Summary

rotiduA etatS ainrofilaC S T I D U A E T A T S F O U A E R U B Department of Education: Its Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program Has Trained Fewer Teachers Than Originally Expected November 2006 2005-133 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 TTY (916) 445-0033 OR This report is also available on the World Wide Web http://www.bsa.ca.gov The California State Auditor is pleased to announce the availability of an on-line subscription service. For information on how to subscribe, please contact the Information Technology Unit at (916) 445-0255, ext. 456, or visit our Web site at www.bsa.ca.gov Alternate format reports available upon request. Permission is granted to reproduce reports. C S A ALIFORNIA TATE UDITOR ELAINEM.HOWLE STEVENM.HENDRICKSON STATEAUDITOR CHIEFDEPUTYSTATEAUDITOR November 30, 2006 2005-133 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 Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program (program) administered by the Department of Education (Education) with the approval of the State Board of Education (board). This program provides incentive grants to local education agencies, primarily school districts, which choose to send their teachers through standards-based instructional training. This report concludes that only a small percentage of teachers have completed the full 120 hours of mathematics and reading standards-based training for their current assignments. School districts we surveyed cited several barriers to increased participation in the program, including teacher apathy toward attending training, concerns about funding, and a lack of training providers in close proximity. Nevertheless, we found that school districts in counties with relatively large or small numbers of eligible teachers appear equally capable of accessing program services. Although not specifically required to do so under the program’s statutes, Education has done little to actively promote the program. We also found that Education has disbursed about $113 million in program funds through fiscal year 2005–06 without ensuring that the compliance audits specified in legislation take place. Finally, we found that Education’s July 2005 report to the Legislature was of limited value because it lacked relevant and accurate data regarding the number of fully trained teachers that are currently using the training in the classroom, and it provides no correlation between teacher training and student achievement. Respectfully submitted, ELAINE M. HOWLE State Auditor BUREAU OF STATE AUDITS 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 445-0255 Fax: (916) 327-0019 www.bsa.ca.gov Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. ConTenTS Summary 1 Introduction 7 Audit Results Only a Small Percentage of Teachers Have Completed the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program for Their Current Assignments 19 School Districts Responding to Our Surveys Cited a Variety of Reasons for Low Participation Rates 22 Education Does Little to Encourage Districts to Participate in the Program and to Monitor Program Compliance 25 Education’s July 2005 Report to the Legislature Lacked Relevant and Accurate Data for Gauging Program Outcomes 27 The Task of Quantifying the Extent of Training Is Hampered by the Various Funding Sources Involved and by Reduced Program-Specific Funding 30 The Board Relied on the SCOE to Advertise and Implement the Program 32 Recommendations 35 Appendix A The Department of Education Has Disbursed About $113 Million Under the Program Through Fiscal Year 2005–06 37 Appendix B Certain School Districts Chose Not to Respond to Our Surveys 49 Appendix C Counties With Relatively Large or Small Numbers of Eligible Teachers Appear Equally Capable of Accessing Program Services 51 Appendix D The Department of Education Can Improve the Data It Collects on Teacher Participation in the Program 55 Responses to the Audit California Department of Education 57 State Board of Education 59 SUMMARY RESULTS IN BRIEF Enacted by the Legislature during fiscal year 2001–02, the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program (program) is a voluntary program that aims to provide standards-based instructional training to 176,000 teachers Audit Highlights . . . statewide. Although the Legislature originally envisioned achieving this goal over a four-year period with annual appropriations of Our review of the Mathematics and Reading Professional $80 million, several statutory changes reduced program funding, Development Program extended the program, and established caps on the number of (program) revealed that: teachers that can be trained annually. Chapter 524, Statutes of 2006,  Only a small percentage of recently extended the program through fiscal year 2011–12. mathematics and reading teachers have completed More than five years after the program’s enactment, our audit the full 120 hours of found that a small percentage of teachers have completed the training for their current assignments. full 120 hours of mathematics and reading standards-based training for their current assignments. Our survey of 100 school  School districts we surveyed districts that participated in the program through fiscal year cited several barriers to increased participation in 2004–05, representing about 46 percent of all eligible teachers the program, including statewide, suggests data exists at school districts to substantiate teacher apathy toward that only 7,230 teachers have completed the program’s training. attending training, Of this amount, roughly 25 percent likely had their training concerns about funding, and a lack of training funded by sources other than the program, such as other providers in close proximity. federal and state grants. Perhaps more surprisingly, school Nevertheless, school districts representing 58 percent of the teachers in our survey districts in counties with reported that they could not readily tell us how many of their relatively large or small numbers of eligible teachers teachers had completed the training from program funding in various geographic or other funding. This indicates that most districts and the regions throughout the State cannot currently identify the teachers who have received State appear equally standards-based training for their current mathematics or capable of accessing program services. reading assignment, regardless of funding source, nor can they identify those who still need the training.  The Department of Education (Education) has done little to actively School officials responding to our surveys of participating promote the program and and nonparticipating school districts cited similar barriers to currently relies on school increased teacher participation in the program. These perceived districts to navigate its Web barriers included teacher apathy toward attending program site to learn about and apply for the program. training, concerns about funding, and a lack of training providers in close proximity. School districts reported reluctance continued on next page . . . on the part of their teachers to attend program training, given its 120-hour duration and its focus on state-adopted textbooks rather than on the state standards themselves. In addition, California State Auditor Report 2005-133 1  Education has not school districts explained that program funding sometimes ensured that program arrives at the school district four to six months after local funds compliance audits are have already covered the cost of training and that the payments conducted in accordance they receive do not cover all training costs. Survey respondents with program statutes. also explained that training providers might not be located  Education’s July 2005 report close enough for travel to be practical, making access to training to the Legislature was more difficult. However, our review of program participation, of limited value because it lacked relevant and summarized in Appendix C of this report, suggests that counties accurate data for gauging with relatively large and small numbers of eligible teachers program outcomes. appear equally capable of accessing program services.  Education’s ability to adequately track The role of the Department of Education (Education) in teacher participation in administering the program essentially has been limited to mathematics and reading forwarding school districts’ annual applications to the State training is complicated by the multiple funding sources Board of Education (board) for approval and to processing involved and by reduced program payments. Although not specifically required to do program-specific funding. so in statute, Education has done little to actively promote the  The State Board of program. Instead, Education has relied on school districts to Education relied on the navigate its Web site describing various grant programs in order Sacramento County to learn about and apply for the program. It appears that a Office of Education to more concerted outreach effort is warranted, given that a small advertise and implement the program. percentage of teachers have completed the training and that several of the school districts we surveyed were unaware of the program’s existence or confused about the eligibility or funding aspects of the program. We also noted that Education did not take the necessary steps to ensure that the program’s compliance requirements were incorporated into the audit guide proposed by the State Controller’s Office and adopted by the Education Audit Appeals Panel. As a result, licensed local auditors who perform compliance audits of school districts are not aware of the requirements, and Education has disbursed about $113 million in program funds through fiscal year 2005–06 without the benefit of a local-level audit. In addition to its limited outreach and monitoring efforts, Education’s report to the Legislature in July 2005 regarding the program’s effectiveness was of limited value. Although the report met the program’s statutory reporting requirements, the reporting requirements themselves are insufficient to assess the program’s success. In particular, Education’s report lacks relevant and accurate data regarding the number of trained teachers that are currently using the training in the classroom, and it provides no correlation between teacher training and student achievement. Education’s method of calculating the number of teachers receiving at least 40 hours of training is overstated because it includes duplicate counts of teachers, such as a teacher completing both the 40- and 2 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 80-hour training components. Education’s report also does not include data on the overall number of eligible teachers, the number of teachers that have completed the full 120 hours of training using program funds, or the number of teachers who may have attended training but whose participation was funded through other state and federal funding sources. Information about these trainings funded by other sources may be of interest to the Legislature when making future funding decisions regarding the program. Moreover, although Education is developing a data system that will enable it to monitor teacher preparation programs, our review of the feasibility study for this project indicated no present plan to include data about the program in the system. Education’s ability to adequately track teacher participation in mathematics and reading standards-based training is complicated by the multiple funding sources involved and by reduced program-specific funding. Although Education has a process to track program payments to school districts, and can thus match program funding with the numbers of teachers participating, such a process does not exist for school districts that use other federal and state funding for the same training. Our survey results suggested that a significant number of districts use other federal and state funding to cover the costs of mathematics and reading standards-based training. Since Education does not ask school districts to report the number of teachers trained using other funding sources, it does not have a complete picture of the number of teachers that have actually completed the mathematics and reading standards-based training. Funding reductions early in the program’s life may have driven school districts to seek other funding sources outside the program. We noted that the $143 million originally appropriated for the program in its first two years was subsequently reduced by about $98 million to fund other state priorities. Program statutes require the board to approve the curricula of training providers, ensuring such curricula are aligned with the mathematics and reading content standards adopted by the board. The board relied heavily on the Sacramento County Office of Education (SCOE) when the program was first implemented. Specifically, SCOE developed criteria for evaluating training providers, created program promotional materials for school districts, and facilitated the evaluation of curricula submitted by training providers. Our audit noted that SCOE’s contracts, which amounted to about $400,000, were exempt from the State’s competitive bid process. Further, we noted that, although members of the board felt pressure to California State Auditor Report 2005-133 3 implement the program quickly, the former state superintendent of public instruction expressed concern with the haste of the development of the initial SCOE contract. Ultimately, to avoid a potential conflict of interest, the board cancelled an extension of the contract after SCOE hired a former board member. The board now contracts with the Orange County Department of Education (OCDE) to manage the provider approval process. Our review of the board’s contracts with SCOE and OCDE revealed that the performance period for each agreement predated the Department of General Services’ approval. As a result, the board exposed the State to potential liability for work performed prior to formal approval. RECOMMENDATIONS Given that only a small percentage of teachers have completed the full 120 hours of program training, and that teacher participation is voluntary, the Legislature should consider redefining its expectations for the program, clearly stating the number of teachers to be fully trained as well as any gains in student achievement expected. Based on how it defines the program’s goals, the Legislature should consider making statutory changes to ensure that Education provides meaningful data with which to evaluate program success. Examples of meaningful program data include the following: • Unduplicated counts of teachers who have completed the training with the aid of program and non-program funding, with a comparison of these figures to the total number of teachers who are eligible to participate in the program. Education could capture this information by modifying its claim form, adding a data collection tool similar to the one shown in Appendix D. • Measures of the resulting gains in student achievement for teachers who have completed the program’s training, such as higher student scores on standardized tests. To remove a barrier to increased teacher participation in the program, Education should explore opportunities to expedite its payment process to school districts. One such opportunity would be to seek legislation authorizing Education to approve the annual certifications submitted by school districts instead of waiting for board approval, thus removing any payment delay caused by the need to wait for the next board meeting.  California State Auditor Report 2005-133 To ensure that all school districts are aware of the program and that as many teachers participate in the program as possible, Education should conduct annual outreach activities to all school districts. A component of such an outreach program should include directly informing each school district of the amount of funding for which it is eligible each year. To ensure that required compliance audits are occurring, Education should take steps to ensure that the program’s compliance requirements are included in audit guides related to the annual audits of school districts. To ensure that it does not expose the State to potential liability for work performed before the contract is approved, the board should ensure that it obtains the Department of General Services’ approval of its contracts and amendments before the start of the contract period and before contractors begin work. AGENCY COMMENTS Education and the board indicated that they have taken action or plan to take action to implement our recommendations. n California State Auditor Report 2005-133 5 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.  California State Auditor Report 2005-133 InTRoDUCTIon BACKGROUND Approved in 2001 (Chapter 737, Statutes of 2001), the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program (program) provides incentive grants to local education agencies—school districts, county offices of education, state special schools, and charter schools—that choose to send their teachers through standards-based instructional training. Because the majority of local education agencies are school districts, we use that term throughout our report to refer to entities that are eligible to receive program funds. The impetus for the Legislature’s adoption of the program in 2001 was a desire to extend California’s previous efforts at instituting rigorous academic content standards for students and to institute an accountability system to measure progress. These efforts began with the passage of Chapter 975, Statutes of 1995, which required the State Board of Education (board) to adopt statewide academically rigorous content and performance standards by January 1998. Originally codified in Section 60605 of the Education Code, this legislation also required the Department of Education (Education) to submit and recommend to the board for approval available tests of achievement that would yield valid, reliable estimates of school and pupil performance. The program provides incentive funding to school districts that choose to send their teachers through training on the instructional materials that the board has approved and the districts have chosen for use in their classrooms. Under the program’s provisions, the board approves the curricula of training providers, ensuring that they are aligned with the content standards. Education’s role is to provide technical assistance to school districts regarding the program, forward annual applications to the board for approval, and disburse funds after board approval. As a condition of receiving program payments, participating school districts certify that they will use board-approved textbooks, which are aligned to the statewide academic content standards. The training is geared to these textbooks. At the time of its enactment, the Legislature envisioned that most of the State’s reading and mathematics teachers, about 176,000 overall, would receive the training over a four-year California State Auditor Report 2005-133  period. Under the provisions of the program, school districts first spend their own funds on training and then seek payment from Education afterwards. Generally, school districts can receive $1,250 per teacher following completion of the first 40 hours of training and another $1,250 after completion of the subsequent 80 hours of training. Of the total $2,500 that a school district can receive for a teacher completing 120 hours of program training, no more than $1,000 can be used to pay the teacher for attending the training. When originally proposed in the governor’s budget for fiscal year 2001–02, the program was more ambitious than the one that was ultimately adopted. Specifically, the governor’s budget proposed a three-year, $830 million initiative to train all of the State’s 252,000 kindergarten through 12th grade teachers and 22,000 instructional aides. In raising concerns about the proposal, the Legislative Analyst’s Office concluded that the program’s goals could be achieved at a far lower cost through existing professional development programs. However, the legislative process resulted in the passage of Chapter 737, Statutes of 2001, which established the lower goal of training 176,000 teachers over a four-year period. The Legislature reduced program funding in the beginning years of the program as part of its actions to balance the budget. Of the $143 million initially appropriated in the budget acts for fiscal years 2001–02 and 2002–03, about $98 million was eventually cut from the program. Most of these budget cuts related to the program’s first year of funding, resulting in a reduction of $80 million in spending authority in that year. As a result, the grants that were awarded to school districts during the first year of funding were rescinded. In addition to making these funding cuts, the Legislature extended the program and lowered its expectations regarding the number of teachers to be trained in any particular year. Chapter 1167, Statutes of 2002, extended the life of the program and imposed a funding cap on program payments to school districts based on a percentage of eligible teachers that could be funded in a given year. Specifically, it expressed the intention to fund a maximum of 12.4 percent of all eligible teachers over a five-year period as follows: • 3 percent in fiscal year 2002–03 • 3 percent in fiscal year 2003–04 • 2.4 percent in fiscal year 2004–05  California State Auditor Report 2005-133 • 2.7 percent in fiscal year 2005–06 • 1.3 percent in fiscal year 2006–07 Through Chapter 1754, Statutes of 2003, the Legislature modified the funding cap by requiring Education to calculate the cap based on the funds appropriated in the annual budget act, as opposed to using preestablished percentages of eligible teachers. For example, based on an appropriation of $31.7 million, the funding cap for fiscal year 2005–06 was approximately 3.1 percent. Finally, Chapter 524, Statutes of 2006, recently extended the program through fiscal year 2011–12. In addition, it added Section 99237.5 to the Education Code to provide professional development training for teachers of pupils who have been designated as English language learners. Aligned with this emphasis on English language learners, the fiscal year 2006–07 Budget Act provides $57 million for the program, about $25 million more than the prior year’s appropriation. The additional funding is specifically targeted to address the needs of teachers of English language learners. THE BOARD APPROVES THE TRAINING CURRICULA OF PROVIDERS AND AUTHORIZES SCHOOL DISTRICT PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAM The board’s role in the program is primarily centered on approving curricula submitted by training providers and ensuring that all participating school districts have submitted certified assurances that they will adhere to the program’s guidelines in accordance with Section 99234(f) of the Education Code. The board has relied on the Sacramento County Office of Education (SCOE), and most recently the Orange County Department of Education (OCDE), for the evaluation of new training curricula. Under this process, a prospective training provider submits its proposed training curriculum to OCDE requesting authorization to provide program training for a particular text and grade level. A review panel then evaluates the training curriculum and determines the extent to which it meets board-approved training criteria. The results of the review panel are forwarded to the board, which formally approves training provider curricula at its board meetings. Following board approval, participating school districts can access provider information on Education’s Web site. In addition to approving providers, the board is required annually to approve school California State Auditor Report 2005-133  district assurances certifying that they will comply with program requirements. Statute prohibits program payment until the board approves these annual certifications. EDUCATION PRIMARILY PROCESSES PAYMENTS AND COLLECTS PROGRAM DATA Education’s contribution to the program has largely been limited to forwarding school districts’ annual applications to the board for approval and to processing program payments. The payment amount for each teacher trained, up to the annual funding cap, is $2,500 for completing 120 hours of training, regardless of the school district’s actual expenses. Education indicated that issuing payments to the school districts can take between four and six months if the district submitted properly drafted forms. This delay is based, in part, on current statute, which requires the board to approve a school district’s assurances, contained within its application, before processing its first program payment for the year. Once Education has received both an application and the first payment claim form from a school district, it reviews the application and claim form to make sure that they comply with the program’s criteria, such as ensuring that the district is using a board-approved provider and instructional materials. It then presents the school district on a list at the board’s next scheduled meeting; these meetings occur about once every two months. At that time, the board approves the school district’s certification, thus clearing the way for Education to process program payments to the school district. The payment requests include various data, such as the types of credentials each teacher holds and the nature of the training (reading or mathematics) the teacher completed. Education used this information, along with other information, such as survey data obtained from school districts, to create its July 2005 report to the Legislature. Furthermore, in accordance with Chapter 524, Statutes of 2006, Education is required to provide an additional report to the Legislature about the program’s effectiveness in 2008 and a final report in 2012. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (audit committee) asked the Bureau of State Audits (bureau) to review the board’s and Education’s policies and management practices to 10 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 determine whether they are consistent with legislative intent and adequate to achieve the goals of the program. Specifically, the audit committee asked the bureau to assess the method used to track teachers’ access to and participation in the program and the extent of any outreach to attract teachers to the program, particularly in those districts where participation is low. To determine whether there is a geographic disparity in the availability of professional development providers that might limit teacher access to the program, the audit committee also asked us to identify the number of providers that offer mathematics and reading staff development services in various jurisdictions throughout the State and to compare these numbers to the number of teachers who are eligible for and have participated in the program. Further, the audit committee asked the bureau to evaluate the board’s process for approving training providers to determine whether it allows for a pool of providers sufficient to train teachers throughout the State and whether any local education agencies had a disproportionate share of contracts to offer provider services. The audit committee also requested that we identify the extent to which the California Professional Development Institutes (institutes) are providing professional development training for teachers. In addition, the audit committee asked us to determine whether internal controls exist to track program awards or expenditures by school district or training provider, to identify the proportion of funds used for mathematics and for reading training, and to determine any actions Education has taken to address any existing inequities. Finally, we were asked to determine if there are any organizational, statutory, or regulatory impediments to implementing and meeting the legislative intent of the program. To assess the method used to identify and track teachers’ access to and participation in the program and the extent of outreach activities, we interviewed board and Education staff, reviewed promotional materials, and included questions related to outreach in our survey of 100 school districts that had not received any payments as of June 30, 2005 (nonparticipating school districts). We also analyzed California State Accounting and Reporting System (CALSTARS) data to identify all payments made under the program through June 2006. To test completeness of the CALSTARS data file, we selected three appropriations for the program between fiscal years 2001–02 and 2005–06. We compared the total California State Auditor Report 2005-133 11 cash-basis expenditures recorded in the CALSTARS data file for these appropriations to cash expenditures recorded in the State Controller’s records. In all three cases, the CALSTARS cash-basis expenditures materially agreed with the State Controller’s report. As a result, we concluded that the CALSTARS data file was materially complete for our audit purposes. We also selected 10 claim schedules and remittance advices from Education’s paper files and traced payment information to the CALSTARS data. No exceptions were noted in our testing. To ensure the accuracy of the data, we selected 10 transactions from the CALSTARS data file and reconciled them with claim schedules and remittance advices. Our testing gave us assurance that the CALSTARS data file was materially accurate for our audit purposes. Appendix A presents CALSTARS cash disbursement data for the program through fiscal year 2005–06. In addition to the survey of nonparticipating school districts mentioned above, we conducted a survey of 100 school districts that had received program payments as of June 30, 2005 (participating school districts). Before selecting our sample of 100 districts for the participant survey, we obtained California Basic Educational Data System enrollment data for fiscal year 2004–05 and cross-referenced this data with the CALSTARS data to identify the districts that had received reimbursement from Education for sending teachers to training as of June 30, 2005. We sorted this list of participating districts by enrollment, divided the list into five quintiles, and selected districts from each quintile to ensure that our sample included both large and small districts. As Table 1 illustrates, we included in our sample all of the districts in each of the top three quintiles. In addition, we selected 37 of the 50 districts in the fourth quintile and 20 of the 253 districts in the fifth quintile. In total, we surveyed roughly 29 percent of all districts that received reimbursement for training. The 100 districts in our sample accounted for about 77 percent of enrollment in the districts that received reimbursement under the program. 12 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 TABLE 1 Selection of Districts by Enrollment Quintile for Participant Survey Number of Number of Enrollment Percentage Districts in Districts in Percentage of in Sampled Total Enrollment of Enrollment Quintile Sample Quintile Districts Sampled Districts in Quintile Sampled 1 1 1 100% 741,367 741,367 100% 2 14 14 100 757,099 757,099 100 3 28 28 100 739,081 739,081 100 4 37 50 74 563,029 733,426 77 5 20 253 8 71,507 749,862 10 Totals 100 3* 2% 2,2,03 3,20,35 % Sources: Department of Education’s CALSTARS accounting records. California Basic Educational Data System school district enrollment data for fiscal year 2004–05 (unaudited). * This total differs slightly from the 342 districts we later note that received program payments through fiscal year 2004–05 after we removed expenditure accruals from the data to show cash-basis payments. We mailed the survey to our sample of 100 participating districts in early July 2006. Although we asked respondents to return their surveys no later than July 20, we granted several extensions and generally accepted survey responses through the end of August. We received a total of 89 survey responses. During the survey response period, we revised Question 2 of the survey in an effort to obtain a more consistent and accurate count of those classroom teachers who had completed the entire 120 hours of training for their current teaching assignments. We offered survey recipients an extension to complete the survey, including the revised Question 2, which is shown in Appendix D. To assess whether those who responded to our participant survey using the data collection tool shown in Appendix D could provide support for their responses, we visited three school districts that reported a relatively high percentage of teachers that had completed the full 120 hours of training. We noted that all three school districts over-reported their counts of fully trained teachers by reporting some as fully trained even though they had only finished the initial 40 hours of training, by counting individual teachers twice because they had completed both the 40- and 80-hour training sessions, or by mistakenly doubling California State Auditor Report 2005-133 13 their intended response on the survey form. Because the net effect of these errors would not materially affect the overall percentages, we did not adjust the numbers for these three districts in Figure 2 on page 21. We also reviewed the extent to which the three school districts could provide adequate support for the program payments they had received. Although the evidence they provided gave us reasonable assurance that these districts could justify their receipt of program funds, we noted that the documentation did not include participant signatures at least three times for each full day of training or two times for each partial day of training as required by program regulations. As noted in the body of our report, Education has not ensured that program compliance audits are conducted in accordance with Section 99237 of the Education Code. Our observations at the three districts highlight the importance of conducting periodic audits to ensure that school districts maintain an appropriate level of evidence to fully support their claims. To help us determine why many school districts are not sending their teachers to training, we conducted a second survey of 100 school districts that had not participated in the program. Employing the same methodology just described, we identified 707 districts that had received no direct reimbursements from Education for sending teachers to training as of June 30, 2005. We sorted this list of nonparticipating districts by enrollment, divided the list into five quintiles, and selected districts from each quintile to ensure that our sample included both large and small districts. As Table 2 illustrates, we included in our sample all districts in each of the top two quintiles. In addition, we selected 27 of the 42 districts in the third quintile, 20 of the 83 districts in the fourth quintile, and 19 of the 548 districts in the fifth quintile. In total, we surveyed 14 percent of all districts that had received no reimbursements for training. The 100 districts in our sample accounted for about 60 percent of enrollment in districts that received no reimbursement for training. 1 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 TABLE 2 Selection of Districts by Enrollment Quintile for Nonparticipant Survey Number of Number of Enrollment Percentage Districts in Districts in Percentage of in Sampled Total Enrollment of Enrollment Quintile Sample Quintile Districts Sampled Districts in Quintile Sampled 1 11 11 100% 531,918 531,918 100% 2 23 23 100 520,876 520,876 100 3 27 42 64 357,122 522,480 68 4 20 83 24 125,443 521,097 24 5 19 548 3 20,965 504,892 4 Totals 100 0 1% 1,55,32 2,01,23 0% Sources: Department of Education’s CALSTARS accounting records. California Basic Educational Data System school district enrollment data for fiscal year 2004–05 (unaudited). We mailed the survey to our sample of 100 nonparticipating districts in early July 2006 and received a total of 80 responses, most by the end of August. Because many districts began participating in the program during fiscal year 2005–06, we contacted all districts that indicated they had recently begun participating in the program to solicit feedback to include in our survey results. We present a list of the nonrespondents to both surveys in Appendix B. To identify the number of providers that offer mathematics training and the number that offer reading training in the various jurisdictions throughout the State, we reviewed the list of board-approved mathematics and reading training providers on Education’s Web site. To validate the accuracy of this listing, we traced the providers to board meeting minutes and curriculum approval letters to determine whether all providers listed had been approved by the board for the particular texts for which they offered training. Although the board could not provide us with meeting minutes to support the approval of every text for which certain providers offered training, we found no evidence to suggest that any provider listed on Education’s Web site lacked board approval. Thus, we concluded that the provider list maintained on Education’s Web site is reasonably accurate and would allow a school district to make an informed decision in choosing a provider. Education’s listing of board-approved providers can be accessed on the Internet at www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/ma/mardsbetrngprvdr.asp. California State Auditor Report 2005-133 15 To determine whether a geographic disparity exists in the availability of professional development providers that limits teachers’ access to the training provided by the program, we identified the amount of program funding received by each county in the State and calculated the amount received per eligible teacher for each county. We then compared these per-teacher amounts on a county-by-county basis to determine whether any geographic disparities existed. The results of our analysis are summarized in Appendix C. In addition, we included questions in our participant and nonparticipant surveys to help us determine whether a district’s geographic proximity to providers affected teachers’ participation in the program. To evaluate the board’s process for approving training providers and to determine whether a disproportionate share of contracts for provider services are going to a few local education agencies, we interviewed staff at the board and at SCOE, which the board initially contracted with to evaluate provider training plans. We compared the dates on which providers submitted training plans to subsequent board meeting minutes and found no evidence to suggest that lengthy periods of time between submittal dates and board approval were contributing to a lack of training providers. Specifically, we reviewed 20 submittals of provider curriculum training plans and found that all were eventually approved. In addition, we found that the average time between the initial review of the training plan and board approval was about 37 days. Therefore, we concluded that the board’s approval process posed no impediment to having a sufficient pool of providers. In determining the extent to which the institutes are providing professional development training for teachers, we found that these institutes are, for the most part, no longer operational. In fact, the provider list on Education’s Web site includes only one institute. Given the limited role of the institutes in providing training under the program, we did not perform any further analysis. Moreover, Chapter 524, Statutes of 2006, removed the authority of Education to allocate funding for training at the institutes. To determine if internal controls exist to track program awards or expenditures by school district or provider as well as by the amount used for training teachers in mathematics and reading, we interviewed Education staff and reviewed application and payment documents. In addition, as described earlier, Appendix A provides a list we compiled of Education’s cash disbursements to school districts from fiscal years 2002–03 through 2005–06. We also interviewed staff at Education and 1 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 the State Controller’s Office (controller) to determine whether compliance requirements related to the program were included in the audit guide proposed by the controller and adopted by the Education Audit Appeals Panel. To determine if there are any organizational, statutory, or regulatory impediments to implementing and meeting the legislative intent of the program, we interviewed board and Education staff and asked school districts for their feedback through our survey. Finally, we reviewed Education’s July 2005 report to the Legislature on the effectiveness of the program, which includes data on teacher participation in the program. However, we did not conduct an in-depth review of the report because we determined that it lacked relevant and accurate data for gauging program outcomes. n California State Auditor Report 2005-133 1 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. 1 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 AUDIT ReSULTS ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF TEACHERS HAVE COMPLETED THE MATHEMATICS AND READING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR THEIR CURRENT ASSIGNMENTS When the Legislature adopted the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program (program) in 2001, it envisioned that 176,000 teachers would receive training on the State’s academic content standards over a four-year period. This target represented the majority of the 252,000 teachers statewide who were eligible for program-funded training at that time. However, as shown in Figure 1 on the following page, our review of program payments between fiscal years 2002–03 and 2004–05 indicated that only 342 local education agencies, representing 61 percent of all eligible teachers, applied for and received program funding during that period. Further, as Figure 2 on page 21 demonstrates, data maintained by the school districts we surveyed indicates that only a small percentage of their eligible teachers have completed the full 120 hours of mathematics and reading standards-based training for their current assignments. Our survey of 100 school districts that participated in the program through fiscal year 2004–05 covered 46 percent of the more than 398,000 eligible teachers statewide. Further, our sample covered about 76 percent of the 240,987 eligible teachers in districts that participated in the program through fiscal year 2004–05 as shown in Figure 1. As a result of the large size of our survey sample, we believe it is reasonable to expect that the survey results would be representative of the eligible teachers in participating school districts. Based on Figure 2, one can infer that data exists at school districts to substantiate that only 7,230 of the 240,987 eligible teachers have been fully trained. We arrived at this figure by applying the percentages of fully trained teachers in the districts that reported this information to the entire population of eligible teachers in the districts that participated in the program through fiscal year 2004–05. Based on our survey results, we also estimate that about 25 percent of the fully trained teachers would likely have been trained with the aid of funding sources other than the program’s incentive grant payments. The prevalence of other funding sources complicates the task of the Department of Education (Education) to track teacher participation, an issue that we discuss in more detail later in this report. California State Auditor Report 2005-133 1 FIGURE 1 Eligible Teachers in Participating and Nonparticipating School Districts Through Fiscal Year 200–05 Nonparticipating Districts Participating Districts 157,139 (39%)† 240,987 (61%)* Sources: Department of Education’s CALSTARS accounting records. Department of Education’s listing of eligible teachers as of January 2006 (unaudited). * A total of 342 local education agencies with 240,987 eligible teachers received program funding through fiscal year 2004–05. Of these, 321 were school districts having 238,415 teachers. The remaining 21 agencies were primarily county offices of education. † Local education agencies that did not receive program funds through fiscal year 2004–05 had 157,139 eligible teachers. After we selected our sample of school districts to survey, complete payment data related to fiscal year 2005–06 became available. We found that 118 local education agencies having 39,020 eligible teachers participated in the program for the first time in fiscal year 2005–06. Payments to additional agencies are included in the table in Appendix A. In addition to the low percentages of teachers trained, the survey results suggest that a significant number of school districts were unable to report information on the number of teachers completing the program’s training. Out of the 100 school districts in our participant survey, 41, having 105,764 teachers, could not readily tell us how many had completed the entire 120 hours of training. In particular, 23 of these 41 districts indicated that they did not have enough information to complete the portion of our survey asking for specifics about the number of teachers that had completed the training. Four of the 23 districts suggested that they had support for the data, but that time constraints prevented them from accumulating the data for us. In addition, 17 of the 41 districts that could not readily quantify how many of their teachers had completed the training initially provided 20 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 us some data about their trained teachers but did not respond to our request for the data described in Appendix D. After initially providing us with data on the number of its trained teachers, the remaining district indicated that it did not presently have a data collection system that would allow it to respond to our query. FIGURE 2 Reported Training Status of Teachers From Surveyed Participating Districts District did not respond (6%) Teachers not fully trained Could not readily quantify (33%) (58%) Teachers trained with other funds (1%) Teachers trained with program funds (2%) Sources: Bureau of State Audits’ survey of 100 school districts that participated in the program through fiscal year 2004–05. Department of Education’s listing of eligible teachers as of January 2006 (unaudited). Note: The data provided above is based on our survey of 100 school districts, having about 183,000 eligible teachers as of January 2006. This amount represents about 76 percent of the 240,987 teachers shown in Figure 1. We acknowledge that some of the teachers in these 41 districts may have completed part or all of the mathematics and reading standards-based training. We also acknowledge that school districts have not likely been asked to provide complete information about the number of their teachers that have completed the training for their current teaching assignments and the number of their eligible teachers that have not yet California State Auditor Report 2005-133 21 completed the training. However, school districts, Education, and the Legislature need to know these details to assess the impact of the program and to make future funding decisions. We conducted a second survey targeting those school districts that had not received program payments through fiscal year 2004–05 according to Education’s California State Accounting and Reporting WWee nnootteedd tthhaatt 111188 llooccaall System (CALSTARS) data. These districts had 157,139 eligible eedduuccaattiioonn aaggeenncciieess tthhaatt teachers as of January 2006, as shown in Figure 1. Our second hhaadd nnoott ppaarrttiicciippaatteedd survey covered 90,021 of these teachers, or roughly 57 percent iinn fifissccaall yyeeaarr 22000044––0055 of the total. Based on the survey responses and our follow-up bbeeggaann rreecceeiivviinngg pprrooggrraamm inquiries, we learned that 35 of the 100 districts provided some of ppaayymmeennttss dduurriinngg their teachers mathematics or reading standards-based training for fifissccaall yyeeaarr 22000055––0066,, the first time in fiscal year 2005–06. Although 17 of the 35 districts ssuuggggeessttiinngg tthhaatt pprrooggrraamm received program payments, which are included in the table in ppaarrttiicciippaattiioonn iiss iinnccrreeaassiinngg.. Appendix A, the remaining 18 used other funding sources to pay for the training or trained their teachers through a county office of education. Another nine of the 100 school districts told us that they provided training to teachers prior to fiscal year 2005–06 using other funding sources or through a county office of education. When school districts participate in the training through a consortium organized by their county office of education, payments go to the county office rather than to the district. Appendix A identifies the county offices of education that have received program funds. Additionally, from our review of program payments in fiscal year 2005–06, we noted that 118 local education agencies, primarily school districts that had not participated in the program through fiscal year 2004–05, began receiving program payments during fiscal year 2005–06. This suggests that program participation is increasing. SCHOOL DISTRICTS RESPONDING TO OUR SURVEYS CITED A VARIETY OF REASONS FOR LOW PARTICIPATION RATES School district responses to both surveys indicated that participant districts and nonparticipant districts alike perceived similar barriers to increased teacher participation in the program. The barriers most frequently cited were teacher apathy toward the training, concerns about funding, and a lack of training providers nearby. The similarities in these results suggest an opportunity for Education and the State Board of Education (board) to take steps to improve the program. 22 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 As the text box illustrates, a lack of teacher interest in attending training was the barrier cited most Why Surveyed School Districts Have Not Sent More Teachers Through the Program frequently by survey respondents. Some districts explained that their teachers believe the program’s Lack of teacher interest: training is either too long or too closely tied 33 of 89 respondents (participant survey) to textbooks, as opposed to a broader focus on 18 of 80 respondents (nonparticipant survey) understanding state standards, to make attending 51 of 169 respondents the training attractive. The Burbank School District indicated that teachers were not interested Funding concerns (primarily timeliness or amount of funding): in attending five-day training sessions, and the 19 of 89 respondents (participant survey) Walnut Valley Unified School District stated it would be difficult to find many teachers who are 23 of 80 respondents (nonparticipant survey) willing to spend 120 hours in training. Speaking 42 of 169 respondents to the quality of the training program, an official Lack of training providers in close proximity: from Santa Cruz High School stated the following: 20 of 89 respondents (participant survey) 13 of 80 respondents (nonparticipant survey) Teachers complained that AB 466 33 of 169 respondents [program] training was too rigid and did not allow teachers the flexibility to Source: Bureau of State Audits’ surveys of create their own teaching plan. AB 466 200 school districts. [program] training is designed around a Note: Not all school districts responded to the surveys. A school district may be counted more particular textbook and forces teachers than once since we allowed multiple responses to to adhere to the publisher’s opinion of the survey questions. California’s curriculum standards. As the text box indicates, the second most frequently cited barrier to participation in the program was funding concerns. When clarifying their remarks on this barrier, some school districts cited the fact that they must initially pay for program training with their own limited funds and then seek program payment from Education, which can take many months. Given the budgetary constraints cited by the school districts, and the fact that participation in the program is voluntary, it appears that some school districts have concluded that participating in the program, or doing so to a greater degree, is too risky. For example, a representative of the Fullerton Elementary School District provided the following perspective: There is a lot of planning and paperwork for the district administrators to implement the initial 40 hours of training, plus the follow-up hours. Most providers charge $750 per participant. This leaves $500 [out of the $1,250 provided by Education] for the teacher stipend. This leaves no reimbursement for the administrative aspect . . . and reimbursement from [Education] takes way too long and districts are not really sure how much they will eventually be reimbursed. California State Auditor Report 2005-133 23 We noted that the program’s payment process can be as long as four to six months for any single year’s first payment. According to Education, after it receives a school district’s first payment request for the fiscal year, it includes the school district’s application on the agenda for the board’s next meeting. Since the board meets every two months, the timeline for payment is a minimum of four to six months following receipt of the school district’s first claim for the fiscal year. The remaining barrier cited most frequently by survey respondents was the lack of training providers located in close proximity to the school district. As the earlier text box indicates, survey SScchhooooll ddiissttrriiccttss iinn respondents in participating and nonparticipating school ccoouunnttiieess wwiitthh rreellaattiivveellyy districts ranked this barrier second and third, respectively. llaarrggee oorr ssmmaallll nnuummbbeerrss Although some survey respondents indicated that rural school ooff eelliiggiibbllee tteeaacchheerrss iinn districts are placed at a disadvantage in obtaining training vvaarriioouuss ggeeooggrraapphhiicc for their teachers because they have more difficulty accessing rreeggiioonnss tthhrroouugghhoouutt tthhee training providers, we found that school districts in counties SSttaattee aappppeeaarr eeqquuaallllyy with relatively large or small numbers of eligible teachers in ccaappaabbllee ooff aacccceessssiinngg various geographic regions throughout the State appear equally pprrooggrraamm sseerrvviicceess.. capable of accessing program services. Appendix C provides more detailed information on school district participation in the program, as measured on a county-by-county basis. By dividing the overall program payments through fiscal year 2005–06 to school districts within a given county by the number of eligible teachers within that county, we calculated a measure of program participation within each county in terms of program payments per eligible teacher. The results of this exercise suggest that neither geography nor size, as measured by the number of eligible teachers in the county, have impeded program participation. Specifically, the table in Appendix C lists counties in three tiers, grouped by size as defined by the number of eligible teachers, and shows that each tier includes both counties that exceeded the statewide average of $283 per eligible teacher and ones that fell below it. Although all six counties whose school districts have not participated in the program have small numbers of eligible teachers, other counties having similarly small numbers of eligible teachers have participated at levels exceeding the statewide average. For example, Amador County, with 335 eligible teachers as of January 2006, has not participated in the program. However, Colusa County, with 316 eligible teachers, has received about $491 per eligible teacher, significantly higher than the statewide average. 2 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 EDUCATION DOES LITTLE TO ENCOURAGE DISTRICTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM AND TO MONITOR PROGRAM COMPLIANCE Education’s role in administering the program has essentially been limited to forwarding school districts’ annual applications to the board for approval and to processing program payments. Although not specifically required to do so under the program’s statutes, Education has done little to actively promote the program. This lack of ongoing outreach may contribute to the low percentage of school districts that have participated in the program, as discussed earlier, and may explain why nine of the districts that responded to our nonparticipant survey told us that they were unaware of the program’s existence or were confused about the eligibility or funding aspects of the program. Education’s role in monitoring program compliance has also been limited, even though program statutes require Education to withhold future funding from a school district if the results of EEdduuccaattiioonn hhaass nnoott aacctteedd ttoo a compliance audit reveal an unsupportable claim. In particular, eennssuurree tthhaatt tthhee ccoommpplliiaannccee Education has not acted to ensure that the compliance audits aauuddiittss ssppeecciififieedd iinn specified in legislation take place. As a result, there is presently lleeggiissllaattiioonn ttaakkee ppllaaccee.. no independent assurance that school districts are maintaining adequate support for the $113 million in program payments Education has disbursed through fiscal year 2005–06. As we describe more fully in a later section, the board initially worked through the Sacramento County Office of Education (SCOE) to advertise and implement the program. Although the program statutes do not impose outreach requirements on Education, Section 99234 of the Education Code requires the superintendent of public instruction to notify local education agencies—defined as school districts, county offices of education, state special schools, and charter schools—that they are eligible to receive an incentive award. This same section also requires the superintendent to notify districts as to how the maximum amount of funding for which they are eligible each year is calculated. In order to comply with these requirements, Education relies on school districts to successfully navigate its Web site, which includes information on various grant programs. Although Education’s process complies with the statute, we believe it could be enhanced. If it directly informed school districts in advance of the amount of funding available, instead of following the more passive approach of having school districts inform themselves about funding opportunities, Education would be in a stronger California State Auditor Report 2005-133 25 position to promote the program. Similarly, school districts could make better-informed decisions regarding program Nine of the 80 school participation if they knew the funding amount. Education districts that responded officials told us that funding information is electronically to our nonparticipant submitted to about 16,000 individuals who have signed up to survey told us that they be notified automatically by e-mail when funding information were unaware of the on Education’s Web site is updated. However, interested program’s existence or parties must fill out a form on the Web site to join this list service. were confused about Therefore, if a school district has not signed up for the list service, it the eligibility or funding will not receive the annual notification. Although we did not aspects of the program. analyze the list service to determine how many school districts are receiving the annual notice, nine of the 80 school districts that responded to our nonparticipant survey told us that they were unaware of the program’s existence or were confused about the eligibility or funding aspects of the program. This suggests that Education’s notification process could be improved. In addition to its limited outreach efforts, Education has not ensured that program compliance audits are conducted in accordance with program statute. Specifically, Section 99237 of the Education Code requires that annual financial and compliance audits of school districts include steps to ensure that teachers for whose training districts received program funding were, in fact, trained and that the training met program requirements. In addition, this section requires Education to withhold monthly apportionment payments to school districts to the extent that the results of audits reveal noncompliance with these requirements. Given this responsibility, we would have expected Education to take the necessary steps to ensure that these audits are actually taking place. However, discussion with Education staff revealed that such audits have likely never taken place because the compliance requirements have never been included in audit guides. According to program statute, the compliance audits are to be performed by licensed local auditors, as opposed to Education’s audit division, with the assistance of an audit guide specifying state compliance requirements. The Education Code, Section 14502.1, requires the State Controller’s Office (controller), in consultation with the Department of Finance, Education, and representatives of specified organizations to propose the content of the audit guide and submit it to the Education Audit Appeals Panel for review, possible amendment, and eventual adoption. To Education’s knowledge, the program’s compliance requirements have never been included in the audit guide, and a controller representative confirmed that Education never informed that office of the 2 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 program and its compliance requirements. As a result, Education Education indicated that has disbursed about $113 million through fiscal year 2005–06 it anticipates working without ensuring the level of oversight required by statute. with the controller and the Education Audit Although they acknowledged this omission, Education officials Appeals Panel to ensure told us that their staff perform desk reviews of all applications that future audit guides and payment requests to identify any areas of concern and resolve include the appropriate any issues before disbursing funds. Education also indicated that categories of information. it anticipates working with the controller and the Education Audit Appeals Panel to ensure that future audit guides include the appropriate categories of information. EDUCATION’S JULY 2005 REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE LACKED RELEVANT AND ACCURATE DATA FOR GAUGING PROGRAM OUTCOMES As part of the legislation enacting the program, the Legislature required Education to submit a report on the effectiveness of the program by the end of fiscal year 2004–05. Program statutes specify that the report include information on the number of teachers that have received program training and on the entities that have offered training, details about the effectiveness of the program, and, to the extent information is available, data regarding the retention rate of trained teachers. Although Education completed its report in July 2005, we found it to be of limited value because it lacks relevant and accurate data regarding the number of trained teachers that are currently using the training in the classroom and because it provides no correlation between teacher training and student achievement. As a result, decision makers cannot gauge the progress being made toward accomplishing the program’s goals and are ill-prepared to make future funding decisions. Education acknowledged that its report has limitations, stating as much in its report to the Legislature. As of June 16, 2005, Education asserted that it had made payments to local education agencies for 75,109 teachers who attended 40, 80, or 120 hours of program training since fiscal year 2002–03. Education derived these statistics from the claim forms submitted by school districts participating in the program. These forms are required to list summary data on the types of credentials their teachers hold and the type of professional development training (reading or mathematics) their teachers attended. However, the forms do not provide teacher-specific information, but rather total counts of teachers for whom the districts are claiming funding for either the initial 40 hours California State Auditor Report 2005-133 2 or the subsequent 80 hours of program training. Although a Education acknowledges teacher completing the training will have taken both the 40- and AAlltthhoouugghh tthhee ffaavvoorraabbllee that most teachers taking 80-hour training, for a total of 120 hours, Education counted rreessppoonnsseess ttoo iittss ssuurrvveeyy the 80 hours of training each block of training as applying to a separate individual, thus aarree aa ppoossiittiivvee iinnddiiccaattoorr,, were also counted in its likely counting some teachers twice. Education acknowledges that EEdduuccaattiioonn’’ss rreeppoorrtt ddooeess calculation of those taking most teachers taking the 80 hours of training were also counted nnoott pprroovviiddee aannyy ccoorrrreellaattiioonn 40 hours of training and, in its calculation of those taking 40 hours of training and, to that bbeettwweeeenn tteeaacchheerr ttrraaiinniinngg to that extent, the counts extent, the counts are duplicated. aanndd iimmpprroovveedd ssttuuddeenntt are duplicated. aacchhiieevveemmeenntt.. To give some context to the potential size of the overstatement, it would cost about $188 million in program payments to pay school districts to fully train 75,109 teachers at $2,500 per teacher. However, as indicated in Appendix A, Education has paid out only about $113 million over the life of the program through fiscal year 2005–06. This amount would be sufficient to fully train about 45,000 teachers with 120 hours of training. However, we know that all program funds did not go towards teachers who had completed the full 120 hours of training. Some teachers have received only the first 40 hours of training because they are just beginning the program or may not plan to attend the additional 80 hours. In addition, Education’s report does not include data on the overall number of eligible teachers or the number of teachers who may have attended training but whose participation was funded through other state and federal funding sources. Further, fully or partially trained teachers may no longer be teaching the class for which they were trained. Although the legislation requiring the report did not specifically call for Education to provide this type of information, these data are relevant and necessary to determine the penetration of mathematics and reading standards-based training within California’s public education system. To develop information on program effectiveness for its report, Education surveyed teachers and principals in 30 participating school districts of various enrollment sizes and asked for their feedback on the program. District staff collected and summarized the completed surveys and submitted them to Education. The results from the 28 districts that responded showed that teachers were generally favorable in their evaluations of the reading training. For example, more than half of the teachers who responded to Education’s reading survey reported a “very much” improved understanding of the reading instructional materials, and 52 percent reported using “very much” of what they learned from the training in their classrooms. Further, Education noted in its report that teachers who participated in the program’s mathematics training also 2 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 or the subsequent 80 hours of program training. Although a responded favorably regarding the training. Although the teacher completing the training will have taken both the 40- and AAlltthhoouugghh tthhee ffaavvoorraabbllee favorable responses to the survey are a positive indicator, the 80-hour training, for a total of 120 hours, Education counted rreessppoonnsseess ttoo iittss ssuurrvveeyy report does not provide any correlation between teacher training each block of training as applying to a separate individual, thus aarree aa ppoossiittiivvee iinnddiiccaattoorr,, and improved student achievement. likely counting some teachers twice. Education acknowledges that EEdduuccaattiioonn’’ss rreeppoorrtt ddooeess most teachers taking the 80 hours of training were also counted nnoott pprroovviiddee aannyy ccoorrrreellaattiioonn Education acknowledged the importance of this correlation in its calculation of those taking 40 hours of training and, to that bbeettwweeeenn tteeaacchheerr ttrraaiinniinngg recently when it issued a feasibility study for a teacher data extent, the counts are duplicated. aanndd iimmpprroovveedd ssttuuddeenntt system in March 2006 to comply with provisional language in aacchhiieevveemmeenntt.. the Budget Act of 2005–06. The purpose of the study was to To give some context to the potential size of the overstatement, inventory teacher data elements currently collected by state it would cost about $188 million in program payments to pay agencies and county offices of education, identify existing school districts to fully train 75,109 teachers at $2,500 per redundancies and teacher data needs for meeting state and teacher. However, as indicated in Appendix A, Education has federal compliance and reporting requirements, and identify the paid out only about $113 million over the life of the program most cost-effective approach for converting the existing data through fiscal year 2005–06. This amount would be sufficient systems into an integrated system that can yield high-quality to fully train about 45,000 teachers with 120 hours of training. program evaluations. However, we know that all program funds did not go towards teachers who had completed the full 120 hours of training. Citing the Legislature’s cumulative General Fund appropriations Some teachers have received only the first 40 hours of training of about $2.4 billion for professional development programs from because they are just beginning the program or may not plan to fiscal years 2001–02 through 2005–06, Education’s feasibility attend the additional 80 hours. In addition, Education’s report study stressed the State’s significant investment in teacher does not include data on the overall number of eligible teachers development programs and the need for better teacher-level data. or the number of teachers who may have attended training but In its feasibility report, Education stated the following: whose participation was funded through other state and federal funding sources. Further, fully or partially trained teachers may Although the state has made significant investments no longer be teaching the class for which they were trained. in teacher development programs, the state has not Although the legislation requiring the report did not specifically evaluated the effectiveness of these programs on call for Education to provide this type of information, these the primary outcome of teaching, gains in student data are relevant and necessary to determine the penetration academic achievement. In fact, the Legislature of mathematics and reading standards-based training within does not require school districts receiving teacher California’s public education system. credentialing and/or professional development block grant funding to provide information back to the To develop information on program effectiveness for its report, state that includes teacher-level data linked with Education surveyed teachers and principals in 30 participating student achievement data (i.e. test scores on statewide school districts of various enrollment sizes and asked for standardized tests). Without such information, their feedback on the program. District staff collected and evaluating the effectiveness of these substantial summarized the completed surveys and submitted them to investments on the primary outcome of the programs, Education. The results from the 28 districts that responded gains in student achievement, is extremely difficult. showed that teachers were generally favorable in their evaluations of the reading training. For example, more than Through Chapter 840, Statutes of 2006, the Legislature authorized half of the teachers who responded to Education’s reading Education to contract for the development of a teacher data system survey reported a “very much” improved understanding of the to be known as the California Longitudinal Teacher Integrated reading instructional materials, and 52 percent reported using Data Education System that is based on the results of Education’s “very much” of what they learned from the training in their feasibility study. The stated purpose of the system is to streamline classrooms. Further, Education noted in its report that teachers processes; improve the efficiency of data collection by Education, who participated in the program’s mathematics training also the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, and the Employment California State Auditor Report 2005-133 2 Development Department; and improve the quality of data collected from local education agencies and teacher preparation programs. In light of this new effort, we asked Education whether it plans to incorporate into the new system data about teacher participation in the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program. Unless it begins collecting program data on a teacher-level basis, Education indicated that the new system will not track teacher participation in the program. THE TASK OF QUANTIFYING THE EXTENT OF TRAINING IS HAMPERED BY THE VARIOUS FUNDING SOURCES INVOLVED AND BY REDUCED PROGRAM- SPECIFIC FUNDING Education tracks only the number of teachers for whom school districts submit claims for program payments. However, districts use various other sources of state and federal funding to pay for mathematics and reading standards-based training. Thus, Education does not have an accurate picture of how many teachers have successfully completed the training. Historic limits on program-specific funding, the introduction of caps on the number of teachers for whom payment from program funds can be claimed each year, and extensions to the life of the program may explain why school districts look to these other funding sources to meet their training needs, contributing to the low participation rates we observed in the program. There are a variety of federal and state professional development programs for teachers. Education reports that in addition to the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program, school districts have funded mathematics and reading standards-based training activities from two federal sources, Reading First and the Mathematics and Science Partnership Program. Similarly, school districts have used state funds under the College Readiness Program to finance this training. In fact, before receiving program funds, school districts that have Reading First grants must certify that they have used those funds when applicable instead of program funding. TThhee 3344 ddiissttrriiccttss tthhaatt rreeppoorrtteedd nnuummbbeerrss ooff As part of our survey of 100 school districts that participated in tteeaacchheerrss ttrraaiinneedd iinnddiiccaatteedd the program, we asked districts to identify how many teachers tthhaatt tthheeyy uusseedd ootthheerr they had trained using other funding sources. The 34 districts ffuunnddiinngg ssoouurrcceess ttoo ppaayy ffoorr that reported numbers of teachers trained indicated that they ttrraaiinniinngg aabboouutt 2255 ppeerrcceenntt used other funding sources to pay for training about 25 percent ooff tthheeiirr tteeaacchheerrss.. of their teachers. Since Education does not ask school districts to report the number of teachers trained using other funding 30 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 sources, it does not have a complete picture of how many teachers have actually participated in the mathematics and reading standards-based training. School districts may have increasingly become inclined to rely on other funding sources to pay for program-based training because the Legislature has not funded the program at a level that would provide incentive grants for the training of all eligible teachers. As described in the Introduction, although the governor’s budget for fiscal year 2001–02 initially proposed a three-year, $830 million program to train 252,000 kindergarten through 12th grade teachers and 22,000 aides in mathematics and reading, several statutory changes reduced program funding, added caps to the number of eligible teachers that could be trained under the program each year, and extended the life of the program. Specifically, when the program was enacted, the goal for the total number of teachers to be trained dropped from 252,000 to 176,000 and the time frame to accomplish this training increased from three years to four. In addition, through various pieces of budget act legislation, the annual funding for the program ultimately became fixed at $31.7 million to fund training activities for five years, from fiscal years 2001–02 through 2005–06. This funding would have allowed for the training of only about 63,600 teachers over the five-year period had the entire $159 million been spent to fully train as many teachers as possible. However, because of changing legislative priorities, the $159 million in spending authority was reduced by about $18 million. In addition, the program envisioned that a certain percentage of eligible teachers would be trained each year, with all 176,000 teachers being fully trained by the end of the fourth year. However, Chapter 1167, Statutes of 2002, imposed a cap on the percentage of teachers that could be trained each year. Through Chapter 1754, Statutes of 2003, the Legislature modified the funding cap by requiring Education to calculate the cap based on the funds appropriated in the annual budget act. Although districts could choose to train more teachers than the annual cap suggested, they could receive program payments in excess of the cap only to the extent that other districts did not participate to MMoosstt rreecceennttllyy,, CChhaapptteerr 552244,, the full extent the cap allowed. Finally, although it was scheduled SSttaattuutteess ooff 22000066,, eexxtteennddeedd to lapse after fiscal year 2004–05, Chapter 1167, Statutes of 2002, tthhee pprrooggrraamm tthhrroouugghh fifissccaall extended the program through fiscal year 2005–06. Most recently, yyeeaarr 22001111––1122.. Chapter 524, Statutes of 2006, extended the program through fiscal year 2011–12. California State Auditor Report 2005-133 31 In addition to extending the life of the program, Chapter 524 added Section 99237.5 to the Education Code to provide professional development training for teachers of pupils who have been designated as English language learners. Aligned with this emphasis on English language learners, the fiscal year 2006–07 Budget Act provided $57 million for the program, about $25 million more than the prior year’s appropriation. The additional funding is specifically targeted to address the needs of teachers of English language learners. THE BOARD RELIED ON THE SCOE TO ADVERTISE AND IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM The program’s statutes require the board to approve the curricula of training providers, ensuring such curricula are aligned with the mathematics and reading content standards adopted by the board. Our audit found that the board delegated this work by contracting, through Education, with two county offices of education. The board particularly relied on the SCOE when the program was implemented in fiscal year 2001–02, with SCOE negotiating contracts worth a combined $400,000 by March 2002. These contracts required SCOE to develop criteria for evaluating training providers, to create program promotional materials for school districts, and to facilitate the evaluation of curricula submitted by potential training providers. Our audit noted that the board felt pressure to implement the program TThhee bbooaarrdd ddiidd nnoott oobbttaaiinn quickly, while the former state superintendent of public tthhee rreeqquuiirreedd aapppprroovvaallss instruction (superintendent) expressed concern about the haste bbeeffoorree tthhee bbeeggiinnnniinngg ooff tthhee with which the initial SCOE contract was developed. Ultimately, ccoonnttrraacctt tteerrmm ffoorr aallll tthhrreeee state regulations did not require a competitively bid contract pprrooggrraamm--rreellaatteedd ccoonnttrraaccttss process. Further, according to state law, all contracts entered into aanndd rreellaatteedd aammeennddmmeennttss by state agencies, except those meeting criteria for exemptions, rreeqquuiirriinngg aapppprroovvaall.. are not in effect unless and until approved by the Department of General Services. The board did not obtain the required approvals before the beginning of the contract term for all three program-related contracts and related amendments requiring approval. As a result, the board exposed the State to potential liability for work performed before the contract was approved. Board meeting minutes from November 2001 suggested that board members felt pressure to implement the program quickly. The board’s executive director at the time presented the SCOE contract proposal on November 7, 2001, indicating that “the statute requires that the board act quickly and a contract with a local education agency is one way to move quickly.” However, he also reported that the superintendent at the time “expressed concern about the haste in the development of the contract and 32 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 about the Department’s role in the rollout to local education agencies.” Education’s chief deputy superintendent indicated that the superintendent “would have preferred more input at the beginning of the process and is concerned about the staff resources needed to implement the program.” In November 2001, just over three months after the Legislature’s first appropriation of funds for the program, SCOE began work on a $58,000 contract for tasks that included the development of evaluation criteria for training providers and creation of program promotional materials. A key product of the promotional materials included a document and video to explain to the public and local education agencies the intent and requirements of the program. According to SCOE officials, it made several presentations to various education officials across the State using this material. Table 3 on the following page provides information regarding key funding and program development dates. With the establishment of evaluation criteria for training providers, SCOE entered into its second contract in March 2002 for $337,500. Under this contract, SCOE was responsible for “managing the process of reviewing training curriculum submitted to the [board].” In this capacity, SCOE convened a panel to meet at various times to evaluate and make recommendations on the training curricula submitted by prospective providers. The panel comprised education professionals from across the State and did not include employees of SCOE. Rather, SCOE officials were responsible for organizing the dates and locations of the panel meetings and clarifying evaluation criteria to the panelists. The first panel was convened in May 2002, and the board approved its first round of providers later that same month. During our review of documents from this period, we noted sensitivity on the part of the board to the need to conduct panel reviews in a fair and impartial manner. Specifically, OOuurr aauuddiitt nnootteedd tthhee bbooaarrdd’’ss our audit noted the board’s awareness of potential conflicts aawwaarreenneessss ooff ppootteennttiiaall of interest for SCOE in its roles as both training provider and ccoonnflfliiccttss ooff iinntteerreesstt ffoorr tthhee panel facilitator. In June 2002 the board’s executive director SSaaccrraammeennttoo CCoouunnttyy OOfffificcee issued a letter to SCOE “to establish a procedure for the review ooff EEdduuccaattiioonn iinn iittss rroolleess aass of [program training provider] applications submitted by bbootthh ttrraaiinniinngg pprroovviiddeerr aanndd [SCOE].” The procedure required SCOE personnel to leave ppaanneell ffaacciilliittaattoorr.. the room when panel members were considering SCOE’s own proposed curriculum. Further, the procedure required a member authorized by the board to observe the review process and advise panel members. Finally, the panel’s recommendation would remain in the hands of the board’s representative and not be California State Auditor Report 2005-133 33 disclosed to SCOE until the board deemed it appropriate to do so. The board reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining the fairness of the evaluation process when it cancelled an extension of the contract with SCOE. According to SCOE, the board, concerned about a perception of a conflict of interest, cancelled the extension after SCOE hired a former board member who had served during the time that SCOE’s contracts were approved. TABLE 3 Chronology of the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program Rollout Event Date Budget Act of 2001 passed (appropriates $80 million) 7/26/2001 Assembly Bill 466 codified (Chapter 737, Statutes of 2001); provides funding for 176,000 teachers through June 30, 2005 10/11/2001 Sacramento County Office of Education (SCOE) begins work for the State Board of Education (board), developing training provider criteria and an outreach video 11/1/2001 Senate Bill 1xxx reduces funding to $31.7 million 2/19/2002 Department of Education (Education) issues a letter to district superintendents announcing the program and how to apply for funding 3/8/2002 SCOE begins work for the board, reviewing training provider materials and making recommendations to the board for provider approval 3/15/2002 SCOE convenes its first panel to review potential AB 466 providers 5/10/2002 The board announces its approval of the first round of training providers based on SCOE recommendations (4 math/1 reading) 5/24/2002 Education encumbers Budget Act 2001 funds for local education agencies that applied for funding (115 local education agencies per the California State Accounting and Reporting System) 7/19/2002 Education informs local education agencies that their fiscal year 2001–02 applications have been approved 8/26/2002 Assembly Bill 2781 (Chapter 1167, Statutes of 2002) extends the program through June 30, 2006, and establishes a 3 percent cap on funded teachers in fiscal years 2002–03 and 2003–04 9/30/2002 Education informs local education agencies that their fiscal year 2001–02 grant awards are rescinded based on the Legislature’s decision to return those funds to the General Fund 12/5/2002 Education processes first payments to local education agencies from fiscal year 2002–03 appropriation 2/27/2003 Senate Bill 18x eliminates program funding from the 2001 Budget Act in order to help pay for minimum guarantee funding (per Constitution) 3/18/2003 Orange County Department of Education assumes responsibility for approving provider materials and reviewing new provider applications (replaces SCOE) 6/1/2003 Sources: State Board of Education meeting minutes; program-related contracts; Department of Education’s CALSTARS accounting records; Department of Education correspondence; and codified legislation. 3 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 Moreover, our review of the provider evaluation process demonstrated that most provider curricula were approved in a timely manner. When we asked the board about the adequacy of the number of approved training providers for the program, its staff indicated that it has never established a target number. Rather, the board hopes to approve as many high-quality providers as possible. However, the board indicated that the market for training providers declined when the Legislature reduced funding for the program. By June 2003 the Orange County Department of Education (OCDE) was responsible for managing the provider application process and maintaining an archive of approved curricula. The value of its contract was $144,628. OCDE has obtained various extensions to this contract, the last of which was in the amount of $132,862 for performance through June 30, 2006. RECOMMENDATIONS Given that only a small percentage of teachers have completed the full 120 hours of program training, and that teacher participation is voluntary, the Legislature should consider redefining its expectations for the program, clearly stating the number of teachers to be fully trained as well as any gains in student achievement expected. Based on how it defines the program’s goals, the Legislature should consider making statutory changes to ensure that Education provides meaningful data with which to evaluate program success. Examples of meaningful program data include the following: • Unduplicated counts of teachers who have completed the training with the aid of program and non-program funding, with a comparison of these figures to the total number of teachers who are eligible to participate in the program. Education could capture this information by modifying its claim form, adding a data collection tool similar to the one shown in Appendix D. • Measures of the resulting gains in student achievement for teachers who have completed the program’s training, such as higher student scores on standardized tests. To remove a barrier to increased teacher participation in the program, Education should explore opportunities to expedite its payment process to school districts. One such opportunity would be to seek legislation authorizing Education to approve California State Auditor Report 2005-133 35 the annual certifications submitted by school districts instead of waiting for board approval, thus removing any payment delay caused by the need to wait for the next board meeting. To ensure that all school districts are aware of the program and that as many teachers participate in the program as possible, Education should conduct annual outreach activities to all school districts. A component of such an outreach program should include directly informing each school district of the amount of funding for which it is eligible each year. To ensure that required compliance audits are occurring, Education should take steps to ensure that the program’s compliance requirements are included in audit guides related to the annual audits of school districts. To ensure that it does not expose the State to potential liability for work performed before the contract is approved, the board should ensure that it obtains the Department of General Services’ approval of its contracts and amendments before the start of the contract period and before contractors begin work. 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 the report. Respectfully submitted, ELAINE M. HOWLE State Auditor Date: November 30, 2006 Staff: John F. Collins II, CPA, Audit Principal Grant Parks Ralph Flynn, JD Greg Harrison, CIA Cathy Nystrom 3 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 APPenDIX A The Department of Education Has Disbursed About $113 Million Under the Program Through Fiscal Year 2005–06 The Joint Legislative Audit Committee asked us to determine whether internal controls exist to track program awards or expenditures by school districts. Table A lists the Department of Education’s cash disbursements to school districts from fiscal years 2002–03 through 2005–06. TABLE A Disbursement of Program Funds by the Department of Education Fiscal Years 2002–03 Through 2005–0 County Local Education Agency 2002–03 2003–0 200–05 2005–0 Totals Alameda Alameda County Office of Education $ 475,000 — $621,250 $651,250 $1,,500 Alameda Fremont Unified 260,000 $2,500 — — 22,500 Alameda Hayward Unified — — 365,000 10,000 35,000 Alameda Livermore Valley Joint Unified — — — 32,500 32,500 Alameda Oakland Unified 3,250,000 160,000 491,250 752,500 ,53,50 Alpine None — — — — — Amador None — — — — — Butte Butte County Office of Education 2,500 — — 5,000 ,500 Butte Bangor Union Elementary — — — 6,250 ,250 Butte Chico Unified — 77,500 11,250 70,000 15,50 Butte Durham Unified 2,500 — — — 2,500 Butte Feather Falls Union Elementary — — 1,250 3,750 5,000 Butte Golden Feather Union Elementary 5,000 — — — 5,000 Butte Gridley Unified 16,250 — — — 1,250 Butte Manzanita Elementary 2,500 2,500 7,500 1,250 13,50 Butte Oroville City Elementary 13,750 3,750 — 6,250 23,50 Butte Palermo Union Elementary 16,250 — — — 1,250 Butte Paradise Unified 45,000 7,500 17,500 6,250 ,250 Butte Pioneer Union Elementary — — — 3,750 3,50 Butte Thermalito Union Elementary 26,250 — 3,750 — 30,000 Calaveras Calaveras Unified — — — 3,750 3,50 Calaveras Mark Twain Union Elementary 20,000 5,000 8,750 — 33,50 Colusa Colusa County Office of Education — — 2,500 2,500 5,000 Colusa Colusa Unified 6,250 — — — ,250 continued on next page California State Auditor Report 2005-133 3 County Local Education Agency 2002–03 2003–0 200–05 2005–0 Totals Colusa Maxwell Unified — — $ 3,750 — $ 3,50 Colusa Pierce Joint Unified $ 82,500 $ 5,000 18,750 $ 21,250 12,500 Colusa Williams Unified — — 12,500 — 12,500 Contra Costa Contra Costa County Office of Education — 1,250 — — 1,250 Contra Costa Antioch Unified — — 12,500 20,000 32,500 Contra Costa Lafayette Elementary — — 10,000 — 10,000 Contra Costa Liberty Union High — — — 80,000 0,000 Contra Costa Mt. Diablo Unified — 40,000 98,750 — 13,50 Contra Costa Orinda Union Elementary — — 23,750 — 23,50 Contra Costa Pittsburg Unified* 177,500 45,000 247,500 (65,000) 05,000 Contra Costa San Ramon Valley Unified — 50,000 — — 50,000 Contra Costa Walnut Creek Elementary — — 20,000 5,000 25,000 Contra Costa West Contra Costa Unified 2,043,750 87,500 101,250 317,500 2,550,000 Del Norte Del Norte County Unified — 15,000 50,000 46,250 111,250 El Dorado El Dorado County Office of Education 7,500 5,000 2,500 3,750 1,50 Fresno Fresno County Office of Education — — — 2,500 2,500 Fresno Caruthers Unified — — 1,250 26,250 2,500 Fresno Central Unified — — 30,000 28,750 5,50 Fresno Clovis Unified — — 93,750 71,250 15,000 Fresno Coalinga-Huron Joint Unified — — 36,250 151,250 1,500 Fresno Firebaugh-Las Deltas Joint Unified — — 32,500 113,750 1,250 Fresno Fowler Unified 38,750 — — — 3,50 Fresno Fresno Unified — — — 265,000 25,000 Fresno Golden Plains Unified — — 45,000 — 5,000 Fresno Kerman Unified — — — 56,250 5,250 Fresno Kings Canyon Joint Unified 36,250 — 50,000 203,750 20,000 Fresno Kingsburg Elementary Charter — — 2,500 30,000 32,500 Fresno Laton Joint Unified 2,500 — — — 2,500 Fresno Mendota Unified — — 20,000 — 20,000 Fresno Parlier Unified — 20,000 62,500 — 2,500 Fresno Raisin City Elementary — 2,500 11,250 — 13,50 Fresno Riverdale Joint Unified — — — 10,000 10,000 Fresno Sanger Unified — — 20,000 91,250 111,250 Fresno Selma Unified — — 25,000 76,250 101,250 Fresno Sierra Unified 18,750 — — — 1,50 Fresno West Fresno Elementary — — 42,500 73,750 11,250 Fresno West Park Elementary — — — 11,250 11,250 Glenn Glenn County Office of Education 61,250 — — — 1,250 Glenn Capay Joint Union Elementary — — 2,500 — 2,500 Glenn Hamilton Union Elementary — — 3,750 — 3,50 Glenn Lake Elementary — 1,250 — — 1,250 Glenn Orland Joint Unified 5,000 — — 6,250 11,250 Glenn Plaza Elementary — 1,250 — — 1,250 Humboldt Big Lagoon Union Elementary — — — 1,250 1,250 Humboldt Cutten Elementary — — — 1,250 1,250 Humboldt Eureka City Unified 500 — 13,750 10,000 2,250 3 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 County Local Education Agency 2002–03 2003–0 200–05 2005–0 Totals Humboldt Ferndale Unified $ 1,500 — — — $ 1,500 Humboldt Fortuna Union Elementary 2,000 — — — 2,000 Humboldt Jacoby Creek Elementary 4,500 — — — ,500 Humboldt Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified — — $ 2,500 — 2,500 Humboldt Loleta Union Elementary — — — $ 1,250 1,250 Humboldt Northern Humboldt Union High 25,000 — — — 25,000 Humboldt Rio Dell Elementary 500 — — — 500 Humboldt Rohnerville Elementary 1,500 — 2,500 20,000 2,000 Humboldt South Bay Union Elementary — — 1,250 — 1,250 Humboldt Southern Humboldt Joint Unified 500 — — — 500 Imperial Imperial County Office of Education 645,000 $12,500 266,250 498,750 1,22,500 Imperial Brawley Union High 104,000 — — — 10,000 Inyo None — — — — — Kern Kern County Office of Education — — — 1,250 1,250 Kern Arvin Union Elementary 5,000 — 25,000 — 30,000 Kern Bakersfield City 343,750 — — 80,000 23,50 Kern Blake Elementary — — 1,250 — 1,250 Kern Delano Joint Union High 18,750 — — — 1,50 Kern Delano Union Elementary — — 53,750 — 53,50 Kern Edison Elementary — — 16,250 7,500 23,50 Kern Greenfield Union Elementary 327,500 — — — 32,500 Kern Kernville Union Elementary — — 3,750 — 3,50 Kern Lamont Elementary — — — 122,500 122,500 Kern McFarland Unified — — 5,000 11,250 1,250 Kern Mojave Unified — — 8,750 18,750 2,500 Kern Richland Union Elementary 20,000 — — — 20,000 Kern Rosedale Union Elementary — — 13,750 17,500 31,250 Kern Standard Elementary — — — 17,500 1,500 Kern Taft City Elementary — — — 10,000 10,000 Kern Wasco Union Elementary — — — 126,250 12,250 Kings Corcoran Joint Unified — 43,750 — 8,750 52,500 Kings Hanford Elementary — — 98,750 — ,50 Kings Hanford Joint Union High — — — 37,500 3,500 Kings Island Union Elementary — — — 8,750 ,50 Kings Kit Carson Union Elementary — 2,500 6,250 — ,50 Kings Lemoore Union Elementary — — 13,750 22,500 3,250 Kings Reef-Sunset Unified — — — 85,000 5,000 Lake Kelseyville Unified 57,500 — — 58,750 11,250 Lake Konocti Unified 74,500 — 17,500 50,000 12,000 Lake Lakeport Unified — — 10,000 10,000 20,000 Lake Lucerne Elementary — — — 17,500 1,500 Lake Middletown Unified 26,250 — — 10,000 3,250 Lassen Big Valley Joint Unified — — — 1,250 1,250 Lassen Johnstonville Elementary — 1,250 8,750 2,500 12,500 Lassen Susanville Elementary — — — 7,500 ,500 Los Angeles Los Angeles County Office of Education — — 43,750 — 3,50 continued on next page California State Auditor Report 2005-133 3 County Local Education Agency 2002–03 2003–0 200–05 2005–0 Totals Los Angeles ABC Unified $ 47,500 — — — $ ,500 Los Angeles Antelope Valley Union High — $ 2,500 $ 128,750 $ 51,250 12,500 Los Angeles Arcadia Unified — — — 67,500 ,500 Los Angeles Azuza Unified — — — 38,750 3,50 Los Angeles Bassett Unified — — 32,500 16,250 ,50 Los Angeles Bonita Unified — 6,250 7,500 1,250 15,000 Los Angeles Claremont Unified 97,000 — — — ,000 Los Angeles Compton Unified 781,250 — — 23,750 05,000 Los Angeles Duarte Unified — — — 17,500 1,500 Los Angeles Eastside Union Elementary — — 3,750 — 3,50 Los Angeles El Monte City Elementary — — 27,500 13,750 1,250 Los Angeles El Monte Union High — — — 31,250 31,250 Los Angeles Hacienda la Puente Unified 26,250 — 11,250 131,250 1,50 Los Angeles Inglewood Unified — — — 78,750 ,50 Los Angeles Keppel Union Elementary — 17,500 112,500 21,250 151,250 Los Angeles Lancaster Elementary — — 292,500 220,000 512,500 Los Angeles Lawndale Elementary — — — 76,250 ,250 Los Angeles Los Angeles Unified 13,629,500 1,237,500 4,371,250 4,400,000 23,3,250 Los Angeles Lynwood Unified — 35,000 — 316,250 351,250 Los Angeles Monrovia Unified 123,500 — — 15,000 13,500 Los Angeles Montebello Unified 173,750 78,750 106,250 228,750 5,500 Los Angeles Mountain View Elementary — 58,750 128,750 138,750 32,250 Los Angeles Norwalk-La Mirada Unified 82,500 — — 723,750 0,250 Los Angeles Palmdale Elementary — — 441,250 540,000 1,250 Los Angeles Paramount Unified 153,750 17,500 160,000 5,000 33,250 Los Angeles Pasadena Unified 1,272,500 117,500 822,500 830,000 3,02,500 Los Angeles Pomona Unified 50,000 177,500 291,250 113,750 32,500 Los Angeles Redondo Beach Unified — — — 40,000 0,000 Los Angeles Santa Monica-Malibu Unified — — 3,750 — 3,50 Los Angeles Saugus Union Elementary — 32,500 32,500 90,000 155,000 Los Angeles South Whittier Elementary — — 7,500 — ,500 Los Angeles West Covina Unified — 23,750 — 58,750 2,500 Los Angeles Whittier City Elementary — 246,250 196,250 43,750 ,250 Los Angeles Wilsona Elementary — — 20,000 13,750 33,50 Madera Alview-Dairyland Union Elementary — — — 6,250 ,250 Madera Chowchilla Union High — — — 2,500 2,500 Madera Coarsegold Union Elementary — — 25,000 — 25,000 Madera Golden Valley Unified — — 17,500 18,750 3,250 Madera Madera Unified — 186,250 223,750 273,750 3,50 Marin Dixie Elementary 68,750 — — — ,50 Marin Laguna Joint Elementary — 2,500 2,500 — 5,000 Marin Novato Unified — — — 23,750 23,50 Marin Union Joint Elementary — 2,500 — — 2,500 Mariposa None — — — — — Mendocino Anderson Valley Unified — — — 23,750 23,50 Mendocino Arena Union Elementary 23,750 — — 2,500 2,250 0 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 County Local Education Agency 2002–03 2003–0 200–05 2005–0 Totals Mendocino Fort Bragg Unified — — — $ 32,500 $ 32,500 Mendocino Laytonville Unified — — — 5,000 5,000 Mendocino Manchester Union Elementary — $ 2,500 — — 2,500 Mendocino Mendocino Unified $ 8,750 — — — ,50 Mendocino Potter Valley Community Unified — — — 6,250 ,250 Mendocino Round Valley Unified 17,500 — — — 1,500 Mendocino Ukiah Unified — — — 40,000 0,000 Mendocino Willits Unified — — $ 8,750 17,500 2,250 Merced Atwater Elementary 223,750 — 21,250 22,500 2,500 Merced Ballico-Cressey Elementary — — — 17,500 1,500 Merced Delhi Unified — — 32,500 167,500 200,000 Merced Dos Palos Oro Loma Joint Unified — — — 26,250 2,250 Merced El Nido Elementary — — 2,500 15,000 1,500 Merced Gustine Unified — — 40,000 40,000 0,000 Merced Livingston Union Elementary — — 87,500 57,500 15,000 Merced Los Banos Unified — — — 32,500 32,500 Merced Merced City Elementary — — 276,250 — 2,250 Merced Merced River Union Elementary — — — 1,250 1,250 Merced Merced Union High — 41,250 127,500 103,750 22,500 Merced Plainsburg Union Elementary — — — 2,500 2,500 Merced Planada Elementary — 5,000 38,750 — 3,50 Merced Weaver Union — — — 17,500 1,500 Merced Winton Elementary — — 48,750 — ,50 Modoc Surprise Valley Joint Unified — — — 7,500 ,500 Modoc Tulelake Basin Joint Unified — — 7,500 21,250 2,50 Mono None — — — — — Monterey Monterey County Office of Education 282,500 123,750 233,750 458,750 1,0,50 Monterey Alisal Union Elementary 55,000 — 16,250 143,750 215,000 Monterey Chualar Union Elementary — — — 12,500 12,500 Monterey Gonzales Unified 30,000 — 12,500 52,500 5,000 Monterey Greenfield Union Elementary — 18,750 11,250 25,000 55,000 Monterey King City Union Elementary 50,000 — — 2,500 52,500 Monterey Monterey Pennisula Unified 87,500 — — 121,250 20,50 Monterey Salinas City Elementary — 50,000 — — 50,000 Monterey Salinas Union High — — — 111,250 111,250 Monterey San Lucas Union Elementary 3,750 — — — 3,50 Monterey Santa Rita Union Elementary — — — 2,500 2,500 Monterey Soledad Unified — — 17,500 95,000 112,500 Napa Calistoga Joint Unified 5,000 — — — 5,000 Napa Napa Valley Unified — — — 198,750 1,50 Nevada Nevada County Office of Education 150,000 — — — 150,000 Nevada Pleasant Ridge Union Elementary — — — 5,000 5,000 Orange Anaheim City Elementary 883,000 230,000 863,750 146,250 2,123,000 Orange Buena Park Elementary 21,500 — — — 21,500 Orange Capistrano Unified 88,750 — — 6,250 5,000 Orange Fullerton Elementary — — — 80,000 0,000 continued on next page California State Auditor Report 2005-133 1 County Local Education Agency 2002–03 2003–0 200–05 2005–0 Totals Orange La Habra City Elementary $ 25,000 — — — $ 25,000 Orange Los Alamitos Unified 127,500 — — $ 8,750 13,250 Orange Magnolia Elementary — — $ 57,500 — 5,500 Orange Newport-Mesa Unified* — — 198,750 (111,250) ,500 Orange Orange Unified 77,000 — — 115,000 12,000 Orange Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified 125,000 $127,500 2,500 — 255,000 Orange Santa Ana Unified — — 1,376,250 1,036,250 2,12,500 Orange Savanna Elementary 307,500 — — — 30,500 Orange Tustin Unified — — — 47,500 ,500 Placer Auburn Union Elementary — — 116,250 — 11,250 Placer Placer Union High — — — 6,250 ,250 Placer Roseville City Elementary — 42,500 77,500 96,250 21,250 Placer Roseville Joint Union High — — — 60,000 0,000 Placer Western Placer Unified — — 13,750 18,750 32,500 Plumas Plumas Unified — — — 15,000 15,000 Riverside Alvord Unified — — 82,500 336,250 1,50 Riverside Banning Unified 16,250 22,500 5,000 80,000 123,50 Riverside Coachella Valley Unified 327,500 75,000 550,000 848,750 1,01,250 Riverside Desert Sands Unified 125,000 206,250 476,250 560,000 1,3,500 Riverside Hemet Unified — — — 102,500 102,500 Riverside Jurupa Unified — — — 151,250 151,250 Riverside Lake Elsinore Unified 407,500 6,250 113,750 38,750 5,250 Riverside Menifee Union Elementary 23,750 7,500 — — 31,250 Riverside Moreno Valley Unified — 173,750 290,000 318,750 2,500 Riverside Murrieta Valley Unified — — — 23,750 23,50 Riverside Palm Springs Unified — 7,500 166,250 281,250 55,000 Riverside Palo Verde Unified — — 5,000 101,250 10,250 Riverside Perris Elementary — 6,250 8,750 — 15,000 Riverside Perris Union High 10,000 — — — 10,000 Riverside Romoland Elementary 35,000 — — — 35,000 Riverside San Jacinto Unified 43,750 32,500 17,500 — 3,50 Sacramento Sacramento County Office of Education — — — 23,750 23,50 Sacramento Del Paso Heights Elementary 96,250 — — 13,750 110,000 Sacramento Elk Grove Unified 625,000 435,000 928,750 1,126,250 3,115,000 Sacramento Elverta Joint Elementary — — — 2,500 2,500 Sacramento Folsom-Cordova Unified — — — 157,500 15,500 Sacramento Galt Joint Union High — — 13,750 51,250 5,000 Sacramento Grant Joint Union High 82,500 — 161,250 72,500 31,250 Sacramento Natomas Unified 8,750 — 3,750 — 12,500 Sacramento North Sacramento Elementary 341,250 1,250 15,000 101,250 5,50 Sacramento River Delta Joint Unified — — 42,500 — 2,500 Sacramento Robla Elementary 161,250 — 3,750 60,000 225,000 Sacramento Sacramento City Unified 1,241,250 6,250 552,500 525,000 2,325,000 Sacramento San Juan Unified 30,000 — — — 30,000 San Benito Hollister — — — 61,250 1,250 San Bernardino San Bernardino County Office of Education — — — 2,500 2,500 2 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 County Local Education Agency 2002–03 2003–0 200–05 2005–0 Totals San Bernardino Adelanto Elementary — — $115,000 — $ 115,000 San Bernardino Alta Loma Elementary — $ 20,000 12,500 $ 38,750 1,250 San Bernardino Apple Valley Unified $ 36,000 — 82,500 298,750 1,250 San Bernardino Baker Valley Unified — — 1,250 — 1,250 San Bernardino Barstow Unified — 12,500 45,000 32,500 0,000 San Bernardino Central Elementary 47,500 41,250 8,750 5,000 102,500 San Bernardino Colton Joint Unified — — 310,000 718,750 1,02,50 San Bernardino Cucamonga Elementary — — 8,750 — ,50 San Bernardino Etiwanda Elementary 191,250 198,750 198,750 225,000 13,50 San Bernardino Fontana Unified — — — 97,500 ,500 San Bernardino Mountain View Elementary 21,250 21,250 21,250 — 3,50 San Bernardino Ontario-Montclair Elementary 66,250 367,500 470,000 610,000 1,513,50 San Bernardino Rialto Unified 170,000 91,250 228,750 228,750 1,50 San Bernardino Rim of the World Unified — — — 7,500 ,500 San Bernardino San Bernardino City Unified — — 575,000 816,250 1,31,250 San Bernardino Upland Unified 51,250 66,250 26,250 — 13,50 San Bernardino Victor Valley Union High 31,250 — 12,500 33,750 ,500 San Diego San Diego County Office of Education 712,500 — 7,500 221,250 1,250 San Diego Alpine Union Elementary — — 1,250 10,000 11,250 San Diego Bonsall Union Elementary — — — 10,000 10,000 San Diego Borrego Springs Unified — 1,250 1,250 12,500 15,000 San Diego Cajon Valley Union Elementary — 67,500 101,250 108,750 2,500 San Diego Carlsbad Unified — 5,000 5,000 1,250 11,250 San Diego Chula Vista Elementary — — 2,500 47,500 50,000 San Diego Encinitas Union Elementary — 10,000 16,250 — 2,250 San Diego Escondido Union Elementary — 28,750 97,500 100,000 22,250 San Diego Fallbrook Union Elementary — 5,000 — 12,500 1,500 San Diego Fallbrook Union High — — — 23,750 23,50 San Diego Grossmont Union High — — — 32,500 32,500 San Diego Jamul-Dulzura Union Elementary — — 10,000 25,000 35,000 San Diego La Mesa-Spring Valley 181,250 — — 10,000 11,250 San Diego Lakeside Union Elementary — — — 5,000 5,000 San Diego Lemon Grove Elementary — 21,250 60,000 60,000 11,250 San Diego Mountain Empire Unified — 7,500 17,500 — 25,000 San Diego National Elementary — — 17,500 10,000 2,500 San Diego Oceanside Unified — — — 125,000 125,000 San Diego Ramona City Unified — 18,750 18,750 58,750 ,250 San Diego San Diego City Unified 5,986,250 372,500 1,050,000 1,198,750 ,0,500 San Diego San Ysidro Elementary — 17,500 28,750 56,250 102,500 San Diego Santee Elementary — 7,500 2,500 23,750 33,50 San Diego South Bay Union Elementary — 5,000 37,500 23,750 ,250 San Diego Sweetwater Union High — 21,250 228,750 193,750 3,50 San Diego Vallecitos Elementary — 1,250 — — 1,250 San Diego Valley Center-Pauma Unified — 7,500 15,000 40,000 2,500 San Diego Vista Unified — 213,750 218,750 146,250 5,50 San Francisco San Francisco Unified — — 201,250 536,250 3,500 continued on next page California State Auditor Report 2005-133 3 County Local Education Agency 2002–03 2003–0 200–05 2005–0 Totals San Joaquin San Joaquin County Office of Education $ 7,500 — — — $ ,500 San Joaquin Banta Elementary 12,500 — — — 12,500 San Joaquin Escalon Unified 45,000 — — — 5,000 San Joaquin Jefferson Elementary — $ 10,000 $ 21,250 $ 5,000 3,250 San Joaquin Lammersville Elementary — — — 10,000 10,000 San Joaquin Lincoln Unified — 100,000 83,750 — 13,50 San Joaquin Lodi Unified 31,250 1,250 56,250 142,500 231,250 San Joaquin Manteca Unified — 353,750 465,000 132,500 51,250 San Joaquin New Hope Elementary 12,500 — 1,250 2,500 1,250 San Joaquin Ripon Unified — — 30,000 31,250 1,250 San Joaquin Stockton Unified 1,363,750 — — — 1,33,50 San Joaquin Tracy Joint Unified — 26,250 20,000 276,250 322,500 San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo County Office of Education 115,000 — — — 115,000 San Luis Obispo Atascadero Unified 118,750 — — — 11,50 San Luis Obispo Lucia Mar Unified 91,250 — — — 1,250 San Luis Obispo Paso Robles Joint Unified 279,000 — — — 2,000 San Luis Obispo San Luis Coastal Unified 20,000 — — — 20,000 San Mateo Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary — — 23,750 2,500 2,250 San Mateo Cabrillo Unified — — — 6,250 ,250 San Mateo Redwood City Elementary 22,500 3,750 33,750 — 0,000 San Mateo San Mateo-Foster City Elementary — 3,750 30,000 — 33,50 Santa Barbara Santa Barbara County Office of Education — — 1,250 16,250 1,500 Santa Barbara Cuyama Joint Unified — — — 17,500 1,500 Santa Barbara Goleta Union Elementary — — — 17,500 1,500 Santa Barbara Guadalupe Union Elementary — — 2,500 — 2,500 Santa Barbara Lompoc Unified — — — 253,750 253,50 Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Elementary 82,500 — — 2,500 5,000 Santa Barbara Santa Barbara High — — — 20,000 20,000 Santa Barbara Santa Maria-Bonita Elementary 96,500 75,000 270,000 178,750 20,250 Santa Clara Santa Clara County Office of Education — — 111,250 30,000 11,250 Santa Clara Alum Rock Union Elementary 1,063,750 87,500 506,250 697,500 2,355,000 Santa Clara Cupertino Union 10,500 — 8,000 — 1,500 Santa Clara Franklin-McKinley Elementary — 72,500 48,750 — 121,250 Santa Clara Gilroy Unified 46,250 63,750 — — 110,000 Santa Clara Luther Burbank 36,250 — — — 3,250 Santa Clara Moreland Elementary — — — 26,250 2,250 Santa Clara Mountain View-Whisman Elementary — 27,500 11,250 8,750 ,500 Santa Clara Mt. Pleasant Elementary 53,750 17,500 22,500 — 3,50 Santa Clara Oak Grove Elementary — — 55,000 31,250 ,250 Santa Clara San Jose Unified 21,250 1,250 10,000 155,000 1,500 Santa Clara Sunnyvale Elementary — 37,500 137,500 208,750 33,50 Santa Cruz Santa Cruz County Office of Education — 56,250 27,500 — 3,50 Santa Cruz Pajaro Valley Unified 288,750 53,750 158,750 213,750 15,000 Santa Cruz Santa Cruz City High — — — 18,750 1,50 Shasta Shasta County Office of Education — — — 10,000 10,000 Shasta Columbia Elementary — — 10,000 27,500 3,500  California State Auditor Report 2005-133 County Local Education Agency 2002–03 2003–0 200–05 2005–0 Totals Shasta Enterprise Elementary — — — $ 2,500 $ 2,500 Shasta Fall River Joint Unified — — $ 7,500 8,750 1,250 Shasta Gateway Unified — — — 1,250 1,250 Shasta Grant Elementary — — — 1,250 1,250 Shasta Happy Valley Union Elementary — — 16,250 — 1,250 Shasta Junction Elementary — — — 3,750 3,50 Shasta Millville Elementary — — — 1,250 1,250 Shasta Mountain Union Elementary — — — 3,750 3,50 Shasta Oak Run Elementary — — 2,500 1,250 3,50 Shasta Shasta Union High — — — 2,000 2,000 Shasta Whitmore Union Elementary — — 1,250 3,750 5,000 Sierra None — — — — — Siskiyou Siskiyou County Office of Education — — — 1,250 1,250 Siskiyou Butte Valley Unified — — — 2,500 2,500 Siskiyou Delphic Elementary — $ 1,250 — — 1,250 Siskiyou Etna Union Elementary — — — 1,250 1,250 Siskiyou Fort Jones Union Elementary — — 5,000 — 5,000 Siskiyou Grenada Elementary — — — 1,250 1,250 Siskiyou Hornbrook Elementary — — — 1,250 1,250 Siskiyou Junction Elementary — 2,500 — — 2,500 Siskiyou Siskiyou Union High — — — 6,250 ,250 Siskiyou Yreka Union Elementary — — — 2,500 2,500 Siskiyou Yreka Union High — — — 2,500 2,500 Solano Dixon Unified $ 10,000 — — — 10,000 Solano Fairfield-Suisun Unified — — 86,250 185,000 21,250 Solano Vacaville Unified 168,750 — — 43,750 212,500 Solano Vallejo City Unified 97,500 — 16,250 46,250 10,000 Sonoma Alexander Valley Union Elementary — — — 6,250 ,250 Sonoma Bellevue Union Elementary 21,250 — 26,250 60,000 10,500 Sonoma Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified 13,750 — — — 13,50 Sonoma Dunham Elementary 10,000 — — — 10,000 Sonoma Gravenstein Union Elementary 13,750 2,500 3,750 — 20,000 Sonoma Guerneville Elementary 2,000 — — — 2,000 Sonoma Horicon Elementary — — — 1,250 1,250 Sonoma Mark West Union Elementary 48,750 — — — ,50 Sonoma Old Adobe Union Elementary — — 3,750 13,750 1,500 Sonoma Petaluma Joint Union High — — — 7,500 ,500 Sonoma Piner-Olivet Union Elementary 87,500 — — — ,500 Sonoma Rincon Valley Union Elementary — — — 16,250 1,250 Sonoma Roseland Elementary 12,000 — 88,750 10,000 110,50 Sonoma Santa Rosa Elementary 61,250 37,500 145,000 138,750 32,500 Sonoma Santa Rosa High — — — 61,250 1,250 Sonoma Two Rock Union Elementary 5,000 — — — 5,000 Sonoma Waugh Elementary 4,000 — — — ,000 Sonoma Windsor Unified 175,000 — — — 15,000 Stanislaus Ceres Unified — — 203,750 228,750 32,500 continued on next page California State Auditor Report 2005-133 5 County Local Education Agency 2002–03 2003–0 200–05 2005–0 Totals Stanislaus Chatom Union Elementary $21,250 — — $ 5,000 $ 2,250 Stanislaus Denair Unified 53,000 — — — 53,000 Stanislaus Empire Union Elementary — — $ 53,750 8,750 2,500 Stanislaus Hart-Ransom Union Elementary — — 2,500 25,000 2,500 Stanislaus Hughson Unified — — 10,000 50,000 0,000 Stanislaus Keyes Union — — 5,000 — 5,000 Stanislaus Modesto City Elementary — — — 377,500 3,500 Stanislaus Newman-Crows Landing Unified — — 11,250 28,750 0,000 Stanislaus Paradise Elementary — $ 2,500 3,750 1,250 ,500 Stanislaus Patterson Joint Unified — 17,500 16,250 32,500 ,250 Stanislaus Riverbank Unified — — — 93,750 3,50 Stanislaus Salida Union Elementary 50,000 — 21,250 25,000 ,250 Stanislaus Stanislaus Union Elementary — — 10,000 60,000 0,000 Stanislaus Sylvan Union Elementary — — 72,500 117,500 10,000 Stanislaus Turlock Joint Union Elementary — 137,500 — — 13,500 Stanislaus Turlock Unified — — — 38,750 3,50 Stanislaus Waterford Unified — — — 33,750 33,50 Sutter Sutter County Office of Education — — 13,750 5,000 1,50 Sutter Brittan Elementary — — 23,750 21,250 5,000 Sutter Browns Elementary — — 7,500 7,500 15,000 Sutter Franklin Elementary — — — 25,000 25,000 Sutter Marcum-Illinois Union Elementary — — 2,500 6,250 ,50 Sutter Meridian Elementary — — — 5,000 5,000 Sutter Yuba City Unified 38,750 — 107,500 171,250 31,500 Tehama Tehama County Office of Education — — — 5,000 5,000 Tehama Antelope Elementary — — 6,250 8,750 15,000 Tehama Corning Union Elementary 3,500 — 35,000 36,250 ,50 Tehama Corning Union High — — — 2,500 2,500 Tehama Flournoy Union Elementary — — — 2,500 2,500 Tehama Gerber Union Elementary — — — 5,000 5,000 Tehama Kirkwood Elementary — — — 1,250 1,250 Tehama Los Molinos Unified 500 — — — 500 Tehama Plum Valley Elementary — — 2,500 — 2,500 Tehama Red Bluff Union Elementary 5,000 — — 13,750 1,50 Tehama Richfield Elementary — — — 2,500 2,500 Trinity Trinity County Office of Education — — — 2,500 2,500 Trinity Burnt Ranch Elementary 5,000 — — — 5,000 Trinity Cox Bar Elementary — — 2,500 — 2,500 Trinity Douglas City Elementary — — — 1,250 1,250 Trinity Lewiston Elementary — — 8,750 7,500 1,250 Trinity Mountain Valley Unified — 2,500 1,250 — 3,50 Trinity Southern Trinity Joint Unified — — 1,250 — 1,250 Trinity Trinity Center Elementary — — — 1,250 1,250 Trinity Weaverville Elementary — 2,500 5,000 1,250 ,50 Tulare Tulare County Office of Education 18,000 100,000 251,250 308,750 ,000 Tulare Burton Elementary 43,750 — — — 3,50  California State Auditor Report 2005-133 County Local Education Agency 2002–03 2003–0 200–05 2005–0 Totals Tulare Dinuba Unified — — $ 3,750 $ 52,500 $ 5,250 Tulare Exeter Union Elementary — $ 35,000 — — 35,000 Tulare Exeter Union High — 22,500 — — 22,500 Tulare Liberty Elementary — — — 1,250 1,250 Tulare Lindsay Unified — — 101,250 27,500 12,50 Tulare Pixley Union Elementary — — 87,500 — ,500 Tulare Porterville Unified $ 101,250 — — — 101,250 Tuolumne Big Oak Flat-Groveland Unified — — 5,000 6,250 11,250 Tuolumne Soulsbyville Elementary — 5,000 18,750 — 23,50 Tuolumne Twain Harte-Long Barn Union Elementary — — — 3,750 3,50 Ventura Conejo Valley Unified — — 55,000 7,500 2,500 Ventura Hueneme Elementary — — 55,000 161,250 21,250 Ventura Moorpark Unified 11,250 10,000 — — 21,250 Ventura Ocean View Elementary — — 47,500 — ,500 Ventura Ojai Unified — 7,500 17,500 5,000 30,000 Ventura Oxnard Elementary 93,750 — — 396,250 0,000 Ventura Oxnard Union High 27,500 — 38,750 — ,250 Ventura Pleasant Valley 50,000 — 10,000 — 0,000 Ventura Rio Elementary — — 2,500 215,000 21,500 Ventura Santa Paula Elementary — — 122,500 — 122,500 Ventura Simi Valley Unified 56,250 — — — 5,250 Ventura Somis Union — — 2,500 1,250 3,50 Ventura Ventura Unified — — 5,000 197,500 202,500 Yolo Davis Joint Unified — — — 50,000 50,000 Yolo Washington Unified 327,500 42,500 103,750 128,750 02,500 Yolo Winters Joint Unified — — 5,000 1,250 ,250 Yolo Woodland Joint Unified 21,250 178,750 357,500 116,250 3,50 Yuba Marysville Joint Unified 31,250 60,000 83,750 178,750 353,50 Yuba Plumas Elementary — — 3,750 — 3,50 Total $3,,50 $ ,5,000 $2,21,50 $ 3,2,500 $112,11,000 Cumulative Total $3,,50 $51,,50 $,31,500 $112,11,000 Source: Department of Education’s CALSTARS accounting records. * In two instances, dollar amounts are negative because the school districts returned program funds to Education. California State Auditor Report 2005-133  Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.  California State Auditor Report 2005-133 APPenDIX B Certain School Districts Chose Not to Respond to Our Surveys As described in the Scope and Methodology section of this report, we surveyed 100 school districts that received program funds through fiscal year 2004–05 and 100 school districts that did not receive funding during that period. For those wishing to understand why certain districts chose not to respond to our surveys, Table B provides a listing of those school districts along with contact information. TABLE B School Districts That Did Not Respond to Our Surveys School District County Contact Telephone Participant Survey Alvord Unified Riverside Gena Simpson 951-509-5055 Bonita Unified Los Angeles Marla Humphrey 909-971-8340 Chico Unified Butte W. Alan Stephenson 530-891-3000 Merced City Elementary Merced Nanette Rahilly 209-385-6671 Middletown Unified Lake Terri Malvino 707-987-4100 Oakland Unified Alameda Heidi Boley 510-879-8272 Oceanside Unified San Diego Kim Cooley 760-757-2560 Oxnard Elementary Ventura Diane Wallace 805-487-3918 Salinas City Elementary Monterey Donna Alonza Vaughan 831-784-2201 Victor Valley Union High San Bernardino Debra Clark 760-955-3200 Nonparticipant Survey Bear Valley Unified San Bernardino Allan J. Pelletier 909-866-4631 Beaumont Unified Riverside Barry Kayrell 951-845-1631 Bellflower Unified Los Angeles Rick Kemppainen 562-866-9011 Brea-Olinda Unified Orange Tim Harvey 714-990-7800 Death Valley Unified Imperial Jim Copeland 760-852-4303 El Rancho Unified Los Angeles Norbert Genis 562-942-1500 Fontana Unified San Bernardino Charles D. Milligan 909- 357-5000 Fremont Union High Santa Clara Stephen R. Rowley 408-522-2200 Fresno Unified Fresno Michael E. Hanson 559-457-3000 Fullerton Joint Union High Orange George J. Giokaris 714-870-2800 Huntington Beach Union High Orange Van W. Riley 714-903-7000 Le Grand Union High Merced George Hinds 209-389-9403 continued on next page California State Auditor Report 2005-133  School District County Contact Telephone Panama-Buena Vista Union Elementary Kern Douglas J. Miller 661-831-8331 Pleasanton Unified Alameda John M. Casey 925-462-5500 Poway Unified San Diego Donald A. Phillips 858-748-0010 Riverside Unified Riverside Susan J. Rainey 951-788-7134 Santa Maria Joint Union High Santa Barbara Jeffrey Hearn 805-922-4573 Santa Rosa High Sonoma Sharon Liddell 707-528-5181 Stockton City Unified San Joaquin Jack McLaughlin 209-933-7025 Val Verde Unified Riverside C. Fred Workman 951-940-6100 Sources: Bureau of State Audits’ records of school districts that did not respond to our surveys. Note: In sending our surveys to 100 participating school districts, we inadvertently sent a survey to one district that had not actually participated in the program. Thus, there are 10 districts instead of 11 listed here. 50 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 APPenDIX C Counties With Relatively Large or Small Numbers of Eligible Teachers Appear Equally Capable of Accessing Program Services The Joint Legislative Audit Committee asked us to determine whether there is a geographic disparity in the availability of professional development providers that limits teachers’ access to the services provided by the program. To evaluate the extent to which any potential disparity exists, we calculated the amount of cash payments made per eligible teacher, grouped by county, to assess whether counties with large numbers of eligible teachers received a greater proportional share of program funding. Figure C on the following page shows the cash payments the Department of Education made per eligible teacher in each county. Table C beginning on page 53 provides the data used to perform our calculations, arranged into three tiers based on the number of eligible teachers in each county—greater than 5,000, from 1,000 to 5,000, or less than 1,000—and indicates whether each county exceeded or fell below the statewide average of $283. California State Auditor Report 2005-133 51 FIGURE C Program Funding Per Eligible Teacher for Each County DEL NORTE Above statewide average $397 SISKIYOU $53 MODOC Below statewide average $242 SHASTA LASSEN HUMBOLDT TRINITY $59 $61 $240 $69 TEHAMA $176 PLUMAS $77 BUTTE G $ L 1 E 9 N 5 N $167 SIERRA $0 MEN $ D 1 O 86 CINO LAKE COL $ U 49 S 1 A S U TTE $41 Y 7 UBA NEVADA$ P $ 2 1 L 0 1 A 9 4 CER $489 R $383 YOLO EL DORADO M $ A 5 R 0 IN SONO $ M 23 A 3 NA $1 P $ 8 A 3 1 13 S C O $ $ O 1 L 6 4 N A 7 4 1 T N R O A S ACR J A O ME S A N $ A T Q 4 O N 5 U 1 IN A $ M 0 C A A D L $ A O V 9 R E 2 R $ A 1 S 1 TUO A $ L 7 L U $ 6 P M 0 IN N E E MONO SAN FRANCISCO COSTA $367 $0 S $ A 19 N 4 $ M 22 ATEO ALA $ M C S 52 A L E 0 A N D R A TA A SSTTANISLAUS M $ E 2 R 7 C 0 ED MA $ R 0 IP M O A S D A ERA SANTA CRUZ $218 $390 $424 $384 SAN FRESNO BENITO $144 INYO $79 $0 TULARE MMOONNTTEERREEYY KINGS $189 $433 $193 $271 KERN SAN LUIS OBISPO $115 SAN BERNARDINO SANTA BARBARA $258 $236 VENTURA LOS ANGELES $178 $313 RIVERSIDE ORANGE $256 $191 IMPERIAL SSAANN DDIIEEGGOO $628 $392 Sources: Department of Education’s CALSTARS accounting records. Department of Education’s listing of eligible teachers as of January 2006 (unaudited). 52 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 TABLE C Listing of Program Dollars Per Eligible Teacher Paid to Each County, Grouped by Number of Teachers Fiscal Years 2002–03 Through 2005–0 County Total Program Payments Number of Eligible Teachers Amount Per Teacher More than 5,000 eligible teachers Alameda $7,071,250 13,602 $520 Sacramento 6,883,750 15,275 451 San Diego 12,185,000 31,113 392 San Joaquin 3,241,250 8,833 367 Contra Costa 3,316,250 10,585 313 Los Angeles 34,076,250 108,870 313 Stanislaus 1,818,000 6,731 270 San Bernardino 6,664,750 25,795 258 Riverside 6,083,750 23,749 256 Santa Clara 3,607,250 16,510 218 Orange 5,840,250 30,542 191 Tulare 1,154,250 6,119 189 Ventura 1,596,250 8,975 178 Fresno 1,802,500 12,491 144 Kern 1,255,000 10,918 115 San Mateo 126,250 5,869 22 Between 1,000 and 5,000 eligible teachers Yolo 1,332,500 1,987 671 Imperial 1,526,500 2,432 628 Monterey 2,017,500 4,660 433 Madera 753,750 1,778 424 Merced 1,448,750 3,710 390 Santa Cruz 817,500 2,131 384 Sutter 435,000 1,136 383 San Luis Obispo 624,000 2,306 271 Santa Barbara 1,034,000 4,390 236 Sonoma 1,076,750 4,614 233 San Francisco 737,500 3,796 194 Kings 327,500 1,700 193 Mendocino 188,750 1,013 186 Napa 203,750 1,128 181 Butte 365,000 2,185 167 Solano 653,750 4,541 144 Placer 431,250 3,780 114 Humboldt 89,750 1,302 69 Shasta 104,500 1,784 59 Marin 100,000 2,003 50 El Dorado 18,750 1,714 11 continued on next page California State Auditor Report 2005-133 53 County Total Program Payments Number of Eligible Teachers Amount Per Teacher Less than 1,000 eligible teachers Colusa $ 155,000 316 $491 Lake 332,000 679 489 Yuba 357,500 858 417 Del Norte 111,250 280 397 Modoc 36,250 150 242 Trinity 42,500 177 240 Nevada 155,000 742 209 Glenn 81,250 416 195 Tehama 130,250 741 176 Calaveras 37,500 408 92 San Benito 61,250 771 79 Plumas 15,000 194 77 Tuolumne 38,750 508 76 Lassen 21,250 348 61 Siskiyou 27,500 516 53 Alpine 0 19 0 Amador 0 335 0 Inyo 0 220 0 Mariposa 0 178 0 Mono 0 148 0 Sierra 0 55 0 Statewide Totals $112,11,000 3,12 $23 Sources: Department of Education’s CALSTARS accounting records. Department of Education’s listing of eligible teachers as of January 2006 (unaudited). Above statewide average Below statewide average 5 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 APPenDIX D The Department of Education Can Improve the Data It Collects on Teacher Participation in the Program According to Chapter 524, Statutes of 2006, the Department of Education (Education) is responsible for providing the Legislature with information on the number of teachers that have received program training. We noted earlier in this report that Education’s current data collection process relies on the funding request forms submitted by school districts, which provide counts of teachers who have attended, but not necessarily completed, the program’s training. In order to collect more meaningful information on the number of teachers completing training, we believe Education should modify the funding request form used by school districts, seeking information on the number of current teachers having completed the program for their current teaching assignments. One of the many possible ways Education could collect this information would be to use the format presented in Figure D on the following page, which is the one we used to obtain data from the participating school districts we surveyed. Although adopting this approach will not result in information on all teachers completing training since some training is funded outside of the program, it nevertheless represents an improvement because it provides a way for school districts that are participating in the program to report an unduplicated count of their current teachers who have completed the training and a count of eligible teachers who have yet to complete the training. We also acknowledge that additional guidance may be warranted to the extent that districts use one funding source to pay for the first 40 hours of training and another to pay for the last 80 hours. California State Auditor Report 2005-133 55 FIGURE D Question 2 From Participant Survey Instructions: Please complete the table below based on the status of your AB 466-eligible teachers as of June 30, 2006. Any teacher should not be counted more than once on this table. For example: If a teacher provides instruction in 2nd and 3rd grade math, but only completes 120 hours of AB 466 training for the 2nd grade textbook, then do not include this teacher on line 3A. Definitions: Assignments— A combination of grade level and instructional material (text) used in the classroom. High Priority Schools—A school ranked in the bottom half of all schools based on the Academic Performance Index (API) per Education Code, Section52056. AB 466 Math-Eligible Teachers (eligible for math training only) YOUR DISTRICT EXAMPLE 1A Number of Eligible Teachers (TOTAL) 0 30 2A Number of Eligible Teachers in High Priority Schools 0 15 3A Number teachers (from line 1A) who completed entire 120 hours of AB 466 training. (for all 2005–06 math assignments) 0 20 4A Paid by AB 466 funds (or seeking reimbursement) 15 5A Assigned to “High Priority” schools (per EC 52056) 10 6A Not assigned to “High Priority” Schools 5 7A Paid by non-AB 466 funds (local, federal, etc) 5 8A Assigned to “High Priority” schools (per EC 52056) 3 9A Not assigned to “High Priority” Schools 2 10A Sum of teachers receiving 120 hours of training (should agree with “line 3A” above for this section) 0 0 20 20 AB 466 Reading-Eligible Teachers (eligible for reading training only) 1B Number of Eligible Teachers (TOTAL) 0 60 2B Number of Eligible Teachers in High Priority Schools 0 35 3B Number of teachers (from line 1B) who completed entire 120 hours of AB 466 training (for all 2005–06 reading assignments) 0 45 4B Paid by AB 466 funds (or seeking reimbursement) 30 5B Assigned to “High Priority” schools (per EC 52056) 20 6B Not assigned to “High Priority” Schools 10 7B Paid by non-AB 466 funds (local, federal, etc) 15 8B Assigned to “High Priority” schools (per EC 52056) 10 9B Not assigned to “High Priority” Schools 5 10B Sum of teachers receiving 120 hours of training (should agree with “line 3B” above for this section) 0 0 45 45 AB 466 Math & Reading Eligible Teachers (eligible for both math and reading training) (such as multiple subject teachers, special education instructors, etc.) 1C Number of Eligible Teachers (TOTAL) 0 100 2C Number of Eligible Teachers in High Priority Schools 0 70 3C Number of teachers (from line 1C) who completed entire 120 hours of AB 466 training. (for all 2005-06 math and reading assignments) 0 80 4C Paid by AB 466 funds (or seeking reimbursement) 70 5C Assigned to “High Priority” schools (per EC 52056) 50 6C Not assigned to “High Priority” Schools 20 7C Paid by non-AB 466 funds (local, federal, etc) 10 8C Assigned to “High Priority” schools (per EC 52056) 8 9C Not assigned to “High Priority” Schools 2 10CSum of teachers receiving 120 hours of training (should agree with “line 3C” above for this section) 0 0 80 80 Source: Bureau of State Audits’ survey of school districts that participated in the program through fiscal year 2004–05. 5 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 Agency Comments provided as text only California Department of Education 1430 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814-5901 November 14, 2006 Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor Bureau of State Audits 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Ms. Howle: Audit No. 2005-133 This is the California Department of Education’s (CDE) response to the recommendations in the Bureau of State Audits (BSA) draft audit report titled, Department of Education: Its Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program Has Trained Fewer Teachers Than Originally Expected. Recommendation #1: To remove a barrier to increased teacher participation in the program, Education should explore opportunities to expedite its payment process to school districts. One such opportunity would be to seek legislation authorizing Education to approve the annual certifications submitted by school districts, instead of waiting for Board of Education (board) approval, thus removing any payment delay caused by the need to wait for the next board meeting. CDE’s Response: Education Code, Section 99234(g) states “ . . . funding may not be provided to a local educational agency until the State Board of Education approves the agency’s certified assurance submitted pursuant to Section 99237.” To reduce the time involved in approving the annual certifications submitted by school districts, the requirements of Education Code Section 99234(g) would need to be amended. The CDE will explore seeking legislation that will authorize the CDE to approve the annual certifications submitted by school districts. Recommendation #2 To ensure that all school districts are aware of the program and that as many teachers participate in the program as possible, Education should conduct annual outreach activities to all school districts. A component of such an outreach program should include directly informing each school district of the amount of funding for which it is eligible each year. California State Auditor Report 2005-133 5 Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor November 14, 2006 Page 2 CDE’s Response: The CDE will continue to provide vital Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program (MRPDP) information on CDE’s Internet web site, including the program information pages, frequently asked questions, lists of eligible teachers for training by individual districts, and list of training providers. Information regarding the MRPDP is also provided through a variety of other available resources, including the Internet (AB 466 web site) and county offices of education meetings. To further encourage districts to participate in the program, the CDE will work with the board to develop an outreach plan. This plan will include annual letters to districts about the MRPDP, changes mandated by new legislation, and the available funding for the fiscal year. However, the CDE believes that the current participation level in the MRPDP is also attributable to other circumstances beyond the CDE’s control. For example, competing use of a teacher’s available time, or lack of interest in professional development by the administrators and/or teachers, may contribute to lower participation levels in the multitude of professional development programs, including the MRPDP. Recommendation #3 To ensure that required compliance audits are occurring, Education should take steps to ensure that the program’s compliance requirements are included in audit guides related to the annual audits of school districts. CDE’s Response: The CDE has drafted the necessary program compliance requirements for consideration by the State Controller’s Office and Education Audit Appeals Panel for inclusion in the audit guide that is used by independent certified public accountants to conduct annual audits of schools districts. If you have any questions regarding the CDE’s response to the BSA draft audit report, please contact Judy Kong, Audit Response Coordinator, Audits and Investigations Division, at (916) 445-6815, or by email at jkong@cde.ca.gov. Sincerely, (Signed by: Gavin Payne) GAVIN PAYNE Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction 5 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 Agency Comments provided as text only California State Board of Education 1430 N Street, Suite 5111 Sacramento, CA 95814 November 14, 2006 Elaine M. Howle State Auditor Bureau of State Audits 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Ms. Howle: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your recommendation dealing with contract administration of the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program. Our response is attached. We appreciated the professionalism of your staff as they conducted the audit and in their presentation of your findings and recommendation to us. Sincerely, (Signed by: Roger Magyar) Roger Magyar Executive Director Attachment California State Auditor Report 2005-133 5 Response to State Auditor AB 466 Contract Administration Recommendation: To ensure that it does not expose the State to potential liability for work performed before the contract is approved, the board should ensure that it obtains the Department of General Services’ approval of its contracts and amendments before the start of the contract period and before contractors begin work. The findings of the State Audit Bureau regarding the contract administration actions at the outset of the implementation of the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program, under the provisions of AB 466 (Chpt. 737, Statutes of 2001), cited initiation of contract activities prior to approval by the Department of General Services. This exposed the State to potential liability, should for some reason the contract not have been executed. While none of the current SBE members or staff was engaged in any activities related to the initial implementation of the AB 466 Program, current staff interpreted the premature initiation of contract activities with a local educational agency, the Sacramento County Office of Education (SCOE), as a reaction to significant pressure to roll out the program as rapidly as possible. This was necessary to develop and provide relevant professional development statewide to compliment the other key aspects of school reform underway at the same time. SCOE fully understood the implications of potential contract denial, but, along with the state faced key deadlines looming in the then near future. Since that time, the CDE Contracts and Purchasing Services Office has implemented procedures to help alleviate the processing and execution of late contracts. Specifically, the Office requires program staff to submit Contract Request Forms 60 days prior to the start date of the contract. Additionally, DGS Office of Legal Services issued an Administrative Order on the general policy regarding timely submission of contracts. Contracts submitted after the start date will only be accepted by DGS Office of Legal Services under the following circumstances: 1) Emergency services 2) Contract with another governmental entity, and an action or inaction of that governmental entity delayed timely processing of the contract or amendment by the State 3) Contract is an Interagency Agreement 4) Contract provides local assistance 5) Judicial Order 6) Consulting services whereby services appeared reasonably necessary but time did not permit the obtaining of prior formal approval These procedural revisions are having a profound effect on eliminating late contracts. 0 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 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 California State Auditor Report 2005-133 1