Comprehensive Review

Compton Unified School District Chief Executive Officer Joel D. Montero Administrative Agent Larry E. Reider Serna v Eastin Consent Decree Office of Kern County Superintendent of Schools Sixteenth Six-Month Progress Report FCMAT 1300 17th Street – city centre Bakersfield, CA 93301-4533 Telephone .....661-636-4611 Fax ..................661-636-4647 Web Site .......www.fcmat.org Northern California Office February 2007 422 Petaluma Blvd. North, Suite C Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone .....707-775-2850 Fax ..................707-775-2854 Compton Unified School District Serna v Eastin Consent Decree Sixteenth Six-Month Progress Report February 2007 Submitted by Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Executive Summary Serna v Eastin Consent Decree: Amendment for Early Disengagement Introduction This report dated February 2007 is the sixteenth in a series of continuing six-month progress reports prepared by the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) assessing the efforts made by the Compton Unified School District to continually improve the district’s opera- tions. FCMAT has been involved in the Compton Unified School District from 1998 through the end of 2001 through Assembly Bill 52 legislation, and from February 2000 to the present through the Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, a settlement of a class action lawsuit brought against the Califor- nia Department of Education (CDE) by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Compton Unified School District. Both the AB 52 legislation and the Consent Decree required FCMAT to monitor and report on the district’s progress at six-month intervals. This report reflects an amendment to the February 7, 2000 Consent Decree, accepted by the Compton Governing Board on September 12, 2006 and approved by the California Department of Education on October 17, 2006. Approval of the amendment from the Department of Finance, one of the parties to the 2000 Consent Decree, is pending; after which the amendment will be submitted to the superior court of Los Angeles. As the monitoring agent named in the Consent Decree, FCMAT is required to monitor and report on the district’s progress every six months to address the stipulations of the Consent Decree. FCMAT has issued six-month progress reports in February and August each year since 1999. As it is unclear when approval from the Department of Finance will be forthcoming, the parties have proceeded with monitoring and reporting the implementation of the Consent Decree as amended. The August 2006 report, this February 2007 report and all subsequent reports will reflect the district’s progress in complying with the Consent Decree as amended. Amendment to the Consent Decree FCMAT meets with the counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants every 60 days as required by the February 2000 Consent Decree. District administrators participate in these 60-day meetings, providing FCMAT and the ACLU representatives with regular status reports on the district’s compliance with the stipulations of the Consent Decree. Consent Decree issues are discussed in this committee and regular visits to campus sites are conducted by committee members. Since the February 2004 FCMAT report, the implementation of the district’s Facilities Master Plan remained the only Consent Decree stipulation that was not fully completed. The FCMAT reports of August 2004, February 2005, August 2005 and February 2006 continued to report that the district maintained compliance with all but one of the Consent Decree stipulations. As all other stipulations were substantially met but the full implementation of the Facilities Master Plan, and as significant progress had been made on the last remaining stipulation to fully imple- ment the Facilities Master Plan, the parties to the Consent Decree, during several 60-day meet- ings in 2005-06, considered proposals that might result in the earlier disengagement of the parties Executive Summary  and closure to the Consent Decree. The district administrators, FCMAT and the ACLU represen- tatives who participate in the 60-day meetings agreed in February 2006 to consider alternative criteria to bring closure to the Consent Decree. Agreement on the final language to the amend- ment occurred in August 2006. The amendment identifies fifty standards from the Recovery Plan first developed for the district by FCMAT in 1999, ten standards in each of the five major areas of district operations: Com- munity Relations and Governance, Personnel Management, Pupil Achievement, Financial Man- agement and Facilities Management. Successful implementation of the identified standards will provide assurance to the parties that the district manages its operations in conformance with basic professional and legal standards and no longer requires the external oversight of the parties. The new criteria are as follows: 1. For the areas of Pupil Achievement and Facilities Management, which were a part of the February 7, 2000 Consent Decree, the district will maintain an average of 7.5 for the 10 identified standards in each of these two operational areas with none of the ten standards in each area scoring less than a 5. 2. For the areas of Community Relations and Governance, Personnel Management and Financial Management, which are areas that were not part of the February 7, 2000 Consent Decree, the district will maintain an average of 6.5 for the 10 identified stan- dards in each of these three operational areas with none of the ten standards in each area scoring less than a 5. 3. Six-month reports will be issued for a minimum of four reports beginning with the August 2006 report. When the district sustains for two consecutive six-month periods, an average of 6.5 in the three additional operational areas of Community Relations and Governance, Personnel Management, and Financial Management with no indi- vidual standard less than a 5, and maintains the average of 7.5 in the areas of Facilities and Pupil Achievement with no individual standard less than a 5, the parties agree to disengage and terminate the Consent Decree. The Compton USD Governing Board took action to approve the amendment to the Consent Decree on September 12, 2006. The amendment was approved by the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the CDE on October 27, 2006. This report provides an assessment of the fifty standards identified in the amendment and summarizes the district’s progress over time in addressing the Consent Decree stipulations agreed to in February 2000. The report is organized as follows: I. Executive Summary • Introduction • Executive Summary • Background: Consent Decree • Background: Return of Powers • Standards Assessment Process  Executive Summary II. Summary of District Efforts Maintaining Progress in Addressing the Stipulations of the 2000 Consent Decree. III. Community Relations and Governance Standards IV. Personnel Management Standards V. Pupil Achievement Standards VI. Financial Management Standards VII. Facilities Management Standards Executive Summary   Executive Summary Executive Summary This report reflects the progress made by the district during the six-month period August 2006 through February 2007 to implement the stipulations of the Consent Decree as amended. Issu- ance of the August 2006 report was delayed to provide time for the parties to the 2000 Consent Decree to approve the proposed amendment to the Consent Decree. As approval is still pending from the Department of Finance and the superior court, the parties agreed not to continue delay- ing the distribution of the August 2006 report under the new format, as the February 2007 report was due. The delayed distribution of the August 2006 report until February delayed the distribu- tion of this February 2007 report to April 2007. The five operational areas of Community Relations and Governance, Personnel Management, Pupil Achievement, Financial Management and Facilities Management are being reviewed as part of the Consent Decree amendment. These five areas were assessed and monitored as part of Assembly Bill 52 which detailed the requirements the district needed to meet for the return to local governance. The district achieved the return to local governance in December 2001. The Consent Decree amendment requires the review of 50 of the original professional and legal stan- dards (ten in each of the five operational areas) that were a part of the more than 400 standards used in the AB 52 process to return the district to local governance. The standards in the Com- munity Relations and Governance, Personnel and Financial Management operational areas were not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and have not been assessed since 2001 when local governance was returned. Progress has been made in all five operational areas, and all five areas have met the identified criteria established in the amendment during this rating period. The ratings in the area of Com- munity Relations and Governance, which did not meet the identified criteria of an average rating of 6.5 with no standard less than a 5 in the August 2006 report, met the criteria at this reporting period with an average of 6.7. Board members have made progress in refraining from actions that are perceived as efforts to administer the district, and in actively encouraging all members to demonstrate professional conduct at board meetings. The district has continued to comply with the stipulations of the 2000 Consent Decree. A sum- mary of the district’s efforts to maintain compliance is provided in another section of this report. The district’s efforts to meet the stipulations of the Consent Decree amendment are summarized as follows: In the areas of Pupil Achievement and Facilities, the district must maintain an average of 7.5 in each operational area with no standard scoring less than a 5. The district has met the criteria in these two operational areas. • Pupil Achievement achieved an average rating of the ten identified standards of 9.9 with no standard scoring less than a 5. • Facilities Management achieved an average rating of the ten identified standards of 10.0 with no standard scoring less than a 5. Executive Summary  In the areas of Community Relations and Governance, Personnel Management and Financial Management, the district must maintain an average rating of 6.5 in each operational area with no standard less than a 5. The district has met the criteria in these three areas. • Community Relations and Governance achieved an average rating of the ten identified standards of 6.7 with no standard scoring less than a 5. • Personnel Management achieved an average rating of the ten identified standards of 9.0 with no standard scoring less than a 5. • Financial Management achieved an average rating of the ten identified standards of 7.6 with no standard scoring less than a 5. Average Amendment Operational Area Rating 7.5 No. of Standards Less than 5 Criteria Met Required Pupil Achievement 9.9 0 Yes Facilities Management 10.0 0 Yes Average Amendment Operational Area Rating 6.5 No. of Standards Less than 5 Criteria Met Required Comm. Rel./Governance 6.7 0 Yes Personnel Management 9.0 0 Yes Financial Management 7.6 0 Yes FCMAT will continue to conduct six-month assessments of the district’s progress in meeting the Consent Decree as amended, and will issue reports in August and February of each year until the criteria is met for two consecutive six-month periods through February 2008 and the parties to the Consent Decree agree to terminate the oversight. Areas of Continuing Concern Although the district has good systemic operational processes in place and has made progress in all five operational areas, FCMAT is compelled to alert the district to areas of concern that may jeopardize either the district’s future fiscal solvency, or continued compliance with the Consent Decree as amended. The district’s fiscal health remains precarious: 1. The district is experiencing continued declining enrollment which reduces the rev- enues the district receives. The district must be proactive in identifying expenditure reductions in operations and staffing so as to live within its anticipated revenue means. The district did not propose reductions in the workforce (RIF) through March 15 personnel letters to certificated staff and may be overstaffed for the new school year. Contract negotiations with employee unions are ongoing, and the district must careful- ly consider how employee compensation may be enhanced without committing more than it can afford in the current and subsequent two years.  Executive Summary 2. At a board meeting on March 27, 2007, the board did not approve a Certificate of Participation (COP) of $15 million recommended by the district to complete some of its unfinished facilities projects and to reimburse the general fund for monies allocated to the building program earlier in the year. A board can certainly refuse to increase a district’s long-term debt, as a COP is generally the last option a district should choose to manage its finances. However, if a COP is not the agreed upon remedy, other budget reductions need to occur to address the district’s current outstanding debt. At a subsequent board meeting on May 1, 2007, the board took action on a district proposal for a $25 million COP. 3. The district must have able leaders to implement the policy the board sets. However, the district has experienced the loss of competent district leadership in the last two years as several administrators have not had their contracts renewed. Some board members have not appeared to value the services that competent leadership has pro- vided, and the progress the district has made over the last several years. The lack of able leadership and/or the lack of consistency in leadership can be disastrous for the district’s continued fiscal health. With the district superintendent's announced retire- ment, the board will be challenged to find the able leadership required to continue the district's progress. The district’s current finances are precarious and may be exacer- bated without competent leadership. 4. The board has met the amended Consent Decree criteria in the governance area at this reporting period, but only by .2 points on the rating scale. As the board must maintain this rating or better for two consecutive reporting periods, the board must continue to urge its members to professional behavior and understanding of its policy role. Board members must not succumb to the notion that they are responsible for fixing any prob- lem or concern brought to them by employees or community members. Board mem- bers establish through policies the guidelines and expectations for district operations; staff implements the policies established by the board. Executive Summary   Executive Summary Background: Consent Decree In July 1997, the ACLU and the attorneys for the Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against the State Department of Education in the Los Angeles Superior Court. This lawsuit (Serna v Eastin, Case No. BC 174282) claimed that the children attending public schools in the Compton Unified School District were deprived of basic educational opportunities that were available to children elsewhere in California. The judgment approving the Consent Decree in the above-entitled action was entered on February 7, 2000. The Consent Decree required continued improvement in the district’s school facilities/sites and the classroom environment. Some of the specific areas of concern that required attention under the Consent Decree included the availability of certificated teachers in every classroom, the availability of appropriate textbooks and instructional materials for students to take home, the condition of student restrooms, the timely removal of litter and graffiti, and the repair/replacement of any faulty electrical wiring. FCMAT was appointed by the parties to the lawsuit to oversee compliance with the stipulations of the Consent Decree. The parties were aware that FCMAT was then engaged in monitoring the progress of the Compton Unified School District in the implementation of recovery plans in the areas of Pupil Achievement, Financial Management, Personnel Management, Facilities Management and Community Relations and Governance as part of the requirements of Assembly Bill 52. The parties agreed to make parts of the Compton USD recovery plans developed by FCMAT a part of the Consent Decree and subject to the compliance requirements of the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree identified specific standards among the legal and professional standards developed by FCMAT in the operational areas of Pupil Achievement and Facilities Management that required additional attention by the district. These identified standards were required by the Consent Decree to meet a rating of 8 or better (on a scale of 1 to 10) in order for the standard to be determined to be implemented and sustained. These specific standards have been reviewed and their implementation progress reported during each of FCMAT’s monitoring visits and six- month progress reports since August 2000. The court’s action placed FCMAT in a monitoring role and required FCMAT to prepare semiannual reports on the defendants’ progress in complying with the requirements of the decree. As a requirement of AB 52, FCMAT conducted a comprehensive assessment of the district in 1998 in five major areas of school district operations and developed a recovery plan for the district to implement. The Compton Unified School District Assessment and Recovery Plan was distributed to the district in February 1999. FCMAT issued six-month progress reports beginning in August 1999 on the district’s efforts to meet the criteria for the return of governing board authority developed through the AB 52 legislation. In addition, beginning with the August 2000 six-month progress report, the FCMAT progress reports also monitored and reported on the district’s efforts to comply with the stipulations of the Serna v Eastin Consent Decree. As the criteria for the return of powers to the governing board under AB 52 was fully met in December 2001, subsequent reports beginning in February 2002 addressed only the district’s progress in fulfilling the stipulations of the Consent Decree. Executive Summary  FCMAT’s third, fourth and fifth six-month progress reports in August 2000, February 2001, and August 2001 responded to the monitoring requirements of both AB 52 and the Consent Decree. In the August 2001 progress report, FCMAT reported that the Compton Unified School District met the requirements for the recommended return of governing authority to the Compton USD Governing Board under AB 52. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction formally returned governing authority to the Compton USD board in an executive order dated September 11, 2001, and effective December 11, 2001. The six-month progress reports, beginning with the February 2002 report, provided FCMAT’s review only of those standards and stipulations identified in the Consent Decree. The subsequent reports issued in August 2002, February 2003, August 2003, February 2004, August 2004, February 2005, August 2005, and February 2006 provided a review of only those standards and stipulations identified in the Consent Decree. The six-month progress reports beginning with the August 2006 report, and this February 2007 report, provide a review of the stipulations in the Consent Decree amendment. FCMAT continues to meet with the counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants every 60 days as required by the Consent Decree. The following is a record of these meetings. • Three meetings were held prior to the third six-month progress report in August 2000 to discuss process, responsibilities, and progress relative to the Consent Decree. The August 2000 progress report represented the first FCMAT document addressing the stipulations of the Consent Decree. • Two meetings and two random school site visitations were conducted between Sep- tember and February, prior to the fourth six-month progress report in February 2001. • Four meetings and a random school site visitation were conducted between March and August, prior to the fifth six-month progress report in August 2001. • Three meetings and a random school site visitation were conducted between Septem- ber and February, prior to the sixth six-month progress report in February 2002. • Three meetings and a random school site visitation were conducted between March and August, prior to the seventh six-month progress report in August 2002. • Two meetings and a random site visitation were conducted between September and February, prior to the eighth six-month progress report in February 2003. • Three meetings and a random site visitation were conducted between March and Au- gust, prior to the ninth six-month progress report in August 2003. • Three meetings and a random site visitation were conducted between September and February, prior to the tenth six-month progress report in February 2004. • Three meetings and a random site visitation were conducted between March and Au- gust, prior to the eleventh six-month progress report in August 2004. • Two meetings and a random site visitation were conducted between September and February, prior to the twelfth six-month progress report in February 2005. • Three meetings and a random site visitation were conducted between March and Au- gust, prior to the thirteenth six-month progress report in August 2005. • Three meetings were conducted between September and February, prior to the four- teenth six-month progress report in February 2006. • Three meetings and a random site visitation were conducted between March and Au- gust, prior to the fifteenth six-month progress report in August 2006. 0 Executive Summary • Three meetings and a random site visitation were conducted between September and February, prior to the sixteenth six-month progress report in February 2007. As the district met all but one of the original requirements for termination of the Consent Decree, and made significant progress in meeting the remaining requirement of full implementation of the comprehensive Facilities Master Plan, the committee agreed in 2006 to establish alternative criteria for the earlier termination of the Consent Decree. This report is the second six-month report in which FCMAT reviews the district’s progress in implementing the Consent Decree as amended. Executive Summary   Executive Summary Background: Return of Powers In July 1993, Assembly Bill 657/Murray (Statutes of 1993, Chapter 78) appropriated $10.5 million in the form of an emergency loan for the Compton Unified School District. This loan required the appointment of a state administrator who would exercise the powers and responsibilities of the Governing Board. In October 1993, Assembly Bill 1708/Murray (Statutes of 1993, Chapter 924) provided a second emergency loan of $9.45 million. This loan required the district to comply with Education Code Section 41325, which continued the assignment of the state administrator. In September 1993, Assembly Bill 33/Murray (Statutes of 1993, Chapter 455) provided further clarification and conditions regarding the emergency apportionment. This bill stipulated that the state administrator retain authority for the operation of the district until such time as the Superintendent of Public Instruction determined the district had met the fiscal requirements and had made demonstrated academic progress. The above mentioned legislation required the state emergency loans to be repaid and the academic performance of the district to improve prior to the board being restored its legal rights, duties, and powers. The district made the 6th and final loan payment in June 2001. In the six years following 1996, the district repaid a total of $24,358,061 in loans and interest. Through Assembly Bill 52/Washington (Statutes of 1997, Chapter 767), the legislature stated its intent to return the designated legal rights, duties, and powers of governance to the Compton Unified School District Board of Trustees. In addition to the above bills, AB 52 required the assessment of five major operational areas of school district operation: Community Relations and Governance, Personnel Management, Pupil Achievement, Financial Management, and Facilities Management. AB 52 required FCMAT and the state administrator, in consultation with other specified entities, to conduct comprehensive assessments and to develop specified recovery plans in the five designated areas. In addition to a systemic, district-wide assessment and the development of a recovery plan, FCMAT was required to determine whether the school district made substantial and sustained progress in the five designated areas. Where there was substantial and sustained progress, FCMAT recommended to the Superintendent of Public Instruction the operational areas of school operation that should be returned to the Governing Board of the Compton USD. As a result of this requirement, an incremental return of the legal rights, duties, and powers to the Governing Board occurred over time. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction formally returned full governing authority of all operational areas to the Compton USD Governing Board in an executive order dated September 11, 2001, and effective December 11, 2001. The State Administrator was, at that time, named as State Trustee to continue to provide oversight of fiscal matters. In a letter dated June 2, 2003, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction terminated oversight of the Compton USD by the State Trustee, who served through June 13, 2003. The Compton Unified School District and its Governing Board became free of state oversight for the first time in more than ten years. Executive Summary  Incremental Return of Legal Rights, Duties and Powers The return of authority over specific district operational areas occurred over time. FCMAT’s third six-month progress report, in August 2000, recommended to the Superintendent of Public Instruction that the designated operational areas of Community Relations/Governance and Facilities Management be returned to the Governing Board of the Compton Unified School District. The Superintendent acted to return the two operational areas to the Governing Board in January 2001. The Superintendent also authorized the Governing Board to select and hire a district superintendent. FCMAT’s fourth six-month progress report in February 2001, recommended that the operational area of Pupil Achievement be returned to the Governing Board of the Compton Unified School District. Although academic performance remained below average, academic performance scores continued to increase. The district had focused efforts on improving student performance and had procedures in place to identify and address student deficiencies. However, the Superintendent of Public Instruction did not return governance of Pupil Achievement to the Governing Board as recommended by FCMAT in its fourth six-month progress report. The SPI indicated, in a letter to the district dated March 26, 2001, that the district would benefit from additional time to determine how well the academic processes were being implemented. The SPI also indicated that it would be prudent to evaluate the district’s spring testing results to determine the effectiveness of the steps taken by the district in the previous year. In the fifth six-month progress report in August 2001, FCMAT recommended that the operational areas of Personnel Management and Financial Management be returned to the Governing Board of the Compton Unified School District. Additionally, it was recommended that the operational area of Pupil Achievement be returned to the Governing Board as recommended in the fourth six-month progress report. The district had also selected and hired a district superintendent who assumed the position in August 2001. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction formally returned governing authority for all operational areas to the Compton USD board in an executive order dated September 11, 2001, and effective December 11, 2001. The SPI further assigned the State Administrator to serve as the State Trustee in an oversight capacity for two years. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction on June 2, 2003, formally terminated state oversight of the district by the State Trustee, effective June 13, 2003. Executive Order, January 2001, Response to FCMAT’s Third Six-Month Progress Report: The Superintendent of Public Instruction, on January 30, 2001, formally notified the Compton USD Governing Board of executive action taken to restore the Board’s rights, duties, and obligations in the operational areas of Community Relations/Governance and Facilities Management. The Superintendent of Public Instruction, in negotiations with the Compton Governing Board over the process of incremental return of powers, agreed to remove the term ‘advisory’ from the Compton Governing Board’s title, agreed to provide the reinstatement of stipends and benefits upon the recommended return of another operational area to local governance, and authorized the Board to begin the search process for a permanent superintendent. Upon completion of the search process, the Governing Board would have final authority to select a permanent superintendent from among the candidates.  Executive Summary The Superintendent of Public Instruction indicated that the State Administrator would serve as the district’s interim superintendent for the areas over which the Compton Board has authority, and would serve as the State Administrator for the areas over which the Compton Board does not have authority. The SPI recognized the Board’s desire to hire an interim superintendent for the two areas returned, Community Relations/Governance and Facilities Management. However, the Superintendent of Public Instruction determined that “waiting a few months until the permanent superintendent is in place will provide for a smoother transition.” The district, with the assistance of CSBA, completed a superintendent search process and unanimously selected and appointed a superintendent to begin work in the district August 20, 2001. Executive Order No. 2, March 2001, Response to FCMAT’s Fourth Six-Month Progress Report: The Superintendent of Public Instruction, on March 26, 2001, formally notified the Compton USD Governing Board of executive action to establish the board “stipend authorized under Education Code section 35120, and such health benefits as are authorized under District policy and law. In all other respects, the Superintendent’s January 30, 2001, Executive Order remains in effect.” The Superintendent of Public Instruction indicated that the District would benefit by having the management of the operational area of Pupil Achievement remain for additional time under the direct administration of the State Administrator. The SPI indicated that should appropriate progress be demonstrated in the area of Pupil Achievement, the return of local control in this operational area could be returned to the district in the fall. The SPI also commented on the concerns raised by FCMAT as to whether the Board was embracing the proper exercise of its governing authority. The SPI indicated concern as to the readiness of the Board to effectively fulfill its policymaking role. Executive Order No. 3, September 2001, Response to FCMAT’s Fifth Six-Month Progress Report: The State Superintendent of Public Instruction issued Executive Order No. 3 which restored full control to the Governing Board effective December 11, 2001. The executive order recognized that the Compton Unified School District showed “substantial and sustained improvement in all remaining areas not presently under local control.” The order further indicated that “the state administrator shall assume the powers of the State Trustee… governing the oversight of the Compton Unified School District.” “Effective September 11, 2001, personnel commission members shall be entitled to the maximum stipend authorized under EC 45250.” Superintendent of Public Instruction Action, June 2003: A new Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) was elected in November 2002. The previous Superintendent had completed the maximum two-term limit for the position. The new SPI on June 2, 2003 terminated state oversight of the Compton USD by the State Trustee, effective June 13, 2003, citing the district’s progress in governing itself. The State Trustee was reassigned to another California district effective June 16, 2003. Executive Summary  Standards-Based Assessment Process For schools and school districts to be successful in program improvement, the evaluation, design and implementation of the recovery plans must be standards-driven. When standards are clearly defined, reachable, and communicated, there is a greater likelihood they will be measured and met. The Compton Unified School District was assessed using a consistent rating format, and every standard was given a scaled score from zero to 10 as to its relative status of completeness. The following represents a definition of terms and scaled scores applied to this process. The single purpose of the scaled score was to establish a baseline of information by which the district’s gains and achievement in each of the standard areas could be measured. • Not Implemented (Scaled Score of 0) There is no significant evidence that the standard is implemented. • Partially Implemented (Scaled Score of 1 through 7) A partially implemented standard lacks completeness, and it is met in a limited degree. The degree of completeness varies as defined: 1. Some design or research regarding the standard is in place that supports preliminary development. (Scaled Score of 1) 2. Implementation of the standard is well into the development stage. Appropriate staff is engaged and there is a plan for implementation. (Scaled Score of 2) 3. A plan to address the standard is fully developed, and the standard is in the beginning phase of implementation. (Scaled Score of 3) 4. Staff is engaged in the implementation of most elements of the standard. (Scaled Score of 4) 5. Staff is engaged in the implementation of the standard. All standard elements are developed and are in the implementation phase. (Scaled Score of 5) 6. Elements of the standard are implemented, monitored and becoming systematic. (Scaled Score of 6) 7. All elements of the standard are fully implemented, are being monitored, and appropriate adjustments are taking place. (Scaled Score of 7) • Fully Implemented (Scaled Score of 8 through 10) A fully implemented standard is complete relative to the following criteria: 8. All elements of the standard are fully and substantially implemented and are sustainable. (Scaled Score of 8) 9. All elements of the standard are fully and substantially implemented and have been sustained for a full school year. (Scaled Score of 9) 10. All elements of the standard are fully implemented, are being sustained with high quality, are being refined, and have a process for ongoing evaluation. (Scaled Score of 10) By utilizing a standards-based approach, FCMAT was able to incorporate a scaled score to mea- sure progress and to establish an acceptable level for the return of the Board’s legal rights, duties and powers. AB 52 expressed the legislative intent that the Board be returned its designated legal rights, duties and powers through an incremental process. To implement this intent, FCMAT es-  Executive Summary tablished a standard for the return of the legal rights, duties and powers. This standard was based upon the scaled score system. When the average rating in an operational area reached a level of 6.00 and no individual standard was below 4.00, FCMAT recommended to the Superintendent of Public Instruction the incremental return of that operational area to the school district. The scaled score system is being retained to assess and monitor the district’s progress in meeting the new criteria established by the Consent Decree amendment. The areas of Pupil Achievement and Facilities Management, which were part of the original February 2000 Consent Decree, must maintain an average rating of 7.5 for the ten identified stan- dards in each of these operational areas with no standard less than a 5. The areas of Community Relations and Governance, Personnel Management and Financial Management, which were not part of the original February 2000 Consent Decree, must maintain an average rating of 6.5 for the ten identified standards in each of these operational areas with no standard less than a 5. Six month reports will be issued for a minimum of four reports beginning with the August 2006 report. These criteria must be sustained for two consecutive six-month periods before the parties agree to disengage and terminate the Consent Decree. Executive Summary   Executive Summary Consent Decree Sections 7-25 Summary of Progress Summary of District Efforts in Maintaining Progress in Addressing the Stipulations of the 2000 Consent Decree As FCMAT was required by Assembly Bill 52 to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the district, develop a recovery plan for the district’s eventual return to local governance, and moni- tor the district’s progress in implementing the recovery plan, FCMAT was appointed by the parties to the Serna v Eastin Consent Decree to also oversee compliance with the Consent Decree approved on February 7, 2000. FCMAT identified appropriate professional and legal standards from the recovery plan developed for the district that aligned with the stipulations of the Consent Decree. At six-month intervals, FCMAT monitored the district’s implementation of these stan- dards and thus compliance with the Consent Decree stipulations. This section provides a summary of the district’s efforts to maintain the progress achieved in meeting the stipulations related to Sections 7-25 of the February 2000 Consent Decree. Consent Decree Stipulations Related to Pupil Achievement There were several stipulations in the February 2000 Consent Decree related to pupil achieve- ment. These stipulations included: Availability of Textbooks, Presence of Certificated Teachers, Employee Absenteeism, Established Homework Policy, Retention and Promotion Policy, Passing of CBEST, and Race Relations. Several identified standards in the Pupil Achievement opera- tional area were required by the Consent Decree to reach a rating of 8 (on a scale of 1-10) to be deemed compliant. The average rating of all standards in the operational area of Pupil Achieve- ment was required to reach 7.5. FCMAT reviewed and assessed the identified standards at six month intervals. Full compliance with the Consent Decree in the Pupil Achievement area was first achieved and reported in the FCMAT progress report issued in February 2004 and continues to be maintained. Consent Decree Section 8 (Textbooks) The requirements of Section 8 have been met by the district. The district has implemented the Williams protocols for 2005-06 and 2006-07 and has ordered sufficient quantities of textbooks in the core areas of English, Mathematics, History/Social Science, and Science to issue a textbook for each core subject to each student. Standards-based textbooks are adopted following the state adoption schedule and several adoption cycles have occurred since monitoring was initiated. Standards-based Curriculum Guides have been developed for the core subject areas. The district annually prepares an inventory of all existing textbooks, monitors textbook returns and losses, seeks restitution for lost textbooks, and replaces lost copies annually. (Pupil Achievement Stan- dard 1.25 – Current Rating:10. Standard 1.25 was required to reach an 8.) Consent Decree Section 11 (Presence of Certificated Teachers) The requirements of Section 11 have been met by the district. The district works to ensure that certificated teachers are present in each classroom each day. Efforts continue to be made by the district to increase the list of certificated substitutes in numbers sufficient to meet teacher ab- sences. The principals have assumed responsibility for ensuring that children receive appropriate instruction from a certificated teacher on staff. Other certificated site staff (counselor, resource teacher, administrator) must substitute if qualified substitutes are not available at the site. (Per- sonnel Management Standard 8.2 – Current Rating: 10. Standard 8.2 was not required to reach an 8.) Consent Decree  Consent Decree Section 12 (Absenteeism) The requirements of Section 12 have been met by the district. The district assigns non- instructional certificated staff to substitute when regular substitutes are not available for teacher absences. The district requires each site to address ways to reduce employee absenteeism in their school site plans. Staff absentee reports are provided weekly to the sites for administrators to review. The superintendent has set an annual goal of increasing teacher attendance to 97%. (Personnel Management Standard 8.2 – Current Rating: 10. Standard 8.2 was not required to reach an 8.) Consent Decree Section 13 (Homework) The requirements of Section 13 have been met by the district. The district developed and implemented a district wide homework policy in 2000. A monthly certification by the site principals that a homework policy is being implemented is submitted to the district office. Parent notifications regarding the homework policy are sent home at the beginning of each semester. The Student and Parent/Guardian Handbook contains the district’s homework policy. The handbook is updated annually and distributed to parents. Schools keep the signed acknowledgement of receipt forms from parents. (Pupil Achievement Standards 1.2 – Current Rating: 10, and 1.11 – Current Rating: 10. Standards 1.2 and 1.11were required to reach an 8.) Consent Decree Section 19 (Student Promotion) The requirements of Section 19 have been met by the district. Board Policy No. 5123 on promotion/acceleration/retention was adopted by the board on April 11, 2000. Information on the policy is distributed to parents through the Student and Parent/Guardian Handbook. Plaintiffs’ counsel was invited to provide written comments on the draft policy as it was developed. A copy of the policy was sent to Plaintiffs’ counsel as required by the Consent Decree for written comment. No comments were submitted. (Pupil Achievement Standards 1.5 – Current Rating: 10, and 1.16 – Current Rating: 10. Standards 1.5 and 1.16 were required to reach an 8.) Consent Decree Section 20 (CBEST) The requirements of Section 20 have been met by the district. The district identifies teachers without clear credentials and their length of employment. The district accepts CBEST waivers only when credentialed teachers are not available for hard-to-fill math, science or special education positions. An annual report of the number of teachers without a clear credential and the length of their employment is provided to the board. The percent of teaching staff with clear credentials continues to increase. 91% of regular education teachers and 57% of special education teachers are currently credentialed. The salary schedule is differentiated, providing less compensation for teachers without full credentials, to motivate teachers to speedily obtain a clear teaching credential. (Personnel Management Standard 3.10 – Current Rating: 10. Standard 3.10 was not required to reach an 8.) Consent Decree Section 24 (Race Relations) The requirements of Section 24 have been met by the district. The district parent advisory council works to promote positive race relations among the various ethnic groups in the community. Most schools have Peer Mediation and/or Conflict Resolution student groups to work with other students on resolving student concerns. Secondary school sites have established student-directed Human Relations clubs to assist in planning and implementing the activities in observation of various cultural events. The district has purchased instructional materials on the Hispanic, Asian,  Consent Decree Pacific Islander and the African-American cultural experiences. Curriculum staff has worked to incorporate these materials into the Social Science curriculum. Activities recognizing Black History month, Spanish Heritage month, and the birthdays of Cesar Chavez and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. take place annually. An annual districtwide Cultural Diversity Celebration is held in the spring. The district received a Teaching American History grant to teach inclusion of the contributions of various racial and ethnic groups. (Pupil Achievement Standard 1.10 – Current Rating: 10. Standard 1.10 was required to reach an 8.) Consent Decree  Consent Decree Stipulations Related to Facilities Management There were several stipulations in the February 2000 Consent Decree related to school facilities. These stipulations included: Condition of Bathrooms, Broken Windows, Electrical, Security Plan, Emergency Drills, Litter, Drinking Water, Site Committees, Food Service, Parent Volunteer Strategies, and Central Telephone Number for Facilities Complaints. Several identified standards in the Facilities Management operational area were required by the Consent Decree to reach a rating of 8 (on a scale of 1-10) to be deemed compliant. The average rating of all standards in the operational area of Facilities Management was required to reach 7.5. FCMAT reviewed and assessed the identified standards at six month intervals. Compliance with Consent Decree stipulations 7-25 in the Facilities Management area was first achieved and reported in the FCMAT progress report issued in February 2003 and has since been maintained. The district made significant progress toward meeting the final stipulation of the original February 2000 Consent Decree of implementing the Facilities Master Plan. Consent Decree Section 7 (Bathrooms) The requirements of Section 7 have been met by the district. Generally, bathrooms are safe, supplied and operable. All site bathrooms continue to be inspected a minimum of three times daily by the principal and/or other staff. Records of this monitoring process are maintained at the site for inspection. The bathrooms are also monitored during periodic, unannounced site visits to school campuses. A FCMAT checklist is used to monitor compliance with Consent Decree stipulations. All written documents and logs are reviewed and any needed follow-up discussed with the site administrator. The passage of a local general obligation bond in November 2002 enabled the modernization of many restrooms in the district’s schools. Four bathroom monitors have been hired at each high school. (Facilities Management Standard 9.4 – Current Rating: 10. Standard 9.4 was required to reach an 8.) Consent Decree Section 9 (Broken Windows) The requirements of Section 9 have been met by the district. Identified boarded windows are replaced with clear glass, plexiglass or other clear permanent material. Certain windows are allowed to be boarded for safety and property protection. Broken windows are replaced as soon as possible. Materials used to temporarily secure broken windows require that a date and time be affixed on the temporary material that is placed on the window. Sites are monitored regularly to ensure compliance. (Facilities Management Standard 1.12 – Current Rating: 10. Standard 1.12 was required to reach an 8.) Consent Decree Section 10 (Electrical) The requirements of Section 10 have been met by the district. Plant managers have been directed to daily inspect for electrical problems, report emergency conditions for immediate repair, and to submit a monthly report to the Facilities Division. These monthly reports have been documented. A Facilities Compliance Coordinator visits all school sites on a regular basis to check for any hazardous conditions, including broken or loose wiring. Reports of conditions needing attention are reported to the Facilities Division. The district has established an emergency hot line for use, and has designated any electrical hazard as an emergency condition. The district and plaintiffs’ counsel selected a licensed electrician to conduct site inspections of specific identified sites in the 2000-2001 school year. (Facilities Management Standard 9.8 – Current Rating: 10. Standard 9.8 was required to reach an 8.)  Consent Decree Consent Decree Section 14 (Security Plan) The requirements of Section 14 have been met by the district. There is a districtwide security plan. School sites have established school site safety committees to continually determine site safety concerns and recommend remedial action to the district office. The district security committee referenced in the Consent Decree has been established. The committee has input into updates of the districtwide security plan. Parents have been encouraged to participate in school security patrols. Monitored intrusion alarm systems have been installed in the district’s schools. The district’s police force continues to work with the district and site safety committees. The district, in collaboration with the city, has established an Emergency Operations Center in the district police services department to respond to more widespread community disasters. (Facilities Management Standard 1.3 – Current Rating: 10. Standard 1.3 was required to reach an 8.) Consent Decree Section 15 (Emergency Drills) The requirements of Section 15 have been met by the district. Written emergency plans are available at the school sites. Every school site has a fire warning system required by Education Code Section 32001. Several schools have strobe fire alarm systems besides the bell alarms. The required fire and earthquake drills are practiced according to the pertinent Education Code sections and recorded. These records are monitored by the district Facilities Compliance Coordinator. The district also implemented Code Yellow procedures and drills to respond to school emergencies. (Facilities Management Standard 1.9 – Current Rating: 10. Standard 1.9 was required to reach an 8.) Consent Decree Section 16 (Litter) The requirements of Section 16 have been met by the district. The district has a graffiti abatement program in place, which is one of immediate removal. School campuses are inspected regularly and graffiti is removed immediately. Litter is picked up daily. Unusable playground equipment has been replaced. The community service program in which all children are encouraged to perform five hours of community service per semester for litter removal is implemented at a few schools. A recycling program is in place at several schools. The high school graduation requirements have been modified to require 2.5 credits in community service. The course requirement is the equivalent of 45 hours, or one quarter of a year’s credits. All students, beginning with the graduating class of 2006, are required to meet this requirement for graduation. (Facilities Management Standards 1.8 – Current Rating: 10, and 1.14 – Current Rating: 10. Standards 1.8 and 1.14 were required to reach an 8.) Consent Decree Section 17 (Drinking Water) The requirement of Section 17 has been met by the district. Drinking water is readily available to all children at all school sites. School sites are inspected regularly and water fountains checked for operability. (Facilities Management Standard 8.10 – Current Rating: 10. Standard 8.10 was required to reach an 8.) Consent Decree Section 18 (Site Committees) The requirements of Section 18 have been met by the district. The district established a representative community committee to assist in the development of the district’s Facilities Master Plan. An assessment of the facilities needs at all district sites was conducted and a facilities inventory and priority criteria developed. A facilities needs audit was again conducted Consent Decree  in 2006 to update and identify the district’s current facilities needs. School site safety committees and/or site advisory councils continue to conduct site inspections and monitor site safety needs. A Williams complaint procedure for parents to report concerns with facilities or sufficiency of instructional materials has been implemented. The district monitors the sites to ensure that site committees are operational. (Facilities Management Standards 1.12 – Current Rating: 10, 1.14 – Current Rating: 10, and 9.11 – Current Rating: 10. Standards 1.12, 1.14 and 9.11 were required to reach an 8.) Consent Decree Section 21 (Food Service) The requirement of Section 21 has been met by the district. The Los Angeles County Health Department indicates that inspections of school cafeterias are usually conducted only in response to a complaint. The inspections conducted by the County Health Department of the site cafeterias during the 2000-2001 school year were shared with the school site committees. There were no inspections conducted during the 2001-2002 school year. In 2002-03 the Health Department visited a site cafeteria in response to a parent complaint and found that the complaint was unsubstantiated. A visit occurred at a school in summer 2003, and a report of that complaint was shared with the site administration and site council. One inspection was conducted during the second semester of the 2003-2004 school year in response to a complaint that was determined to be unfounded. An inspection was conducted in January 2005 concerning the lack of hot water at an individual site. Hot water was immediately restored and food preparation was not affected. No complaints or inspections occurred throughout the 2005-06 school year, and through February 2007. All district cafeteria managers and cooks participate in the Serve-Safe national certification program. The district has three food services employees who are trainers in this certification program. (Facilities Management Standard 9.3 – Current Rating: 10. Standard 9.3 was required to reach an 8.) Consent Decree Section 22 (Central Telephone Number for Facilities Complaints) The requirements of Section 22 have been met by the district. Communication with the community about facilities issues is ongoing and continual. The district has established a facilities emergency hot line for school sites to utilize. The types of emergencies reported are being tabulated. The Facilities Division can be reached by the public through the district’s central voice messaging system. The district is participating in the WE-TIP program, which provides a phone number for community members to make anonymous tips to the district concerning facilities and safety issues. Posters on the WE-TIP program have been disseminated to all school sites. Tabulation of the number and nature of the calls received and the disposition of the complaints should be provided in a quarterly report. The district has implemented a Williams complaint procedure for parents to report concerns about facilities or the sufficiency of instructional materials. (Facilities Management Standard 11.2 – Current Rating: 10. Standard 11.2 was not required to reach an 8.) Consent Decree Section 23 (Volunteerism) The requirements of Section 23 have been met by the district. The district continues to work to ensure parents and community members feel welcome in the schools. The Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) handbook was developed and approved by the board in the 1999-2000 school year and was updated in June 2005. This document provides direction to volunteers about becoming involved in their schools. Parents are actively recruited to volunteer, and the district does an excellent job providing recognition programs. Year-end recognition dinners have been  Consent Decree held annually since spring 2001 to recognize outstanding volunteers from each school in the district. The number of volunteer hours at each school site is recorded and tabulated. Many community volunteers who volunteered from 1000 to 5000 hours in the district schools were individually recognized at a board meeting in May 2006. Parents and community members are more involved in educational decision-making. Four parent forums were held in 2002-2003, five in 2003-2004, four in 2004-05, and four in 2005-06. Four are planned for 2006-07. In the 2001- 2002 school year, parents and community members were involved in the superintendent search process, and in the decision to implement a full-day kindergarten program in the district. Parent volunteers were involved in helping to pass the district’s general obligation bond in November 2002. (Facilities Management Standard 10.1 – Current Rating: 10. Standard 10.1 was not required to reach an 8.) Consent Decree Section 25 (Additional Compliance Requirements) The requirements of Section 25 have largely been met by the district. A comprehensive Facili- ties Master Plan was developed by the district and was approved by the Advisory Board in July 1999. A Facilities Implementation Plan, providing priorities and a time line for implementing the recommendations within the Facilities Master Plan, and identifying possible sources of state and district funds to support the implementation was approved by FCMAT on August 10, 2001, and adopted by the Advisory Board in August 2001. Several Pupil Achievement and Facilities standards were identified in the Consent Decree as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed implemented. All identified standards in the Facilities Management operational area reached a rating of 8 or better by February 2003. All identified standards in the Pupil Achievement opera- tional area reached a rating of 8 or better by February 2004. (Facilities Management Standards 2.1 – Current Rating: 10, and 3.10 – Current Rating: 10. Standards 2.1 and 3.10 were required to reach an 8.) The district has met the consent decree stipulations of Sections 1 through 24. The only remain- ing Consent Decree stipulation to be completed in Section 25 is fully implementing the district’s Facilities Master Plan. An assessment of the district’s facilities needs was conducted in fall 2006 by Del Terra. Del Terra was hired in early 2007 as the district’s construction manager to com- plete the district’s outstanding facilities projects. Consent Decree   Consent Decree Progress on Facilities Master Plan Implementation Consent Decree Section 25(a) Since the February 2004 FCMAT report, the implementation of the district’s Facilities Master Plan remained the only February 2000 Consent Decree stipulation that was not fully completed. FCMAT reports of August 2004, February 2005, August 2005 and February 2006 continued to report that the district maintained compliance with all but one of the Consent Decree stipulations. As all other stipulations were met but the full implementation of the Facilities Master Plan, the parties to the Consent Decree agreed in 2006 to amend the Consent Decree and establish al- ternate criteria to bring earlier closure to the Consent Decree oversight. The FCMAT report of August 2006 and this February 2007 report provide a review of the Consent Decree as amended. This section summarizes the district’s efforts to implement its Facilities Master Plan, developed in July 1999, and fully comply with all stipulations of the February 2000 Consent Decree. Background The Compton Unified School District developed a long-range Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan in July 1999. The Facilities Master Plan was developed by Fields and Devereaux, Architects and Engineers, with input provided by a district facilities master plan committee that included parents and community representatives. A facilities assessment was made of every school site and district property and all facilities deficiencies were noted. Facilities needs at each site were identified as either a life/safety concern, a facilities need that could be addressed as a deferred maintenance project, a facilities need that should be addressed through modernization of the facilities, or as a capital improvement project. The Facilities Master Plan was approved by the Compton USD Advisory Board on July 13, 1999. A Facilities Implementation Plan was developed by the district in June 2001 and submitted to FCMAT for approval. FCMAT solicited comments from the plaintiffs’ counsel prior to approval as required in the Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, and approved the Implementation Plan effec- tive August 10, 2001. The Advisory Board adopted the Implementation Plan in August 2001. The plan provided a timeline to address the district’s most pressing facilities needs and provided a priority for the modernization and new construction projects to be completed by the district as state funds became available. Project priorities were made based on the following: Priorities 1) and 2) Life/Safety and Deferred Maintenance Projects, Priority 3) Modernization Projects, and Priority 4) Capital Improvement Projects. The Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan and the priorities established in the Facilities Imple- mentation Plan provided the basis for addressing the district’s facilities needs since 1999. The district planned to commit $2 million to $2.6 million in general funds annually for capital im- provement projects and $835,000 as the district’s annual match for deferred maintenance proj- ects. The district actually expended approximately $5 million in 1999-2000 and $10 million in 2000-2001 on facilities projects and continued to allocate healthy subsequent annual budgets to the facilities division. General funds allocated to the facilities budget and deferred maintenance funds were used to address the district’s facilities priorities, as state and local general obligation bond funds were not then available. Consent Decree  The district received approval from the Office of Public School Construction and the Division of the State Architect for 28 modernization projects and several new school construction projects and submitted the projects for state funding. As state funds were not available, the district’s proj- ects remained on the list of approved projects awaiting state funding. The district made three unsuccessful attempts prior to 2001 to pass a local bond measure to sup- port facilities repairs. These unsuccessful bond measure attempts made the district eligible for financial hardship status, eligible to receive100% of state funding when state funds became avail- able, without the requirement that the district provide its share of matching funds. The district received $17 million in planning funds in 1999-2000 and became eligible to receive $135 million for its modernization and new construction projects. However, the state had no funds available to provide to the district to implement its modernization and construction projects. California voters passed Proposition 39 in November 2000, which allows local educational agencies to incur bonded indebtedness based on 55% voter approval rather than the two-thirds vote previously required. Proposition 39 contained specific provisions that require that specific projects to be funded with the bond funds be identified, and requires an annual audit to ensure that funds are expended only for the identified projects and that there is a proper accounting for the funds. In fall 2001, the district began plans to again attempt to pass a general obligation bond (GOB) in the November 2002 election. The district determined the size of the bond that the community might reasonably support at $80 million, as the community college was also placing a facilities bond on the November ballot. The district identified several of the most pressing projects from the Facilities Master Plan to address with these bond funds, as the $80 million, even with match- ing state funds, could not address all of the needs identified in the Facilities Master Plan. The list of projects included construction of two new elementary schools (Clinton and Tamarind Avenue) in the district’s Facilities Master Plan and renovations of existing facilities at 28 elementary, mid- dle and high school sites. Because of the three previous unsuccessful attempts to pass a GOB, the district also decided that the bond measure would be placed on the ballot as a Proposition 39 bond measure, requiring only 55% of voter approval for passage. The bond campaign literature publicized the identified list of projects to be addressed. The District’s Building Program Begins Anticipating the success of its latest bond effort at the lower voter approval requirement, the dis- trict arranged financing to begin construction of one of the two new elementary schools identified in the list of projects to be addressed with the bond funds. In spring 2002 the district Governing Board approved a Certificate of Participation (COP) to begin construction of the new Clinton Elementary School to alleviate overcrowding in several district elementary schools, with the ex- pectation that the successful passage of the bond would retire the COP. Construction on the new school project began in summer 2002 and the William Jefferson Clinton Elementary School was opened to students in January 2003. This was the first school built in the district in thirty years. The district successfully passed Measure I, an $80 million local general obligation bond (GOB), in November 2002. The projects identified to be addressed with Measure I funds came from the Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan approved by the Advisory Board in July 1999 and the Fa- cilities Implementation Plan priorities approved in August 2001. $12 million for construction of 0 Consent Decree Clinton Elementary School was included in the list of planned Measure I expenditures. With the successful passage of the district’s local GOB, the district lost its hardship eligibility, thus requir- ing the district to provide local matching funds for any state funds received. The district was re- quired to provide a 20% match for modernization projects and a 50% match for new construction projects. The district’s Measure I funds provided the resource for the district’s matching funds. The state passed a General Obligation Bond, Proposition 47, in November 2002, making state funds available for the district’s approved modernization and new construction projects wait- ing in the “pipeline” of approved projects from districts across the state. With the passage of the district’s Measure I General Obligation Bond and the availability of state funds from Proposition 47, the Compton Unified School District initiated an aggressive construction program to meet the last remaining Consent Decree stipulation. Bond Oversight Committee The district established a Bond Oversight Committee in spring 2003 consisting of twelve com- munity members and a representative of FCMAT to monitor the expenditure of Measure I bond funds for the district’s construction projects. Individual board members submitted the name of an appointee for board approval. As board members elected in November 2003 had not partici- pated in appointing members to the Oversight Committee, the board acted to increase the mem- bership on the committee, allowing the new board members to submit the name of an appointee. On January 25, 2005, the board appointed two additional members to the committee for a total of 15 members. On February 8, 2005, the board appointed another member for a total of 16 mem- bers. In March 2005, however, two committee members resigned and one member passed away, returning the committee membership to 13 members. The board agreed to leave the committee membership at 13 members. Following the November 2005 election, the new board in January 2006 decided to reorganize the Oversight Committee membership, and cancelled the scheduled February 2006 meeting of the committee until new members were appointed by the newly seated board members. The Bond Oversight Committee met monthly since its inception in April 2003, receiving status reports on the district’s various projects and making periodic visits to the sites under construc- tion. The committee completed its first annual report in summer 2004, summarizing its activities for the Compton USD governing board. The committee’s work to complete and issue its second annual report was interrupted by the board’s actions to reorganize the committee. The board appointed a ten-member Oversight Committee in February 2006 consisting of the re-appointment of three previous committee members, six new members, and the continuing representative from FCMAT. The reorganized committee was scheduled to hold its first meeting in March 2006 but lacked a quorum. It held its first meeting in April 2006. Since the Oversight Committee’s establishment in 2003, many monthly meetings have been cancelled for lack of a quorum. Attendance of members has been inconsistent, and reorganizing the committee and ap- pointing new members has not improved attendance. The Bond Oversight Committee is currently composed of nine members. Two members were appointed in January 2007 by the governing board to replace two other members with excessive absences. The Oversight Committee completed Annual Reports for June 2005 and June 2006. Consent Decree  On June 6, 2005, the Oversight Committee received the Financial and Performance Audits performed by the audit firm Vicenti, Lloyd and Stutzman for the GOB Measure I funds for the period March 25, 2003 through June 30, 2003 and for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2004. The auditors reported that the district’s financial statements fairly presented the Measure I funds in all material respects and conformed with generally accepted accounting principles. There were no audit findings. Construction Management The district hired a construction management firm, GKK Corp, and implemented a construction program utilizing $80 million in Measure I funds and more than $80 million in Proposition 47 state funds and other district funds. The district had sixteen modernization projects under con- struction in fall 2003. Modernization projects were initiated at the following schools in fall 2003: 1. Centennial High School 2. Roosevelt Middle School 3. Whaley Middle School 4. Willowbrook Middle School 5. Bunche Middle School 6. Anderson Elementary School 7. Mayo Elementary School 8. Emerson Elementary School 9. McNair Elementary School 10. Roosevelt Elementary School 11. Kelly Elementary School 12. Dominguez High School 13. Cesar Chavez Adult School 14. Washington Elementary School 15. Laurel Elementary School 16. Carver Elementary School Modernization projects were initiated at five schools in spring 2004 at: 17. Lincoln Elementary School 18. Bunche Elementary School 19. Vanguard Middle School 20. Dickison Elementary School 21. Kennedy Elementary School Modernization projects were initiated at seven schools in June 2004 at: 22. Bursch Elementary School 23. Caldwell Elementary School 24. McKinley Elementary School 25. Tibby Elementary School 26. Davis Middle School 27. Walton Middle School 28. Compton High School  Consent Decree New classroom buildings were added at the following schools in 2003-2004: 1. Foster Elementary School 2. Kelly Elementary School 3. Roosevelt Elementary School 4. Willard Elementary School 5. Roosevelt Middle School 6. Whaley Middle School The completion of the 28 approved modernization projects with the use of state and local bond funds was expected by the end of 2006. Clinton Elementary School is the first of three school construction projects identified in the Facilities Master Plan to be completed. The district governing board approved a Certificate of Participation (COP) to construct a new district office administrative complex at 501 South Santa Fe Avenue. The district office project was not supported by Measure I funds. The district office administrative operations were temporarily moved to 500 South Santa Fe Avenue in late fall 2004 while the new district office facilities were constructed. District administrative staff moved to the new administrative offices in fall 2006. The previous district office site at South Tamarind Avenue is expected to be the site of the second new elementary school identified in the list of Measure I projects. Construction of the second el- ementary school at Tamarind Avenue, named Liberty Elementary School, had been planned to be supported by funds from Measure I and Proposition 47. However, this second elementary school project is on hold, as Measure I funds are no longer available for this project, and the district’s declining enrollment may obviate the need for another elementary school at this time. Current Status of the Facilities Program The district has made significant progress implementing its Facilities Master Plan and meeting the stipulations of the Consent Decree. Measure I funds were issued in three phases of $40 mil- lion in 2003, $20 million in 2005 and $20 million in spring 2006. The proceeds of the last $20 million retired the Certificate of Participation for the construction of Clinton Elementary School. The funds available from the state and local bonds have allowed the district to implement many of the facilities projects identified in its Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan. However, the district administration has been challenged in its efforts to implement the district’s planned build- ing program as strong criticism from the board and community members have continued to be voiced about the condition of the district’s facilities, especially during the lengthy construction phase at the many district sites, and the insufficiency of funds to complete all planned projects. The district’s construction projects have not all been completed as anticipated by the end of 2006. Three projects have been completed, 22 projects are in the punch list phase, and three projects are only 80% complete. Measure I funds have been exhausted. The district’s general obligation bond and the state’s matching funds were insufficient to complete the projects as an- ticipated, and the district administration and governing board considered a Certificate of Partici- pation to complete the three remaining projects at Washington, Chavez and Caldwell schools, to build Liberty Elementary at the Tamarind Avenue site, and to address other pressing facilities needs that were not part of the original Measure I project list, such as bleachers for the high schools and additional roofing projects. Consent Decree  The governing board commissioned a forensics audit of the facilities program in fall 2006 by Del Terra. The audit raised questions about the procedures used by the district to track its projects, and identified facilities needs that have not yet been addressed. At the time of FCMAT’s review in early February 2007, the district terminated its contract with its construction manager GKK Corp, initiated a process to interview and consider other firms for construction management, and hired Del Terra as its new construction manager to complete the district’s unfinished projects. The district is also experiencing declining enrollment which has diminished its annual revenues, and has placed on hold construction of the second elementary school at the Tamarind Avenue site. At a board meeting on March 27, 2007, the board did not approve a Certificate of Participation of $15 million recommended by the district administration to complete its unfinished facilities projects and to reimburse the general fund for monies allocated to the building program earlier in the year. However, at a subsequent board meeting on May 1, 2007, the board took action on a district recommended COP of $25 million. As the facilities program continues to be an important issue to the governing board and the com- munity, the district administration and facilities staff have provided, and must continue to pro- vide, informational workshops on the Facilities Master Plan, the Implementation Plan, and the status of the district’s construction projects. The children of the Compton Unified School District deserve to attend classes in a safe and healthy learning environment.  Consent Decree Community Relations & Governance 5.4 Board Roles/Boardsmanship Professional Standard Functional working relations are maintained among board members. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. Most board members are communicating with one another in a professional, respect- ful manner. Board members are expected to continue this behavior and focus their common interest on serving students. Board workshops and retreats have been con- ducted to promote team-building. However, some board members do not participate in scheduled training activities. 2. Board membership has changed several times since governing authority was returned to the governing board in December 2001. Four seats were open in the most recent board election in November 2005. The district and board held a retreat for the return- ing and newly elected board members and superintendent soon after the board mem- bers were officially sworn in at the December 2005 board meeting. Three board seats will be decided in the November 2007 election. 3. Board members developed, and most agreed to follow, a resolution to guide their behav- ior at board meetings. Occasionally a board member has been observed to behave rudely and in an argumentative manner toward fellow board members. However, other board members have been observed to redirect the meeting to the business agenda or to call for a recess or early adjournment. Despite occasional inappropriate comments or behaviors by a board member, recent board meetings have been business-like and effectively managed. 4. Most board members understand that although they will not always agree on issues, they can disagree in a professional manner. Standard Implemented: Partially Implemented This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2001 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 0 August 1999 Rating: 1 February 2000 Rating: 5 August 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2001 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2001 Rating: 6 August 2006 Rating: 6 February 2007 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Community Relations  5.5 Board Roles/Boardsmanship Professional Standard Individual Board members respect the decisions of the Board majority and support the Board’s actions in public. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. Board members continue to be offered training in boardsmanship and the Board members’ appropriate role in community relations and policy matters. However, some board members choose not to attend the workshops offered. Board members should view ongoing training as one of the responsibilities of a sitting board member in order to serve in the position more effectively. 2. Most board members acknowledge that the Board President is the spokesperson for the Board. The board members recognize the superintendent as the spokesperson for the district. The district will need to continue good media relations with print and television reporters, and to appropriately use media releases to provide accurate and timely information and to maintain control of the issues. 3. This standard is difficult for some individual board members to implement. A board member has stated on several occasions that her actions are not governed by the board majority. Individual board members need to recognize that a school board can only be effective when working collaboratively, with action taken by a majority of the mem- bers. Individual members need to support the decisions of the board majority. An individual member has no board authority. 4. Board members have developed and agreed to follow a resolution to guide their be- havior at board meetings. Although a board member has not agreed to abide by the resolution passed by the majority of the board, recent board meetings have been busi- ness-like and effectively managed. Occasional instances of inappropriate or argumen- tative behavior by a board member has been observed and reported. 5. It has also been reported that on occasion an individual board member has attempted to influence staff toward a particular decision, or has expressed a lack of trust that adminis- trative staff have made the most appropriate decision. Board members must avoid being perceived as trying to manage the district or the outcome of administrative decisions. 6. A board member has been observed at board meetings questioning the make-up of the superintendent’s cabinet. This member has questioned the superintendent about why specific administrators have not been promoted to higher positions, or have not been made members of the superintendent’s cabinet. Board members are reminded that the make-up of the superintendent’s cabinet and the assignment of management responsibilities are the responsibility of the superintendent, who must be free to assign management responsibilities to the most capable personnel. The superintendent is not free to explain in public why certain individuals may not be suited to assume more responsible positions.  Community Relations 7. The majority of the board understands its policy making role and refrains from at- tempting to manage the district’s operations or influence the outcome of administra- tive decisions. Standard Implemented: Partially Implemented This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2001 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 1 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 5 February 2001 Rating: 4 August 2001 Rating: 5 August 2006 Rating: 5 February 2007 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Community Relations  5.6 Board Roles/Boardsmanship Professional Standard Functional working relations are maintained between the Board and administrative team. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. A functional working relationship exists between board members and the superinten- dent. The superintendent provides information and explanations to effectively commu- nicate the district’s business. Although the composition of the board membership has changed, the superintendent has been with the district for almost six years, since being hired in August 2001 and has provided continuity for the board and the district. 2. The district provided board members with lap top computers in spring 2006 to reduce the amount of paper used at board meetings. Board members receive communication about important district issues in a timely manner. The superintendent communicates often with individual board members between regular board meeting dates. 3. A board member has been observed directing unprofessionally critical comments toward some administrative cabinet members during board meetings. Members are cautioned to remember that criticism, if warranted, must always remain professional, and never a personal attack against staff, particularly in public. Any concerns about district personnel should be communicated to the superintendent. Board members should continue to exercise their governing authority appropriately, as explained in CSBA provided board training on roles and responsibilities of board members. 4. The district lost four competent cabinet-level administrators in 2004-05 and 2005-06 in key positions. Although administrative changes occur in every school district, the monitoring team is concerned about the ability of the district to sustain the progress it has made with the continual loss of able administrators from the district. The team is also concerned as statements were reported to have been made to these cabinet-level members by a board member that they would lose their jobs, which can be perceived as an attempt to unduly influence administrative decisions and to manage the opera- tions of the district by undermining job security.  Community Relations Standard Implemented: Partially Implemented This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2001 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 2 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 5 February 2001 Rating: 5 August 2001 Rating: 6 August 2006 Rating: 5 February 2007 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Community Relations  5.7 Board Roles/Boardsmanship Professional Standard The Board publicly demonstrates respect and support for district staff. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. Board members continue to join with the superintendent in celebrating staff successes in the public recognition portion of the Board meetings. Staff members are regularly recognized and receive awards from the district and board in appreciation of their hard work and contributions to the district. 2. The board has recently recognized community volunteers for their many hours of service to the district. Several individual volunteers have each provided as many as 3,000 hours or more of service. 3. The board regularly recognizes the accomplishments of the district’s students at most board meetings. The district has recently experienced many staff and student suc- cesses, providing strong indications of the district’s progress and continued academic improvement. 4. As indicated in Standard 5.6, some board members have been unprofessionally critical of cabinet administrators at board meetings. Members are cautioned to remember that criticism, if warranted, must always remain professional, and never a personal attack against staff. The district has lost four competent cabinet level administrators in the recent past, seriously affecting for a time the district’s ability to maintain effective district operations. Standard Implemented: Partially Implemented This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2001 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 3 August 1999 Rating: 3 February 2000 Rating: 4 August 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2001 Rating: 4 August 2001 Rating: 6 August 2006 Rating: 6 February 2007 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale:  Community Relations 5.8 Board Roles/Boardsmanship Professional Standard The Board demonstrates respect for public input at meetings and public hearings. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. Board members are attentive to the concerns of parents and are respectful of the indi- viduals who address them at the board meetings. Parent concerns are referred to staff to be addressed and reported on at subsequent meetings. The Board President main- tains meeting decorum and acceptance of public input. Speakers are held to a three- minute time frame in their public addresses. 2. It has been reported that on occasion, a board member attempts to provide a rem- edy for reported complaints by staff, interceding with administrators on their behalf. Board members need to remind those staff members who call them directly that com- plaints should be taken to their immediate supervisor for resolution, and to follow the district’s chain of command. 3. Board members continue to be offered training in boardsmanship and the Board members’ appropriate role in community relations. However, not all board members avail themselves of the training provided by the district through the California School Boards Association. The roles and responsibilities of members of a school board are challenging, with many new expectations placed upon school districts. Board mem- bers should view ongoing training as one of the responsibilities of a sitting board member in order to serve in the position more effectively. 4. Board members have acknowledged that the Board President is the spokesperson for the board. Board workshops and retreats have been conducted to promote team-build- ing among members. Standard Implemented: Partially Implemented This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2001 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 4 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2001 Rating: 6 August 2001 Rating: 7 August 2006 Rating: 6 February 2007 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Community Relations  Standard 5.9 Board Roles/Boardsmanship Professional Standard Board members respect confidentiality of information by the administration. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. Some board members in the past have not always respected the confidentiality of in- formation shared in closed session. Board members have been known to share confi- dential information with the news media concerning confidential personnel or bargain- ing matters. At this reporting period, it appears that board members are appropriately observing the confidentiality of closed session items. Most board members appear to be respectful of the need for confidentiality of sensitive issues. 2. The board will need to remember to maintain confidentiality of closed session items, particularly as bargaining has begun, and to be constantly vigilant to avoid attempting to manage district operations. The district might consider providing a refresher work- shop on collective bargaining issues as negotiations are progressing. 3. Board members continue to receive training in boardsmanship and roles and responsi- bilities. Individual board members must demonstrate personal integrity in the han- dling of confidential matters, refraining from discussing such issues in public meet- ings, with friends or colleagues, or the media. Standard Implemented: Partially Implemented This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2001 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 4 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2001 Rating: 4 August 2001 Rating: 5 August 2006 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale:  Community Relations 5.10 Board Roles/Boardsmanship Professional Standard The Board restricts itself to a policy-making role and does not attempt to administer policies. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. All sections of the policy manual have been updated and adopted by the Board. A process for the continual review and revision of policies has been established. The district uses the GAMUT system to update its policies. A policy review committee, co-chaired by a board member, meets regularly to review policy updates and to con- sider new policies necessitated by new legislation and/or education code changes. 2. Board policy review is scheduled as a regular board agenda item. Board policies are introduced for first reading, and brought back at another board meeting for public in- put, second reading and action. District staff includes the policy reference that is per- tinent to the board agenda item or issue being addressed by the Board so that adopted policies can be followed. 3. Governing board members need to continue to govern by policy, allowing the superin- tendent to administer the district. Board members in the past have visited school sites and district offices, and/or made phone calls to employees, attempting to direct their work. Most current board members appear to direct their concerns to the superinten- dent for resolution. 4. Some board members find it difficult to restrict themselves to a policy-making role. One or two board members from time to time have attempted to influence adminis- trative decisions, or pursue an issue toward a particular outcome that they support. These board members would benefit from ongoing professional development in boardsmanship to better understand their role as a board member. 5. The board needs to review and monitor the operations of the committees that have been established to assist them in conducting business efficiently. All such committee members should adhere to a policy making only role. Community Relations  Standard Implemented: Partially Implemented This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2001 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 3 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 5 February 2001 Rating: 4 August 2001 Rating: 5 August 2006 Rating: 6 February 2007 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: 0 Community Relations 5.11 Board Roles/Boardsmanship Professional Standard When an individual board member attempts to exercise any administrative responsibility, the matter is brought to the attention of the full board for corrective action (standard revised Febru- ary 2006). Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. Governing board members need to understand the source and limitations of their authority, and work through the superintendent and administrative staff. Some board members acknowledged that there have been a few board members who wanted to in- dividually resolve the complaints they received from the public and staff. Most board members, however, communicate complaints directly to the superintendent’s office. 2. The superintendent reports back to the board regarding any action taken in response to the complaints or concerns forwarded to him from board members. 3. Board members continue to receive CSBA-provided training on the board members’ role in community relations. Each board member has a training and travel budget and members attend various workshops. However, not all board members avail them- selves of this training, which should be a continuing responsibility of a sitting board member in order to more effectively serve the school district and community. 4. When an individual board member acts inappropriately at meetings, other board mem- bers make efforts to redirect the meeting to the board’s business agenda. If a member is disruptive, board members attempt to take action to recess or adjourn early. The board members work to conduct a professional business meeting before the public. Standard Implemented: Partially Implemented This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2001 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 4 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2001 Rating: 4 August 2001 Rating: 5 August 2006 Rating: 5 February 2007 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Community Relations  6.3 Board Meetings Professional Standard Board members are prepared for board meetings by becoming familiar with the agenda and sup- port materials prior to the meeting. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. Most board members demonstrate responsible boardsmanship by reviewing the agen- da materials prior to the meeting and preparing their questions and comments. One or two members, however, sometimes appear unprepared at the meetings for discussion of some of the agenda items. 2. Board members have developed, and most have agreed to follow, a resolution to guide their behavior at board meetings. The board follows parliamentary procedures in conducting its meetings. Although a board member has been observed to occasionally make an inappropriate comment, recent board meetings have been business-like and effectively managed. Standard Implemented: Partially Implemented This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2001 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 5 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2001 Rating: 6 August 2001 Rating: 7 August 2006 Rating: 7 February 2007 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale:  Community Relations Standard 6.5 Board Meetings Legal Standard Open and closed sessions are conducted according to the Ralph M. Brown Act. (GC 54950 et seq.) Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. This standard was substantially met when first reviewed in February 1999. All ele- ments of the standard are fully and substantially implemented and have been sustained for several years. 2. A board member at a board meeting during summer 2006 asked to take an issue into closed session for discussion. The district’s legal counsel reminded the board that only certain specific items can be taken into closed session, and that the majority of the board’s business must be conducted in public. The board member commented that the board has always taken selected items into closed session and why is it now being disallowed. Legal counsel corrected the board member that only specific items have been taken into closed session, e.g., student or personnel discipline, evaluation, nego- tiations, pending litigation. Most of the board members clearly understand the open meeting laws that govern the board meetings. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Substantially This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2001 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 8 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2001 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2001 Rating: 9 August 2006 Rating: 9 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Community Relations   Community Relations Chart of Community Relations/Governance Standards Progress Ratings Toward Implementation of the Serna v Eastin Consent Decree Community Relations   Community Relations Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Time line/ Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 Goal Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Functional working relations 5.4 are maintained among board 0 1 5 NR NR 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 6 7 members. Individual board members respect the decisions of the 5.5 1 NR NR 5 4 5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 5 6 Board majority and support the Board’s actions in public. Functional working relations 5.6 are maintained between the 2 NR NR 5 5 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 5 6 Board and administrative team. The board publicly demon- 5.7 strates respect and support for 3 3 4 NR 4 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 6 6 district staff. The board demonstrates respect 5.8 for public input at meetings 4 NR NR NR 6 7 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 6 7 and public hearings. Board members respect confi- 5.9 dentiality of information by the 4 NR NR NR 4 5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 6 6 administration. The board restricts itself to a policy-making role and does 5.10 3 NR NR 5 4 5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 6 6 not attempt to administer policies. When an individual board member attempts to exercise any administrative responsibil- 5.11 ity, the matter is brought to 4 NR NR NR 4 5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 5 6 the attention of the full board for corrective action (standard revised February 2006). Community Relations 17 NR not reviewed Community Relations Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Time line/ Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 Goal Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Board members are prepared for board meetings by becom- 6.3 ing familiar with the agenda 5 NR NR NR 6 7 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 7 and support materials prior to the meeting. Open and closed sessions are conducted according to the 6.5 8 NR NR NR NR 9 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 9 10 Ralph M. Brown Act. (GC 54950 et seq.) 18 Community Relations NR not reviewed Community Relations Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 18 Personnel Management 3.9 Certificated Recruitment and Selection Professional Standard The district systematically initiates and follows up on experience and reference checks on all ap- plicants being considered for employment. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. Reference checks are made by designated personnel in the Human Resources and Educational Development (HRED) Division. Reference Check Forms have been developed to help obtain information in a telephone reference check. A Verification of Previous Employment form has also been developed which authorizes the district to verify an applicant’s previous employment history. 2. Reference check forms are kept in the employee’s personnel folder in the HRED of- fice. Staff estimates that all employees hired since 2005 were hired with a reference check process completed. The reference check process is routine, has been ongoing for some time and has become a standard operating procedure. 3. The district conducts Livescan fingerprint checks for all new hires and has done so since 2000. No one convicted of a violent or serious felony is offered employment by the district. 4. The district utilizes the on-line recruiting system Ed-join to post position vacancies and for applicants to apply for positions on-line. The district also posts vacant posi- tions on the district’s Web site. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Substantially This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2000 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 4 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 7 August 2006 Rating: 8 February 2007 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management  3.10 Certificated Recruitment and Selection Legal Standard The district limits the number of certificated persons on CBEST waiver. [EC 44252.5] Consent Decree Stipulations Section 20 of the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case no. BC 174282, included the following stipulations: the district is to identify teachers without clear credentials, produce a public report, monitor teachers who have not passed CBEST, release teachers who have not passed CBEST after two years or who have not obtained a preliminary credential after three years, and provide an incentive program to teachers to obtain an appropriate credential. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulations have been met. 1. The district continues to comply with the February 2000 Consent Decree stipulation to identify teachers without clear credentials, to monitor teachers who have not passed the CBEST, and to release teachers who have not passed CBEST after two years. Monthly reports indicating the number and percent of credentialed and non-credentialed teachers in the district are generated by the Human Resources and Employee Development De- partment and a report is presented to the board twice a year. 2. The district accepts CBEST waivers only if credentialed teachers are not available for the hard-to-fill positions. As of February 2007 only one teacher is on a CBEST waiver. 3. The percent of total teaching staff with clear credentials continues to increase. Percent- ages of the district’s regular teachers who are credentialed: • February 2007: 91.85% of the district’s 1122 teachers are credentialed; 2.82% are university interns; 1.37% are district interns; 1.78% are provisional interns; and approximately 2.3% have either an emergency permit, waiver, or special tempo- rary certificate or are on a short term or limited assignment. • June 2006: 87% of the district’s 1048 certificated staff were credentialed, 3% had vocational designated subject authorization, 2.5% were university interns, 2.13% were district interns, 1.28% were provisional interns, and 2.3% had special tem- porary certificates. • June 2005: 77.90% were credentialed, 17.78% had Intern credentials, 1.93% had Pre-Intern Certificates and 2.38% had emergency permits. • January 2005: 74.79% were credentialed, 20.16% had Intern credentials, 2.26% were second year Pre-Interns, and 2.80% had emergency permits. • June 2004: 66.40% were credentialed, 23.19% had Intern credentials, 5.91% had pre-Intern certificates, 4.43% had emergency permits, and 0.07% had pupil per- sonnel services waivers. • January 2004: 63.21% were credentialed, 25% had Intern credentials, 7% had pre-Intern certificates and 5% had emergency permits.  Personnel Management 4. Percentages of the district’s special education teachers with credentials: • February 2007: 57.38% of the district’s 61 special education teachers are creden- tialed, 14.75% are university interns, 1.64% are district interns, 13.11% have pro- visional internship permits, and 13.1% have waivers or short term staff permits. • June 2006: 57% of the district’s 61 special education teachers were credentialed, 13.11% were university interns, 1.64% were district interns, 6.56% had special temporary certificates, and 1.64% had emergency permits. • June 2005: 43.93% were credentialed, 25.23% had Intern credentials, 6.54% had Pre-Intern Certificates, 16.82% had emergency permits, and 3.74% or four teach- ers had SDC waivers. Four teachers also had waivers for both SDC and CBEST. • January 2005: 39.81% were credentialed, 21.36% had Intern credentials, 10.68% had Pre-Intern certificates, 14.56% had Emergency Permits, 7.77% had SDC waivers, and 5.82% had SDC and CBEST waivers. • June 2004: 32.43% were credentialed, 16.22% had Intern credentials, 25.23% had pre-Intern certificates, 15.32% had emergency permits, 3.60% had SDC waiv- ers, 1.80% had SDC and CBEST waivers, and 5.40% had CBEST waivers. 5. All teachers are required to meet subject matter competency requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act. As of February 2007, 77.1% of all teachers in the core courses are compliant, 88.17% at the elementary level and 74.37% at the secondary level. The HRED department monitors compliance at each site. 6. The district provides a differentiated salary schedule, paying credentialed teachers at a higher level than non-credentialed teachers, providing a strong incentive for teachers to become credentialed as quickly as possible. 7. Although Teaching as a Priority (TAP) funds, which provided incentives for recruiting and retaining credentialed teachers in the district, are no longer available, the district has allotted other district funds such as professional development block grant funds to pro- vide incentives to recruit fully credentialed teachers to the district. The district continues to offer an $11,000 signing bonus to fully credentialed teachers of mathematics or science for a two-year teaching commitment in the district. At the urging of the district’s math and science teachers, the district also provided a bonus for teachers who continued their employment with the district. The district recently obtained a TRSSP grant to support recruitment and retention of credentialed teachers and staff development. 8. SB 2042, which includes the previous Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Pro- gram (BTSA) for induction of teachers, provides coaching support for teachers with preliminary credentials. 9. The HR department added a recruiter position in February 2005 to attend career fairs to recruit and hire applicants in hard-to-fill subject matter areas. 10. In June 2005 the superintendent informed all K-12 teachers of the requirement to obtain English Learner authorization. Under the Williams v State of California settlement, a teacher who is assigned to teach a class with more than 20% English Learner pupils in the class must have an EL authorization. Under Education Code requirements, a teacher with any English Learner pupils in the class must have an EL authorization. Personnel Management  • As of February 2007, 74.3% of classroom teachers have this authorization and 20.1% of teachers are in training. 11. The district has required all site administrators to obtain EL authorization and has given them two years in which to do so. • As of February 2007, 81% of administrators have this authorization, including 35 of the 38 site principals. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained February 1999 Rating: 8 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 8 February 2001 Rating: 8 August 2001 Rating: 9 February 2002 Rating: 10 August 2002 Rating: 10 February 2003 Rating: 10 August 2003 Rating: 10 February 2004 Rating: 10 August 2004 Rating: 10 February 2005 Rating: 10 August 2005 Rating: 10 February 2006 Rating: 10 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale:  Personnel Management 6.6 Operational Procedures Professional Standard The Personnel Division has procedures in place which allow for both personnel and payroll staff to meet regularly to solve problems which develop in the process of new employees, classifica- tion changes and employee promotions. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. The district conducts regular monthly staff meetings between personnel and fiscal staff so that employees in these departments can resolve minor issues before they become major problems. These meetings have been an ongoing and regular process for some time. A calendar of these monthly meetings was shared with the review team. These meetings allow greater efficiency of service and reduce the number of payroll/person- nel discrepancies. 2. The Director of Payroll and the Director of HR Operations frequently meet informally whenever a concern arises to immediately address it. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Substantially This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2001 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 0 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2001 Rating: 2 August 2001 Rating: 4 August 2006 Rating: 8 February 2007 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management  7.2 State and Federal Compliance Legal Standard All fingerprinting requirements are met before a potential employee reports for employment. (EC 44237, 45125, 45125.1, 44332.6, 44346.1, 44830.1, 45122.1) Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. The district has a Livescan fingerprint machine and conducts fingerprint scans for all new hires and has done so since 2000. This has become a standard operating proce- dure implemented systemically. 2. Training has been provided to staff in the use of the Livescan system and is ongoing. 3. The Director of Certificated Personnel is responsible for reviewing the Department of Justice reports, making decisions about candidates’ eligibility for hiring and maintain- ing records as required. No applicant convicted of a violent or serious felony is hired by the district. 4. New employees are also required to complete a physical exam before employment. Employees are referred to a clinic at the district’s direction and at district expense. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Substantially This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 1999 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 5 August 1999 Rating: 6 August 2006 Rating: 9 February 2007 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale:  Personnel Management 7.3 State and Federal Compliance Legal Standard The district shall obtain a criminal record summary from the Department of Justice before em- ploying an individual and shall not employ anyone who has been convicted of a violent or seri- ous felony. (ED 44332.6, 44346.1, 45122.1) Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. The district requires all new hires to be fingerprinted and has done so since 2000, and has a Livescan fingerprint machine in the district office to facilitate the fingerprinting process. 2. All Department of Justice (DOJ) reports go to one personnel person for review and no one is employed by the district until DOJ clearance is obtained. No one convicted of a violent or serious felony is offered employment by the district. Offer of employment letters to candidates describe the fingerprint requirement process, and inform candi- dates that the offer of employment is contingent on the fingerprint clearance from the DOJ and the required physical exam. 3. Applicants for volunteer service are also required to obtain fingerprint clearance. 4. The fingerprinting process and requirements have long been implemented and have become systemic. Results from the DOJ are received in a more timely manner. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Substantially This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2001 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 0 August 1999 Rating: 3 February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2001 Rating: 5 August 2001 Rating: 7 August 2006 Rating: 9 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management  8.6 Use of Technology Professional Standard The Personnel Division has computerized its employee database system including, but not lim- ited to: Credentials, Seniority Lists, Evaluations, Personnel by funding source, program, loca- tion, Workers’ Compensation benefits. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. The district has computerized its employee database utilizing the Human Resources Tracking System (HRTS). The system tracks all district employees and their assign- ments, credentials and expiration dates, English Learner (EL) authorizations, leaves of absences, personnel by funding source, and professional development activities, among other data. HRTS also monitors employee evaluation timelines, e.g., mid-term and an- nual/end of term evaluation dates. 2. The district is reviewing the employee seniority lists and working with the district’s five bargaining unions to attempt to standardize seniority among the employees. A process has been established in which the Personnel Commission sends to HR the seniority lists of all employee bargaining units twice a year. 3. The district annually tracks staff attendance by elementary, middle and high school levels and by sites and reports the data to the sites. A district attendance goal was initiated by the superintendent of 97% attendance for all classroom teachers. Each school addresses staff attendance as part of their school improvement plan. The district regularly reports employee absences and reasons for absences to school site managers to work with their staffs to reduce absenteeism. 4. The district continues to successfully utilize an automated substitute calling system, Sub- stitute Employee Management System (SEMS). The district is now tracking the utiliza- tion of substitutes and the timeliness of the requests for subs. 5. The Office of Human Resources and Employee Development (HRED) provides substi- tutes when classroom teachers are absent. HRED maintains a pool of approximately 250 substitutes each year and continues to process applications for new substitutes. In the 2005-06 year the district hired a “resident sub” for each middle school, and two for each high school. This has been continued for the 2006-07 school year. 6. HRED monitors on a daily basis, the number of classroom teacher absences by site, and provides weekly reports to the Executive Cabinet and monthly reports to the principals on teacher absences.  Personnel Management Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Substantially This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2000 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 0 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 6 August 2006 Rating: 9 February 2007 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management  9.5 Staff Training Professional Standard The district provides training for all management and supervisory staff responsible for employee evaluations. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. Training workshops for management and supervisory staff are provided annually and as needed on topics such as the importance of employee evaluations, working with ineffective employees, the need for documentation, progressive discipline and com- munication, due process and discipline less than dismissal. The district utilizes the FRISK Handbook curriculum. 2. Other workshops available include the development of leadership and supervisory skills; coaching, counseling and evaluating employees; bargaining contract manage- ment and compliance; and the grievance process. 3. The HRTS system tracks the professional development activities of employees and can provide reports on cumulative professional development hours taken by individual employees and track completion of required training. The system is also utilized by curriculum and instruction administrators to evaluate the effectiveness of training activities. Standard Implemented: Partially Implemented This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period February 1999 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 5 August 2006 Rating: 7 February 2007 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 0 Personnel Management 10.5 Evaluation/Due Process Assistance Professional Standard The Personnel Division provides a process for the monitoring of employee evaluations and the accountability reporting of their completion. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. The Human Resources Tracking System (HRTS) monitors the employee evaluation process and time lines. Site and program managers and supervisors are provided with the names of employees to be evaluated, time lines, and any other related information. 2. The Senior Director of HRED – Certificated Personnel provides the evaluation cal- endar to administrators. Site administrators are provided with a school staffing roster that indicates the teachers to be evaluated during the current year. The certificated employee evaluation schedule is based on whether the employee is a probationary or permanent employee. Probationary teachers are evaluated twice a year during the first and second semesters, and permanent teachers are evaluated every other year. 3. The Director of Classified Personnel (Personnel Commission) develops and distributes a memo of evaluation guidelines and time lines, identifying employees to be evalu- ated. The employee names and evaluation forms are provided to the managers and supervisors who are to complete the evaluations. The Director works collaboratively with HRED to ensure that evaluation time lines are met. 4. In the classified evaluation process, probationary employees’ evaluations are due the second, fourth and sixth months of service. The probationary period is six months except for classified management and school police which is one year. Permanent em- ployee evaluations take place in April and are to be returned to the Personnel Office by April 30. 5. Managers and certificated administrators are evaluated mid-year by February 15. An improvement plan is developed if an evaluation is less than satisfactory. If sufficient improvement is not made, a certificated employee receives a non-renewal of contract notification by March 15. Final evaluation of managers and administrators is com- pleted in May. 6. The district annually provides training and assistance to administrators and supervi- sors in evaluation and due process. Personnel Management  Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Substantially This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period February 1999 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 6 August 2006 Rating: 8 February 2007 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale:  Personnel Management 12.3 Employee/Employer Relations Professional Standard The Personnel Division provides all managers and supervisors (certificated and classified) train- ing in contract management with emphasis on the grievance process and administration. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. The Senior Director of HRED – Employee Development provides training for manag- ers and administrators related to contract management, including updates in contract language, the grievance procedure and the evaluation process. Training is provided annually on various management topics as indicated in Standard 9.5, and one to one assistance is provided to administrators handling delicate employee discipline cases. The Director of Employee Relations receives the grievances, the uniform complaints and provides required training on topics such as child abuse reporting, 504 accommo- dations, sexual harassment, etc. 2. The Senior Director of HRED and the Director of Employee Relations are members of the district’s negotiations team. Site-level administrators and supervisors who serve as members of the district bargaining teams sometimes serve active roles in providing the in-service training on contract management and the grievance process. Standard Implemented: Partially Implemented This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2001 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 4 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2001 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2001 Rating: 4 August 2006 Rating: 7 February 2007 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management  12.7 Employee/Employer Relations Professional Standard Collective bargaining proposals are “sunshined” appropriately to allow public input and under- standing of the cost implications and, most importantly, the effects on the children of the district. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. Initial collective bargaining proposals by employee organizations are presented at public meetings in accordance with PERB rules. 2. Initial collective bargaining proposals by the district are presented at public meetings in accordance with PERB rules. 3. AB 1200 requirements for posting of the calculations and budget impact of negotiated agreements with employee organizations are implemented by the Business Office. 4. The district might consider more actively involving parents and community members in examining collective bargaining proposals, allowing them to evaluate the impact on students, parents and/or the community. 5. Negotiations were recently settled with all bargaining units for the 2005-06 year. All bargaining unit contracts are open for negotiations for 2006-07. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Substantially This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period February 1999 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 5 August 2006 Rating: 8 February 2007 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale:  Personnel Management Chart of Personnel Management Standards Progress Ratings Toward Implementation of the Serna v Eastin Consent Decree Personnel Management   Personnel Management Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Time line/ Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 Goal Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating The district systematically ini- tiates and follows up on expe- 3.9 rience and reference checks on 4 NR NR 7 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8 9 all applicants being considered for employment. The district limits the num- 3.10 ber of certificated persons on 8 NR NR 8 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 CBEST waiver. [EC 44252.5] The Personnel Division has pro- cedures in place which allow for both personnel and payroll staff to meet regularly to solve 6.6 0 NR NR NR 2 4 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8 9 problems which develop in the process of new employees, classification changes and employee promotions. All fingerprinting requirements are met before a potential em- ployee reports for employment. 7.2 5 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 9 9 (EC 44237, 45125, 45125.1, 44332.6, 44346.1, 44830.1, 45122.1) The district shall obtain a criminal record summary from the Department of Justice before employing an individual 7.3 0 3 NR NR 5 7 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 9 10 and shall not employ anyone who has been convicted of a violent or serious felony. (ED 44332.6, 44346.1, 45122.1) Personnel Management 17 NR not reviewed Personnel Management Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Time line/ Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 Goal Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating The Personnel Division has computerized its employee database system including, but not limited to: Credentials, 8.6 0 NR NR 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 9 9 Seniority Lists, Evaluations, Personnel by funding source, program, location, Workers’ Compensation benefits. The district provides train- ing for all management and 9.5 5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 8 supervisory staff responsible for employee evaluations. The Personnel Division provides a process for the monitoring 10.5 of employee evaluations and 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8 9 the accountability reporting of their completion. The Personnel Division provides all managers and supervisors (certificated and classified) 12.3 training in contract manage- 4 NR NR NR NR 4 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 8 ment with emphasis on the grievance process and admin- istration. Collective bargaining proposals are “sunshined” appropriately to allow public input and un- derstanding of the cost impli- 12.7* 5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8 8 cations and, most importantly, the effects on the children of the district. 18 Personnel Management NR not reviewed Personnel Management Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 18 Pupil Achievement 1.2 Student Objectives - Core Curriculum Content Professional Standard The district has clear and valid objectives for students, including the core curriculum content. Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Additional related stipulations (Section 13) include a monthly certification from the site principal that a homework policy is implemented at each site, and that information about the policy is sent to parents each semester and parents acknowledge receipt of the notification. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulations have been met. 1. The district’s homework policy is included in the Student and Parent/Guardian Hand- book distributed at the beginning of each school year. The district complies with Section 13 of the 2000 Consent Decree by sending notification home to parents twice per year, through the Student and Parent/Guardian Handbook and through a letter disseminated at the second semester. Parents must acknowledge receipt of the Student and Parent/Guard- ian Handbook. Parent acknowledgements of receipt of the handbook are maintained at the site. A monthly certification by site principals that the homework policy is being implemented continues to be a required submission to the district office to meet compli- ance. 2. The district has clear goals and objectives for student performance and improvement. 3. The district’s governing board revised its mission statement and goals and developed an updated district logo. The mission statement and goals are reflected on district docu- ments. 4. All curriculum guides are aligned to state content standards. The curriculum guides are available on the district’s web site and on CD-Rom. 5. The ELD curriculum guide has been completed and K-12 ELD performance benchmarks have been developed. Open Court pacing guides have been used to ensure full imple- mentation of the reading program across the district in grades K-5. The pacing guides have been aligned to the curriculum guides. The Accelerated Reader computer program has been purchased for all elementary schools K-5 to assist with improving reading com- prehension. Teacher leaders have been assigned at each school site to work with other teachers. 6. K-3 teachers at eleven schools are receiving coaching/training in the Reading First pro- gram. Pupil Achievement  7. Student academic performance remains a district concern and focus of improvement. Two district schools, Dominguez High and Roosevelt Elementary, are SAIT schools requiring the assistance of School Assistance and Intervention Teams (SAIT) such as the Principals Exchange. The SAIT schools have been assigned a content area coach to work with teachers. Two schools, Whaley Middle and McKinley Elementary, were formerly SAIT schools but exited the SAIT program in September 2006. Data is being used to drive curriculum and school improvement. English Language Learners, as a sub-group, are meeting the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals but African-American students, as a subgroup, are not meeting the AYP at many sites. 8. Eight schools are in program improvement year 5. The district has also been identified as a program improvement district. 9. The number of students in the high school Advanced Placement (AP) program has in- creased and course offerings have increased to fifteen subjects. • During the 2004-05 school year 426 students participated in AP courses and 521 AP exams were administered in spring 2005. • During the 2005-06 school year 526 students participated in AP courses and 693 AP exams were administered in spring 2006. • During the 2006-07 school year, 486 students are enrolled in AP courses and 707 AP exams have been ordered for spring 2007 testing. 10. The district has developed a high school academic planner and course catalog to assist students in meeting requirements for graduation and in developing career plans. Comple- tion of a Senior Portfolio is now a graduation requirement. 11. The district twice received a $35,000 grant from Boeing to work in collaboration with Compton Community College to improve high school science and math programs. 12. The UC Irvine FOCUS project, funded by the National Science Foundation through June 2008, assists Compton USD teachers in improving math and science instruction.  Pupil Achievement Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented - Sustained February 1999 Rating: 0 August 1999 Rating: 2 February 2000 Rating: 3 August 2000 Rating: 5 February 2001 Rating: 6 August 2001 Rating: 6 February 2002 Rating: 7 August 2002 Rating: 8 February 2003 Rating: 8 August 2003 Rating: 9 February 2004 Rating: 10 August 2004 Rating: 10 February 2005 Rating: 10 August 2005 Rating: 10 February 2006 Rating: 10 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement  1.4 Multiple Assessment Tools - Program Adjustment Professional Standard The district has adopted multiple assessment tools, including diagnostic assessments, to evaluate, improve, or adjust programs and resources. Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulation has been met. 1. The district utilizes multiple diagnostic assessments to measure students’ academic performance. A district Assessment Plan has been developed, presented, and disseminated to all principals and site testing coordinators. All schools submit a site testing plan for administering the STAR and CAHSEE tests. 2. Schools receive timely assessment results for all district and state assessments for use in developing their individual school plan for student achievement. Extensive data is available to site staffs in a user-friendly format. Test results are disaggregated, summarized and presented to the Executive Cabinet, principals and teachers. Teachers receive performance data for each class of students indicating the standards mastered by students. 3. Presentations on the district’s testing program and levels of student performance have been made annually to teachers, the governing board and the community. Schools can download test reports or power point programs for parent presentations on the various tests and test terminology (AYP, API, CST) and how to interpret test scores. The district has made available the web-based Data Driven Classroom program that allows teachers to access student performance data from any school site or from home. 4. The district continues to successfully implement the Eagle attendance and student information system. Each student’s assessment history is stored in the system. Teachers are able to access test scores for any student on their class roster and can order their own reports. 5. The district has developed a video in English and Spanish on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and has publicized the importance of the CAHSEE on the district’s public information station Channel 26 to inform parents of the high school exit exam requirement beginning with the graduating class of 2006. 6. The CAHSEE is administered in the spring (February and May) to current 10th graders. All three high schools met the 95% participation rate in spring 2004, 2005 and 2006. Seniors have an extra test administration opportunity in March.  Pupil Achievement 7. The district’s remediation plan for students who have not passed one or both portions of the CAHSEE exams includes the following: test preparation sessions offered at the high schools on Monday through Thursday, either before or after school, and on Saturdays; a six-week summer school CAHSEE preparation class; and a two-week intensive “boot camp” preparation program offered in March at Compton High School prior to the CAHSEE test administration. 8. Middle school and high school administrators and teachers participate in CAHSEE trainings provided by Kaplan, and the College Board. 9. Information on the CAHSEE is included in the Student/Parent Handbook. The district has increased parent notifications about the importance of the test and the training available to help their student to prepare for the test. 10. In June 2006, 348 seniors did not meet the CAHSEE requirement for graduation. However, most of these students did not meet the credit requirement for graduation as well. Only 12 of these students had sufficient credits to graduate if they had passed the CAHSEE. Many of these students were also special education students who were exempted, by special legislation, from the CAHSEE requirement for 2006 only. 11. High school graduation requirements were increased for the graduating class of 2006 and beyond. New requirements include two years of foreign language (20 credits), one year of visual and performing arts (10 credits), 2.5 credits in community service (45 clock hours) and 2.5 credits in a senior research project. Graduation requirements are posted on the district website and on graduation requirement posters displayed in classrooms throughout the high schools. 12. The district has updated the benchmark assessments for English Language Development (K-12), English Language Arts (K-12), Mathematics (K-12), and Science (K-5). Benchmarks for History/Social Science are in progress. Individual schools can generate benchmark assessments, with 5-8 questions per standard, to determine student mastery of the standards. Benchmark assessment data is available by school, grade level and individual student. 13. Assessments are also imbedded in adopted curriculum materials such as Open Court, Holt, Language! and Saxon Math, providing teachers with immediate feedback on students’ performance. Quarterly benchmarks have been developed in ELD, mathematics and writing. 14. District writing assessments continue to be administered four times a year. Teachers score writing assessments using a 6-point rubric that is aligned with the state standards and CAHSEE. The Vantage Writing Assessment program is available to seventh graders online. Pupil Achievement  15. The district is working to improve the schools that have not made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for several years, identified as Program Improvement (PI) schools. In 2006-07, 17schools met their AYP in English Language Arts, 24 met it in Math and 14 schools met all AYP components. Thirty-two of the forty district schools met their API under the AYP criteria. Twenty-seven schools are in Program Improvement: 3 schools in year one, 2 in year two, 11 in year three, 3 in year four and 8 in year five. Centennial High and Whaley Middle exited the School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) program. 16. In the 2003-04 school year, Centennial High School received a three-year interim accreditation with a visit scheduled in spring 2007. 17. Compton High School and Dominguez High School were visited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) accreditation teams in fall 2004. Both schools received notification of their accreditation status in spring 2005. • Compton High received an accreditation of one year through 2005-06, with a one-day visit to be conducted in spring 2006 and an extension until the next full review team visit. • Dominguez High received an accreditation of two years through 2006-07 with a one-day visit to be conducted in spring 2006. The one-day WASC visits were conducted at both Compton and Dominguez High Schools in spring 2006. 18. All three of the district high schools must seriously address the urgency of maintaining their accreditation status. Dominguez High will be visited by a full accreditation team in spring 2007 and will be awarded a term of accreditation to begin fall 2007. Compton High, Centennial High and the continuation high school will be visited by full accreditation teams in spring 2008, and awarded terms of accreditation to begin fall 2008. 19. Bunche Elementary School was named a Distinguished Elementary School in 2006, the first district school to receive this prestigious designation by the state department.  Pupil Achievement Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained February 1999 Rating: 0 August 1999 Rating: 2 February 2000 Rating: 4 August 2000 Rating: 6 February 2001 Rating: 6 August 2001 Rating: 6 February 2002 Rating: 6 August 2002 Rating: 7 February 2003 Rating: 8 August 2003 Rating: 8 February 2004 Rating: 9 August 2004 Rating: 9 February 2005 Rating: 10 August 2005 Rating: 9 February 2006 Rating: 9 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement  1.10 Variety of Instructional Strategies - Student Diversity Professional Standard Teachers use a variety of instructional strategies and resources that address their students’ diverse needs. Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Additional related stipulations (Section 24) include the development of a program in race rela- tions in an ongoing course of study for all students, and the encouragement of parent participa- tion in the program. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulations have been met. 1. Staff development for teachers focuses on the differentiation of instruction to meet the instructional needs of all students. All staff development activities use student data as the basis for determining teacher training needs. Recent staff development emphasis has been on how to increase the achievement of students of color. Specific instructional programs have been designed for the targeted groups of students. 2. The district has developed Professional Development Catalogues for the fall and spring semesters of workshops available to all district teachers. 3. The district is including in the History/Social Science curriculum the study of the various ethnic populations that are reflected in the student population. 4. The district purchased instructional materials on the Latino experience and the Afri- can-American experience for use in the classroom. The district has added instructional materials on the Asian, Pacific Islander, and Samoan experiences as well. Black History Month and Spanish Heritage Month are acknowledged in the instructional program. The birthdays of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Cesar Chavez are celebrated annually. 5. District desegregation funds have increased the availability of Spanish supplemental materials in school libraries. 6. The district’s second annual Asian/Pacific Islander celebration was held at Longfellow School in May 2004. A districtwide Cultural Diversity Celebration was held in April 2005 at Compton High. The Cultural Diversity Celebration & Family Conference was held in April 2006 at Compton Community College. The next Family Conference and Cultural Diversity Celebration is scheduled for May 19, 2007.  Pupil Achievement 7. The district has received one of only 17 Teaching American History grants awarded to California districts. This was a collaborative professional development effort undertaken with the California State Universities at Dominguez Hills and Long Beach to develop curriculum and train teachers in the teaching of American History, including the contri- butions of its various racial and ethnic groups. The grant was a Title II three-year grant (2003-2006) for $996,000 provided by the Museum of Tolerance. The district is making district funds available to continue the training now that grant funds are no longer avail- able. Teacher training is continuing with teachers training other teachers. 8. All of the high schools have a student Human Relations Club. Programs for students in Conflict Resolution and Peer Mediation are implemented in the schools. The Positive Action program, a character education curriculum, is implemented at all schools. Wise Skills is also encouraged for all schools and grade levels as a supplement. Many schools have an Advisory period available to work directly on student issues. 9. The National Conference for Community and Justice (NCCJ) sponsored human relations camps for students in December 2004 and April 2005. 90 students participated in the district’s Student Leadership Conference on January 28, 2005. Compton’s leadership students also participated with other student leaders in the area in a one-day training con- ference supported by NCCJ in April 2005 and spring 2006. Approximately 100 students participated in the spring 2006 NCCJ conference. 10. A consortium of ten districts, including Compton USD, received a $300,000 Cal-Soap grant for underrepresented students to attend college. Student interns from CSU-Long Beach assist district students with their college applications. The Achieving College Partnership, in collaboration with CSU-Dominguez Hills and UC-Irvine, encourages family members from underrepresented groups to be the first members of their family to attend college. This is the last year of the grant and the district is applying for a three- year extension. 11. The district’s instructional staff has been expanded to include a Director of Curricu- lum and Instruction and four resource teachers for the areas of English, Writing, Eng- lish Learners, and Social Studies. A content area coach has been provided for the two schools in the School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) program. A Vocational and Performing Arts (VAPA) coordinator has been hired to work on reestablishing the arts program for the district. 12. Roosevelt Middle School’s MESA team won the 2006 California State and National Competition for their division. An elementary level MESA program has been initiated at six elementary schools. Middle schools are encouraging debate teams and mock trial activities for students. Walton Middle has participated in regional debates with other schools, and recently hosted a regional debate conference for 17 schools. 13. In spring 2006, three schools, Dominguez High, Walton Middle and Lincoln Elementary, placed first in the Support Personnel Accountability Report Card competition sponsored by the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Pupil Achievement  14. The district has established a concurrent enrollment partnership with the El Camino Col- lege Compton Center. Compton USD high school students who are meeting their credit requirements and have passed the CAHSEE are qualified to enroll in concurrent classes at the El Camino College Compton Center. 15. The district and the teachers’ employee group (CEA) have been meeting collaboratively to plan and provide diversity training for administrators and teachers. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained February 1999 Rating: 0 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: 3 August 2000 Rating: 4 February 2001 Rating: 4 August 2001 Rating: 5 February 2002 Rating: 6 August 2002 Rating: 7 February 2003 Rating: 7 August 2003 Rating: 8 February 2004 Rating: 8 August 2004 Rating: 9 February 2005 Rating: 9 August 2005 Rating: 9 February 2006 Rating: 9 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 0 Pupil Achievement 1.20 Administrative Support and Coaching - Teachers Professional Standard Administrative support and coaching are provided to all teachers. Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulation has been met. 1. Coaching of teachers is provided by site administrators, the Los Angeles County Office of Education, UC subject matter consultants, and outside consultants. Principals have been trained in coaching strategies. 2. In collaboration with nearby colleges and universities, the district continues to apply for and receive professional development grants to enhance teachers’ teaching skills. 3. Twelve reading coaches have been assigned to eleven elementary schools to support the Reading First grant. All new instructional programs implemented by the district include the coaching of teachers as a major strategy to be provided by all service providers. Coaching and classroom support is expected to be consistent and frequent. 4. The certificated evaluation form includes the California Standards for the Teaching Profession as desired teaching outcomes. Principals are required to be in the classrooms or engaged in instructional activities for a minimum of 20% of the day to address instructional improvement. 5. Principals are evaluated by the cluster associate superintendents with final evaluation made by the Superintendent. The principals’ evaluation process includes evaluation of curriculum oversight and time in the classroom. 6. The district is focused on improving student academic performance and has developed an internal instructional audit process, which is detailed in an Instructional Audit Handbook for effectively monitoring program implementation at the schools. Visiting teams of four or more administrators visit each of 12 sites for one day during the first quarter, with two to three visitations occurring in the next three quarters. In the 2004-05 year, visits to the first 12 sites were conducted in November 2004. Second and third visits were conducted in February and May 2005. Visits during the 2005-06 school year were conducted in December 2005, and January, February and March 2006. Site visits for the 2006-07 school year have been initiated. This process is becoming systemic. 7. Cluster associate superintendents meet with site administrators regularly and visit schools frequently. Cabinet members visit sites every Wednesday. School Site Visitation Reports document these weekly site visits. Pupil Achievement  8. School schedules were modified to include “banked time” to establish minimum days for staff development. Minimum days are currently scheduled on Wednesdays and provide a block period of time for staff development and instructional support. 9. The Office of Research, Evaluation, and Assessment continues to assist the district and school sites by providing relevant and timely student assessment information to assist in staff development. Sites can conduct a student performance assessment every two weeks by using a district item bank to create appropriate exam questions to determine student mastery of instructional content. 10. The district has established a two-year Aspiring Administrators Academy to train district teachers for future administrative positions. Two training sessions are provided each year by the office of Research, Evaluation and Assessment to help these aspiring administrators to appropriately use and interpret test data. 11. The district conducts an annual Parent Survey to solicit parent input on various district operations. Approximately 5,000 responses are received from parents each year. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained February 1999 Rating: 0 August 1999 Rating: 3 February 2000 Rating: 4 August 2000 Rating: 5 February 2001 Rating: 6 August 2001 Rating: 6 February 2002 Rating: 7 August 2002 Rating: 7 February 2003 Rating: 8 August 2003 Rating: 8 February 2004 Rating: 9 August 2004 Rating: 9 February 2005 Rating: 10 August 2005 Rating: 10 February 2006 Rating: 10 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale:  Pupil Achievement 1.21 Professional Development - Personnel Evaluation Professional Standard Professional development is linked to personnel evaluation. Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulation has been met. 1. The certificated evaluation form is aligned with the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. Principals have been trained to use the evaluation form and to base classroom observations on these standards. Evaluations for special education teachers include meeting special education compliance requirements such as maintaining IEP records and providing timely IEPs. 2. The district has implemented the Eagle student information system which can interface with the Human Resources HRTS personnel system. The district is able to monitor teacher credential requirements, progress toward meeting the competency requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, and participation in AB 466 and AB 430 training activities. 3. The district’s Peer Assistance and Review Program (PAR) provides a plan of assistance to teachers who are performing at a less than satisfactory level. The Beginning Teacher Support and Assistance (BTSA) program provides coaching support to probationary teachers. 4. Principals are expected to spend a minimum of 20% of their day in the classroom or in related instructional activities. Principals’ evaluations include their effectiveness in supervising faculty and staff, and monitoring curriculum, which includes significant documentation. 5. The cluster associate superintendents receive information about the instructional programs at the sites through the instructional audit team review process. They discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the instructional programs observed, and work with the site principals to identify steps to improve the delivery of instruction in the classrooms. 6. Numerous staff development workshops are provided to improve the skills and performance of the instructional staff. Teachers needing assistance can receive appropriate staff development training. 7. Executive cabinet members visit school sites every Wednesday. A School Site Visitation Report form has been developed to document these visits and any findings, comments or concerns. Pupil Achievement  8. All principals participate in required training through the Compton Leadership Development Institute, which covers twelve topics of effective leadership in school operations. Principals are also required to have, or obtain within two years, English Learner authorization (CLAD or BCLAD). 81% of administrators and 74% of classroom teachers have this authorization. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained February 1999 Rating: 0 August 1999 Rating: 3 February 2000 Rating: 4 August 2000 Rating: 5 February 2001 Rating: 5 August 2001 Rating: 5 February 2002 Rating: 7 August 2002 Rating: 7 February 2003 Rating: 8 August 2003 Rating: 8 February 2004 Rating: 9 August 2004 Rating: 9 February 2005 Rating: 10 August 2005 Rating: 10 February 2006 Rating: 10 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale:  Pupil Achievement 1.23 Initial Student Placement - Procedures Professional Standard Initial placement procedures are in place to ensure the timely and appropriate placement of all students with particular emphasis being placed on students with special needs. Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulation has been met. Special Education: 1. A new Special Education Director has been in the position since fall 2005. The special education division was restructured in 2006: a program administrator position was established and filled; program coordinator positions were eliminated and program specialist positions were established and assigned to school sites by level and/or specialty; the 14 school psychologists were assigned to serve specific school sites and are now school-based; student records were moved to the students’ school of attendance; and teaching staff assignments are reviewed to ensure that teacher assignments are aligned with the appropriate teaching credential. Weekly meetings and discussions are being conducted with the program administrator, in-take staff, and program specialists to ensure the appropriateness of student placements and services, the timeliness of IEPs, etc. 2. A Student Orientation Center was established on September 3, 2002 at 417 West Alondra Boulevard to receive all students new to the district for enrollment, assessment and appropriate placement. Initial Student Placement Procedures and a Tracking Form have been developed. Center staff are trained to provide students with program support services for Special Education; English Language Learners; Child Welfare and Attendance; Health, Human and Homeless Services; and some Alternative Education services. Students are placed at a school generally within 24 hours of enrolling. 3. Identified special education students and students with 504 accommodation plans receive immediate services by center staff. Students in need of special education or special accommodations are immediately referred to appropriate staff for assessment. 4. The comprehensive student registration form, in English and Spanish, was revised in spring 2005. It solicits pertinent information on incoming students for appropriate placement of students. The student intake process is well-established and efficient. 5. Site administrators continue to assist the student placement process by making sure that master schedules in the middle and high schools provide appropriate course offerings for English learners and special needs students. Pupil Achievement  6. The Special Education Handbook of Policies and Procedures provides compliance protocols and procedures for monitoring of special education services. The protocols summarize the administrative responsibilities of site administrators in the SST, IEP, and 504 processes. The district worked with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in December 2005 and January 2006 to update the Handbook to reflect changes in the federal IDEA. A Leadership Team composed of 3 psychologists, 2 program coordinators and the senior directors met weekly to update the policies and procedures manual. The final version was completed and sent to the OCR in February 2007. When approved by OCR as expected in April, dissemination of the manual and training will be provided during summer and fall 2007 for site administrators, teachers and staff on the changes in the protocols within the department and the changes that reflect the revisions in the federal IDEA. A quick reference guide of commonly asked questions about special education will also be developed for easy use. 7. A Section 504 manual has been developed and has been approved by OCR. Training on 504 accommodations has been conducted at all school sites. Section 504 school site committee chairpersons continue to be trained. 8. A new web-based IEP system, Easy IEP, is scheduled to begin implementation in fall 2007, using a new IEP form that is a state SELPA IEP form. 9. The district’s plan of corrective actions in Special Education was accepted by the State Department of Education. The district is currently being monitored by the state for compliance. 10. The district developed a Voluntary Resolution Plan in response to OCR concerns to ensure that it has sufficient numbers of appropriate staff to identify and address the special education and linguistic needs of English language learners. OCR continues to monitor the district’s progress. 11. As of December 1, 2006, approximately 2108, or 7.3% of the district’s 2006-07 students were identified as special education students: 656 in the Resource Specialist Program, 1023 in Special Day Classes, 20 in pre-kindergarten, 76 in non-public school placements, and 333 in county placements. The district is monitoring its referral process to assess whether African-American students may be over-identified and Hispanic students under- identified. An examination of student numbers indicates that of the 1,679 resource and special day students attending district schools 52% of special education students are African-American and 47% are Hispanic. The 2006 CBEDS ethnicity data indicate that the district has 25% African-American students and 73% Hispanic students in the general student population. 69% of the 1,679 special education students are males, 590 or 35% African-American and 563 or 34% Hispanic. 12. The workability program resource center is being relocated from Tibby Elementary School to the special education office for 2006-07. Training for Transitions is provided by the Workability I coordinator to teachers of special education students 16 years of age or older. Students are being identified as early as age 14 for Transition support and training. In 2006-07 a total of 582 students, 362 high school and 220 middle school students, are currently participating in the workability program. 75 of the high school students are in work placements.  Pupil Achievement 13. The Eagle student information system enables the district to monitor the status of student IEPs, Triennials, 504s, and Student Suspensions. The district is able to monitor, by site, any overdue triennial or IEP to take timely action. Weekly reports are provided to the cluster associate superintendents for follow-up. A new data base was created in the student information system to track pre-school and kindergarten special needs students. The district implemented a new technology data system that allows special education data to be transferred electronically to the county office. 14. The district has established a Special Needs Advisory Committee that meets every month on special needs issues. The district also has established a support group for parents of autistic students. 15. Monthly professional development workshops are being provided for special education teachers at all grade levels. These meetings are held on the Wednesday minimum days and are provided in conjunction with the BTSA training program. A staff development schedule is being developed for the 2006-07 school year to continue this training for special education and regular teachers, para-educators and administrators. 16. The Special Needs Department is scheduled to move in spring 2007 from 417 Alondra Boulevard to 500 South Santa Fe Avenue across from the new district office. Three of the clerical staff will remain at 417 Alondra to enroll special needs students and will become part of the enrollment staff at the Student Orientation Center. English Language Learners: 1. The Master Plan for English Learners was adopted by the governing board on December 10, 2002 and was approved by the state department. Board Policy No. 6174 Education for English Language Learners was revised. 2. The district annually conducts instructional audits at each school site to ensure that the English Learner program is implemented appropriately. The Associate Superintendents for each school cluster are responsible for monitoring program implementation and working with the site principals on instructional improvement. The district developed English Learner (EL) district benchmarks, and EL checklists for both elementary and secondary principals to monitor the EL programs at their sites. 3. An ELD Curriculum Guide has been developed and disseminated to teachers. High Point is used in grades 4-12 and Avenues is used in grades K-5 as the textbooks in ELD classrooms. Additional support materials have been purchased for all grade levels. 4. An EL Resource Teacher was hired in the 2005-06 school year and continues to monitor the EL program and to provide staff development to the school sites. 5. HRED monitors the credentials of staff who work with English learners to ensure that qualified teachers have been assigned to deliver ELD and core curriculum to English learners. Current teacher preparation programs include English Learner authorization. The district expects site principals to have or acquire EL authorization within two years. Currently, 81% of district administrators and 74% of classroom teachers have this authorization, and another 20% of classroom teachers are in the process of completing the training for this authorization. Pupil Achievement  6. The district has developed new program descriptions for program placement. Course descriptions have been written for Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) for all courses required for graduation. English language development (ELD) course descriptions have been written for ELD classes. 7. The district provides Structured English Immersion classes at all sites, and dual Spanish immersion programs at Emerson, Tibby, Bunche, and Roosevelt Elementary Schools, and at Roosevelt Middle School. Newcomer classes are offered at Jefferson and Kennedy Elementary Schools and Davis Middle School. 8. The district was visited by the Comité each year since 2002-03 and worked strenuously to address the many areas of non-compliance in the English language learner program cited by the Comité at that time. The district successfully addressed the areas of non- compliance and was informed June 24, 2005 that the Office for Civil Rights had closed its monitoring of the district’s English Learner program. 9. The district reports that student demographics in the district are changing, and students are highly transitory, as evidenced by the following data. The district’s enrollment has been declining and is projected to continue the decline in the next several years. • For the 2006-07 school year, as of March 2007, the district’s New Student Orientation Center enrolled 4,805 new elementary students, 1,046 new middle school students, and 1,340 new high school students. 63% of the elementary students, 50% of the middle school students and 46% of the high school students were English Learners (EL). 125 of the elementary students, 92 of the middle school students, and 157 of the high school students needed special education services. 107 students enrolled during this period were both English Learners and needed special education services (59 elementary, 18 middle school, and 30 high school students). Assessments of new students are conducted based on the Home Language Survey. 10. The district has created a new data base in the Student Information System to monitor pre-school and kindergarten children in the district.  Pupil Achievement Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Substantially February 1999 Rating: 0 August 1999 Rating: 1 February 2000 Rating: 3 August 2000 Rating: 4 February 2001 Rating: 4 August 2001 Rating: 4 February 2002 Rating: 6 August 2002 Rating: 6 February 2003 Rating: 7 August 2003 Rating: 7 February 2004 Rating: 8 August 2004 Rating: 8 February 2005 Rating: 8 August 2005 Rating: 9 February 2006 Rating: 9 August 2006 Rating: 9 February 2007 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement  1.25 Instructional Materials - Student Accessibility Professional Standard The district will ensure that all instructional materials are accessible to all students. Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Additional related stipulations (Section 8) include that each student will be assigned a textbook in core subject areas at the beginning of a course of study, that children will be able to take home textbooks or study materials, that a textbook inventory is developed by February 1st and that a textbook replacement plan is developed. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulations have been met. 1. The district has implemented the Williams settlement protocols and has sufficient num- bers of textbooks to provide each student with individual copies in the core academic courses. A Compliance Coordinator has been assigned by the district to monitor the district’s compliance with implementing the Williams settlement protocols. 2. Teachers prepare textbook orders and inventories in the spring for the next school year. A teacher follow-up survey to determine adequacy of textbooks is conducted in September/ October. 3. The district purchases new textbooks based on the state textbook adoption cycle. Teach- ers participate in the selection of textbooks for adoption. Textbooks are recommended to the board for approval. All textbooks selected are standards-based. 4. Textbook adoption occurred in the following subject areas in spring 2005: Literature and English/Language Arts (6-12), English Language Development, Highpoint (4-12), Mathematics (3-5), Health (9-12), and Foreign Language (6-8). History/Social Science textbooks were adopted in spring 2006. Textbook adoption for Science is scheduled for spring 2007 and will include input from the community, science teachers, and site admin- istrators. 5. The district has a written textbook replacement plan in place. Textbook availability is monitored by a review of the textbook assignment forms, lost textbook collection pro- cess, and the purchase order requests made for replacement copies. The textbook man- agement plan utilizes the Eagle Student Information System (SIS). Textbook clerks have received training and now input textbook inventories into the SIS data base. 6. Parents sign off on textbook responsibility forms and the returned forms are filed at the school site. Students are required to maintain their textbooks in the condition they were issued. Textbooks and library books are collected at the end of each year to ensure ac- countability. 0 Pupil Achievement 7. The Board of Trustees approved a district Library Plan in January 2003. The district has established a library book volume goal of a minimum of 13 books per student. The posi- tion title for Library Aide was changed to Textbook Clerk. 8. The district board approves the required annual resolution certifying the provision of standards-aligned instructional materials. The most recent certification was signed in October 2006. 9. Notices have been posted in the classrooms, alerting parents, guardians and the public of their right to file a complaint under the Williams settlement concerning the following: adequacy of textbooks, a certificated teacher vacancy, the mis-assignment of a teacher who lacks credentials to teach English learners or who lacks subject matter competency, or any condition of the facilities that poses an emergency or threat to the health and safety of students or staff. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained February 1999 Rating: 4 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 5 February 2001 Rating: 5 August 2001 Rating: 5 February 2002 Rating: 6 August 2002 Rating: 7 February 2003 Rating: 8 August 2003 Rating: 8 February 2004 Rating: 8 August 2004 Rating: 9 February 2005 Rating: 9 August 2005 Rating: 9 February 2006 Rating: 10 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement  2.3 Class Time - Protected for Student Learning Legal Standard Class time is protected for student learning. (EC 32212) Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulation has been met. 1. The protection of class time for instruction and student learning continues to be a required element in each school’s improvement plan. Strategies to reduce classroom interruptions and public announcements are developed by teachers at each site, made part of the school improvement plan, and posted in each classroom. 2. The district has a board policy that addresses student learning time that is sent to the schools each year. 3. Instructional time for students continues to be extended beyond the regular instructional day and year with opportunities for Saturday school, before and after school tutorial programs, and summer extended year programs. 4. The Superintendent has placed a moratorium on field trips during the instructional day between February and May of the STAR testing period. 5. The Superintendent has set a goal for principals to improve their school student and staff attendance, targeting a 96% attendance rate for elementary students, a 95% attendance rate for middle school students, and a 95% attendance rate for high school students. The goal for teacher attendance is 97%. Weekly teacher attendance reports are provided to the cabinet and site principals. 6. The district monitors student attendance regularly, particularly as student enrollment is declining and the general fund revenue limit is tied to students’ average daily attendance. 7. The district is involved with other districts in multi-agency truancy sweeps. The district opened a truancy center in February 2006 which was housed at 417 West Alondra Boulevard. To address student truancy, the district’s new Attendance Support Center opened on October 11, 2006 at 429 South Oleander Avenue behind Compton High School and is staffed with a teacher and clerk. Additional staff may be added to include a community relations specialist, campus security and part-time counselor.  Pupil Achievement Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained February 1999 Rating: 6 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 7 February 2001 Rating: 8 August 2001 Rating: 8 February 2002 Rating: 9 August 2002 Rating: 9 February 2003 Rating: 10 August 2003 Rating: 10 February 2004 Rating: 10 August 2004 Rating: 10 February 2005 Rating: 10 August 2005 Rating: 10 February 2006 Rating: 10 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement  2.9 Accountability - Maximum Educational Opportunity Legal Standard The district shall be accountable for student results by using evaluative information regarding the various levels of proficiency and allocating educational resources to assure the maximum educa- tional opportunity for all students. (EC 60609) Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulation has been met. 1. The district utilizes multiple diagnostic assessments to measure students’ academic performance. A district Assessment Plan has been developed, presented, and disseminated to all principals and site testing coordinators. 2. Each school receives timely test results to use in developing their school plan for improving student achievement. Schools are provided 4-5 years of historical comparative test data for all subgroups of students to monitor student progress over time and to plan for instructional improvement. 3. The district successfully implements the Eagle attendance and student information system and stores each student’s assessment history in this system. Teachers can access test scores for any student on their class roster and can order their own test reports. 4. Student test information and test data are accessible online. Schools can download test reports or power point programs for parent presentations on the various tests and how to interpret test scores. 5. The district provides instructional materials funds to the sites on an equitable per-pupil basis. Categorical funds are utilized to support instructional programs for children with special educational needs, e.g., English language learners and special education. 6. The district has developed a video in English and Spanish on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and has publicized the importance of the CAHSEE on the district’s public information station Channel 26 to inform parents of the high school exit exam requirement that began with the graduating class of 2006. 7. An after school tutorial program was offered in spring 2006 to juniors and seniors who had not yet passed the CAHSEE requirement for graduation. The district contracted with Kaplan K-12 Learning Services to provide the after school program. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the program was conducted, and indicated a correlation between participation and passage. However, many students did not participate regularly to benefit from the added instruction.  Pupil Achievement 8. The remediation plan for students who have not passed one or both portions of the CAHSEE exams includes: test preparation sessions offered at the high schools on Monday through Thursday, either before or after school, and on Saturdays; a six-week summer school CAHSEE preparation class; and a two-week intensive “boot camp” preparation program offered in March at Compton High School prior to the CAHSEE test administration. 9. The district promotes the college going rate by encouraging students to take the PSAT and SAT exams for college entrance. The district has developed a video tape in English and Spanish to assist counselors in explaining the test to students and parents. The district provides the PSAT test at no charge to students. Each high school also provides up to 150 fee waivers at district expense for students wishing to take the SAT who cannot afford to pay the SAT fee. • In 2006-07, 4765 PSAT tests were administered on October 18, 2006, to all 9th, 10th and 11th grade students at all high schools. 1708 PSAT tests were administered to all 8th grade students in March 2007. • In 2005-06, 4522 PSAT tests were administered on October 19, 2005, to grades 9, 10 and 11, and 2615 PSAT tests administered to all 8th grade students on February 16, 2006. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained February 1999 Rating: 2 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 5 February 2001 Rating: 6 August 2001 Rating: 6 February 2002 Rating: 7 August 2002 Rating: 7 February 2003 Rating: 8 August 2003 Rating: 8 February 2004 Rating: 9 August 2004 Rating: 9 February 2005 Rating: 10 August 2005 Rating: 10 February 2006 Rating: 10 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement  2.10 Measurement of Student Achievement Legal Standard Student achievement will be measured using standardized achievement tests and a variety of measurement tools, i.e., portfolios, projects, oral reports, etc. (EC 60602, 60605) Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulation has been met. 1. Student achievement also is discussed in Standards 1.4 and 2.9. 2. The district utilizes multiple diagnostic assessments to measure students’ academic performance. A district Assessment Plan has been developed, presented, and disseminated to all principals and site testing coordinators. All schools submit a site testing plan for administering the STAR and CAHSEE tests. 3. Schools receive timely assessment results for all district and state assessments for use in developing their individual school plan for student achievement. Extensive data is available to site staffs in a user-friendly format. Test results are disaggregated, summarized and presented to the Executive Cabinet, principals and teachers. Teachers receive performance data for each class of students indicating the standards mastered by students. 4. Test results are available in a variety of formats for school use. Principals meet with their staffs at the beginning of the school year to review test scores and identify areas of instructional focus for the year. Training workshops on the district’s assessment tools continue to be provided to administrators and teachers. 5. The district successfully implements the Eagle attendance and student information system and stores each student’s assessment history in this system. Teachers are able to access test scores for any student on their class roster and can order their own test reports. 6. Test information and test data are accessible online. Schools can download test reports or power point programs for parent presentations on the various tests and how to interpret test scores. 7. The district has developed a video in English and Spanish on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and has publicized the importance of the CAHSEE on the district’s public information station Channel 26 to inform parents of the high school exit exam requirement beginning with the graduating class of 2006. 8. The district promotes the college going rate by encouraging students to take the PSAT and SAT exams for college entrance. The district has developed a video tape in English  Pupil Achievement and Spanish to assist counselors in explaining the test to students and parents. The district provides the PSAT test at no charge to students. Each high school also provides up to 150 fee waivers at district expense for students wishing to take the SAT who cannot afford to pay the SAT fee. 4765 PSAT tests were administered on October 18, 2006 to all 9th, 10th and 11th grade students at all high schools. 1708 PSAT tests were administered to all 8th grade students in March 2007. 9. The district’s Foundation provided $2000 “Beating the Odds” scholarships to five seniors. The district continues to hold a banquet for college going seniors and their parents in June to recognize seniors who have been accepted to four year colleges and scholarship recipients. The elementary and middle schools also promote a college bound culture by focusing on college attendance as a goal. 10. The new graduation requirements of community service and the presentation of the Senior Portfolio went into effect with the graduating class of 2006. Students in grades 4-12 develop a grade level portfolio leading to the required Senior Portfolio and senior project. Students with outstanding grade level portfolios make presentations to a panel of career professionals. Seniors are required to present their projects to a teacher review panel to meet this requirement. 11. Summer school 2006 focused on improving the academic skills of students scoring at below basic levels, and on recovering credits for high school students. Approximately 800-1000 students attended summer school at each high school. Specific curricular areas in the courses offered were identified for instructional focus. Pre- and post-tests were administered to assess students’ instructional growth during the summer school period. Course electives in Spanish and Physical Education were offered along with courses in the core content areas. Pupil Achievement  Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained February 1999 Rating: 0 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 5 February 2001 Rating: 6 August 2001 Rating: 6 February 2002 Rating: 7 August 2002 Rating: 8 February 2003 Rating: 8 August 2003 Rating: 8 February 2004 Rating: 9 August 2004 Rating: 9 February 2005 Rating: 10 August 2005 Rating: 10 February 2006 Rating: 10 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale:  Pupil Achievement Chart of Pupil Achievement Standards Progress Ratings Toward Implementation of the Serna v Eastin Consent Decree Pupil Achievement  0 Pupil Achievement Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Time line/ Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 Goal Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating The district has clear and valid objectives for students, 1.2* 0 2 3 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 including the core curriculum content. The district has adopted mul- tiple assessment tools, includ- 1.4* ing diagnostic assessments, to 0 2 4 6 6 6 6 7 8 8 9 9 10 9 9 10 10 evaluate, improve, or adjust programs and resources. Teachers use a variety of instructional strategies and 1.10* 0 NR 3 4 4 5 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 resources that address their students’ diverse needs. Administrative support and 1.20* coaching are provided to all 0 3 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 teachers. Professional development is 1.21* linked to personnel evaluation. 0 3 4 5 5 5 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 Initial placement procedures are in place to ensure the timely and appropriate place- 1.23* 0 1 3 4 4 4 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 ment of all students with par- ticular emphases being placed on students with special needs. The district will ensure that 1.25* all instructional materials are 4 NR NR 5 5 5 6 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 available to all students. Class time is protected for 2.3* 6 NR NR 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 student learning. Pupil Achievement 31 NR not reviewed Pupil Achievement Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Time line/ Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 Goal Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating The district shall be account- able for student results by using evaluative information regarding the various levels 2.9* 2 NR NR 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 of proficiency and allocating educational resources to assure the maximum educational op- portunity for all students. Student achievement will be measured using standard- ized achievement tests and a 2.10* 0 NR NR 5 6 6 7 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 variety of measurement tools, ie., portfolios, projects, oral reports, etc. 32 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating per consent decree * must reach score of 8 32 Pupil Achievement NR not reviewed Financial Management 2.2 Inter- and Intra-Departmental Communications – Identification and Response to Governing Board and Community Audiences Professional Standard The financial departments should communicate regularly with the governing board and commu- nity on the status of district finances and the financial impact of proposed expenditure decisions. The communications should be written whenever possible, particularly when it affects many community members, is an issue of high importance to the district and board, or reflects a change in policies. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. The financial department communicates with the governing board regarding the district’s finances by reporting on the Adopted Budget, the First and Second Interim Reports, the Estimated and Unaudited Actuals Reports and by providing Budget Study Sessions for the board members, community and staff. 2. The board minutes clearly define the business item and action approved by the board members. The financial department should communicate the district’s finances on a monthly basis to the governing board by a written report in a standard format. Com- munication on financial information should be a regular, ongoing report during board meetings. Other communication may be appropriate from the financial department on an as-needed basis. Standard Implemented: Partially Implemented This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period February 1999 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 7 August 2006 Rating: 7 February 2007Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Financial Management  5.5 Budget Development Process (Policy) – Policy Methodology Used to Build the Preliminary Budget Professional Standard The district should have policies in place to facilitate development of a budget that is understand- able, meaningful, reflective of district priorities, and balanced in terms of revenues and expendi- tures. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. Staff is directly involved in budget development and presentation. Training has been provided to staff members to enable them to better understand the process and the final budget. 2. The Budget Department starts the budget development process with the creation of the district’s Budget Calendar and the student enrollment projection for the upcoming year. The Governor’s Proposed Budget, the Governor’s May Revised Budget, the Los Angeles County Office of Education’s (LACOE) budget guidelines on COLA, Lot- tery, etc., are all reflected in the district’s preliminary budget. The Budget Committee, which includes cabinet administrators, reviews the preliminary budget for additions, deletions and revisions, and other expenditure priorities. The district’s Chief Business Officer (CBO) works closely with the Budget Committee. After the budget adjust- ments have been made, it is presented to the board at a budget study session. For Budget Year 2006-07, a budget study session was held on May 23, 2006 with a Public Hearing conducted on June 27, 2006, prior to the final budget adoption. 3. The district has implemented procedures requiring examination of the revenues and expenditures in each and every fund to ensure that there is no deficit spending. The 2006-07 budget reflected deficit spending in the general fund. However the Finance Department has indicated that the district’s actuals for previous years indicate that the district has been able to live within its revenue means. 4. Closing of the prior year books now occurs in a timely fashion and reflects accurate spending patterns. Required reports to the LACOE are made in a timely manner. 5. In summer 2006, the finance department staff members were not aware of governing board policies concerning the development of the budget. The district’s budget pro- cess was well understood and systemic, with department handbooks and rules detail- ing the process, but staff did not understand that board policies were likely the basis for the operational procedures they were implementing. Board policies are important for providing the basis for decision-making and directing the district’s financial opera- tions. The finance department staff was urged to search out those policies and review them prior to FCMAT’s next visit. If policies could not be located then they needed to be developed.  Financial Management During FCMAT’s visit in February 2007, staff provided copies of appropriate board policies that were already part of the district’s policy handbook. Staff needs to under- stand that board policies govern the district’s operational practices and procedures. 6. The department should have a business services manual of internal business office procedures, and individual desk manuals for each position so that procedures are implemented consistently, cross training of staff can occur, and guidelines are avail- able for substitutes working in the positions. Standard Implemented: Partially Implemented This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2000 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 2 August 2000 Rating: 6 August 2006 Rating: 5 February 2007 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Financial Management  6.1 Budget Development Process (Technical) – Technical Methodologies Used to Forecast Preliminary Budget Revenues and Expenditures Professional Standard The budget office should have a technical process to build the preliminary budget amounts that includes: the forecast of revenues, the verification and projection of expenditures, the identifica- tion of known carryovers and accruals, and the inclusion of concluded expenditure plans. The process should clearly identify one-time sources and uses of funds. Reasonable ADA and COLA estimates should be used when planning and budgeting. This process should be applied to all funds. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. The district has established a budget development process. The district uses enroll- ment trends and ADA analysis in their budget projections. In addition, the district works with the LACOE Revenue Limit worksheets to develop revenue estimates. The district utilizes the assumptions developed by LACOE, in addition to considering state and local trends and performing its own internal analysis. The district utilizes position control data in the budget development process. 2. The district reviews its restricted programs for one-time funds and carryovers. Expen- ditures are reduced and budgets are conservatively built until actual funding alloca- tions are known. Budgets are then adjusted through budget revisions approved by the board. 3. Budget reports on budget expenditures and balances by fund are provided to sites and department heads on a weekly basis. Budget reports to the LACOE are submitted in a timely manner. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Substantially This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2001 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 2 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: 5 August 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2001 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2001 Rating: 6 August 2006 Rating: 7 February 2007 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale:  Financial Management 8.3 Budget Monitoring – Budget Revision Procedures Professional Standard Budget revisions are made on a regular basis and occur per established procedures and are ap- proved by the board. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. Budget revisions are submitted to the board for approval periodically throughout the fiscal year. Adjustments are made to the financial system once the board has approved the revisions. 2. Board minutes show that routine actions are taken to approve budget transfers and revisions. 3. School sites receive a formula based budget. Formulas are used for staffing alloca- tions, and for supplies. Revisions are also made to school site budgets based on ADA adjustments. Site administrators are provided training on budget and finance pro- cedures. Training on appropriate uses and accounting of Associated Student Body (ASB) funds is also provided for site administrators and staff. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Substantially This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period February 1999 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 8 August 2006 Rating: 8 February 2007 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale: Financial Management  8.4 Budget Monitoring - Position Control Professional Standard The district uses an effective position control system, which tracks personnel allocations and expenditures. The position control system effectively establishes checks and balances between personnel decisions and budgeted appropriations. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. The district uses the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) Position Control system to track personnel by position control numbers. A personnel Form 106 (Position Control Document) is used to establish the budget appropriation with re- quired signatures, account numbers and dates. The position is created in the LACOE system and then is assigned a position control number for budget control purposes. The Form 106 is given that same position control number for reference. The Human Resources Department inputs the name of the employee into the created position. Since September 2006, the Form 106 has been available online. A printed copy of the Form 106 is kept in the budgeting office and in the Human Resources Department. 2. The Human Resources Department and the Personnel Commission control input into the system. There is an internal district monitoring process. Sites and/or departments are no longer allowed to make offers of employment. Offers of employment are made only by the district office. 3. The fiscal services and personnel divisions conduct monthly meetings to improve communications and to work to eliminate discrepancies. 4. Employee vacation and leave data are currently kept on a manual system. The district has begun to computerize this data and should work to include the data on employee payroll statements. 5. The district’s Position Control data is an important piece for accurately projecting the district’s budget. 6. The division appears to have good internal fiscal controls in place. However, the divi- sion has begun to develop electronic systems to automate more of its manual prac- tices.  Financial Management Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Substantially This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2001 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 4 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: 5 August 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2001 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2001 Rating: 5 August 2006 Rating: 7 February 2007 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: Financial Management  12.3 Accounting, Purchasing and Warehousing – Accounting Procedures – Cash Professional Standard The district should forecast its revenue and expenditures and verify those projections on a monthly basis in order to adequately manage its cash. In addition, the district should reconcile its cash to bank statements and reports from the county treasurer on a monthly basis. Standard accounting practice dictates that, in order to ensure that all cash receipts are deposited timely and recorded properly, cash be reconciled to bank statements on a monthly basis. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. The district maintains a cashflow worksheet that is updated periodically for each interim report, and the estimated and unaudited actuals reports. A daily cash report by fund as well as a weekly log of apportionment posted to cash is received from the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) for reconciling. The senior accounts manager monitors cashflow and provides monthly reports for review by administra- tors. 2. The district reconciles its cash accounts to the bank statements on a monthly basis. The district now utilizes a check log. Checks are logged in, and then sent to receiv- ables. 3. Schools can check their account balances online. Standard Implemented: Partially Implemented This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 1999 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 5 August 1999 Rating: 6 August 2006 Rating: 7 February 2007 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale:  Financial Management 12.7 Accounting, Purchasing and Warehousing – Accounting Procedures – Year-End Closing Professional Standard Generally accepted accounting practices dictate that in order to ensure accurate recording of transactions, the district should have standard procedures for closing its books at fiscal year- end. The district’s year-end closing procedures should be in compliance with the procedures and requirements established by the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. The district’s financial team regularly attends the Los Angeles County Office of Education’s (LACOE) Year-End Closing training meeting, and implements the year- end closing following the procedures and guidelines provided by LACOE. The dis- trict continues to successfully close its books on time and completes the required state financial software submittals. 2. Fiscal staff is made accountable for meeting closing timelines. The division has developed a detailed Closing Checklist of functions, identifying the district person responsible, the district’s internal date for completion and the county’s final date for submission. The checklist has been used to ensure that fiscal reports are submitted accurately and in a timely manner. Staff has successfully used the checklist for timely submissions. 3. The district follows LACOE timelines so that all transactions are booked prior to the final deadline. A calendar of deadlines and start dates should be shared with site and program managers. 4. The district is more successfully tracking categorical program accounts on a regular basis. Program managers receive periodic information that enables them to monitor their budgets more effectively to avoid large carryover balances. 5. Training workshops are provided by fiscal staff to site and program administrators to enable them to effectively manage their budgets. Program administrators are account- able for their programs during the fiscal year and during year-end closing. Financial Management  Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Substantially This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2000 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 0 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 6 August 2006 Rating: 8 February 2007 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale: 0 Financial Management 14.2 Multiyear Financial Projections – Projection of Revenues, Expenditures and Fund Balances Legal Standard The district annually provides a multiyear revenue and expenditure projection for all funds of the district. Projected fund balance reserves should be disclosed. [EC 42131] Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. The district completes several multiyear revenue and expenditure projections through- out the year; with the Adopted Budget, with the First and Second Interim Reports, with the Estimated and Unaudited Actuals Reports, and for use at the budget study sessions. The multiyear projections cover three years and include a breakdown of pro- jected fund balances for all funds. 2. The finance staff provides multiyear budget projections on various proposed compen- sation increase scenarios for use in negotiations. 3. As the finance staff developed their multiyear projections using excel spreadsheets, they were encouraged to visit the FCMAT web page to utilize Budget Explorer, a new web-based software product developed by FCMAT for school districts to prepare multiyear projections. The product is user-friendly and provides multiyear projections for up to five years. Staff indicated their intent to attend training in the use of Budget Explorer before the next budget adoption. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Substantially This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period February 1999 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 6 August 2006 Rating: 8 February 2007 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: Financial Management  15.1 Long-Term Debt Obligations – Public Disclosure Requirements Legal Standard Comply with public disclosure laws of fiscal obligations related to health and welfare benefits for retirees, self-insured workers compensation, and collective bargaining agreements. [GC 3540.2, 3547.5, EC 42142] Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. The district complies with all public disclosure laws for fiscal obligations, health and welfare benefits, self-insured workers’ compensation and collective bargaining agree- ments. 2. The district provides post-retirement health and welfare benefits to employees who retire at age 55 with at least five years of district service, up to age 65. The finance di- vision is in the process of hiring a company to conduct the required actuarial on their unfunded liability. 3. The district is self-insured for workers’ compensation. The district has a formal policy requiring an actuarial evaluation of its accrued unfunded cost for workers’ compensa- tion claims. An estimate of the accrued but unfunded costs should be provided to the board annually. 4. The district has a policy to revise the budget as a result of collective bargaining agree- ments entered into during the year. New AB 2756 legislation requires more stringent public disclosure of a district’s ability to fund any negotiated salary increases for the term of the contract, and calls for county office review, in the case of districts with qualified or negative certifications, to determine if the proposed agreement would endanger the fiscal well-being of the school district. The Superintendent and the Chief Business Official of a district are now required to certify in writing that the costs incurred by the district under a bargaining agreement can be met by the district during the term of the agreement. Standard Implemented: Partially Implemented This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period February 1999 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 6 August 2006 Rating: 7 February 2007 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale:  Financial Management 16.1 Multiyear Impact of Collective Bargaining Agreements – Development of Parameters and Guidelines for Collective Bargaining Professional Standard The Governing Board is the final signature of a collective bargaining agreement and consequent- ly must work closely with the Superintendent and the district’s chief negotiator to ensure the bargaining agreement effectively reflects the policy interests of the district. The Governing Board must develop with the district administrative team, parameters and guidelines for the collective bargaining negotiation; district board guidelines must represent the public interest and avoid, throughout the negotiating debate, representation of special interests or selected district employ- ees. The Board must ensure that the agreement enhances instructional delivery while maintaining fiscal solvency for the district. Governing Board parameters must be provided in a confidential environment reflective of the obligations of a closed executive Board session. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. The governing board works with the administrative staff to ensure that the collective bargaining agreements are instructionally focused and fiscally solvent. The board is the final authority on all collective bargaining agreements and signs the agreement along with the Superintendent and Chief Business Official (CBO). 2. The finance division does not sit at the negotiating table with the district’s negotiat- ing team. However, the finance division is informed of possible proposals and has an opportunity to provide information and answer questions on the cost of the proposals before agreements are reached. 3. Board members must agree that closed session discussion of bargaining guidelines and parameters are confidential as required of closed session issues. 4. The district has settled negotiations with employee units for the 2005-06 year. Most contracts for the 2006-07 year are being negotiated. 5. The finance division provides negotiators with a multiyear projection for every sal- ary raise scenario that is contemplated. The district focuses on costing out all propos- als placed on the table, as the district’s fiscal solvency remains paramount. Financial Management  Standard Implemented: Partially Implemented This standard was not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and was not reviewed during the period August 2001 to August 2006. February 1999 Rating: 2 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 3 February 2001 Rating: 3 August 2001 Rating: 4 August 2006 Rating: 7 February 2007 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale:  Financial Management Chart of Financial Management Standards Progress Ratings Toward Implementation of the Serna v Eastin Consent Decree Financial Management   Financial Management Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Time line/ Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 Goal Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating The financial departments should communicate regularly with the governing board and community on the status of district finances and the financial impact of proposed expenditure decisions. The 2.2 communications should be 7 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 7 written whenever possible, par- ticularly when it affects many community members, is an issue of high importance to the district and board, or reflects a change in policies. The district should have policies in place to facilitate development of a budget that is understandable, meaningful, 5.5 2 NR NR 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 5 6 reflective of district priori- ties, and balanced in terms of revenues and expenditures. Financial Management 17 NR not reviewed Financial Management Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. TTiimmee lliinnee// SSttaannddaarrdd ttoo bbee aaddddrreesssseedd 11999999 11999999 22000000 22000000 22000011 22000011 22000022 22000022 22000033 22000033 22000044 22000044 22000055 22000055 22000066 GGooaall RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg The budget office should have a technical process to build the preliminary budget amounts that includes: the forecast of revenues, the verification and projection of expenditures, the identification of known carryovers and accruals, and the inclusion of concluded 6.1 2 NR 5 NR NR 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 8 expenditure plans. The process should clearly identify one- time sources and uses of funds. Reasonable ADA and COLA estimates should be used when planning and budgeting. This process should be applied to all funds. Budget revisions are made on a regular basis and occur per 8.3 established procedures and are 8 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8 9 approved by the board. The district uses an effective position control system, which tracks personnel allocations and expenditures. The position 8.4 control system effectively es- 4 NR 5 NR 5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 8 tablishes checks and balances between personnel decisions and budgeted appropriations. 18 Financial Managment NR not reviewed Financial Management Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 18 FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. TTiimmee lliinnee// SSttaannddaarrdd ttoo bbee aaddddrreesssseedd 11999999 11999999 22000000 22000000 22000011 22000011 22000022 22000022 22000033 22000033 22000044 22000044 22000055 22000055 22000066 GGooaall RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg The district should forecast its revenue and expenditures and verify those projections on a monthly basis in order to adequately manage its cash. In addition, the district should reconcile its cash to bank statements and reports from the county treasurer on 12.3 5 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 7 a monthly basis. Standard ac- counting practice dictates that, in order to ensure that all cash receipts are deposited timely and recorded properly, cash be reconciled to bank statements on a monthly basis. Generally accepted accounting practices dictate that in order to ensure accurate recording of transactions, the district should have standard proce- dures for closing its books at fiscal year-end. The district’s 12.7 0 NR NR 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8 9 year-end closing procedures should be in compliance with the procedures and require- ments established by the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Financial Management 19 NR not reviewed Financial Management Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. TTiimmee lliinnee// SSttaannddaarrdd ttoo bbee aaddddrreesssseedd 11999999 11999999 22000000 22000000 22000011 22000011 22000022 22000022 22000033 22000033 22000044 22000044 22000055 22000055 22000066 GGooaall RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg The district annually provides a multiyear revenue and expen- diture projection for all funds 14.2 of the district. Projected fund 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8 8 balance reserves should be disclosed. [EC 42131] Comply with public disclo- sure laws of fiscal obligations related to health and welfare benefits for retirees, self-in- 15.1 sured workers compensation, 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 7 and collective bargaining agreements. [GC 3540.2, 3547.5, EC 42142] 20 Financial Managment NR not reviewed Financial Management Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. TTiimmee lliinnee// SSttaannddaarrdd ttoo bbee aaddddrreesssseedd 11999999 11999999 22000000 22000000 22000011 22000011 22000022 22000022 22000033 22000033 22000044 22000044 22000055 22000055 22000066 GGooaall RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg The Governing Board is the final signature of a collective bargaining agreement and consequently must work closely with the Superintendent and the district’s chief negotiator to ensure the bargaining agree- ment effectively reflects the policy interests of the district. The Governing Board must de- velop with the district admin- istrative team, parameters and guidelines for the collective bargaining negotiation; district 16.1 board guidelines must repre- 2 NR NR 3 3 4 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 7 sent the public interest and avoid, throughout the negoti- ating debate, representation of special interests or selected district employees. The Board must ensure that the agree- ment enhances instructional delivery while maintaining fiscal solvency for the district. Governing Board parameters must be provided in a confi- dential environment reflective of the obligations of a closed executive Board session. Financial Management 21 NR not reviewed Financial Management Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Time line/ Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 Goal Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 22 Financial Managment NR not reviewed Facilities Management 1.8 School Safety - Graffiti and Vandalism Abatement Plan Professional Standard The district has a graffiti and vandalism abatement plan. The district should have a written graf- fiti and abatement plan that is followed by all district employees. The district provides district employees with sufficient resources to meet the requirements of the abatement plan. Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Additional related stipulations (Section 16) include that all schools are clean and free from graf- fiti, that unusable playground equipment is removed or repaired, that schools are free of litter and that a community service program of five hours per semester has been developed for students. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulations have been met. 1. The district’s graffiti abatement program is one of immediate removal and remains a major district priority and ongoing concern. Monitoring by on-site staff remains key to eliminating graffiti. 2. School custodial staffs target graffiti as a priority for removal every day. Site custodians are responsible for removing graffiti located in areas less than ten feet in height and/or requiring less than one hour to remove. District maintenance is assigned to remove graf- fiti in areas higher than ten feet in height or requiring more than one hour to remove. 3. The district has established an emergency “hot line” (310-639-4321, extension 55377) for the reporting of graffiti that the school custodians cannot handle. 4. The district responds speedily to reports of vandalism. The maintenance department works cooperatively with the district’s police services to provide cost estimates of any damage to district property to assist in seeking restitution from the perpetrators. 5. Williams facilities and textbook inspections are conducted annually. The district requests follow-up visits for schools identified with problems. The district conducts its own instructional audits of school sites. Periodic, unannounced school visits continue to be conducted by district administrators and FCMAT to monitor compliance with the consent decree stipulations. 6. The district has changed the high school graduation requirements to include a required 2.5 credits of community service for students to meet prior to graduation. The course re- quirement is the equivalent of 45 hours, or one quarter of a year’s credits. Beginning with the graduating class of 2006, students are required to meet this graduation requirement. In other community service activities, students at various sites are engaged in numerous campus beautification projects and recycling programs. Saturday detention also provides community service on campus. Facilities Management  Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented - Sustained February 1999 Rating: 6 August 1999 Rating: 6 February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 7 February 2001 Rating: 7 August 2001 Rating: 8 February 2002 Rating: 9 August 2002 Rating: 9 February 2003 Rating: 9 August 2003 Rating: 10 February 2004 Rating: 10 August 2004 Rating: 10 February 2005 Rating: 10 August 2005 Rating: 10 February 2006 Rating: 10 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale:  Facilities Management 1.9 School Safety - School Site Emergency Procedures Plan Legal Standard Each public agency is required to have on file written plans describing procedures to be em- ployed in case of emergency. [EC 32000-32004, 32040, 35295-35297, 38132, 46390-46392, 49505, GC 3100, 8607] Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Additional related stipulations (Section 15) include that each school site has a fire warning system by September 1, 1999, that each school site has an earthquake emergency procedure system, that fire drills and earthquake drop procedures are conducted according to Education Code, that written logs of fire and earthquake drop drills are maintained, that the written logs are available for public inspection and that the State Administrator conduct periodic reviews to ensure the log is being maintained. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulations have been met. 1. Written emergency plans for earthquakes and other disasters are available at the school sites. School site safety plans include fire evacuation plans, bomb threats or disturbances, code yellow drills and staff assignments in cases of emergencies. The availability of the school’s site plan is checked during site visitations by district personnel. 2. Schools are required to conduct emergency drills according to Education Code and to maintain records of drills conducted. The school’s records are reviewed by district per- sonnel. Periodic, unannounced site visits are conducted by FCMAT to review the written logs of the scheduled drills held on the campus. 3. All schools have a fire alarm system in place. Many of the schools have a strobe fire alarm system in addition to the bells. 4. The district has worked with the city to establish a community level disaster response team. The district and city have established the district police services office as the Emer- gency Operations Center (EOC). The EOC is operational. A Code Yellow drill procedure has been developed and practice school drills are being conducted, the most recent Code Yellow drill conducted in November 2006. School site preparedness and response to the simulated emergency are evaluated, and recommendations made to improve. 5. The Los Angeles County received a one-time $6 million Homeland Security Grant, of which the district received approximately $300,000 to upgrade its security equipment such as radios, bullet proof vests, first aid kits for each site and emergency preparedness containers for each school cluster and individual sites. The district receives an annual allocation of approximately $325,000 from a Safe Schools grant which helps support the district’s Truancy Center and the Police Services department. Facilities Management  6. The district responds to facilities emergencies that are called in to the district office on the emergency hot line within 24 hours. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented - Sustained February 1999 Rating: 3 August 1999 Rating: 3 February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 5 February 2001 Rating: 6 August 2001 Rating: 7 February 2002 Rating: 8 August 2002 Rating: 9 February 2003 Rating: 10 August 2003 Rating: 10 February 2004 Rating: 10 August 2004 Rating: 10 February 2005 Rating: 10 August 2005 Rating: 10 February 2006 Rating: 10 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale:  Facilities Management 1.12 School Safety - Inspection and Correction of Unsafe Conditions Legal Standard Building examinations are performed, and required actions are taken by the governing board upon report of unsafe conditions. [EC 173679(a)] Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Additional related stipulations (Sections 9 and 18) include replacing boarded-up windows, re- placing broken windows within 72 hours, affixing a date and time to temporary material placed on broken windows; establishing site committees to inventory and prioritize repair and mainte- nance needs, and reporting to the State Administrator and board at least once a semester. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulations have been met. 1. Williams review teams from the Los Angeles County Office of Education annually con- duct site reviews. Any noted deficiencies are promptly addressed by district staff. Facili- ties inspections are regularly performed by site and district staff and required action taken upon any report of unsafe conditions. District personnel conduct periodic, unannounced school site visitations on a monthly basis to monitor conditions of school facilities. Schools receive a letter grade based on a criteria checklist developed by FCMAT. 2. Plant managers are instructed to conduct daily inspections of the site and to immediately report any unsafe condition. Plant managers have been directed to conduct electrical inspections of their site on a daily basis and to immediately report, in writing, any poten- tially hazardous electrical condition. A monthly reporting form for the documentation of these reviews was developed, and records of the reports from the sites are being main- tained. 3. The district continues to comply with the speedy replacement of broken windows. The General Obligation Bond for facilities improvements has allowed the district to replace older windows and frames. 4. Many schools have organized parent safety committees. The committees periodically perform site inspections for unsafe or hazardous conditions and forward repair requests to the maintenance department to address. The district has also implemented the Williams settlement protocols providing complaint forms for parents to report their concerns about facilities conditions. However, the Williams complaint procedure should not be used to address routine maintenance requests. Facilities Management  5. The district continues to utilize a maintenance request flow chart and forms to track all maintenance requests from the sites. Logs of the maintenance requests are kept for each school. Individual sites receive copies of all responses to the requests generated by the site. The division attempts to address every maintenance request submitted and is consid- ering placing maintenance requests online so their status can be reviewed and monitored by the sites. 6. The maintenance department continues to immediately address emergency calls to the maintenance hot line (310-639-4321, extension 55377) within 24 hours. 7. Monthly training meetings are held with the plant managers on district procedures and/or on improving employee skills. 8. The district has hired several temporary grounds workers to work on the grounds of the modernized sites. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented - Sustained February 1999 Rating: 6 August 1999 Rating: 6 February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 6 February 2001 Rating: 7 August 2001 Rating: 8 February 2002 Rating: 9 August 2002 Rating: 9 February 2003 Rating: 10 August 2003 Rating: 10 February 2004 Rating: 10 August 2004 Rating: 10 February 2005 Rating: 10 August 2005 Rating: 10 February 2006 Rating: 10 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale:  Facilities Management 1.14 School Safety - Sanitation is Maintained and Fire Hazards are Corrected Legal Standard Sanitary, neat and clean conditions of the school premises exist and the premises are free from conditions that would create a fire hazard. [CCR Title 5 633] Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Additional related stipulations (Sections 16 and 18) include that all schools are clean and free from graffiti, that unusable playground equipment is removed or repaired, that schools are free of litter and that a community service program of five hours per semester has been developed for students; other stipulations include establishing site committees to inventory and prioritize repair and maintenance needs, and reporting to the State Administrator and board at least once a semester. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulations have been met. 1. Plant managers have been instructed to perform daily inspections of their site to ensure a clean, sanitary and safe environment for staff and students. Plant Managers submit a monthly Custodial Inspection report to the Maintenance Department. 2. School site safety committees continue to make periodic site inspections, and monitor facilities needs at the school. 3. Unannounced site inspections are conducted by the district Facilities Compliance Coor- dinator. A FCMAT site inspection checklist is used in the site inspection process, and a letter grade is assigned to a school based on the number of checklist criteria met. 4. Sites are inspected annually by Williams review teams from the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Williams complaint forms are available for parents to report any emergency or safety issues. However, the Williams complaint procedure should not be the process used to address routine maintenance requests. 5. Random, unannounced site inspections continue to keep staff focused on maintaining the cleanliness of the school sites. 6. Principals, or their designees, are required to inspect student restrooms three times daily and to take action to remedy any problems. 7. Sites are free from fire hazards. Hazardous conditions have been addressed by the district in earlier progress reviews. If a random site inspection turns up any potential new hazard, it is immediately addressed by the district maintenance staff. 8. All schools have an operational fire alarm system in place. Several schools have a strobe alarm system in addition to bells. Facilities Management  9. Any unusable playground equipment was long ago removed or repaired by the district in response to the Consent Decree. New playground equipment has been installed at several elementary school sites. The removal or replacement of outdated or broken play- ground equipment has become an ongoing process in the district. 10. Custodial staffs are responsible for improving site safety and cleanliness, and are directed to keep storage areas clean and exits free of obstructions. Both classified and certificated staffs remain responsible for addressing the daily removal of litter. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented - Sustained February 1999 Rating: 0 August 1999 Rating: 4 February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 6 February 2001 Rating: 6 August 2001 Rating: 7 February 2002 Rating: 8 August 2002 Rating: 9 February 2003 Rating: 10 August 2003 Rating: 10 February 2004 Rating: 10 August 2004 Rating: 10 February 2005 Rating: 10 August 2005 Rating: 10 February 2006 Rating: 10 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale:  Facilities Management 2.1 Facility Planning - Maintenance of a Long-Range Facilities Master Plan Professional Standard Compton Unified School District should have a long-range school facilities master plan. Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Additional related stipulations (Section 25) include developing a comprehensive facilities plan with time lines, submitting the plan to FCMAT for approval, and FCMAT soliciting comments from plaintiffs’ counsel. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulations have been met. 1. The board adopted a long-range Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan on July 13, 1999. The district completed a Facilities Implementation Plan which was approved by FCMAT effective August 10, 2001. The implementation plan provided a timeline and priority for modernization and new construction projects. 2. All district facilities projects since that time have been based on the long-range Facilities Master Plan. Decisions about the use of the district’s deferred maintenance funds have also been guided by the plan. 3. Twenty-eight modernization and several new construction projects (6 classroom addi- tions and 2 elementary schools) were approved by the Division of the State Architect (DSA) and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) and waited in the pipeline of approved projects for the availability of state and district funds. 4. Both the state’s General Obligation Bond (GOB), Proposition 47, and the district’s local $80 million GOB, Measure I, were passed in November 2002. These funds, ap- proximately $160 million in state and matching district funds, were used to address the district’s approved modernization and new construction projects that were awaiting the availability of funds. 5. The district established a bond oversight committee in spring 2003 of 12 community members and a representative of FCMAT to ensure that the bond proceeds were utilized as the voters intended. The committee meets on the first Monday of each month to review district reports on project updates. The governing board reconstituted the com- mittee from 13 to 10 members in February 2006. Only three members from the previous committee were reappointed to the new committee. Attendance of committee members has been sporadic and several monthly meetings have been dismissed for lack of a quo- rum. There are currently nine active committee members. Facilities Management  6. The district approved a Certificate of Participation (COP) to build the William Jefferson Clinton Elementary School, which opened to students in January 2003 to accommodate 850 students. Funds for construction of Clinton Elementary School were included in the GOB which retired the COP. Additional classrooms are planned to expand Clinton Elementary to accommodate the additional students that will be attending the school. The COP was retired with funds from the third and final issue of the GOB funds in spring 2006. 7. The district board approved a $10 million Certificate of Participation (COP) to build permanent facilities for district office operations to be located at 501 South Santa Fe Av- enue. The new district office facility was completed in winter 2006. The lease income from the Greenleaf property is being used to service this debt. The bungalows across the street that were used as temporary district offices are being retained to house some of the district’s programs. 8. The district had initiated work on the second of the three new schools identified in the Facilities Master Plan. The previous district offices at South Tamarind Avenue were to be demolished for the second new elementary school, Liberty Elementary, to be built there. The district did some initial work on the site which included asbestos abatement. However, the project has been put on hold while the district determines if another el- ementary school is needed since district enrollment is declining, and insufficient Measure I funds are available to complete the district’s current modernization projects. 9. Three of the district’s 28 modernization projects have been closed (Dominguez High, Roosevelt Middle and Whaley Middle), and 22 are in the punch list phase. The remain- ing three modernization projects at Caldwell, Washington and Chavez schools are only about 80% completed, and require additional funds to complete. The district released GKK as its construction manager and hired Del Terra in February 2007 to oversee the completion of the modernization projects and address any new facilities needs. 10. The district continues to seek additional funding for future facilities projects. The dis- trict carefully monitors its student enrollment growth for eligibility in increased facilities funding. However, the district has experienced declining student enrollment in 2005 and 2006. The district administration sought board approval for a $15 million COP in March 2007 to complete the district’s facilities projects. However, the proposal did not have sufficient votes for passage. No board action was taken on a similar April 24, 2007 board agenda item for a proposed $25 million COP. However, the item was re-agendized at a board meeting on May 1, 2007 and was approved. 11. The district has initiated the process of updating its Facilities Master Plan to reflect changing student needs and demographics. 0 Facilities Management Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented - Sustained February 1999 Rating: 0 August 1999 Rating: 5 February 2000 Rating: 6 August 2000 Rating: 7 February 2001 Rating: 8 August 2001 Rating: 9 February 2002 Rating: 10 August 2002 Rating: 10 February 2003 Rating: 10 August 2003 Rating: 10 February 2004 Rating: 10 August 2004 Rating: 10 February 2005 Rating: 10 August 2005 Rating: 10 February 2006 Rating: 10 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management  3.8 Facilities Improvement and Modernization - Approval of Plans and Speci- fications Prior to Contract Award Legal Standard The CUSD obtains approval of plans and specifications from the Division of the State Architect and the Office of Public School Construction (when required) prior to the award of a contract to the lowest, responsible bidder. [EC 17263, 17267] Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulation has been met. 1. The district’s 28 modernization projects and 8 new construction projects (6 classroom building additions to existing sites and 2 new schools) were approved by the California Department of Education (CDE), the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) and the Department of the State Architect (DSA) long before state and district funds became available for construction. 2. In spring 2002 the district placed a General Obligation Bond on the November 2002 ballot to support its facilities improvements. As the district had failed three times previously to pass a bond, the district decided to utilize Proposition 39, passed in November 2000, which allows districts to incur bonded indebtedness based on a 55% vote rather than the two-thirds vote previously required. Anticipating the success of the bond passage under the reduced vote requirement, the district governing board approved a Certificate of Participation (COP) in spring 2002 to begin construction of the William Jefferson Clinton Elementary School, one of the projects to be addressed with the GOB funds, to address the overcrowding occurring in several schools. The district planned to retire the COP when the GOB was passed. 3. In November 2002 the state passed a General Obligation Bond (GOB), Proposition 47, making state funds available for approved projects. 4. In November 2002 the district passed its local $80 million General Obligation Bond to modernize its aging facilities but lost its hardship status which would have provided 100% in state funding for its construction projects. The district was required to provide its share of matching funds for modernization (20%) and new construction (50%) projects. The district’s local GOB provided the source of the district’s matching funds. 5. Three of the district’s 28 modernization projects have been closed and 22 are in the punch list phase. The remaining three modernization projects at Caldwell, Washington and Chavez schools are only about 80% completed, and require additional funds to complete.  Facilities Management 6. The district is awaiting approval of plans for Liberty Elementary School at Tamarind Avenue from the Division of the State Architect (DSA). Approval has been received from the California Department of Education (CDE), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC). However, the project has been put on hold while the district determines if another elementary school is needed since district enrollment is declining. 7. Although a board member previously questioned the district’s bidding process, objecting that contracts were not awarded to local, minority contractors, the district’s bid process is well established and implemented. Contracts are awarded to the lowest, responsible bidder. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained February 1999 Rating: 0 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: 3 August 2000 Rating: 6 February 2001 Rating: 7 August 2001 Rating: 8 February 2002 Rating: 9 August 2002 Rating: 9 February 2003 Rating: 10 August 2003 Rating: 10 February 2004 Rating: 10 August 2004 Rating: 10 February 2005 Rating: 10 August 2005 Rating: 10 February 2006 Rating: 10 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management  6.2 Special Education Facilities - Equity, Appropriate to Educational Program Professional Standard The CUSD provides facilities for its Special Education programs which ensure equity with other educational programs within the district and provides appropriate learning environments in rela- tion to educational program needs. Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulation has been met. 1. Modernization and new construction projects have been designed to provide full access for handicapped students. Elevators have been installed as part of the modernization at the 10 schools with two-story buildings (Clinton, Dickison, Foster, Kelly, Kennedy Roosevelt, and Willard Elementary Schools, Whaley and Roosevelt Middle Schools and Compton High School). Other accommodations include handicapped-operable doors, chair lifts, larger restroom stalls, modified showers in the locker rooms, and availability of hot water showers. 2. Student access has been the first priority addressed at each site under modernization. The district assessed the “path of travel” for students through the campus to identify the areas of the campus where accommodations needed to be made. 3. The district reports that all school sites are handicapped accessible, and attempts to provide equitable services to all students. The modernized facility in the Compton High School administration building’s basement is handicapped accessible with ramps and an elevator. 4. Special education signage has been removed as many special education classes have been integrated among regular classes. 5. The Facilities Division considers maintenance requests to meet the needs of the special education population a high priority. 6. Site principals are expected to consider the needs of their students when assigning the various instructional programs to existing site facilities and classrooms. 7. A special education center, a joint effort between the Los Angeles County Office of Education and the district, is located at Caldwell Elementary. The facility is equipped with additional doors, a wheel chair lift, handrails and restrooms. Path of travel and accessibility of countertops were also considered. The Center serves students with severe disabilities who are enrolled in the county special education program.  Facilities Management Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained February 1999 Rating: 4 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 4 February 2001 Rating: 5 August 2001 Rating: 6 February 2002 Rating: 7 August 2002 Rating: 8 February 2003 Rating: 8 August 2003 Rating: 9 February 2004 Rating: 9 August 2004 Rating: 9 February 2005 Rating: 10 August 2005 Rating: 10 February 2006 Rating: 10 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management  8.6 Facilities Maintenance and Custodial - Procedures for Evaluation of Main- tenance and Operations Staff Professional Standard Procedures are in place for evaluating the work quality of maintenance and operations staff. The quality of the work performed by the maintenance and operations staff should be evaluated on a regular basis using a board-adopted procedure which delineates the areas of evaluation and the types of work to be evaluated. Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulation has been met. 1. Annual evaluations are conducted of all permanent employees in the Facilities Division. Employees have clear expectations for their work performance. 2. An operations and maintenance handbook that includes standards for work performance and levels of cleanliness has been developed for use at all sites. The Facilities Division has also provided a CD-Rom of Facilities, Maintenance, Operations and Transportation documents and procedures to site administrators. The disc was last updated for the 2005- 06 school year. 3. The facilities division has provided plant managers with a sample structured work schedule for site maintenance employees for each day and each week. A sample template has been developed for plant managers to modify for their individual site needs. 4. The district’s personnel office provides ongoing training workshops for supervisory personnel in evaluation procedures and in properly documenting the unsatisfactory performance of employees. Workshops include discussion on how to monitor an employee’s performance, and stress the importance of meeting probationary evaluation deadlines. 5. Recently the supervision and evaluation of plant managers and staff was transferred back to the site principal from the Chief Facilities Officer or his designee(s). For the past several years the CFO evaluated the plant managers with input from the site principals. This practice allowed plant managers at all sites to be evaluated against the same criteria, by supervisors who understood the responsibilities of the job and the expected performance criteria. The district will need to assess the effectiveness of having the evaluations again conducted by the individual site principals, to ensure that evaluations are conducted in a timely manner and reflect the same expected level of performance at every site.  Facilities Management 6. Performance evaluations are conducted to assess the work quality of the staff. The updated evaluation form now includes a “quality of work” section. The employee probation period is being taken seriously by both supervisor and new employee, and new employees are being closely monitored. 7. The maintenance division is addressing employee absenteeism which continues to be a problem. An attendance review is conducted every 90 days with employees demonstrating high absenteeism. 8. Safety training has reduced the number of industrial accidents reported. The district has implemented a “return to work” program to provide light duty for injured workers. Risk managers should consider placing staff returned to light duty to a site other than their regular work site so their fellow workers don’t view the light duty assignment as a means for the injured worker to avoid their regular duties. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained February 1999 Rating: 5 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: 5 August 2000 Rating: 5 February 2001 Rating: 6 August 2001 Rating: 7 February 2002 Rating: 8 August 2002 Rating: 9 February 2003 Rating: 9 August 2003 Rating: 10 February 2004 Rating: 10 August 2004 Rating: 10 February 2005 Rating: 10 August 2005 Rating: 10 February 2006 Rating: 10 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management  8.10 Facilities Maintenance and Custodial - Adequate Repair and Supervision of School Buildings Legal Standard The governing board shall keep the school buildings in repair and supervised. [EC 17593] Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. An additional related stipulation (Section 17) includes that drinking water will be readily avail- able to all students. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulations have been met. 1. The district governing board has established a board sub-committee of two board mem- bers and district staff to regularly monitor district facilities. The sub-committee has not met this year due to changes in the board members assigned. 2. Ongoing, random, unannounced site inspections keep staff focused on campus cleanli- ness and the safe condition of school site facilities. 3. The district Facilities Compliance Coordinator visits the sites and uses the FCMAT in- spection checklist to monitor compliance with Consent Decree stipulations. Exit confer- ences are held with the site administrators. Schools are given a letter grade based on the monitoring checklist. 4. Drinking water is readily accessible to students. The condition of student drinking foun- tains is checked during monthly site inspections. Inoperable fountains are reported to maintenance staff for correction. 5. The district maintains contracts for annual water service to check all water lines and test for water potability and toxic substances.  Facilities Management Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented - Sustained February 1999 Rating: 2 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 6 February 2001 Rating: 6 August 2001 Rating: 7 February 2002 Rating: 8 August 2002 Rating: 9 February 2003 Rating: 9 August 2003 Rating: 10 February 2004 Rating: 10 August 2004 Rating: 10 February 2005 Rating: 10 August 2005 Rating: 10 February 2006 Rating: 10 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management  9.4 Instructional Program Issues - Bathroom Facilities are Clean and Operable Legal Standard The governing board of every school district shall provide clean and operable flush toilets for the use of pupils. [EC 17576; CCR Title 5 14030] Consent Decree Stipulation This standard was identified in the February 2000 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree, Case No. BC 174282, as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed compliant. Additional related stipulations (Section 7) include that all bathrooms used by children are safe, sanitary and operable, regularly cleaned and stocked with supplies, and accessible when school is in session; principals are to inspect bathrooms prior to the start of school, prior to and after the lunch period, and are to take corrective action; principals will maintain daily inspection records on a form developed by the State Administrator and make them available for public inspection. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps This standard is fully implemented and the Consent Decree stipulations have been met. 1. Restrooms continue to be inspected daily by the principal and/or staff. Records of moni- toring inspections are maintained at the site for review. Staff indicates that toilet facilities are operable. 2. The district has renovated restroom facilities at a number of schools through recent mod- ernization projects. The district utilizes the path of student travel to identify the rest- rooms to be first addressed. 3. Four restroom monitors are assigned to monitor the restrooms throughout the school day at the three high schools. This practice ensures that restrooms remain clean and stocked with supplies, and inhibits graffiti and littering. 4. The maintenance department provides an emergency hot line for sites to call for emer- gency services from the district. A record is kept of the calls to the hot line. 5. A Facilities Compliance Coordinator, using a FCMAT inspection checklist, visits the sites to monitor compliance with Consent Decree stipulations. 6. The district has fully implemented the Williams settlement protocols. A district position to monitor compliance to the Williams protocols has been established. Site inspections are conducted by the Los Angeles County Office of Education. The district Facilities Compliance Officer accompanies the Williams review teams on their site visits. Any deficiencies noted by the review teams are promptly addressed by the district. Reports of any deficiencies and the remedial action taken are presented to the governing board. 0 Facilities Management Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented - Sustained February 1999 Rating: 4 August 1999 Rating: Not Reviewed February 2000 Rating: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 5 February 2001 Rating: 6 August 2001 Rating: 6 February 2002 Rating: 8 August 2002 Rating: 8 February 2003 Rating: 9 August 2003 Rating: 10 February 2004 Rating: 10 August 2004 Rating: 10 February 2005 Rating: 10 August 2005 Rating: 10 February 2006 Rating: 10 August 2006 Rating: 10 February 2007 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management   Facilities Management Chart of Facilities Management Standards Progress Ratings Toward Implementation of the Serna v Eastin Consent Decree Facilities Management   Facilities Management Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Time line/ Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 Goal Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating The financial departments should communicate regularly with the governing board and community on the status of district finances and the financial impact of proposed expenditure decisions. The 2.2 communications should be 7 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 7 written whenever possible, par- ticularly when it affects many community members, is an issue of high importance to the district and board, or reflects a change in policies. The district should have policies in place to facilitate development of a budget that is understandable, meaningful, 5.5 2 NR NR 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 5 6 reflective of district priori- ties, and balanced in terms of revenues and expenditures. Financial Management 17 NR not reviewed Financial Management Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. TTiimmee lliinnee// SSttaannddaarrdd ttoo bbee aaddddrreesssseedd 11999999 11999999 22000000 22000000 22000011 22000011 22000022 22000022 22000033 22000033 22000044 22000044 22000055 22000055 22000066 GGooaall RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg The budget office should have a technical process to build the preliminary budget amounts that includes: the forecast of revenues, the verification and projection of expenditures, the identification of known carryovers and accruals, and the inclusion of concluded 6.1 2 NR 5 NR NR 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 8 expenditure plans. The process should clearly identify one- time sources and uses of funds. Reasonable ADA and COLA estimates should be used when planning and budgeting. This process should be applied to all funds. Budget revisions are made on a regular basis and occur per 8.3 established procedures and are 8 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8 9 approved by the board. The district uses an effective position control system, which tracks personnel allocations and expenditures. The position 8.4 control system effectively es- 4 NR 5 NR 5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 8 tablishes checks and balances between personnel decisions and budgeted appropriations. 18 Financial Managment NR not reviewed Financial Management Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 18 FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. TTiimmee lliinnee// SSttaannddaarrdd ttoo bbee aaddddrreesssseedd 11999999 11999999 22000000 22000000 22000011 22000011 22000022 22000022 22000033 22000033 22000044 22000044 22000055 22000055 22000066 GGooaall RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg The district should forecast its revenue and expenditures and verify those projections on a monthly basis in order to adequately manage its cash. In addition, the district should reconcile its cash to bank statements and reports from the county treasurer on 12.3 5 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 7 a monthly basis. Standard ac- counting practice dictates that, in order to ensure that all cash receipts are deposited timely and recorded properly, cash be reconciled to bank statements on a monthly basis. Generally accepted accounting practices dictate that in order to ensure accurate recording of transactions, the district should have standard proce- dures for closing its books at fiscal year-end. The district’s 12.7 0 NR NR 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8 9 year-end closing procedures should be in compliance with the procedures and require- ments established by the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Financial Management 19 NR not reviewed Financial Management Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. TTiimmee lliinnee// SSttaannddaarrdd ttoo bbee aaddddrreesssseedd 11999999 11999999 22000000 22000000 22000011 22000011 22000022 22000022 22000033 22000033 22000044 22000044 22000055 22000055 22000066 GGooaall RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg The district annually provides a multiyear revenue and expen- diture projection for all funds 14.2 of the district. Projected fund 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8 8 balance reserves should be disclosed. [EC 42131] Comply with public disclo- sure laws of fiscal obligations related to health and welfare benefits for retirees, self-in- 15.1 sured workers compensation, 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 7 and collective bargaining agreements. [GC 3540.2, 3547.5, EC 42142] 20 Financial Managment NR not reviewed Financial Management Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. AAuugg.. FFeebb.. TTiimmee lliinnee// SSttaannddaarrdd ttoo bbee aaddddrreesssseedd 11999999 11999999 22000000 22000000 22000011 22000011 22000022 22000022 22000033 22000033 22000044 22000044 22000055 22000055 22000066 GGooaall RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg RRaattiinngg The Governing Board is the final signature of a collective bargaining agreement and consequently must work closely with the Superintendent and the district’s chief negotiator to ensure the bargaining agree- ment effectively reflects the policy interests of the district. The Governing Board must de- velop with the district admin- istrative team, parameters and guidelines for the collective bargaining negotiation; district 16.1 board guidelines must repre- 2 NR NR 3 3 4 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 7 sent the public interest and avoid, throughout the negoti- ating debate, representation of special interests or selected district employees. The Board must ensure that the agree- ment enhances instructional delivery while maintaining fiscal solvency for the district. Governing Board parameters must be provided in a confi- dential environment reflective of the obligations of a closed executive Board session. Financial Management 21 NR not reviewed Financial Management Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Aug. Feb. Time line/ Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 Goal Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 22 Financial Managment NR not reviewed