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 Eighteenth 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 2008 422 Petaluma Blvd. North, Suite C Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone .....707-775-2850 Fax ..................707-775-2854 Serna v Eastin Consent Decree: Amendment for Early Disengagement Introduction This report dated February 2008 is the eighteenth 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. The terms of the amendment were agreed upon by representatives of the ACLU, FCMAT and the district who met every 60 days for status reports of the district’s progress. The terms of the amendment were accepted by the Compton Governing Board on September 12, 2006, approved by the California Department of Education on October 27, 2006, and approved by the Department of Finance in November 2007. The amendment was approved by the Superior Court of Los Angeles on February 26, 2008. As the monitoring agent named in the Consent Decree, FCMAT was required to monitor and report every six months on the district’s progress to address the stipulations of the Consent Decree. FCMAT issued six-month progress reports in February and August each year since 1999. The reports issued since August 2006 have reflected the district’s progress in complying with the Consent Decree as amended. As of this February 2008 progress report, the district has met the stipulations of the Consent Decree as amended, and has maintained compliance for more than the required two consecutive six-month periods through February 2008. As the district has met the criteria of the amended Consent Decree, the parties thus have agreed to terminate the Consent Decree. This report is therefore the final report issued as a requirement of FCMAT under the stipulations of the Consent Decree. The Compton Unified School District and Governing Board are to be commended for their consistent efforts to comply with the Consent Decree stipulations, leading to the disengagement of the external oversight of the parties. It would be prudent for the district to participate in a follow-up review in 2010 to determine if it has continued to sustain over time the operational efficiencies it has thus far achieved. FCMAT is willing to assist the district by conducting this external review. Executive Summary 1 2 Executive Summary Amendment to the Consent Decree FCMAT has met 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 this 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 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: Community Relations and Governance, Personnel Management, Pupil Achievement, Financial Management 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 criteria in the amended Consent Decree 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 (on a scale of 1-10) 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 (on a scale of 1-10) for the 10 identified standards 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 individual 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. Executive Summary 3 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. Approval from the Department of Finance, one of the parties to the original February 2000 Consent Decree, was received in late November 2007. Attorneys from the ACLU and the Compton Unified School District signed their approval of the amendment, and the amended Consent Decree was approved by the Superior Court of Los Angeles on February 26, 2008. The district has met the criteria of the amended Consent Decree as detailed in this report and thus this February 2008 report is the final report issued by FCMAT as required under the stipulations of the Consent Decree. This report provides an assessment of the fifty standards identified in the Consent Decree amendment and summarizes the district’s progress over time in addressing the Consent Decree stipulations first agreed to in February 2000. The report is organized as follows: I. Executive Summary • Introduction • Amendment to the Consent Decree • Executive Summary • Background: Consent Decree • Background: Return of Powers • Standards Assessment Process 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 4 Executive Summary Executive Summary This report reflects the progress made by the district during the six-month period August 2007 through February 2008 to implement the stipulations of the Consent Decree as amended. 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 operational areas had been 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 those original professional and legal standards (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 Community Relations and Governance, Personnel and Financial Management operational areas were not part of the February 2000 Consent Decree and had not been assessed since 2001 when local governance was returned, until the Consent Decree was amended in Au- gust 2006. Progress has been made in all five operational areas, and all five areas have met the identified criteria established in the amendment for the third consecutive six-month period since August 2006. The ratings in the area of Community Relations and Governance did not meet the identi- fied criteria of an average rating of 6.5 with no standard less than a 5 in the August 2006 report, but met the criteria in February 2007 with an average of 6.7, and continued to meet the criteria since, with a current rating of 7.3. Board members continue efforts to work together and with the district administrators, and actively encourage each member to demonstrate professional conduct at board meetings. The district has continued to comply with the stipulations of the February 2000 Consent Decree. A summary 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 as amended 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 individual standard scoring less than a 5. The district has met the criteria in these two operational areas. • Pupil Achievement has achieved an average rating of the ten identified standards of 9.7 with no standard scoring less than a 5. • Facilities Management has achieved an average rating of the ten identified standards of 10.0 with no standard scoring less than a 5. 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 individual standard scoring less than a 5. The district has met the criteria in these three areas. Executive Summary 5 • Community Relations and Governance has achieved an average rating of the ten iden- tified standards of 7.3 with no standard scoring less than a 5. • Personnel Management has achieved an average rating of the ten identified standards of 9.2 with no standard scoring less than a 5. • Financial Management has achieved an average rating of the ten identified standards of 8.8 with no standard scoring less than a 5. Average Rating No. of Standards Less Amendment Operational Area 7.5 Required than 5 Criteria Met Aug Feb Aug Feb Aug Feb Aug Feb 2006 2007 2007 2008 2006 2007 2007 2008 Pupil Achievement 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.7 0 0 0 0 Yes Facilities Management 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 0 0 0 0 Yes Average Rating No. of Standards Less Amendment Operational Area 6.5 Required than 5 Criteria Met Aug Feb Aug Feb Aug Feb Aug Feb 2006 2007 2007 2008 2006 2007 2007 2008 Comm. Rel./Governance 6.1 6.7 7.1 7.3 0 0 0 0 Yes Personnel Management 8.3 9.0 8.7 9.2 0 0 0 0 Yes Financial Management 7.1 7.6 8.4 8.8 0 0 0 0 Yes The district has met the required average rating in each operational area with no standard scoring less than a 5. The district has met the criteria of the amended Consent Decree for more than the required two consecutive six-month periods through February 2008. The parties to the Consent Decree have agreed to terminate the oversight of the district when these criteria were met. Areas for Continued Attention As external oversight will no longer be provided through the Consent Decree to remind the district where operational improvements might be made, the district will need to monitor its own operations and avoid actions that might impact the district’s future fiscal solvency. The follow- ing areas merit the district’s continued attention. 1. The district’s fiscal health must continue to be carefully monitored. The district contin- ues to experience declining student enrollment which reduces the revenues the district receives. The district must constantly identify expenditure reductions in operations and staffing so as to live within its anticipated revenue means. 2. Contract negotiations with employee unions have not been completed for 2007-08. In view of the state’s current economic crisis, the district must plan appropriately when considering compensation enhancements so as not to commit more than it can afford in the current and subsequent years. The district’s 2007-08 budget reflected a signifi- cant decrease in the remaining unrestricted reserves over the prior year. 3. The district should ensure that it identifies ongoing resources to repay its long-term debts. The board should consider the long-term impact of its fiscal decisions, particu- larly if such decisions will commit district resources for several years into the future. 6 Executive Summary 4. The district has experienced a transition in leadership with the retirement of its superin- tendent in July 2007, an interim superintendent for seven months, and the appointment of a new superintendent to start March 1, 2008. It has been observed that some board members openly criticize administrators at public board meetings and do not appear to value the services provided by the district’s leadership, or to acknowledge the progress the district has made over the last several years. The board needs to publicly demon- strate support for its appointed superintendent and cabinet leadership. 5. Board members must continue to urge their fellow members to conduct themselves professionally in implementing their policy role. Board members establish through policies the guidelines and expectations for district operations, and the district leader- ship implements the policies established by the board. Ongoing training should be provided for board members, so that all members, new and continuing, understand the board’s policy role. Executive Summary 7 8 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 were to be given 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, as 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 9 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, including this February 2008 report, provide a review of the stipulations in the Consent Decree amendment. FCMAT has met 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 September 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 September 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 August, 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 August, 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 August, prior to the thirteenth six-month progress report in August 2005. • Three meetings were conducted between September and February, prior to the fourteenth six-month progress report in February 2006. • Three meetings and a random site visitation were conducted between March and August, prior to the fifteenth six-month progress report in August 2006. 10 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. • Three meetings and a random site visitation were conducted between March and August, prior to the seventeenth six-month progress report in August 2007. • Three meetings and a random site visitation were conducted between September and February, prior to the eighteenth six-month progress report in February 2008. As the district met all but one of the original requirements for termination of the February 2000 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 fourth six-month report in which FCMAT has reviewed the district’s progress in implementing the Consent Decree as amended. As the district has met the criteria established in the amendment to the 2000 Consent Decree, this February 2008 progress report will be the final report issued as a requirement of FCMAT under the stipulations of the Consent Decree. Executive Summary 11 12 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 would 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 13 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 amongst the candidates. 14 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 15 16 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 measure 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 Executive Summary 17 intent, FCMAT established 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 has been 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 standards in each of these operational areas with no individual 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 individual 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. 18 Executive Summary 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 monitor 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 standards 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 achievement. 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 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 Pupil Achievement 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 settlement protocols since 2005-06 and orders 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 Standard 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 absences. 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. (Personnel Management Standard 8.2 – Current Rating: 10. Standard 8.2 was not required to reach an 8.) Consent Decree 1 Consent Decree Section 12 (Absenteeism) The requirements of Section 12 have been met by the district. The district assigns non-classroom 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 from HRED are provided weekly to cabinet administrators and monthly to site administrators for 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: 8, and 1.11 – Current Rating: 10. Standards 1.2 and 1.11 were 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. At the time of the team’s visit in January 2008, there were no teachers on a CBEST waiver. 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. 92.92% of regular education teachers and 62.89% 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. Several schools have Peer Mediation 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 2 Consent Decree various cultural events. The district has purchased instructional materials on the Hispanic, Asian, 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 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 designated 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 an $80 million local general obligation bond in November 2002 enabled the modernization of many restrooms in the district’s schools. Four adult 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, Plexiglas 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 3 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 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.) 4 Consent Decree 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 in 2007 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 and 2006-07 school years. A student complaint in fall 2007 of a particle in the food was addressed. Although the particle looked like gristle, the particle was reported to the processor and sent for testing. 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, extension 55377, 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, and emergencies can be reported to the Police Services emergency line at 310-898-6188 on a 24-hour basis. The district also participates in the WE-TIP program, which provides a phone number for community members to make Consent Decree 5 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 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, four in 2005-06 and three in 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 stan- dards were identified in the Consent Decree as needing to reach a rating of 8 to be deemed imple- mented. 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 operational area reached a rating of 8 or better by February 2004. The district has begun the process to update the 10-year Facilities Master Plan. (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 Consent Decree stipulation remaining to be completed in Section 25 is fully implementing the district’s Facilities Master Plan. A current 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 complete the district’s outstanding facilities projects. The district is also developing a request for proposals from architectural firms as the first step in the process of updating its Facilities Master Plan for the next ten year period. 6 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 stipulation of the February 2000 Consent Decree that was not fully com- pleted. FCMAT reports of August 2004, February 2005, August 2005 and February 2006 con- tinued 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 alter- nate criteria to bring earlier closure to the Consent Decree oversight. The FCMAT reports of August 2006, February 2007, August 2007 and this February 2008 report provide information on the progress of the district in complying with the stipulations of the Consent Decree as amended. This section summarizes the district’s efforts to implement its Facilities Master Plan, developed in July 1999, and to 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 $2.0 - $2.6 million in general funds annually for capital improve- ment projects and $835,000 as the district’s annual match for deferred maintenance projects. 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 7 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 matching 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, middle 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 district 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 expectation that the successful passage of the bond would retire the COP debt. 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 8 Consent Decree Facilities Implementation Plan priorities approved in August 2001. $12 million for construction of 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 requiring the district to provide local matching funds for any state funds received. The district was required to provide a 20% match for modernization projects and a 50% match for new con- struction projects. Subsequent legislation since then has increased the ratio of a district’s share for modernization projects to 40%. 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 waiting 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 community 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 participated in appointing members to the Oversight Committee, the board acted to increase the membership 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 members. 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. 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 construction. 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. 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 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 and attendance of members was inconsistent. One of the ten newly assigned members resigned in July 2006. Consent Decree 9 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 committee has met fairly consistently since January 2007. The Oversight Committee completed Annual Reports for June 2005 and June 2006. 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. In August 2006, the Financial and Performance Audits for the 2004-05 fiscal year were presented to the Committee. The 2004-05 Financial Audit indicated “there were no findings and questioned costs … for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005.” The 2004-05 Performance Audit indicated that “the Compton Unified School District has properly accounted for the expenditures of the funds held in the Building Fund – Measure I Bond Program and that such expenditures were made for authorized bond projects…and were not expended for salaries of school administrators or other operating expenditures.” However, the Performance Audit reported several “instances of non-compliance related to pro- cedural requirements of Proposition 39 and system weaknesses.” Recommendations were made in the audit to post all required reports and minutes to the Measure I website; determine if the required outside organizations are represented on the committee; and update the funding portion of the facilities master plan. The Financial and Performance Audits for 2005-06 had not yet been completed at the writing of this report. As all Measure I funds have been expended by the district in 2006, the Oversight Committee is expected to shortly conclude its work. The committee last met in September 2007. The com- mittee will reconvene to receive and accept the financial and performance audits for 2005-06 and approve and submit its final Annual Report. Construction Management In 2003 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 construction 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 10 Consent Decree 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 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 was 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 proj- ect was not supported with 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 temporary buildings at 500 South Santa Fe Avenue were retained to house sev- eral of the district’s program offices. Consent Decree 11 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. Some pre- liminary work has been done to the Tamarind Avenue site, such as asbestos abatement, however, the facilities need to be demolished and the site cleared. 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 building program as strong criticism from the board and community members 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 projects as planned. The district’s construction projects were not all completed as anticipated by the end of 2006. Four projects have been fully completed to date, 21 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 anticipated, and the governing board on May 1, 2007 approved a Certificate of Participation for $25 million to complete the three remaining projects at Washington, Chavez and Caldwell schools, 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. 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. In spring 2007, the district terminated its contract with the construction management firm 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 continues to experience declining enrollment which diminishes its annual revenues, and has placed on hold the construction of the second elementary school, Liberty Elementary, at the South Tamarind Avenue site. The district plans to seek bids to start demolition of the empty buildings at the South Tamarind Avenue site and to clear the property. The $25 million facilities COP approved by the board in May 2007 enabled the reimbursement of $6 million of general fund monies advanced to support the building program and completion of the three unfinished modernization projects at Washington, Caldwell, and Chavez schools. The district also sold the old Visual and Performing Arts (VAPA) site property for $5.5 million 12 Consent Decree to support the building program. A proposal was submitted by Del Terra for the completion of the three modernization projects at Washington, Caldwell and Chavez, and to close out the other modernization projects that are in the punch list phase. A cost containment committee has been formed to monitor the use of the $25 million COP. Committee members include the superintendent, three board members, facilities administrators, and Del Terra representatives. The Measure I $80 million General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee is awaiting the completion of the financial and performance audits for 2005-06 to conclude their oversight responsibilities. The board has established a number of sub-committees to monitor district operations, and the committee on facilities meets regularly to monitor facilities issues. The facilities committee is currently reviewing and updating the policy on the community’s use of district property and the appropriate fees to charge for this use. The district remains proactive in considering future programs and facilities needs. Future projects being considered include a permanent facility for a community day school, repairing the high school gym bleachers, providing science laboratories for the high schools, and completing the second elementary school at the Tamarind Avenue site. Acquiring skilled employees for the district remains a constant challenge. The district currently lacks sufficient plant maintenance staff, and a sufficient substitute pool of maintenance workers. 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 13 14 Consent Decree 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 communicate with one another in a professional, respectful manner, and board meetings are generally civil and cordial. Board members are encouraged to continue this behavior and focus their common interest on serving students. Board workshops and retreats have been conducted to promote team- building. However, a few 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 board election in November 2005. The district and board held a retreat for the returning and newly elected board members and superintendent soon after the board members were officially sworn in at the December 2005 board meeting. Three board seats were decided in the November 2007 election with two incumbents returning and a new board member elected. 3. The board began the process of hiring a new superintendent in fall 2007 to replace the retiring superintendent. Although the newest elected board member was not part of the superintendent selection process, he has indicated his support of the new superintendent selected by the previous board, making the board unanimous in their support for the incoming superintendent who begins her assignment on March 1, 2008. 4. Board members developed, and the majority agreed to follow, a resolution to guide their behavior at board meetings. Occasionally a board member has been observed to behave rudely and in an argumentative manner toward fellow board members, or to berate management staff at board meetings. However, other board members have been observed to redirect the meeting to the business agenda or to call for a recess or early adjournment. Board meetings are generally business-like and effectively managed. 5. Most board members understand that although they will not always agree on issues, they can disagree in a professional manner. Board members are expected to support the board majority’s decision on action items. Community Relations 1 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: 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 August 2007 Rating: 8 February 2008 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 2 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. 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 members. Individual members need to support the decisions of the board majority. An individual member has no board authority. 2. Board members continue to be offered training in boardsmanship and their appropriate roles in community relations and policy matters. However, a few board members do not 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. 3. 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 needs 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. 4. Board members have developed and agreed to follow a resolution to guide their behavior 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 business-like and effectively managed. Occasional instances of inappropriate or argumentative behavior by a board member continue to be observed and reported. 5. It has been reported that on occasion individual board members have attempted to influence management toward a particular decision, or have expressed a lack of trust that administrative 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 Community Relations 3 suited to assume more responsible positions. The new superintendent must be allowed to select the most able administrators to assist in managing the district’s operations. The review team was informed that all district administrators received notice in January 2008 that their positions would end June 30, 2008. This allows the new superintendent flexibility in reorganizing the senior level district administration for the new school year. 7. The majority of the board understands its policy making role and refrains from attempting to manage the district’s operations or influence the outcome of administrative 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 August 2007 Rating: 6 February 2008 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: 4 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 existed between board members and the superintendent, who retired July 31, 2007. The superintendent provided information and explanations to effectively communicate the district’s business. The superintendent had been with the district for six years, since being hired in August 2001, and provided continuity for the district and the board, through several board elections and changes in the board’s composition. 2. The district has been in leadership transition since August 2007, as the superintendent of six years retired and a new superintendent was hired. An interim superintendent was appointed for the short-term, and will end her assignment when the new superintendent begins on March 1, 2008. Cabinet appointments may be affected under the new superintendent. Board elections in November 2007 affected the composition of the board with a new elected board member. Therefore, the functional working relationship between the board and the new administrative team will need to be assessed, and will hopefully be one of mutual respect and support. 3. 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 communicated often with individual board members between regular board meeting dates. 4. A board member continues to occasionally direct unprofessionally critical comments toward some administrative cabinet members during board meetings. Board 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 training workshops on the roles and responsibilities of board members. 5. As noted in prior reports, the district lost several competent cabinet-level administrators in key positions in recent years. Contracts for some of these administrators were submitted for renewal by the superintendent but were not renewed by the board. Administrators have sometimes been berated and belittled in public board meetings, with little acknowledgement of the value of their work. Although administrative changes occur in every school district, the monitoring team has been concerned about the ability of the district to sustain the progress it has made with the continual loss of able administrators from the district. Statements reported to have been made by a board member to administrators that they would lose their jobs, could be perceived as attempts to unduly influence administrative decisions and to manage the operations of the district by undermining job security. Community Relations 5 With the selection of a new superintendent, and possible realignment of cabinet positions, all board members must demonstrate support of the administrative team and allow them to manage the district appropriately. 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 August 2007 Rating: 6 February 2008 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: 6 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 have continued 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 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 successes, providing strong indications of the district’s progress and continued academic improvement. 4. Although the board provides positive acknowledgement and recognition of staff, students and community volunteers, a board member continues to be unprofessionally critical of some cabinet administrators at board meetings. Board members are cautioned to remember that criticism, if warranted, must always remain professional, and never a personal attack against staff. The district lost several 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 August 2007 Rating: 6 February 2008 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Community Relations 7 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 individuals 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 maintains meeting decorum and acceptance of public input. Speakers are held to a three-minute time frame in their public address. Board meetings are well-attended and serve as a public forum, with numerous persons addressing the board and community. All board meetings are televised. 2. It has been observed on occasion, that board members attempt to provide a remedy for reported complaints by community members and parents. Board members are reminded that complaints should be directed to the superintendent and staff to address, as there is always another side to the story that has not been presented in public by the complainant. 3. It has also been reported that board members sometimes attempt to provide a remedy for an individual employee, interceding with administrators on their behalf. Board members need to remind those employees who call them directly to remedy a complaint, that those complaints should be taken to their immediate supervisor for resolution, and that the district’s chain of command should be followed. 4. Board members continue to be offered training in boardsmanship and the board members’ appropriate role in policy development and community relations. However, not all board members avail themselves of the training provided by the district. The responsibilities of members of a school board are challenging, with many new expectations placed upon school districts. 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. 5. Board members have acknowledged that the board President is the spokesperson for the board. Board workshops and retreats have been conducted to promote team- building among members. 8 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: 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 August 2007 Rating: 7 February 2008 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Community Relations 9 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 information shared in closed session. Board members have been known to share confidential information with the news media concerning confidential personnel matters or collective bargaining issues. 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 appeared to maintain confidentiality of closed session items during the negotiations that were recently completed. 3. Board members continue to receive training in boardsmanship and roles and responsibilities. Individual board members must demonstrate personal integrity in the handling of confidential matters, refraining from discussing such issues in public meetings, with friends or colleagues, or the media. 4. A new superintendent begins in the district on March 1, 2008. It is expected that all board members will continue to maintain the confidentiality of closed session items under the new leadership. 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 February 2007 Rating: 6 August 2007 Rating: 7 February 2008 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: 10 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. The board has identified various board sub-committees to which a board member is assigned. A policy review committee, co-chaired by a board member, has met to review policy updates and to consider new policies necessitated by new legislation and/or education code changes. The board needs to review and monitor the operations of the committees they have established to assist them in conducting business efficiently. All such committee members should adhere to a policy making only role. 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 input, second reading and action. District staff includes the policy reference that is pertinent 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 superintendent 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 superintendent for resolution. Concerns need to continue to be directed to the new superintendent, when she begins her assignment on March 1, 2008. 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 administrative 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. It has been observed on occasion, that board members attempt to provide a remedy for reported complaints by community members and parents. Board members are reminded that complaints should be directed to the superintendent and staff to address, as there is always another side to the story that has not been presented in public by the complainant. Community Relations 11 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 August 2007 Rating: 7 February 2008 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: 12 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 February 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 individually resolve the complaints they received from the public and staff. Most board members, however, communicate complaints directly to the superintendent’s office. This practice should be continued with the new superintendent when she begins her assignment in the district. 2. The previous superintendent reported back to the board regarding any action taken in response to the complaints or concerns forwarded to him from board members. This practice should be continued with the new superintendent. 3. Board members continue to receive training on the board members’ role in policy development and community relations. Each board member has a training and travel budget and members attend various workshops. However, not all board members avail themselves of the training provided, 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 members 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. When a board member attempts to resolve a complaint presented during public comments, the president reminds the board that the board will accept public comments and direct issues to the district administration for resolution and a report back to the board. 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. Community Relations 13 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 August 2007 Rating: 6 February 2008 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: 14 Community Relations 6.3 Board Meetings Professional Standard Board members are prepared for board meetings by becoming familiar with the agenda and support materials prior to the meeting. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. Most board members demonstrate responsible boardsmanship by reviewing the agenda 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 inappropriate comments, board meetings continue to be business- like and effectively managed. 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: 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 August 2007 Rating: 8 February 2008 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: Community Relations 15 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 elements of the standard are fully and substantially implemented and have been sustained for several years. 2. Board members will occasionally ask to take an issue into closed session for discussion. The district’s legal counsel often must remind the board that only certain specific items can be taken into closed session, e.g., student or personnel discipline, personnel evaluation, negotiations, pending litigation, and that the majority of the board’s business must be conducted in public. 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 16 Community Relations Chart of Community Relations/Governance Standards Progress Ratings Toward Implementation of the Serna v Eastin Consent Decree Community Relations 17 18 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 5.4 relations are maintained 0 1 5 NR NR 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 6 7 8 8 among board members. Individual board members respect the 5.5 decisions of the Board 1 NR NR 5 4 5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 5 6 6 6 majority and support the Board’s actions in public. Functional working relations are maintained 5.6 2 NR NR 5 5 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 5 6 6 6 between the Board and administrative team. The board publicly 5.7 demonstrates respect and 3 3 4 NR 4 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 6 6 6 7 support for district staff. The board demonstrates respect for public input 5.8 4 NR NR NR 6 7 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 6 7 7 7 at meetings and public hearings. Board members respect confidentiality of infor- 5.9 4 NR NR NR 4 5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 6 6 7 7 mation by the adminis- tration. The board restricts itself to a policy-making role 5.10 3 NR NR 5 4 5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 6 6 7 7 and does not attempt to administer policies. Community Relations NR not reviewed Community Relations Feb. Aug. 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 2007 2008 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 19 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 When an individual board member attempts to exercise any admin- istrative responsibility, 5.11 the matter is brought 4 NR NR NR 4 5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 5 6 6 7 to the attention of the full board for corrective action (standard revised February 2006). Board members are pre- pared for board meetings by becoming familiar 6.3 5 NR NR NR 6 7 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 7 8 8 with the agenda and support materials prior to the meeting. Open and closed sessions are conducted according 6.5 8 NR NR NR NR 9 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 9 10 10 10 to the Ralph M. Brown Act. (GC 54950 et seq.) Community Relations NR not reviewed Community Relations Feb. Aug. 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 2007 2008 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 20 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. To maintain confidentiality, reference check forms are kept separately from the employee’s personnel file so that employees are not privy to information shared by references with the district when the employee personnel folder is requested by the employee. 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 online recruiting system Ed-join to post position vacancies and for applicants to apply for positions online. The district also posts vacant positions on the district’s Web site. Following are the number of applications received through Ed Join from March 2007 to January 2008. Subject Area Total Applications Qualified Applicants Received Considered English 108 36 Math 97 55 Science 57 23 Special Ed SDC 84 82 Choir 5 4 Forensics 4 2 Social Sciences 50 35 Multiple Subjects (Elem) 157 123 P.E. 37 11 Personnel Management 1 Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained 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 August 2007 Rating: 9 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 2 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 noncredentialed teachers in the district are generated by the Human Resources and Employee Development Depart- ment 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 teaching positions. As of January 2008 there were no teachers on a CBEST waiver. The district has not hired teachers with a CBEST waiver in the last two years. 3. The percent of total teaching staff with clear credentials continues to increase. Percent- ages of the district’s regular teachers who are credentialed: • January 2008: 92.92% of the district’s 1243 certificated teaching staff are cre- dentialed; 3.30% are university interns; 0.64% are district interns; 1.61% are provisional interns; and approximately 1.5% have either an emergency permit or special temporary certificate, or are on a limited or short term assignment. • June 2007: 92.54% of the district’s 1233 teachers were credentialed; • February 2007: 91.85% of the district’s teachers were credentialed. • June 2006: 87% of the district’s teachers were credentialed. • June 2005: 77.90% of the district’s teachers were credentialed. • January 2005: 74.79% of the district’s teachers were credentialed. • June 2004: 66.40% of the district’s teachers were credentialed. • January 2004: 63.21% of the district’s teachers were credentialed. 4. Percentages of the district’s special education teachers with credentials: • January 2008: 62.89% of the district’s 97 certificated special education teaching staff are credentialed; 12.37% are university interns; 2.06% are district interns; 15.46% have provisional intern permits; and 7.22% have either an emergency or short term permit, or limited assignment. • June 2007: 55.10% of special education teachers were credentialed. • February 2007: 57.38% of special education teachers were credentialed. Personnel Management 3 • June 2006: 57% of special education teachers were credentialed. • June 2005: 43.93% of special education teachers were credentialed. • January 2005: 39.81% of special education teachers were credentialed. • June 2004: 32.43% of special education teachers were credentialed. 5. All teachers are required to meet subject matter competency requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act. In July 2007, 81.18% of all teachers in the core courses were compliant, 90.0% at the elementary level and 76.92% at the secondary level. In January 2008, 89.38% of all teachers in the core courses were compliant. The HRED department monitors compliance at each site. 6. The district provides a differentiated salary schedule, paying credentialed teachers at a higher level than noncredentialed teachers, providing a strong incentive for teachers to become credentialed as quickly as possible. The noncredential salary schedule is now used minimally. 7. The district uses several grant funds such as professional development block grant funds to provide 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 and $17,000 for fully credentialed teachers in special education 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 one-time retention bonus to teachers who continued their employment with the district. The district clarified to the teaching staff that this was a one-time bonus, and all new or continuing math and science teachers received the bonus equally. The district recently obtained a TRSSP grant to support recruitment and reten- tion 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. • January 2008: 94.52% of classroom teachers have this authorization. • July 2007: 94.99% of classroom teachers had this authorization. 11. The district has required all site administrators to obtain EL authorization and has given them two years in which to do so. • January 2008, 91% or 32 of the 35 site principals have this authorization. 4 Personnel Management 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 5 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 personnel 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 district services and reduce the number of payroll/personnel discrepancies. 2. The Director of Payroll and the Director of HR Operations frequently meet informally whenever a concern arises to immediately address it. 3. The district does not have an efficient process for tracking employee absences and leave balances. The Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), which produces the district’s payroll checks, does not provide leave balances on the paycheck stubs. The district discussed with LACOE the system’s ability to provide this function, however, it does not appear that LACOE plans to utilize this system function. Information on employee absences and leave balances are currently maintained manually, using employee cards. It was reported that employees receive a notice each year of their vacation and sick leave balances. This information needs to be managed more efficiently. Tracking of absences and leave balances is currently maintained by payroll staff, however, payroll and personnel staff should work collaboratively to utilize an automated process to maintain and manage this data. Personnel staff indicated they would explore a solution with the district’s technology staff to determine the feasibility of tracking this data on the existing Human Resources Tracking System (HRTS). The district had purchased an attendance tracking system (ITSCO) but has not implemented it because of employee objections to checking in and out, using a scan card and thumbprint. The district should pursue the implementation of this system as it is the district’s responsibility to efficiently manage the absence and leave balance data for its employees. The district has not pursued the possible implementation of ITSCO since FCMAT’s last visit because of the transition to a new superintendent. Staff reported that not all teaching staff calls in their absences to the SEMS substitute management system. Nonclassroom teachers who do not need a substitute during their absence might not utilize the system. Absences can be efficiently tracked through the SEMS system, however, the system cannot track absences that are not called into the system. It was reported that teachers are not required to submit an absence slip unless they are absent for more than five consecutive days. Absences for less than five days 6 Personnel Management do not require a leave of absence form, which may be problematic for accurate record keeping. Site and department clerical staff therefore need to accurately and consistently report all personnel absences for their site or department. The district’s current policy on vacation leave balances is that employees may carry over no more than two years’ worth of leave, in order to manage the district’s unfunded liability in this area. However, the policy is effective only if it is implemented properly. If employees do not report absences or leaves, or managers do not monitor absence and leave information, leave balances will incorrectly accrue and the district’s unfunded liability will increase. 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: 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 August 2007 Rating: 7 February 2008 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 7 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 procedure implemented systemically. The district is considering adding an additional Livescan machine to the police services department to process fingerprint clearances. HR is also upgrading its equipment to a newer Livescan model, which will provide reports more speedily to the district. 2. Training has been provided to staff in the use of the Livescan system and is ongoing. 3. The Senior Director of Certificated Personnel and the other HR directors are responsible for reviewing the Department of Justice reports, making decisions about candidates’ eligibility for hiring and maintaining records as required. No applicant convicted of a violent or serious felony is offered employment by the district. The district processed 1901 DOJ clearances from June 8, 2006 to June 13, 2007, for 895 classified and 254 certificated applicants, and 752 volunteers. In the period June 19, 2007 to January 30, 2008, 1524 DOJ clearances were processed, for 966 classified and 233 certificated applicants (teachers and substitutes), and 258 volunteers. This necessary and ongoing task requires a great deal of staff time. 4. New employees are also required to complete a physical exam before employment to de- termine their physical fitness for work. Employees are referred to a clinic at the district’s direction and at district expense. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 8 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. The district plans to upgrade the Livescan machine to a newer model and is considering acquiring an additional machine to be housed in the police services department. 2. All Department of Justice (DOJ) reports go to the Senior HR Directors 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 candidates that the offer of employment is contingent on the fingerprint clearance from the DOJ and the required physical exam. 3. Subsequent arrest reports are sent to the HR department. The HR Directors meet with the employee to discuss the inappropriate behaviors on the arrest reports and take appropriate personnel action if necessary. 4. Applicants for volunteer service are also required to obtain fingerprint clearance. 5. The fingerprinting process and requirements have long been implemented, have become systemic and a standard district operating procedure. Results from the DOJ are received in a more timely manner. Personnel Management 9 Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 10 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, personnel by funding source, and professional development activities, among other data. HRTS also monitors employee evaluation timelines, e.g., mid-term and annual/end of term evalua- tion dates. 2. The district is reviewing the employee seniority lists and working with the district’s five bargaining unions to attempt to standardize how extra-duty is assigned to employees. A process has been established in which the Personnel Commission sends to HR the senior- ity lists for most employee bargaining units by site and department, 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 previous superintendent of 97% attendance for all classroom teachers. Each school is to address 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. However, it was reported that not all sites consistently track or report staff absences. 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. However, it was reported that not all certificated staff call into the system to report their absence, particularly if they have a nonclassroom assignment and do not need to request a substitute. The system therefore cannot track absences that are not called in to the system. The review team was informed that teachers submit an absence slip for five or more days of absence, and need not submit a slip for fewer than five days. This may be problematic for accurate record keeping and necessitates the accurate reporting of absences by site and department cleri- cal staff and managers. 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 was continued for the 2006-07 school year and the 2007-08 school year. The availability of resident subs at the secondary schools may contribute to teach- ers not consistently calling in to the substitute request SEMS system. Personnel Management 11 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. However, staff reports that all sites may not be consistently tracking and reporting its staff attendance. 7. The district purchased an attendance tracking system, ITSCO, to monitor staff attendance. It was reported that the system has not been implemented, as employees raised objections to using an identification card and thumbprint to scan when they arrive and leave the work site. The district should pursue the implementation of the system, perhaps without the use of the thumbprint if that is a deterrent to its use. Monitoring employee attendance is an important and necessary district responsibility. No action to pursue implementation of the ITSCO system occurred since FCMAT’s last visit as the district was in a leadership transition until a new superintendent could be hired. 8. As also discussed in Standard 6.6, the district has an inefficient process for tracking em- ployee absences and leave balances which should be addressed. The team was informed that leave balances are maintained on employee cards in the payroll office, and the infor- mation is not always available to personnel staff. Developing a computerized database system for tracking employee absences and leave balances would improve efficiency and reduce human error, and would allow both payroll and personnel staff access to review the data. The district discussed with LACOE the possibility of reporting absence and leave balances on paycheck stubs, however, LACOE did not plan to implement that sys- tem function. The HR Directors indicated they would initiate discussion with the dis- trict’s technology staff to determine the feasibility of maintaining this data in the existing HRTS system. 9. The district should continue to address the issue of monitoring employee attendance and more efficiently tracking and reporting absences and leave balances. 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 August 2007 Rating: 7 February 2008 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 12 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, the need for documentation, working with ineffective employees, progressive discipline and communication, due process and discipline less than dismissal. The district utilizes the FRISK Handbook curriculum in training workshops. New administrators also receive an orientation, training and support to satisfactorily complete evaluations for their employees. 2. Other available district workshops include the development of leadership and supervisory skills; coaching, counseling and evaluating employees; bargaining contract management and compliance; and the grievance process. 3. The district HR and personnel commission staffs should work together to ensure that district employees perform their work satisfactorily. Training should continue to be provided to supervisors in the application of due process in disciplining employees whose performance is unsatisfactory or whose behavior is inappropriate. 4. The HR department’s 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: 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: 7 February 2007 Rating: 8 August 2007 Rating: 8 February 2008 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 13 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 timelines. 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 calendar 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 evaluated. 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 timelines are met. 4. District HR and personnel commission staffs should work together to ensure that employees perform their work satisfactorily. Both the district and the personnel commission should continue to apply due process in disciplining employees whose performance is unsatisfactory or whose behavior is inappropriate. 5. 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 employee evaluations take place in April and are to be returned to the Personnel Office by April 30. 6. 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 nonrenewal of contract notification by March 15. Final evaluation of managers and administrators is completed in May. 7. The district annually provides training and assistance to administrators and supervisors in evaluation and due process. Timely evaluation of teachers and classified staff is also a component in the evaluation process of site administrators and program managers. 14 Personnel Management Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained 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 August 2007 Rating: 9 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 15 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 managers 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. Follow-up training for individual departments or coaching for new administrators is provided as needed. New administrators receive an orientation and training on contract management to successfully work with their site staffs. 2. The Director of Employee Relations receives any employee grievances, the uniform complaints and implements the procedures for addressing them. The director also provides required training on topics such as contract management, child abuse reporting, 504 accommodations, sexual harassment, etc. 3. 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. 4. The evaluation form for district administrators has been revised to include a 7th standard, a component to assess the administrator’s performance in addressing compliance areas such as the timely completion of employee evaluations, the completion of timely special education IEPs, and meeting reporting timelines. 16 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 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 August 2007 Rating: 8 February 2008 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 17 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. However, it was reported that the district does not always proactively develop the district’s proposal prior to negotiations, and just responds to the employee organization’s proposal. The district is urged to develop a management proposal prior to negotiations to further the district’s instructional goals, to revisit contract language that may be impeding the accomplishment of the district’s goals, or to collaboratively address issues such as spiraling health care costs, unmet compliance requirements, staff training needs and requirements, etc. 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. Parents and community members should be provided time to examine collective bargaining proposals, allowing them to evaluate the impact on students, parents and/or the community. The district should clearly disclose the major provisions of the bargaining agreements, including the costs that will be incurred for the current and subsequent fiscal years, and the budget reductions that may be necessary to fund the agreements. 5. Negotiations were settled with the five employee bargaining units for the 2006-07 year. However, all bargaining unit contracts are open for renegotiation for 2007-08. 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 August 2007 Rating: 9 February 2008 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale: 18 Personnel Management Chart of Personnel Management Standards Progress Ratings Toward Implementation of the Serna v Eastin Consent Decree Personnel Management 19 20 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 systemati- cally initiates and follows up on experience and 3.9 4 NR NR 7 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8 9 9 10 reference checks on all applicants being consid- ered for employment. The district limits the number of certificated 3.10 8 NR NR 8 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 persons on CBEST waiver. [EC 44252.5] The Personnel Division has procedures in place which allow for both per- sonnel 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 7 7 problems which develop in the process of new employees, classification changes and employee promotions. All fingerprinting require- ments are met before a potential employee reports for employ- 7.2 5 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 9 9 10 10 ment. (EC 44237, 45125, 45125.1, 44332.6, 44346.1, 44830.1, 45122.1) Personnel Management NR not reviewed Personnel Management Feb. Aug. 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 2007 2008 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 21 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 Personnel Management NR not reviewed Personnel Management Feb. Aug. 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 2007 2008 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 22 The district shall obtain a criminal record summary from the Department of Justice before employing an individual and shall 7.3 0 3 NR NR 5 7 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 9 10 10 10 not employ anyone who has been convicted of a violent or serious felony. (ED 44332.6, 44346.1, 45122.1) The Personnel Division has computerized its em- ployee database system including, but not limited to: Credentials, Senior- 8.6 0 NR NR 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 9 9 7 8 ity Lists, Evaluations, Personnel by funding source, program, loca- tion, Workers’ Compensa- tion benefits. The district provides training for all manage- 9.5 ment and supervisory 5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 8 8 9 staff responsible for em- ployee evaluations. The Personnel Division provides a process for the monitoring of employee 10.5 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8 9 9 10 evaluations and the ac- countability reporting of their completion. 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 Personnel Management NR not reviewed Personnel Management Feb. Aug. 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 2007 2008 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 23 The Personnel Division provides all managers and supervisors (certificated and classified) training 12.3 4 NR NR NR NR 4 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 8 8 9 in contract management with emphasis on the grievance process and administration. Collective bargaining proposals are “sun- shined” appropriately to allow public input and understanding of the cost 12.7 5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8 8 9 9 implications and, most importantly, the effects on the children of the district. 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 24 Personnel Management 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 Handbook 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/Guardian 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 compliance. 2. The district utilizes a Consent Decree compliance form that identifies the consent decree stipulations that sites must address on an ongoing basis. This form is submitted to the central office at the end of each month to verify that the stipulations were addressed. 3. The district’s governing board in 2002 revised its mission statement and goals and de- veloped a district logo. The mission statement and goals are reflected on several district documents and is included in the Parent/Student Handbook. 4. The district has clear goals and objectives for student performance and improvement. These are located in the LEA Master Plan. 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 district has a comprehensive five-year Local Educational Agency Plan 2003-08 (LEAP) that is updated and revised annually. The plan targets improvement in the areas of language arts, mathematics, parental involvement and English-language learners for all subgroups. District test data is reviewed annually and feedback is provided by all school sites as part of the district’s annual review. All school site plans must also be aligned with the district’s LEA plan. As the district is in P-3 status, the LEA Plan is being up- dated to address the identified weaknesses in pupil achievement. The district is awaiting notification by the State Board of Education concerning interventions for P-3 districts. Pupil Achievement 1 6. The ELD curriculum guide has been completed and K-12 ELD performance benchmarks have been developed. All core courses and ELD have been realigned. The district is cur- rently updating the ELD curriculum guide to include new materials such as Avenues for the elementary level. Open Court pacing guides have been used to ensure full implemen- tation of the reading program across the district in grades K-8. The pacing guides have been aligned to the curriculum guides. The Accelerated Reader computer program has been purchased for all elementary and middle schools K-8 to assist with improving read- ing comprehension. Teacher leaders have been assigned at each school site to work with other teachers. 7. Student academic performance remains a district concern and focus of improvement. Two district schools, Dominguez High and Tibby Elementary, are SAIT schools requiring the assistance of School Assistance and Intervention Teams (SAIT) such as the Principals Exchange. The district has assigned a content area coach to the SAIT schools to work with teachers. Roosevelt Elementary exited as a SAIT school in September 2007. Whaley Middle and McKinley Elementary exited as SAIT schools in September 2006. Data is being used to drive curriculum and school improvement. English-language learn- ers, as a subgroup, are meeting the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals but African- American students, as a subgroup, are not meeting the AYP at many sites. 8. Ten schools are in program improvement year 5. The district has also been identified as a program improvement P-3 district. Academic Intervention coaches have been assigned to each middle school to provide training and coaching support for the teachers. The district is focusing efforts on providing professional development for middle school staff, and providing additional training for middle school department chairs. The district is also working with the site resource teachers to increase their skills to support school site instructional improvement. Most schools fund a site resource teacher out of their cat- egorical funds. 9. Fourteen district schools have been awarded funds through the Quality Education Invest- ment Act (QEIA) 2006. Schools were eligible to apply to participate if they scored in Deciles one or two on the Academic Performance Index (API). Awardees were deter- mined by a random drawing of the eligible applicants. These low performing schools will receive additional funding for seven years, beginning in 2007-08. The schools are Anderson, Carver, Dickison, King, Lincoln, Longfellow, McKinley, and Washington Elementary Schools; and Bunche, Davis, Enterprise, Vanguard, Walton, and Willowbrook Middle Schools. The district received $4.6 million for the QEIA schools in 2007-08 for planning, and expects $ 5.7 million for 2008-09. 10. 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 were enrolled in AP courses and 707 AP exams were administered in spring 2007 testing. 2 Pupil Achievement • During 2007-08, 734 students are currently enrolled in AP courses. 11. 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. 12. K-3 teachers at eleven schools are receiving coaching/training in the Reading First pro- gram. The district is in the last year of a four-year Reading First grant. The UC Irvine FOCUS project, funded by the National Science Foundation through June 2008, assists Compton USD teachers in improving math and science instruction. Although this is the last year of the FOCUS grant, the district intends to continue using other grant funds such as SMILE, TRI (Teacher Retention Initiative) and STIR (science teacher initiative and retention) to continue staff development to improve science and math instruction for learners of English. 13. It was reported at the time of the team’s visit in July 2007 that the high schools had not yet completed developing their master course schedules for the 2007-08 school year, which was a serious departure from the district’s previous practices. The extreme delay in developing the master schedules negatively impacts curricular planning, limits the range of courses available for students, and makes difficult the assignment and recruit- ment of appropriately credentialed teachers in the core subjects. The development of a high school master schedule should ideally begin in late January or early February so that teachers at the high school can participate in determining, or be informed of, their tentative teaching assignments for the coming year. Teachers without assignments can either be notified prior to March 15 that their employment may be termi- nated, or offered transfers to other sites where positions for which they are credentialed may be available. Courses for which there is no appropriately credentialed teacher at the site can be advertised as vacant to recruit credentialed teachers for the position early enough to ensure that qualified applicants will apply. Early development of the master schedules assists in determining the staffing levels required for the new school year, developing the district’s projected budget, and ensur- ing the district is not overstaffed. As 85-95% of a district’s unrestricted funds support employee salaries and benefits, overstaffing can have serious fiscal consequences, par- ticularly when coupled with declining enrollment. Although master schedules must be adjusted in the fall based on actual student enrollment and availability of appropriately credentialed teachers, the master schedule should largely be completed before the end of the preceding school year, and should have been reviewed and approved by the district office. The building of a master schedule is one of the most important responsibilities of a high school administrator, and failure to meet the time lines for preparing the master schedule should be highlighted in the principal’s evaluation form. Pupil Achievement 3 The district has developed a master schedule time line, shared with FCMAT in January 2008, that will be implemented this year to build the schedules for 2008-09. Training in master schedule development is being conducted for all high school principals and coun- selors. The time line provides a detailed road map for implementing the process. The district should monitor the implementation process to ensure that the process continues and becomes systematic. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Substantially 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 August 2007 Rating: 8 February 2008 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 4 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 developed a video in English and Spanish on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) to publicize 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. The district is in the process of updating the video to reflect new requirements such as that special education students are also being required to pass the CAHSEE. Pupil Achievement 5 6. The CAHSEE is administered in March to current 10th graders (make-up tests are administered in May). All three high schools met the 95% participation rate in spring 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Seniors have two extra test administration opportunities in February and March for a total of five opportunities (October, December and May) to pass the test. The test dates are listed in the parent/student handbook. 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; summer school CAHSEE preparation classes; and a two-week intensive “boot camp” preparation program offered prior to the CAHSEE test administration. Approximately 250 students participated in a CAHSEE preparation class during summer 2007, in which Kaplan Learning Services assisted students and coached teachers. Seventy-one additional students passed the CAHSEE in July. 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 2007, 18 students did not graduate because they did not pass the CAHSEE although they met the credit requirements for graduation. Most nongraduates lacked sufficient credits to graduate. In June 2006, 12 students who met the credit requirements did not graduate because they had not passed the CAHSEE. Many of the students who did not pass the CAHSEE in 2006 were special education students who were exempted by special legislation from the CAHSEE requirement. Special education students are no longer exempt from the CAHSEE requirement; June 2008 will be the first year special education and 504 students need to meet the CAHSEE graduation requirement. 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 Web site and on graduation requirement posters displayed in classrooms throughout the high schools. 12. The district has benchmark assessments for English language arts (K-12), mathematics (K-12), science (K-5), and history/social science. Individual schools can generate benchmark assessments, with five to eight questions per standard, to determine student mastery of the standards. Benchmark assessment data is available by school, grade level and individual student. The district has hired Intel-Assess to develop the benchmark assessments. The company also provides rationales for the questions on the assessments in the four subject areas, as feedback to the teachers for reteaching the material. 6 Pupil Achievement 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. 14. District writing assessments continue to be administered four times a year. Teachers score writing assessments using a 4-point rubric that is aligned with the state standards and CAHSEE. Each writing sample is scored by two teachers working as a team. 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, 21 schools met their AYP in English language arts, 29 met it in math and 17 schools met all AYP components. Thirty-two of the forty district schools met their API under the AYP criteria. Twenty-six schools are in Program Improvement: two schools in year one, one in year two, six in year three, seven in year four and 10 in year five. Centennial High, Whaley Middle and Roosevelt Elementary exited the School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) program. 16. Bunche Elementary School was named a Distinguished Elementary School in 2006, the first district school to receive this prestigious designation by the state department. Three schools, Bunche, Bursch and Caldwell Elementary Schools, were identified as Title I High Achieving Schools, as they had API scores above 700 and exceeded their API an- nual targets by three times the goal. Jefferson Elementary was an Honorable Mention in the Title I High Achieving Schools program for 2007-08. 17. Accreditation by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) is a serious business for all California high schools. • Centennial High School received a three-year interim accreditation in 2003-04. • Compton High was visited in fall 2004 and received an accreditation of one year through 2005-06, and an extension. • Dominguez High was visited in fall 2004 and received an accreditation of two years through 2006-07. 18. All three of the district high schools must seriously address the urgency of maintaining their accreditation status. • Dominguez High was visited by a full accreditation team in spring 2007. The school was awarded a three year term of accreditation beginning fall 2007 through 2010. • 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. Pupil Achievement 7 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 8 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. Training workshop offerings are based on teacher needs assessment. 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. The newly adopted state social science textbooks were required to reflect the gender and multicultural aspects of the populations in California. 4. The district purchased instructional materials on the Latino experience and the African- 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 Hispanic 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 and other lan- guage 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 most recent Family Conference and Cultural Diversity Celebration was held on May 19, 2007 at Compton Community College campus. Pupil Achievement 9 7. The district received one of only 17 Teaching American History grants awarded to Cali- fornia 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 mak- ing district funds available to continue the training now that grant funds are no longer available. Teacher training is continuing with the district staff teacher for social science conducting the training. 8. The Positive Action program, a character education curriculum, is implemented at all schools K-12. Wise Skills is also encouraged for all schools and grade levels as a sup- plement. Many schools have an Advisory period available to work directly with students 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 10 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. The district applied for and has received a three-year extension of the grant. 11. The district’s instructional staff has been expanded to include a Director of Curriculum and Instruction and eight district staff teachers for the areas of Reading, Writing, English Learners, Math, Science, Social Studies, Visual and Performing Arts (VAPA) and PE. A content area coach has been provided for the two schools in the School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) program. A VAPA coordinator has been hired to work on rees- tablishing the arts program for the district. 12. Roosevelt Middle School’s MESA team won the California State and National Competi- tion for their division for two years in a row, 2006 and 2007. An elementary level MESA program has been implemented at six elementary schools. Middle schools are encourag- ing 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. 10 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. A second cohort of 14 students is participat- ing in the 2007-08 school year. Eight students of the first cohort will graduate from high school in June 2008 and will have completed the first two years of their 4 year college program. 15. The district and the teachers’ employee group (CEA) have been meeting collaboratively to plan and provide additional diversity training for administrators and teachers. 16. The district has established a Teen Court program at Compton High School as a voca- tional training program in the legal profession. This is an extended, noncredit educa- tional activity at the present time. Students conduct a mock trial and adjudicate misde- meanor offences through the juvenile court school. 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 11 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 received training in coaching strategies to support their teachers. 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. Eight academic intervention coaches have been assigned to the middle schools during the 2007-08 school year. These positions have also been approved for the high schools but the positions had not yet been filled at the time of FCMAT’s visit. 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 instructional 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 the evaluation of their curriculum oversight and time spent in the classroom and in instructional support activities. A seventh standard was added to the principals’ evaluation form to include compliance issues such as timely IEPs and 504s, employee evaluations, and report submittals. 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 over 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. Two site visits per site for the 2006-07 school year were completed. This process has become systemic. 12 Pupil Achievement 7. Cluster associate superintendents meet with site administrators regularly and visit schools frequently. Cabinet members visit sites each week. School Site Visitation Reports document these weekly site visits. 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. The minimum day schedule is published in the Parent/Student Handbook. 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 13 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. A seventh standard was also added to the principals’ evaluation form to include compliance issues for which the principal is responsible, such as timely IEPs and 504s, employee evaluations and timely report submittals. 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 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 beginning 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. Executive cabinet members visit school sites each week. A School Site Visitation Report form has been developed to document these visits and any findings, comments or concerns. 14 Pupil Achievement 7. 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). As of January 2008, 91% of principals (32 of 35) and 94.52% of classroom teachers have this authorization. 8. Numerous staff development workshops are provided to improve the skills and performance of the instructional staff. The district should ensure that staff development offerings do not become diffused, or become only what teachers want, instead of what teachers need. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Substantially 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 August 2007 Rating: 9 February 2008 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 15 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. The special education division was restructured in 2006: a program administrator position was established and filled; program coordinator positions were eliminated and six 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. In January 2008 FCMAT was informed that an additional program specialist position and an additional psychologist were approved for hire. 2. A Student Orientation Center was opened 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 were 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. 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. 4. The Special Needs Department is now the Office of Special Education and has moved to 500 South Santa Fe Avenue, across from the new district office. Three clerical staff, designated as Special Education Enrollment Specialists, remained at the Student Orientation Center at 417 Alondra to facilitate the enrollment of special needs students. One of the three is the supervisor who meets weekly with the Program Specialists and the Program Administrator to discuss any concerns. Identified special education students 16 Pupil Achievement and students with 504 accommodation plans receive immediate services. Students in need of special education or special accommodations are immediately referred to appropriate staff for assessment. A request for an additional enrollment specialist at the New Student Orientation Center was approved and filled. The new hire is bilingual. 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. 6. The Special Education Handbook: 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 2005-06 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 manual. The final version was presented to the OCR in May 2007 and approved for implementation after minor revisions were completed. The handbook is in production and training for site administrators, teachers and staff will be scheduled by June 2008 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 reference. 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, which is a state SELPA IEP form, was fully implemented in fall 2007. All special education teachers and psychologists are using Easy IEP and training is continuous and ongoing. Training for administrators is planned. 9. The district’s plan of corrective actions in special education was accepted by the State Department of Education. The district is being monitored by the state for compliance. A state monitor visits the district each month through June 2008. Improvement in the quality of IEPs and assessments has occurred, as well as an increase in 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 January 2008, approximately 2203, or 8% of the district’s 27,498 students in 2007-08 were identified as special education students. 1745 students attend district programs: 710 in the Resource Specialist Program, 1002 in Special Day Classes, and 33 at prekindergarten. 358 students are in county placements, 94 in nonpublic school placements, and 6 in residential programs. 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 62% of the Pupil Achievement 17 special education students are male and 38% are female; 38% are African American, 45% are Hispanic and 17% are other ethnicities. Within the male special education population, 37% of the male students are African American and 46% are Hispanic. The 2006 CBEDS ethnicity data indicates that the district has 25% African-American students and 73% Hispanic students in the general student population. 12. A special education class to serve autistic students K-2 was opened at Lincoln Elementary School to provide a continuum of services for the pre-K autistic class located there. This new class enables the students to remain at the site for services. 13. The numbers of special education students at the high school level necessitated an additional SDC teacher to be assigned to each high school to reduce the class size ratio for SDC students to 18 students per class. An additional special education teacher was also assigned to the alternative high school. 14. The workability program resource center was relocated from Tibby Elementary School to the Office of Special Education in April 2007. The workability coordinator was reassigned to be the Transition Coordinator. A special education teacher at each of the three high schools is being assigned an extra duty assignment as a Transition Service Teacher, responsible for providing training and on-site assistance to other special education teachers on transition services and activities for students 16 years of age or older. Students are being identified as early as age 14 for Transition support and training. Two consultants have been added to the staff to visit the middle schools and provide career workshops for students in grades 7 and 8. In 2006-07 a total of 582 students, 362 high school and 220 middle school students, participated in the workability program. 75 of the high school students were in work placements. In 2007-08, 85 students are projected to participate in work placements. 15. 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. Keeping overdue IEPs and Triennials to a minimum remains a constant challenge for staff and administrators. A new data base was created in the student information system to track preschool 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. 16. The district has established a Special Needs Advisory Committee that meets three times a year on special needs issues. The Special Needs Advisory Committee meets by level, with parents of elementary school students participating in one meeting, and parents of secondary students in another meeting. The district also has established a support group for parents of autistic students. 18 Pupil Achievement 17. 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 was developed for the school year to continue this training for special education and regular teachers, para-educators and administrators. 18. The Office of Special Education has initiated the Additional Adult Assistance (AAA) model, in lieu of the one-to-one aide model for 2007-08. AAA’s are provided to serve up to three students who may require additional adult assistance. The review team suggested the department establish written criteria for the assignment of AAA services, with a plan to phase out services as students become increasingly independent. 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 was 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. Two additional EL Resource Teachers were hired for the 2007-08 school year. The EL Resource Teachers continue 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. As of January 2008, 91% of site administrators and 94.52% of classroom teachers have this authorization. 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. Pupil Achievement 19 8. The district was visited by the Comité each year since 2002-03 and worked strenuously to address the many areas of noncompliance in the English language learner program cited by the Comité at that time. The district successfully addressed the areas of noncompliance 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 2007-08 school year, as of February 2008, the district’s New Student Orientation Center (NSOC) enrolled 4,818 new elementary students, 1,164 new middle school students, and 1,368 new high school students. 61% of the elementary students, 40% of the middle school students and 31% of the high school students were English Learners (EL). 101 of the elementary students, 65 of the middle school students, and 110 of the high school students needed special education services. 74 students enrolled during this period were both English Learners and needed special education services (45 elementary, 11 middle school, and 18 high school students). Assessments of new students are conducted based on the Home Language Survey. • For the 2006-07 school year, as of March 2007, the district’s NSOC 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). 10. The district has created a new data base in the Student Information System to monitor preschool and kindergarten children in the district. 20 Pupil Achievement Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 21 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 was 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), mathe- matics (3-5), health (9-12), and foreign language (6-8). History/social science textbooks were adopted in spring 2006. Textbook adoption for Science and VAPA was completed in spring 2007. Input to the adoption process was solicited from the community, science and VAPA teachers, and site administrators. The district is currently in the process of textbook adoption for mathematics K-12 in spring 2008. 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 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. Text- books and library books are collected at the end of each year to ensure accountability. 22 Pupil Achievement 7. The Board of Trustees approved a district Library Plan in January 2003. The district es- tablished a library book volume goal of a minimum of 13 books per student. The position title for Library Aide was changed to Textbook Clerk. At the time of the team’s visit in January 2008, the district was updating its high school libraries. A consultant had been hired to assess the libraries and recommend improvements. This effort will also assist the high schools in the upcoming WASC accreditation process in spring 2008. 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 2007. 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 23 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. The district encourages schools to offer attendance incentives to students to improve average daily attendance (ADA) percentages. 7. The district is involved with other districts in multiagency 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 was added for the 2007-08 school year and included a community relations specialist and campus security. Counseling services are being provided by a high school/middle school counselor who is also providing services to the community day school and the suspension center. 24 Pupil Achievement 8. In collaboration with the DA’s office, the district will be implementing in spring 2008 the Abolish Chronic Truancy (ACT) program for elementary school level students. The program targets students with 15 or more absences in the prior year and utilizes a mediation process to improve student attendance. 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 25 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 developed a video in English and Spanish on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) to publicize the importance of the CAHSEE on the district’s public information station Channel 26 and to inform parents of the high school exit exam requirement that began with the graduating class of 2006. The district is updating the video to include the fact that special education students are required to pass the CAHSEE to graduate. 7. An after school tutorial program was offered in spring 2007 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. 26 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 summer school CAHSEE preparation class; and a two-week intensive “boot camp” preparation program offered prior to the CAHSEE test administration. Approximately 250 students participated in a summer 2007 CAHSEE preparation class in which Kaplan Learning Services assisted students and coached teachers. 71 additional students passed the CAHSEE in July 2007. 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 2007-08, 3,584 PSAT tests were administered on October 17, 2007, to all 9th, 10th and 11th grade students at all high schools. Approximately 1600 PSAT tests are expected to be administered to all 8th grade students in March 2008. • 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 students in 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 27 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 and performance assessment 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 developed a video in English and Spanish on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) to publicize 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. The district is currently updating the video to include the information that special education students are required to pass the CAHSEE to graduate. 28 Pupil Achievement 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 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 2007-08, 3,584 PSAT tests were administered on October 17, 2007, to all 9th, 10th and 11th grade students at all high schools. Approximately 1600 PSAT tests are expected to be administered to all 8th grade students in March 2008. 9. The district’s Foundation provides $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-going culture by focusing on college attendance as a goal. 10. The 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 through 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 for graduation. 11. Summer school 2007 was offered at all school sites. The district also offered a “summer bridge” program for students transitioning between schools from grades 5 to 6, and grades 8 to 9. 12. 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. Based on the credit recovery and successful passage of the CAHSEE by students who participated in the 2006 summer program, the 2007 high school summer school program was structured similarly to the 2006 summer program. 13. The 2007 summer school program for K-8 students was structured to deliver a comprehensive, structured language arts and math program. The summer school curriculum was standardized and all teachers used the same instructional materials purchased by the district specifically for the summer program, Great Source Summer Success Reading and Summer Success Kaplan foundation math. The standardization of the curriculum was an effort to improve student skills by doing other than continuing what had been done during the regular year. Training for all K-8 summer school teachers on using the standardized instructional materials was provided one week before summer school started. Pre- and post-tests were conducted to measure students’ instructional growth over the summer under this standardized curriculum. Pupil Achievement 29 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 30 Pupil Achievement Chart of Pupil Achievement Standards Progress Ratings Toward Implementation of the Serna v Eastin Consent Decree Pupil Achievement 31 32 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 Pupil Achievement Feb. Aug. 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 2007 2008 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating The district has clear and valid objectives for stu- 1.2* 0 2 3 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 dents, including the core curriculum content. The district has adopted multiple assessment tools, including diagnos- 1.4* 0 2 4 6 6 6 6 7 8 8 9 9 10 9 9 10 10 10 10 tic assessments, to evalu- ate, improve, or adjust programs and resources. Teachers use a variety of instructional strate- 1.10* gies and resources that 0 NR 3 4 4 5 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 address their students’ diverse needs. Administrative support 1.20* and coaching are pro- 0 3 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 vided to all teachers. Professional development 1.21* is linked to personnel 0 3 4 5 5 5 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 evaluation. Initial placement pro- cedures are in place to ensure the timely and appropriate placement 1.23* 0 1 3 4 4 4 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 of all students with par- ticular emphases being placed on students with special needs. The district will ensure that all instructional 1.25* 4 NR NR 5 5 5 6 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 materials are available to all students. per consent decree * must reach score of 8 Pupil Achievement 33 NR not reviewed 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 Pupil Achievement Feb. Aug. 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 2007 2008 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Class time is protected 2.3* 6 NR NR 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 for student learning. The district shall be accountable for student results by using evalua- tive information regard- ing the various levels of 2.9* 2 NR NR 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 proficiency and allocating educational resources to assure the maximum educational opportunity for all students. Student achievement will be measured using standardized achieve- 2.10* ment tests and a variety 0 NR NR 5 6 6 7 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 of measurement tools, ie., portfolios, projects, oral reports, etc. per consent decree * must reach score of 8 34 PPuuppiill AAcchhiieevveemmeenntt NR not reviewed 2.2 Inter- and Intra-Departmental Communications – Identification and Re- sponse to Governing Board and Community Audiences Professional Standard 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 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 Finance 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 identify the business item and action approved by the board members. The Finance Department should communicate the district’s finances on a monthly basis to the Governing Board by a written report in a standard format. Communication 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. 3. The Finance Department should update the budget calendar each year and monitor the time lines for completion of tasks. The department may want to include on the calendar the March 15th date for notification to teachers of nonrenewal, as an informational item and to work with the personnel department to ensure that the required notices are sent before the deadline. 4. The district informed the review team that all certificated administrators were notified on January 22, 2008 that their assignments would not be renewed. This action provides flexibility to the incoming superintendent for possible reorganization and/or reassignment of administrators. Financial Management 1 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: 7 August 2006 Rating: 7 February 2007Rating: 7 August 2007 Rating: 8 February 2008 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale: 2 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 understandable, meaningful, reflective of district priorities, and balanced in terms of revenues and expenditures. 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 budget development process and the final budget. Weekly meetings of budget staff are conducted, many of them with training activities on the budget development process. The finance department has recently hired new staff members and is now fully staffed. 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) revenue limit calculations and budget guidelines on COLA, Lottery, 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 adjustments have been made, it is presented to the board at a budget study session. For Budget Year 2007-08, budget study sessions were held on May 22, June 12 and 19, 2007 with a Public Hearing conducted on June 26, 2007, prior to the final budget adoption. 3. The Budget Department monitors restricted funds carefully, and develops the categorical budgets based on the receipt of the grant award letters. Categorical budgets are developed on 85-90% of the previous year’s allocation until the award letters for the new school year are received. A copy of the budget print out is provided to program managers. 4. Unrestricted funds are allocated to the school sites on a formula basis. Staffing is assigned on projected student enrollment; instructional and custodial supplies are allocated on a per pupil formula basis. In addition, the district provides high schools with $100,000 for walk-on athletic coaches, $39,400 for supplies for school or athletic activities, $50,000 for contracted services such as transportation, and $50,000 for club and school activities (cheer, chess, etc). $296,000 is allocated to the elementary and middle schools for officiating intramurals. 5. 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. Both the 2006-07 and 2007-08 budgets reflect deficit spending in the general fund, and decreases in the unrestricted ending balance. However, the Finance Department indicates that the district’s actuals for previous years have shown that the district has been able to live within its revenue means. Financial Management 3 6. 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. 7. The finance department is now utilizing Budget Explorer, FCMAT’s Web-based multiyear budget projection tool to develop the district’s multiyear projections and budget scenarios. 8. During FCMAT’s visit in February 2007, staff provided copies of fiscal board policies that were part of the district’s policy handbook. Staff better understands that board policies provide the basis for governing the district’s fiscal operational practices and procedures. The district’s budget process is well understood and systemic, with department handbooks and documents detailing the process. Staff reviewed all series 3000-3430 finance policies in spring 2007 with the assistance of the California School Boards Association (CSBA). Revisions were made to policy and administrative regulation 3400 (a) on Management of District Assets. 9. The department has a business services manual of internal business office procedures, and should consider the development of individual desk manuals for each position so that procedures are implemented consistently, cross training of staff can occur, and guidelines are available for substitutes working in the positions. 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: 2 August 2000 Rating: 6 August 2006 Rating: 5 February 2007 Rating: 6 August 2007 Rating: 7 February 2008 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 4 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 identification 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 routine budget development process. The district uses enrollment 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 trend analysis. The district utilizes posi- tion control data in the budget development process. 2. The finance department is now utilizing Budget Explorer, FCMAT’s Web-based multiyear budget projection tool to develop the district’s multiyear projections and budget scenarios. Multiyear projections allow the district to analyze its ability to maintain fiscal solvency for the current and two projected years. Expenditure reductions may be proposed and considered, if necessary. 3. The district reviews its restricted programs for one-time funds and carryovers. Expendi- tures are reduced and budgets are conservatively built until actual funding award letters are received. Budgets are then adjusted through budget revisions approved by the board. Finance department staff understands that categorical funds should be spent first when- ever possible, and that no ongoing staff compensation is to be paid with one-time funds. 4. 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. 5. Staff development on business procedures and budget monitoring is provided annually to site principals and department managers by business office staff. Financial Management 5 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 August 2007 Rating: 9 February 2008 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale: 6 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 approved by the board. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. Budget revisions are submitted to the board for approval at first and second interim re- porting periods, and every two months 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 revi- sions. 3. School sites receive a formula based budget. Formulas are used for staffing allocations, and for instructional and custodial supplies. Revisions are also made to school site bud- gets based on ADA adjustments. 4. Finance department staff provides training on budget and finance procedures for site ad- ministrators. Training includes the appropriate uses and accounting of Associated Student Body (ASB) funds. An orientation on budget and finance is provided for new principals and ASB advisors. The finance department also works with the site clerical staff on pro- cedures for ordering supplies, understanding account codes, and responding to questions about the budget and fund balances. The department provides effective oversight and monitoring of the school site ASB accounts. Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 7 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’s (LACOE) Position Con- trol system to track personnel by position control numbers. A Personnel Action Form 106 (position control document) is used to establish the budget appropriation with required 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 106 form is given that same position control number for reference. The Human Resources Depart- ment inputs the name of the employee into the created position. Since September 2006, the 106 form has been available online and the electronic process has been used success- fully since then. A printed copy of the 106 form is kept in the budgeting office and the original is given to the Human Resources Department. 2. The Human Resources Department and the Personnel Commission control input into the position control 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. New proposed positions need the approval of both the superintendent and director of the budget. 3. The fiscal services payroll and personnel divisions conduct monthly meetings to improve communications and to work to eliminate any payroll discrepancies. 4. Employee vacation and leave data are currently kept on a manual system which is not ef- ficient and can be subject to human error. The district has begun to computerize this data on a spreadsheet. The finance department requested that LACOE include this data on employee payroll statements. However, as LACOE has not indicated any plans to do this, the finance department should work with the human resources division and the technolo- gy division to develop a district electronic data system to more efficiently track employee absences and leaves that can be readily viewed by both business and HR staff. 5. If absences and leave balances are not monitored by management, employee leave bal- ances can incorrectly accrue, increasing the district’s long-term unfunded liability. 6. The district’s position control data is an important piece for tracking personnel allocations and expenditures, and projecting the district’s budget. 7. The division appears to have good internal fiscal controls in place. The division has begun to develop electronic systems to automate more of its manual practices, and should continue these efforts. 8 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 August 2007 Rating: 8 February 2008 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 9 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 monthly, and updated 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. LACOE has provided an online cashflow statement for the district staff to access. The accounting manager moni- tors cashflow and provides monthly reports for review by administrators. 2. The district reconciles its cash accounts to the bank statements on a monthly basis, and to the LACOE reports of weekly cash deposits. Discrepancies are quickly identified and reconciled. The district utilizes a check log. Checks are logged in, and then sent to re- ceivables. Fiscal staff provided documentation and evidence of these ongoing monitoring practices. 3. Schools can check their account balances online through the district system. 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: 7 February 2007 Rating: 7 August 2007 Rating: 8 February 2008: 8 Implementation Scale: 10 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 Educa- tion’s (LACOE) Year-End Closing training meeting, and implements the year-end closing following the procedures and guidelines provided by LACOE. The district 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 devel- oped 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. Regular staff meetings review progress on the schedule. Meetings are held weekly during year- end closing to monitor progress and adherence to the checklist timelines. 3. The district follows LACOE timelines so that all transactions are booked prior to the final deadline. The calendar of deadlines and start dates also 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 bud- gets more effectively to avoid large carryover balances. 5. Training workshops are provided by fiscal staff to site and program administrators to en- able them to effectively manage their budgets. Program administrators are accountable for their programs during the fiscal year and during year-end closing. Financial Management 11 Standard Implemented: Fully Implemented – Sustained 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 August 2007 Rating: 9 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 12 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 utilizes multiyear revenue and expenditure projections throughout 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 projected fund balances for all funds. 2. The finance staff provides multiyear budget projections on various proposed compensation increase scenarios for use in negotiations. 3. As the finance staff had 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 tool developed by FCMAT for school districts to prepare multiyear projections. The product is user-friendly and provides multiyear projections for up to five years. There is no cost for using the product. Staff members have indicated that they have recently tried the Budget Explorer software, and found it easy to use and beneficial. They indicated that they will use Budget Explorer more extensively as they become comfortable with the product. 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 August 2007 Rating: 9 February 2008 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 13 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 agreements. 2. The district provides post-employment health and welfare benefits to employees who retire at age 55 with 20 years of district service at 50%, and with 30 years of district service at 100%. These post-employment health and welfare benefits are paid to age 65. The district has recently engaged a firm to conduct the required actuarial of their unfunded liability for other post-employment benefits (OPEB). Few district employees have qualified for these benefits. 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’ compensation claims. An estimate of the accrued but unfunded costs should be provided to the board annually. $16 million has been budgeted for workers’ compensation. 4. The district has a policy to revise the budget as a result of collective bargaining agreements 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. LACOE requires a review of the agreements before they are implemented. 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: 7 February 2007 Rating: 7 August 2007 Rating: 8 February 2008 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 14 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 consequently 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 employees. 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. Members of the finance division have recently been included on the district’s negotiating team and now participate at the bargaining table. Previously, the finance division was informed of possible proposals and provided information and answers to questions on the cost of the proposals before agreements were reached. Their more active participation should add positively to the process. 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 four of the five employee units for the 2006-07 year at this reporting period. However, contracts for the 2007-08 year are open for negotiations. 5. The finance division provides a multiyear projection for every salary raise scenario that is contemplated. The district focuses on costing out all proposals placed on the table, as the district’s fiscal solvency remains a major consideration. Financial Management 15 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: Not Reviewed August 2000 Rating: 3 February 2001 Rating: 3 August 2001 Rating: 4 August 2006 Rating: 7 February 2007 Rating: 7 August 2007 Rating: 8 February 2008 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 16 Financial Management Chart of Financial Management Standards Progress Ratings Toward Implementation of the Serna v Eastin Consent Decree Financial Management 17 18 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 reg- ularly with the governing board and community on the status of district finances and the financial impact of proposed ex- penditure decisions. The 2.2 communications should 7 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 7 8 9 be written whenever pos- sible, particularly 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 un- 5.5 derstandable, meaning- 2 NR NR 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 5 6 7 8 ful, reflective of district priorities, and balanced in terms of revenues and expenditures. 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. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 Rating Rating 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 expen- ditures, the identifica- tion 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 9 9 expenditure plans. The process should clearly identify one-time sources and uses of funds. Rea- sonable 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 established 8.3 8 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8 9 10 10 procedures and are ap- proved by the board. 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. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 20 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 uses an ef- fective position control system, which tracks personnel allocations and expenditures. The position control system 8.4 4 NR 5 NR 5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 8 8 9 effectively establishes checks and balances between personnel decisions and budgeted appropriations. 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 state- ments and reports from the county treasurer on a 12.3 5 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 7 8 8 monthly basis. Standard accounting practice dictates that, in order to ensure that all cash receipts are deposited timely and recorded prop- erly, cash be reconciled to bank statements on a monthly basis. 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. Aug. Feb. Standard to be addressed 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 Rating Rating 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 Generally accepted accounting practices dictate that in order to ensure accurate record- ing of transactions, the district should have standard procedures for closing its books 12.7 0 NR NR 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8 9 9 10 at fiscal year-end. The district’s year-end closing procedures should be in compliance with the procedures and require- ments established by the Los Angeles County Office of Education. The district annually pro- vides a multiyear revenue and expenditure projec- 14.2 tion for all funds of the 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8 8 9 9 district. Projected fund balance reserves should be disclosed. [EC 42131] Comply with public disclosure laws of fis- cal obligations related to health and welfare benefits for retirees, self- 15.1 6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 7 8 8 insured workers compen- sation, and collective bargaining agreements. [GC 3540.2, 3547.5, EC 42142] 22 Financial Managment NR not reviewed Financial Management Feb. Aug. 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 2007 2008 Rating Rating 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 conse- quently 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 administra- tive team, parameters and guidelines for the collective bargaining ne- gotiation; district board 16.1 2 NR NR 3 3 4 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 7 7 8 8 guidelines must repre- sent the public interest and avoid, throughout the negotiating debate, representation of special interests or selected district employees. The Board must ensure that the agreement enhances instructional delivery while maintaining fiscal solvency for the district. Governing Board param- eters must be provided in a confidential environ- ment reflective of the obligations of a closed executive Board session. Financial Management 23 NR not reviewed Financial Management Feb. Aug. 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 2007 2008 Rating Rating 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 24 Financial Managment 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 custodi- ans 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 graffiti in areas higher than ten feet in height or requiring more than one hour to remove. The district established for 2007-08 one graffiti response team consisting of a painter and maintenance worker to speedily respond to schools for graffiti removal, and is currently seeking to hire additional staff. 3. The district has established an emergency hot line (extension 55377) for the reporting of graffiti that the school custodians cannot handle. The emergency hotline to Police Services is 310-898-6188 which can be accessed after school hours. The Police Services number is included in the annual parent and student handbook. 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 by the county office. The district conducts its own instructional audits of school sites by district instructional administrators. Periodic, unannounced school visits continue to be conducted by district administrators and FCMAT to monitor compliance with the consent decree stipulations. Facilities Management 1 6. The district has revised the high school graduation requirements to include a required 2.5 credits of community service for students to meet prior to graduation, beginning with the graduating class of 2006. The course requirement is the equivalent of 45 hours, or one quarter of a year’s credits. In other community service activities, students at various sites are engaged in numerous campus beautification projects and recycling programs. Satur- day detention also provides community service on campus. 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 2 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 sys- tem 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 bell system. 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 fall 2007. School site preparedness and response to a simulated emergency are evaluated, and recommendations made to improve. Each school site con- ducts a code yellow lock down on a monthly basis. 5. 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 depart- ment. Facilities Management 3 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 4 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 morning 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 potentially hazardous electrical condition. A monthly reporting form for the docu- mentation of these reviews was developed, and records of the reports from the sites are being maintained. 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. The district in summer 2007 ordered a new boom-truck, or “cherry picker,” to reach and replace windows in high locations. The equipment is scheduled to arrive in spring 2008. Window replacement is also included as part of the district’s deferred maintenance plan. 4. Many schools have organized parent school site safety committees. The committees periodically perform site inspections for unsafe or hazardous conditions and forward repair requests to the maintenance department to address. 5. The district has implemented the Williams settlement protocols providing complaint forms for parents to report their concerns about facilities conditions. Board policy and administrative regulation 1312.4(b) explain how and when the Williams Uniform Com- plaint Procedures are to be used to address sufficiency of instructional materials, teacher Facilities Management 5 vacancies or misassignments, or a facility condition that poses an emergency or threat, or is not clean, safe or in good repair. The Williams complaint procedure is no longer being used to address routine maintenance requests. Information on the Williams process has been included on the district’s Web page. 6. 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. 7. The maintenance department continues to immediately address emergency calls to the maintenance hot line (extension 55377) within 24 hours. The emergency telephone num- ber to the district’s Police Services, 310-898-6188, can be accessed after school hours. The number is included in the annual student and parent handbook. 8. Monthly training meetings continue to be held with the plant managers on district proce- dures and/or on improving employee skills. 9. The temporary grounds workers initially hired by the district to work on the grounds of the newly modernized school sites are being hired to fill six vacant Grounds I positions. 10. Staff reported the district has been addressing site heating and air conditioning needs, and in the 2006-07 year had expended $1.2 million in vendor contracts for HVAC services. The district had planned to increase its internal service capacity and increase HVAC staff from two to six HVAC mechanics, and possibly add six HVAC helpers. This plan has not yet been implemented, as any increase to staffing will be reviewed when the incoming superintendent starts her assignment. In summer 2007 the district conducted a check of the air conditioning at the school sites, and has initiated a program to replace AC units as needed. Two outside vendors are also available to assist the district with HVAC work. 6 Facilities Management 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 7 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 morning 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. 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. 3. Sites are inspected annually by Williams review teams from the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Beginning in 2007-08, the district plans to implement its own internal inspections twice a year. Williams complaint forms are available for parents to report any emergency or safety issues. Board policy and administrative regulation 1312.4(b) explain how the Williams Uniform Complaint Procedures are to be used to address sufficiency of instructional materials, teacher vacancies or misassignments, or a facility condition that poses an emergency or threat, or is not clean, safe or in good repair. The Williams complaint procedure is no longer being used to address routine maintenance requests. Information on the Williams process has been included on the district’s Web page. 4. School site safety committees continue to make periodic site inspections, and monitor facilities needs at the school. 5. Principals, or their designees, are required to inspect student restrooms three times daily and to take action to remedy any problems. The district has contracted with an outside vendor to have the student restrooms acid washed at the beginning of the 2007-08 school year. 8 Facilities Management 6. 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. The fire department con- ducts annual inspections of school sites. 7. All schools have an operational fire alarm system in place. Several schools have a strobe alarm system in addition to bells. The district has renewed its annual contract to have all fire extinguishers checked and recharged before September 1, 2007. 8. 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. Thirteen elementary and middle school sites will receive new playground equipment in spring 2008. 9. 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 9 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 were based on the long-range Facilities Master Plan. Decisions about the use of the district’s deferred maintenance funds were also guided by the plan. The needs assessment recently completed for the district by the Lundgren Management Group in spring 2007 is being used to develop the district’s cur- rent deferred maintenance plan. 3. The district had initiated the process of updating/developing a new ten-year Facilities Master Plan to reflect changing student needs and demographics, and had prepared a request for proposals (RFP) for an architectural firm to undertake this work. This effort was placed on hold during the district’s transition to a new superintendent. 4. During the last five years, the district addressed twenty-eight modernization and several new construction projects (six classroom additions and two elementary schools) with funds from both the state’s General Obligation Bond (GOB), Proposition 47, and the district’s local $80 million GOB, Measure I, both of which passed in November 2002. More than $200 million to date has been expended by the district on these projects. 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 met on the first Monday of each month to review district reports on project updates. The Governing Board reconstituted the committee from 13 to 10 members in February 2006. Only three members from the previous com- mittee were reappointed to the new committee. Attendance of committee members has been sporadic and several monthly meetings were dismissed for lack of a quorum. The committee is currently composed of nine members. All Measure I funds have been expended, and the committee expects to conclude its work shortly. The committee’s last 10 Facilities Management meeting was held in September 2007. The next committee meeting will be scheduled when the financial and performance audits on the Measure I funds are completed by the external auditor hired by the district. 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 debt in spring 2006. 7. The district board approved a $10 million Certificate of Participation (COP) to build permanent facilities for district office operations at 501 South Santa Fe Avenue. The new district office facility was completed in winter 2006. The lease income from the Green- leaf 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 to prepare the site for the second new elementary school, Liberty Elemen- tary. The district did some initial work on the site which included asbestos abatement. However, the project has been placed on hold while the district determines if another elementary school is needed since district enrollment is declining. The transition in construction management firms from GKK to Del Terra held up the demolition of the old district office site. Bids for the demolition are being sought. 9. Four of the district’s 28 modernization projects have been closed (Dominguez High, Centennial High, Roosevelt Middle and Whaley Middle), and 21 are in the punch list phase. The remaining three modernization projects at Caldwell, Washington and Chavez schools are only about 80% completed, and required 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. The contract with Del Terra is for approximately 9% of project costs. The board approved a $25 million COP on May 1, 2007 to complete the district’s facilities projects. Modernization at the three schools is currently underway. 10. The $6 million general fund loan to Facilities has been repaid to the general fund. The district sold the old Vocational and Performing Arts (VAPA) school site on 139th Street in summer 2007 for $5 million which will be used in the district’s building program. 11. 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 since 2005 and it is projected to continue. 12. The district has contracted with the Hancock, Gone and Parks consulting firm to develop applications for emergency repair funds for district projects through the Williams settlement funds. The district has received funds from some of the earlier applications submitted. Facilities Management 11 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 12 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 eight new construction projects (six classroom building additions to existing sites and two 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. The district’s facilities administrators understand the state facilities approval requirements and process. 2. In spring 2002 the district placed a General Obligation Bond (GOB) 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 allowed districts to incur bonded indebtedness based on 55% voter approval rather than the two-thirds approval required for non-Prop 39 GOBs. 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 this COP debt 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. Subsequent legislation since that time has increased a district’s matching share for modernization projects to 40%. The district’s local GOB provided the source of the district’s matching funds. 5. Four of the district’s 28 modernization projects have been closed and 21 are in the punch list phase. The remaining three modernization projects at Caldwell, Washington and Chavez schools are only about 80% completed, and required additional funds to Facilities Management 13 complete. The district board approved a $25 million COP on May 1, 2007 to complete the district’s facilities projects. The district also sold the old VAPA site for $5 million which will be used to support the district’s building program. 5. The district is awaiting approval of the plans for Liberty Elementary School at South Tamarind Avenue from the Division of the State Architect (DSA). As the district is in litigation with GKK construction, the plans developed by GKK are part of the dispute. 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 district must still determine if another elementary school is needed since district enrollment is declining. 6. 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 14 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 were designed to provide full access for handicapped students. Elevators were 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 included 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 that staff attempts to provide equitable services to all students. The Facilities Division considers maintenance requests to meet the needs of the special education population a high priority. 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 from sites as many special education classes continue to be integrated among regular classes. Site principals are expected to consider the needs of their students when assigning the various instructional programs to existing site facilities and classrooms. 5. The special education center located at Caldwell Elementary is a joint effort between the Los Angeles County Office of Education and the district. The facility is equipped with additional doors, a wheel chair lift, handrails and large 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 15 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 16 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. Performance evaluations are conducted to assess the work quality of all maintenance and operations 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. Evaluations are due by April 30th of each year. Staff reports that employee evaluations are up to date. 3. 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. The department is considering placing this information on the district’s Web page. 4. The facilities division has provided plant managers with a sample structured work schedule for site maintenance and operations employees for each day and each week. A sample template has been developed for plant managers to modify for their individual site needs. 5. The district’s personnel office continues to provide 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. 6. 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 Facilities Management 17 the same criteria, by supervisors who understood the responsibilities of the job and the expected performance criteria. The 2006-07 evaluations of plant managers and staff were conducted by the site administrators. 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. 7. The maintenance division is addressing employee absenteeism which continues to be a problem. An attendance review is conducted every 90 days with employees who are 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 at 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. 9. The district is reestablishing the area supervisor position to supervise and monitor the cleaning and maintenance of the elementary school sites. Each area supervisor will be responsible for 17 elementary schools. The district will conduct testing for eligible applicants. 10. District staff and the personnel commission should work together to ensure that employees perform their work satisfactorily. Both the district and the personnel commission should continue to apply due process in disciplining employees whose performance is unsatisfactory or who behave inappropriately. 18 Facilities Management 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 19 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 several board subcommittees. One of these subcommittees, composed of a board member and district staff, is assigned to regularly monitor the district’s facilities. The facilities subcommittee did not meet during the 2006-07 year due to changes in the board members assigned, but has been active in the 2007-08 year and meetings have been held. The policy on the use of district facilities and an appropriate fee schedule to assess for facilities use is one of the facilities policies being revised by the subcommittee for board approval. 2. Ongoing, random, unannounced site inspections are conducted by FCMAT and district administrators, and keep staff focused on campus cleanliness and the safe condition of school site facilities. 3. The district’s Facilities Compliance Coordinator visits several sites monthly and uses the FCMAT inspection checklist to monitor compliance with Consent Decree stipulations. Exit conferences are held with the site administrators. Schools are given a letter grade based on the monitoring checklist. 4. Sites are inspected annually by Williams review teams from the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Beginning in 2007-08, the district plans to implement its own internal Williams inspections twice a year. Instructional site audits have been conducted by district instructional administrators for the last two years, and have increased focus on compliance issues. The district plans to provide training to site administrators on how to prepare for the annual Williams site audits. 5. 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. 6. The district maintains contracts for annual water service to check all water lines and test for water potability and toxic substances. 20 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 21 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 a staff designee. Re- cords of monitoring 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 on a school campus to identify the restrooms to be first addressed. The district has contracted with an outside vendor to have the site restrooms acid washed early in fall 2007 for the new school year. This was done in fall 2007 and spring 2008 and is expected to be a twice annual service. 3. Four restroom monitors are assigned to monitor the restrooms throughout the school day at each of 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 several school sites monthly to monitor compliance with Consent Decree stipulations. 6. The district has fully implemented the Williams settlement protocols. A district adminis- trator position has been established to monitor compliance with the Williams protocols. Sites are inspected annually by Williams review teams from the Los Angeles County Office of Education. The district Facilities Compliance Officer accompanies the Wil- liams 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. 22 Facilities Management 7. Williams complaint forms are available for parents to report any emergency or safety issues. Board policy and administrative regulation 1312.4(b) explain how the Williams Uniform Complaint Procedures are to be used to address sufficiency of instructional materials, teacher vacancies or misassignments, or a facility condition that poses an emergency or threat, or is not clean, safe or in good repair. Information on the Williams process has been included on the district’s Web page. 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 August 2007 Rating: 10 February 2008 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 23 24 Facilities Management Chart of Facilities Management Standards Progress Ratings Toward Implementation of the Serna v Eastin Consent Decree Facilities Management 25 26 Facilities Management Facilities Management Feb. Aug. 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 2007 2008 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Facilities Management 27 The district has a graffiti and vandalism plan. The district should have a written graffiti and abatement plan that is followed by 1.8* 6 6 NR 7 7 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 all district employees. The district provides district employees with sufficient resources to meet the requirements of the abatement plan. Each public agency is required to have on file a written plan 1.9* 3 3 NR 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 describing procedures to be employed in case of emergency. Building examinations are performed, and required actions are 1.12* 6 6 NR 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 taken by the governing board upon report of unsafe conditions. Sanitary, neat and clean conditions of the school premises exist 1.14* and the premises are 0 4 NR 6 6 7 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 free from conditions that would create a fire hazard. NR not reviewed Facilities Management Feb. Aug. 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 2007 2008 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 28 Facilities Management Compton Unified School District should have 2.1* O 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 a long-range school facilities master plan. The CUSD obtains approval of plans and specifications from the Division of the State Architect and the Of- 3.8* fice of Public School 0 NR 3 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Construction (when required) prior to the award of a contract to the lowest, responsible bidder. The CUSD provides facilities for its Special Education programs which ensure equity with other educational 6.2* programs within the 4 NR NR 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 district and provides appropriate learn- ing environments in relation to educational program needs. NR not reviewed Facilities Management NR not reviewed Facilities Management Feb. Aug. 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 2007 2008 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 29 Procedures are in place for evaluating the work quality of maintenance and operations staff. The quality of the work performed by the maintenance and opera- 8.6* tions staff should be 5 NR 5 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 evaluated on a regular basis using a board- adopted procedure which delineates the areas of evaluation and the types of work to be evaluated. The governing board shall keep the school 8.10* 2 NR NR 6 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 buildings in repair and supervised. The governing board of every school district 9.4* shall provide clean and 4 NR NR 5 6 6 8 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 operable flush toilets for the use of pupils. 30 Facilities Management