Unified School District Reading Plan and Comprehensive Mathematics
Plan have as their goal to provide all students with access to core, state-adopted instructional
materials in reading and mathematics. The District’s focus for the past three years has been
on improving instruction in these two core curricular areas.
72 73
• The District Reading Plan and Comprehensive Mathematics Plan require that all students
have access to reading and mathematics textbooks.
• The District Reading Plan requires all low-performing elementary schools in the District to
adopt research-based reading programs.
• First grade Stanford 9 assessment data reflect the progress that the District is beginning to
see through these focused efforts:
• With the recent State adoption of new reading and language arts materials, almost all schools
in LAUSD will be using the Open Court Reading program.
• 87% of high and low performing schools use current texts.
• The recently adopted Los Angeles Unified School District Secondary Literacy Plan includes
funding and resources to purchase new core reading language arts materials.
• The District has purchased and will implement in 2002-03, for students in grades 6 – 9 who
are identified as at risk, the State adopted Language! program.
• District information indicates that the only shortage of texts or use of outdated texts at the
elementary school level is in the area of history/social science and science. The District has
focused its instructional improvement effort over the course of the past three years on improv-
ing reading and mathematics teaching and learning. Consistent with the frameworks, the
State Board of Education, adopted instructional materials for elementary reading and lan-
guage that embed history/social science and science standards in the reading program.
• The District uses a thematic approach that incorporates history/social science and science
concepts with the content of reading instruction.
• Elementary schools have all been provided with LAUSD developed documents that provide a
correlation of the State content standards in history/social science and science with the units
in the Open Court Reading program.
74 75
• LAUSD is recognized in the audit as having made significant progress in the implementation of
technology in the classrooms of the District.
• Within the past three years, low performing schools have increased access to technology at a
rate that now slightly surpasses that of high performing schools.
******************************************************************************
Chapter 1
“Textbook Quality and Quantity Appear to Affect Student Performance Less Than Other Factors”
Recommendation: “ Enforce its existing policy requiring that each student have a textbook in the
core subjects for use in the classroom and at home.”
Response:
LAUSD has been proactive in the dissemination of this policy and believes that administrators’ at all
educational levels know the policy. By targeting textbook purchases specific attention has been paid
to this issue. Corrective actions will be taken to assure that as future subject area adoptions are
made, District schools will provide a text for each student in the core subject areas to use in class
and at home. Continuous reminders are provided in all memorandums issued regarding textbook
purchases.
Local District Superintendents are charged with the responsibility of oversight of the instructional
program. Local schools must certify to the Local District Superintendent that they have provided
a textbook in each core subject to each student for in class and home use. Local District Super-
intendents will hold principals accountable for this certification and compliance with the District’s
textbook policies. Local District Directors of Instruction and reading/math coach coordinators will be
tasked to follow up at the local school sites to ensure that textbooks are available to teachers and
students. Accountability standards will be in place by September 30, 2002.
LAUSD agrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation: “Require schools to certify annually that each student has, or will have prior
to the end of that fiscal year, sufficient textbooks or instructional materials, or both, in each subject
area that are consistent with the content and cycles of the curriculum framework adopted by the
state board.”
74 75
Response:
LAUSD has been consistent in certifying as appropriate. However, LAUSD’s interpretation has been
that that the certification is to be consistent with the state adoption cycles related to the frameworks.
The Audit team has pointed out that their interpretation and that of the State Department of Educa-
tion is that each year the local education agency must certify in all subject areas. To the knowledge
of LAUSD staff, the State Department of Education has never provided guidelines or samples of
resolutions to school districts stating or clarifying this interpretation of the certification requirement.
The Director of the Curriculum Instruction and Framework Resources Unit of the State Depart-
ment of Education confirmed that the state has not provided guidance in the implementation of this
2
Education Code provision. Additionally, supplemental state funding for textbooks (AB 2519 Schiff-
Bustamonte) is limited to English/Language Arts, mathematics, science, and history/social science.
Therefore, expenditures in any other area would be illegal. Required funding in other areas would
be a state mandate and should be funded as such.
Los Angeles Unified School District has made significant progress in the supply of textbooks and
instructional materials for teachers and students. Mathematics K-Algebra 1, English/Reading/Lan-
guage Arts, Science (at the middle school level), ESL, and Secondary Reading/Language Arts
have been fully funded and have been or will be certified as such. However, shortages do exist in
other subject areas. The District has planned for this to be remedied by the targeting of textbook
purchases over the next three-year period. Additionally, a process has been put into place for teach-
ers to directly report textbook shortages to their principal and/or Local District administrative office.
All Local District Offices have been resourced to secure the needed textbooks. Teacher reported
shortages are mitigated within a specific time period. This process was negotiated with the teach-
er’s collective bargaining unit.
LAUSD will restructure its certification process as recommended during the 2002-2003 school year.
LAUSD agrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation: “Consider adopting a student to computer ratio of five to one.”
Response:
LAUSD’s Board of Education adopted Instructional Technology Plan lays out the foundation for
computer access in every classroom. The current six to one ratio that is in place has proven to
meet the need in schools. Additional computers require additional infrastructure enhancements in
room size, electrical supply, and maintenance. It is LAUSD’s intent to meet the six to one ratios in
all schools before June 30, 2003. Currently, at the senior high school level a 4.2:1 computer ratio
exists. It is the belief of LAUSD that the six to one ratios meet any and all compliance require-
ments. To increase the ratio by one computer would require an additional 25,000 computers cost-
ing approximately $37.5 million. Resources are not available for the purchase or support of
76 77
the additional 25,000 computers recommended. Additionally, LAUSD staff is unaware of any
empirical evidence that supports the premise that a five to one student to computer ratio is
educationally more significant than a six to one student to computer ratio.
LAUSD does not plan to modify its target goal of a six to one ratio of students to computers.
LAUSD does not agree with this recommendation.
Recommendation: “To increase the number of teachers who possess a basic credential in its low
performing schools, LAUSD should continue with its current recruitment and retention efforts and
expand these efforts to include all financial incentives offered by the state or federal government.
Further, LAUSD should review the recommendations of its evaluator and implement those that will
further increase its ability to recruit and retain teachers in its low performing schools.”
Response:
LAUSD is actively working to implement this recommendation. An immediate action plan for new
teacher recruitment and retention has been initiated. For example, the Human Resources Division
is in the process of implementing a “Fast Track” process and a “Priority Staffing Pilot” that will give
priority to credentialed teachers for low performing schools. The development of a long-term plan is
underway and will be presented in July of 2002 for the Board of Education’s consideration.
The Human resources Division has written a grant to expand its pre-intern program, which will
increase the numbers of teachers obtaining subject matter competency, and therefore be eligible
for intern and university credential programs. Staff will continue to seek grants to attract and retain
credentialed teachers in low performing schools.
LAUSD agrees with this recommendation.
******************************************************************************
Chapter 2
“Facing Possible Reductions in Textbook Funding, the Los Angeles Unified School District Needs
Stronger Controls Over Textbook Purchasing and Inventory”
Recommendation: “Provide training to school accounting staff to ensure that they are aware of the
proper accounting for textbook funds.”
76 77
Response:
LAUSD Budget Services and Financial Planning Division in cooperation with Textbook Services and
Local District Business Managers will plan and execute training to assure that all staff is aware of
the proper accounting for textbook funds. Training will take place by September 30, 2002.
LAUSD agrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation: “Conduct periodic monitoring of the use of state restricted textbook and instruc-
tional materials funds to ensure the uses are appropriate.”
Response:
LAUSD, with limited staffing, currently tests a small sample of Purchase Orders and when inappro-
priate expenditures are found notifications are sent to the Local District Superintendent for correc-
tion. Charges for inappropriate materials are moved to allowable sources. LAUSD will broaden the
test to include a larger number of schools on a rotating basis if staffing resources can be secured.
The implementation of the eleven Local District structure in LAUSD has provided direct oversight in
the purchasing of textbooks and other instructional materials. Local District Business Managers will
be charged with the responsibility of monitoring the use of state restricted textbook funds to ensure
appropriate use. Training will be provided for each Local District and a periodic review schedule will
be established. Local District accountabilities will also be established for the appropriate expendi-
ture of state textbook funding.
Training will take place by September 30, 2002 and quarterly reviews will begin by October 1, 2002.
An accountability plan will be in place by October 1, 2002.
LAUSD agrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation: “Ensure that school and local district staff involved in purchasing textbooks and
other instructional materials are aware of the most-favored-nations clause and have access to cur-
rent publisher price and gratis item listings when placing orders.”
Response:
3
LAUSD has published price list and order forms that reflect gratis materials. All future correspon-
dence on the subject of textbook ordering will contain language reflective of the most-favored-
nations clause. Additionally, LAUSD Textbook Services will conduct training to inform all Local Dis-
trict staff of the most-favored-nations clause. School site principals will be responsible for certifying
to the Local District Superintendent that their school has ordered and received the free materials as
defined on the “Price Lists and Order Forms” produced by LAUSD. Training and certification will be
completed by January 15, 2003.
78 79
LAUSD agrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation: “Modify its accounting system to include ISBN numbers.”
Response:
Changing LAUSD’s existing accounting system to include ISBNs would be both complicated and
costly. Additionally, LAUSD staff believes that the inclusion of the ISBN number in the ordering
system will significantly slow down the ordering process and create an additional workload on the
local school and Local District Offices. Currently the procedure of attaching the order form to the
Purchase Order facilitates the ordering process. The District is looking at replacement modules for
procurement and payment systems. LAUSD will consider adding this capability to new financial
systems as they are evaluated.
LAUSD disagrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation: “Collect damages from publishers identified in our report for non-compliance
with the most-favored-nations clause.”
Response:
LAUSD has begun the process with the identified publishers to recoup shortages and to collect
damages from the identified vendors. The Office of General Counsel is assisting in the effort. Dis-
trict staff has made initial contacts and the publishers have been responsive. This process will be
implemented in the future with all publishers that do not adhere to the most-favored-nations clause.
LAUSD agrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation: “Conduct periodic monitoring of the prices and the gratis items publishers offer
schools for similar purchases and pursue cost recovery for any exceptions found.”
Response:
LAUSD is not staffed to collect information from other school districts regarding the cost of text-
4
books and the provision of free materials. LAUSD believes that this is a state function. The State
Department of Education should publish this information so that local education agencies can follow
up at the local school level and secure damages from those publishers who do not comply with the
most-favored-nations clause within their district.
78 79
LAUSD will implement to the extent that information is available.
LAUSD does not agree with this recommendation.
Recommendation: “Work with the department to identify and remove any other obstacles that
prevent it from monitoring the most-favored-nations clause.”
Response:
LAUSD will work with the department to suggest policies that should be implemented statewide.
LAUSD agrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation: “To improve its textbook purchasing process and ensure equitable publisher
treatment, LAUSD should consider centralizing its textbook purchasing function at LAUSD or the
local district.”
Response:
LAUSD has begun the process of the eleven Local Districts purchasing core subject area textbooks.
The process that has been developed has been successful. Local District Offices have taken an
active oversight role in the purchasing process by meeting with each school to determine purchas-
ing plans, funding requirements, and placing of orders. Greater emphasis will be placed on the
receipt of free materials under the most-favored-nations clause in the future.
LAUSD will expand this effort within the constraints of budget and staffing requirements. Full imple-
mentation will be completed by June 30, 2003.
LAUSD agrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation: “To improve its textbook inventory system and to comply with the state law
requiring it to publish lists of texts used in its schools, LAUSD should proceed with its plans to
develop a centralized textbook inventory system. The system should include all texts and other
instructional materials at each school and include ongoing standardized training and both imple-
mentation and technical support.”
80 81
Response:
LAUSD has proceeded to move forward with the central collection of textbook information from the
local school site. Efforts will be expanded to insure schools, which currently do not use the system,
5
implement it as soon as possible. A web-based central collection system has been put into place
and schools are now beginning to upload textbook information. Additionally, the new student infor-
mation systems under consideration for implementation have textbook inventory modules available.
Within the next five years, the textbook inventory functions will become part of the enterprise-wide
student information system.
Staffing and operating budget constraints may limit the speed and the extent to which training and
support can be provided.
LAUSD agrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation: “Make sure that schools and local district staff are aware of and complying
with its student accountability policy for lost or damaged textbooks, including the maintenance of
an accounting or inventory system that clearly identifies the student and the type of school property
issued to the student.”
Response:
LAUSD will work with Local Districts and schools to insure the implementation of this policy. LAUSD
will suggest to the State language to be considered for legislation that will strengthen policy related
to the repayment to schools for lost or damaged textbooks and instructional materials. Addition-
ally, Local District Directors of Instruction will be tasked with the accountability for schools to track
losses, hold students accountable for losses, and the implementation of the textbook inventory
system that currently exists.
LAUSD agrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation: “To strengthen its conflict-of-interest and disclosure code, the LAUSD should
do the following:
• Revise the code to include principals and textbook committee members in its list of
designated positions.
• Continue its plan to review other district and school positions for inclusion in the code
as designated positions.”
80 81
Response:
LAUSD’s conflict-of-interest and disclosure code is under revision at this time. This recommendation
will be included in the development of the revised code.
LAUSD agrees with this recommendation.
82 83
COMMENTS
California State Auditor’s Comments
on the Response From the Los Angeles
Unified School District
To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting
on the Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD)
response to our audit report. The numbers below
correspond to the numbers we placed in the margins of
LAUSD’s response.
1
LAUSD’s assertion that our reporting manner is negative is
unfounded. We believe our report accurately describes the data
presented in the tables. Moreover, we are concerned that LAUSD
is pleased we are reporting on pages 21, 23, and 25, that less than
100 percent of its classrooms have up-to-date or sufficient texts
since its policy requires that every student must have a textbook
in each core subject for use in class and at home. Finally, although
LAUSD asserts that significant changes are being made and that
student academic performance is improving, the data we present
in Table 1 on page 12 shows that at least 80 percent of its schools
were ranked in deciles 1 through 5 on the Academic Performance
Index in both fiscal years 1999–2000 and 2000–01—indicating
the need for significant further improvement.
2
LAUSD is correct in stating that it must use the Schiff-Bustamante
Standards-Based Instructional Materials Program funds to purchase
instructional materials in the core subjects of language arts,
mathematics, science, and history/social science that are aligned
to state-adopted content standards and that these funds are
supplemental. However, the Pupil Textbook and Instructional
Materials Incentive Program Act requires the certification we
discuss on page 26. The act clearly states that if there are insufficient
textbooks or instructional materials, or both, governing boards
are to take any action, except an action that would require
reimbursement by the Commission on State Mandates, to ensure
that each student has sufficient textbooks or instructional materials,
or both, within a two-year period from the date of determination.
Table 2 on page 13 shows that there are numerous funding sources
available to LAUSD to ensure that students have sufficient
textbooks and other instructional materials.
82 83
3
Although LAUSD is correct that it has published price lists and
order forms that reflect gratis materials, it has not consistently
done so. As we point out on page 50, in February 2001, LAUSD
provided its middle and high schools with a price list and order
form that included gratis items available from publishers for
newly adopted and approved instructional materials for certain
math, science, and social science classes. However, in June 2001,
LAUSD published a list of authorized instructional materials for
its middle and high schools that does not include prices or indi-
cate whether the items are free.
4
It appears that LAUSD misunderstands our point. To clarify, we
have modified our recommendation on page 59 to make it clear
that we are recommending that LAUSD monitor the gratis items
publishers offer its schools.
5
LAUSD’s assertion that a web-based central collection system
has been put in place and schools are now beginning to upload
textbook information requires clarification. Specifically, according
to the assistant superintendent of the Instructional Technology
Division, as of June 19, 2002, only 28 schools have uploaded
textbook information, with the first school doing so on April 17,
2002. LAUSD plans to use this system temporarily until it imple-
ments a new student information system.
84 85
Agency’s comments provided as text only.
California Department of Education
721 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814
June 13, 2002
Elaine M. Howle*
State Auditor
555 Capital Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814 Audit No. 2001-124
Dear Ms. Howle,
This is the California Department of Education’s (CDE) response to your draft audit report entitled
“The Los Angeles Unified School District: Outdated, Scarce Textbooks at Some Schools Appear
to Have a Lesser Effect on Academic Performance Than Other Factors, but the District Should
Improve Its Management of Texbook Purchasing and Inventory.”
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft audit report, and for addressing our con-
cerns regarding the clarification of the report. However, we want to reiterate the scope of statutory
responsibilities and duties that CDE has vis a via the adoption of instructional materials for Kinder-
garten through grade 8, and the development of curriculum frameworks for Kindergarten through
grade 12. CDE emphasizes that it takes the responsibility for managing the framework and instruc-
tional materials adoptions processes very seriously, and in the past four years has facilitated the
completion of five major standards-aligned adoptions and has updated five Kindergarten through
grade 12 frameworks.
Our response to the report recommendations is enclosed. However, we could not provide detailed
corrective actions to the recommendations due to the fact that the report contained redactions,
and as a result, we could not identify the specific issues or findings, or the causes of the issues or
findings. We will be able to provide more information in the status follow-up reports, after the entire
report is reviewed. In addition, the report recommendations are based on implementing changes
1
for Kindergarten through grade 12, while CDE only has statutory authorization for Kindergarten
through grade 8. This is also reflected in our corrective actions.
Enclosed is the corrective action plan to implement each of your audit recommendations. If you
have any questions about the corrective actions taken by CDE or the information in our response,
please contact Glenn Ostapeck, at (916) 322-2288.
Sincerely,
(Signed by: Scott Hill)
SCOTT HILL
Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction
Enclosure
* California State Auditor’s comment appears on page 89.
84 85
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ACTIONS TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
ON THE BUREAU OF STATE AUDITS REPORT NUMBER 2001-124
The Los Angeles Unified School District: Outdated, Scarce Textbooks at Some
Schools Appear to Have a Lesser Effect on Academic Performance than Other
Factors, but the District Should Improve Its Management of Textbook Purchasing and
Inventory
Recommendation 1 - Modify its regulations to require publishers and manufacturers to report, at a
minimum, all offers of free instructional materials for Kindergarten through grade 12, within 30 work-
ing days of the effective date of the offer. Further, it should maintain a comprehensive Web site that
contains this information and require publishers to report to it in a standard electronic format.
California Department of Education’s (CDE) Response:
Publishers of Kindergarten through grade 8 instructional materials already report all offers of free
instructional materials to the state within 30 working days. This is a regulatory requirement con-
tained under Chapter 9 of the California Code of Regulations Title 5 Subchapter 1 - Elementary
Instructional Materials. There are no regulatory requirements guiding grades 9 through 12 adop-
tions as these are conducted by grades 9 through 12 local governing boards. Unless statutes and
1
regulations are changed, CDE does not have the authority to require publishers and manufacturers
to report all gratis offerings for grades 9 through 12.
In addition, publishers listed on the Legal and Social Compliance list for Kindergarten through
grade 8 are not required to provide gratis item information to CDE. Legal and Social Compliance
reviews for grades 9 through 12 are conducted at the local level, not the state level. Over 400,000
titles are maintained by CDE of legally compliant Kindergarten through grade 8 instructional materi-
als. Most of these titles are considered supplemental and are not reviewed for alignment to state
content standards. Only the comprehensive Kindergarten through grade 8 basic programs are
reviewed. Kindergarten through grade 8 basic programs are defined as a program meeting a full
year course of study.
All districts receive copies of the State Board adoption lists, the State Board adoption reports,
the formal state pricelists and order forms, gratis information as it pertains to the teacher/student
editions and resource packages, and information on any new editions or revisions to editions. In
addition, CDE sends two comprehensive annual information updates to all local education agencies
which contains a reminder regarding the roles and responsibilities of publishers and local education
agencies. This includes the right of local education agencies to assess and collect three times the
total value of the instructional materials and services that the governing board is entitled to receive
free of charge under subdivision (a) of Education Code section 60061 if a publisher is in violation of
this provision.
86 87
Currently, local education agencies can obtain Kindergarten through grade 8 gratis item information
from CDE, or from the purchase list for the teacher editions and resource packages. By law pub-
lishers must disclose all approved gratis items to the purchaser. For Kindergarten through grade 8,
we are currently updating our website to include all gratis lists items and changes to gratis items, for
the four core standards aligned adoptions. We will also be including all gratis items for other sub-
jects in Kindergarten through grade 8 including health, foreign language and visual and performing
arts when those adoptions are complete in 2004 and 2005.
It should be noted that CDE workload in the area of aligning all Kindergarten through grade 8
instructional materials and Kindergarten through grade 12 curriculum frameworks to new state
standards in every core subject has overwhelmed the capacity of the division overseeing this work.
We have completed the five Kindergarten through grade 8 standards-aligned adoptions and the
updates on the Kindergarten through grade 12 frameworks in just four years. We will continue to
improve communications with the school districts on the availability of gratis items. We will evaluate
the feasibility, cost implications to the state, statutory and regulatory implications, and workload and
staffing needs for CDE to pursue a more proactive monitoring of publisher gratis items offered in
California. This evaluation will involve CDE’s legal office, the State Board of Education, local school
boards and districts, and the publishing industry to assess the ability to monitor and recover funds
from non-compliant publishers.
Recommendation 2 - Establish a hotline to receive complaints regarding unfair treatment and
instruct school districts to contact the hotline if they receive textbook prices or free materials that
differ from its Web site.
CDE’s Response:
For Kindergarten through grade 8, CDE currently receives and immediately investigates all com-
plaints received from local education agencies, the public, and publisher competitors. However,
1
the Education Code does not provide CDE with an evaluation responsibility or monitoring role for
grades 9 through 12.
We will evaluate the feasibility, statutory and regulatory implications, cost implications, workload
and staffing needs for CDE to pursue establishing a hotline versus the cost of local education agen-
cies using our regular state phone lines. We will review the entire Bureau of State Audits report
to determine the cost-benefit of spending additional funds to establish a hotline in comparison to
making our normal telephone numbers available to school districts as a complaint telephone line.
86 87
Recommendation 3 - When necessary, pursue cost recovery for any violations of the most-favored
nations clause.
CDE’s Response:
CDE reminds all Kindergarten through grade 12 districts of their legal rights under the California
Education Code twice a year in an informational update sent to all school districts, county offices
of education, charter schools, and the 24 Learning Resource Display Centers in the state. CDE
investigates all complaints of the withholding of gratis items from a district purchase and immedi-
ately notifies the district again of their rights under the law to collect damages independent from the
state. CDE has notified the State Board of Education when necessary, of egregious violations by a
publishing company.
We will post on our website information on how to verify gratis items for Kindergarten through grade
8 adopted programs, and how to file a complaint with CDE if a publisher in not in compliance with
the most favored nations clause. We will evaluate the feasibility, and workload and staffing needs for
CDE to pursue cost recovery for any violations; and pursue this issue with our legal office and the
State Board of Education’s legal counsel.
Recommendation 4 - Work with school districts to identify and remove any other obstacles that
prevent them from effectively monitoring the most-favored-nations clause.
CDE’s Response:
We will develop a strategy and a workgroup this next year to include representatives from local edu-
cation agencies to identify and develop recommendations that ensure local education agencies can
effectively monitor their local sales transactions to ensure that publishers do not violate the most-
favored-nations clause. We will also assess the workload and staffing requirements for CDE to work
with local education agencies on a consistent basis.
88 89
COMMENTS
California State Auditor’s Comment
on the Response From the California
Department of Education
To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on
the California Department of Education’s (department)
response to our audit report. The number below
corresponds to the number we placed in the margin of the
department’s response.
1
We modified our recommendation on page 58 to address the
department’s concern regarding its statutory authority. We
believe the department should modify its regulations or seek
legislation if necessary to require publishers and manufacturers
to report, at a minimum, all offers of free instructional materials
for Kindergarten through grade 12 within 30 working days of
the effective date of the offer.
88 89
cc: Members of the Legislature
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Milton Marks Commission on California State
Government Organization and Economy
Department of Finance
Attorney General
State Controller
State Treasurer
Legislative Analyst
Senate Office of Research
California Research Bureau
Capitol Press
90