Comprehensive Review

King City Joint Union High School District Comprehensive Review and Recovery Plan Progress Report March 2011 King City Joint Union High School District Comprehensive Review and Recovery Plan Progress Report March 2011 Introduction and Executive Summary Background The King City Joint Union High School District serves students in grades the 9-12 and is situated in the southern portion of Monterey County. The district encompasses approximately 2,500 square miles. The district operates two comprehensive high schools, one in King City and the other in Greenfield; a dependent charter school located in Greenfield; and a continuation high school located in King City. During the 2009-10 school year the district served 2,075 students; this was approximately 5% fewer than the 2008-09 enrollment of 2,185 students. Ninety percent of students are Hispanic or Latino, 7% are white, and 3% are designated as other ethnicities. The student population is disadvantaged: 32.5. % of students are English learners and 65% are eligible for free or reduced-price meals. The district’s annual revenue limit funding per average daily attendance (ADA) was $7,066.34 for 2008-2009, $7,366.34 for 2009-2010 and $7,337.34 for 2010-2011. From 2002 until the appointment of the state administrator in July 2009, the district was unable to maintain consistent leadership in key administrative positions. Several superintendents and chief business officials were employed in succession, and at one time these functions were combined into one position to reduce costs. The administrative and business services were shared with the King City Union School District, leaving one person to fill four key administrative positions. This organizational structure unfortunately exacerbated the lack of effective decision- making to keep the district financially solvent. Ineffective governance also contributed to the fiscal crisis and need for state intervention. The governing board’s changes in membership and lack of experience and institutional knowledge contributed to a limited understanding of the seriousness of the district’s financial condition and the types of fiscal priorities and solutions needed to eliminate the structural deficit. Under inconsistent leadership and ineffective governance, the district experienced multiple years of financial difficulties which led to cash insolvency and the need for state intervention in July 2009. An unfavorable ruling from the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) compounded the district’s financial difficulties. The PERB decision resulted in a retroactive formula-based increase in employee compensation costs and contributed to the district’s continued deficit spending. In 2006, the cost of retroactively applying the compensation formula was estimated at $5.2 million; the ongoing cost was $600,000 annually, a total compensation increase of 11%. The district could not afford to fund the retroactive amount for employee compensation and meet the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 1200 that the district maintain a reserve for economic uncertainties and undergo budget certification, so in 2007 the certificated bargaining unit agreed to a negotiated settlement of $1.2 million. The district requested and received a temporary loan from the Monterey County Office of Education in accordance with Education Code sections 42621 and 42622 to fund the settlement because it did not have sufficient cash to fund both the retroactive amount and the permanent ongoing increase to the salary schedule. The permanent cost increase associated with the certificated staff compensation formula was significant and created a substantial structural deficit. In addition, the classified employee bargaining unit invoked a “me too” clause in its contract, increasing compensation for its members. By fiscal year 2006-07 the district was spending $654 more annually per pupil than it received in revenue. Since that year, the deficit has varied between $450 and $1,987 per pupil annually, and in 2009 the district spent $1,819 more per pupil than it received in revenue. Introduction and Executive Summary 1 Beginning in 2007, the Monterey County Office of Education assigned a variety of fiscal experts to the district to provide support to ensure that the district’s financial obligations were met and business was conducted appropriately while critical business office positions were vacant. On December 4, 2007, the Monterey County Office of Education declared the district a “lack of going concern” because the district’s budget was projected to have a negative fund balance for the current and two subsequent fiscal years. In addition to total employee compensation, other factors contributing to this condition included a developing and serious state budget crisis and the beginning of a period of declining enrollment. A fiscal advisor was assigned to the district in 2008 to help the district achieve fiscal recovery. In May 2008, the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) conducted a fiscal review of the district commissioned by the Monterey County Office of Education. That study included the effect of the PERB decision, and FCMAT’s report stated, “Based on the district’s projected budget and levels of deficit spending, FCMAT projects that the district will need to make substantial reductions in the multiyear financial projection (MYFP) or the district may require state intervention in the 2009-10 fiscal year.” On July 23, 2009, Senate Bill (SB) 130 (Denham; co-author Assembly member Caballero) was signed into law. The bill authorized the appointment of a state administrator and provided a $13 million emergency state loan or line of credit. The legislation authorized FCMAT to complete comprehensive assessments of the King City Joint Union High School District and develop recovery plans in five operational areas. The bill also required FCMAT to file written status reports annually with various entities, including the Legislature, regarding the school district’s progress in meeting the recommendations contained in the recovery plans. SB 130 differs from prior state emergency loans in that it also requires that the recovery plan include specific training for board members and staff who have management and personnel policy-making and advisory responsibilities to ensure that the district’s leadership team has the knowledge and skills to carry out their responsibilities effectively. In addition FCMAT is authorized to assist the state administrator in developing the first multiyear financial recovery plan required under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 41327.1 of the California Education Code (EC). FCMAT prepared a multiyear financial projection and cash flow analysis that formed the basis for the financial recovery plan. SB 130 further authorizes FCMAT to do the following: • Assist the state administrator in the initial development of the adopted budget and interim reports. • Recommend to the state administrator any studies or activities that the state administrator should undertake to enhance revenue or achieve cost savings. • Provide any other assistance as described in EC Section 42127.8. SB 130 further intended that the state superintendent of public instruction (SPI), through the state administrator, work with the staff and board to identify the procedures and programs that the district will implement to accomplish the following: 1. Significantly raise pupil achievement. 2. Improve pupil attendance. 3. Lower the pupil dropout rate. 2 Introduction and Executive Summary 4. Increase parental involvement. 5. Attract, retain and train a quality teaching staff. 6. Manage fiscal expenditures in a manner consistent with the district’s current and projected revenues. The purpose of this report is to provide the district with the results of a systemic, comprehensive assessment of progress and recommendations for improvement and recovery in the following five operational areas: 1. Community Relations and Governance 2. Personnel Management 3. Pupil Achievement 4. Financial Management 5. Facilities Management This report provides data to the district, the community and the Legislature to facilitate more effective collaboration and to build the district’s capacity to effectively manage personnel, reduce operating costs, increase revenue and promote student learning. The report also provides critical information regarding site and facility issues that interfere with effective teaching and learning. Finally, this report details the district’s progress toward recovery in the five operational areas and provides recommendations for continual improvement. Introduction and Executive Summary 3 4 Introduction and Executive Summary Comprehensive Review Process In preparation for the first comprehensive review, FCMAT revised the legal and professional standards to align with industry best practices and with applicable state and federal law, including the California Education Code. The standards used are applicable to all California school districts. Independent and external professional experts from both the private and public sectors assisted in researching, identifying and categorizing the 307 standards used in this assessment. FCMAT monitored the use of the standards during the assessment to ensure that they were applied fairly and rigorously. In the first comprehensive review, FCMAT measured the district’s implementation of the standards, and the initial report included recommendations for improvement and recovery related to each standard addressed. Recommendations for recovery are designed and intended to affect functions directly at the district, school site and classroom level. Implementing the designated standards and recommendations with this type of depth and focus will result in improved pupil achievement, financial practices, personnel procedures, community relations and facilities management. In January 2010 the state administrator, the Director of Fiscal Services Division of the CDE, and FCMAT conferred and selected 145 priority standards from the 307 comprehensive standards initially used to assess the district’s condition in the five operational areas. These priority standards are divided among the five operational areas as follows: 18 community relations and governance standards; 26 personnel management standards; 32 pupil achievement standards; 42 financial management standards; and 27 facility management standards. In this report FCMAT assesses the district’s progress in the 145 priority areas rather than the initial 307 standards. Priority standards were selected to ensure that the report measures the district’s progress toward meeting legal and regulatory requirements and restoring the essential functions of an effective district. In this second report, FCMAT prioritized recommendations to provide the district with an independent assessment of the areas and recommendations that require more immediate attention. This comprehensive review process is a deficit analysis model. The process of systemic assessment, prioritization and intervention lays the foundation for increasing the district’s capacity and productivity by establishing a baseline measurement against which future progress can be measured. The process also serves to engage board members, parents, students and the community in a partnership to improve student learning. This second comprehensive review report measures progress with a numerical rating and a summary of the district’s progress in the identified priority standards. Because recovery is a multiyear process, the second and all subsequent reports also include a summary of each previous assessment of the district under each priority standard to give the reader a historical perspective of the district’s progress. The findings presented in this second report measure the district’s operations from August 2009 through September 2010. A recovery process of this magnitude is a challenging and multiyear effort. The state administrator and the district had to select priority areas on which to focus their efforts during the first year of recovery. Understandably, equal progress is not made in all operational areas. The district continues to address issues identified during fieldwork; in some cases FCMAT was able to report on progress that occurred after the team’s visit. This report also discusses standards and operational areas of deficiency that the district was in the process of addressing during field work. At the time of this report’s publication, the district continues to work on a number of the concerns addressed in this report and has thus made progress that is not reflected in this report. Introduction and Executive Summary 5 FCMAT acknowledges and extends its thanks to the state administrator, the district’s staff and the community for their assistance and cooperation during this review. Study Guidelines FCMAT’s approach to implementing the statutory requirements of SB 130 is based on a commitment to an independent and external standards-based review of the district’s operations. FCMAT performed the assessment and developed the recovery plan in collaboration with other external providers selected using a competitive process. Professionals from throughout California contributed their knowledge and applied the legal and professional standards to the specific local conditions found in the King City Joint Union High School District. Prior to working in the district, FCMAT adopted five basic tenets to be incorporated in the assessment and recovery plans. These tenets were based on previous assessments conducted by FCMAT in school districts throughout California and a review of data from other states that have conducted external reviews of troubled school districts. The five basic tenets are as follows: 1. Use of Professional and Legal Standards FCMAT’s experience indicates that for schools and school districts to be successful in program improvement, the evaluation, design and implementation of recovery plans must be standards- driven. FCMAT has noted positive differences between an objective standards-based approach and a non-standards-based approach. When standards are attainable and clearly communicated and defined, there is a greater likelihood they will be measured and met. The standards are the basis of the recovery plans developed for the district. To participate in the review of the King City Joint Union High School District, providers were required to demonstrate how they would incorporate the FCMAT-identified standards into their work. Although the standards were identified for the comprehensive review of the King City Joint Union High School District, they are not unique to this district and could be readily used to measure the success of any school district in California. Every standard was measured using a consistent rating format, and each standard was given a scaled rating from zero to 10, indicating the extent to which it has been met. Consultants met to discuss findings and test for inter-rater reliability. Following are definitions of terms and the rubric used to arrive at the scaled scores. The purpose of the scaled ratings is to establish a baseline against which the district’s future gains and achievements can 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 has been met to a limited degree; the degree of completeness varies as follows: 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 are engaged and there is a plan for implementation. (Scaled score of 2) 6 Introduction and Executive Summary 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 are engaged in implementing most elements of the standard. (Scaled score of 4) 5. Staff are engaged in implementing 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 and 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 and sustainable; the degree of implementation varies as follows. 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) 2. Conduct an External and Independent Assessment FCMAT used an external and independent assessment process to develop the assessment and recovery plans for the district. This report presents findings and recovery plans based on external and independent assessments conducted by FCMAT staff, separate professional agencies, and independent consultants. Collectively, these professionals and consultants constitute FCMAT’s providers in the assessment process. Their external and independent assessments serve as the primary basis for the review’s reliability, integrity and credibility. 3. Utilize Multiple Measures of Assessment For a finding to be considered valid, the same or consistent information is needed from multiple sources. The assessments and recovery plans were based on such multiple measures. Testing, personal interviews, group meetings, observations, and review and analysis of data all added value to the assessment process. The providers were required to use multiple measurements and confirm their findings from multiple sources as they assessed the standard. This process allowed for a variety of methods of determining whether the standards were met. All school district operations that affect student achievement (including governance, fiscal, personnel and facilities) were reviewed and included in the recovery plan. Introduction and Executive Summary 7 4. Empower Staff and Community Senate Bill 130 requires that the recovery plan include specific training for board members and staff who have personnel and management policy-making and advisory responsibilities to ensure that the district’s leadership team has the knowledge and skills to carry out their responsibilities effectively. The success of the recovery plans and their implementation depend on an effective professional and community development process. For this reason, empowering staff and the community is one of the highest priorities, and emphasizing this priority with each of the five teams was critical. Thus the report consistently calls for and reports progress on providing training for board members, staff and administrators. Of paramount importance is the community’s role in local governance. The lack of parental involvement in education is a growing concern nationally. Re-engaging parents, teachers and support staff is vital to the district’s success. Parents in the district care deeply about their children’s future and want to participate in improving the school district and enhancing student learning. The community relations section of this report provides recommendations for engaging parents and the community in a more active and meaningful role in their children’s education. It also provides recommendations for engaging the media in this effort and increasing the number and frequency of media reporting on the district’s recovery progress. 5. Engage Local, State and National Agencies It is critical to involve various local, state and national agencies in the district’s recovery; the engagement of state-recognized agencies and consultants in the assessment and recovery process emphasized this. The California Department of Education (CDE), city and county interests, and professional organizations have expressed a desire to assist and participate in the district’s recovery. Study Team The study team was composed of the following members: For FCMAT: Mary Barlow, Deputy Administrative Officer Diane Branham, Fiscal Intervention Specialist John Lotze, Public Information Specialist For Community Relations and Governance: Bill Gillaspie, FCMAT Chief Management Analyst Robert Rice, FCMAT Consultant For Personnel Management: Suzanne Speck, School Services of California For Pupil Achievement: Patricia Alexander, Administrator, Kern County Superintendent of Schools, Consultant 8 Introduction and Executive Summary Nancy Sullivan, Deputy Operations Officer, California School Information Systems (CSIS), Consultant Greig Welch, Assistant Superintendent, Paso Robles School District, Consultant Mary Barlow, FCMAT Deputy Administrative Officer For Financial Management: Diane Branham, FCMAT Fiscal Intervention Specialist Debi Deal, FCMAT Fiscal Intervention Specialist Julie Auvil, Chief Administrator of Business Services, Tehachapi Unified School District, Consultant For Facilities Management: Dean Bubar, Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services, Los Banos Unified School District, Consultant John Von Flue, FCMAT Fiscal Intervention Specialist Mary Barlow, FCMAT Deputy Administrative Officer Introduction and Executive Summary 9 10 Introduction and Executive Summary Executive Summary FCMAT’s assessment of the King City Joint Union High School District indicates that the district has made progress in every operational area although not in every standard. In a recovery model it is expected that the district will not make progress uniformly in all areas. The state administrator and district selected and focused on areas of the highest concern and dedicated a significant amount of resources to recovery in those areas. This second comprehensive review report measures progress on the selected 145 priority standards. It is evident that the district focused its efforts on achieving financial stability, specifically renegotiating the collective bargaining agreements. The district developed systems to hold staff accountable and track progress in some departments. Systems are in some phase of development; however they are not consistently communicated to the staff prior to implementation. Because many new issues arose during the review year, the district’s administration had to spend a considerable amount of time dealing with those issues while maintaining a focus on the recovery process. It is commendable that so much progress was achieved despite the continuing state budget concerns and newly emerging district issues. The district has adopted a proactive approach with regard to a number of outstanding concerns such as the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) accreditation, significant audit findings, program improvement status, coordinated program management findings, and seeking accreditation for the continuation high school and the newly opened independent study charter school. Prior to state intervention, in an effort to meet the expense of untenable collective bargaining agreements, the district substantially reduced management and classified staffing, eliminated professional development, and reduced the facility program to areas essential to the maintenance of basic health and safety standards. During this reporting period the district hired additional district and site administrative staff to rebuild infrastructure and systems to increase accountability. Although the district has provided increased opportunities for professional development, it has not yet implemented a comprehensive program based on an assessment of student outcomes. The district made progress in the facility program; in addition, the district has entered into contracts with independent consultants and has plans to progress in this area during the next reporting period. Employee morale remains low in some departments but has improved overall. The board, community, and staff recognize that positive change has and will continue to occur. However certain members of the district remain skeptical and expressed a belief that change was not sustainable and that once the state administrator departs, the district would return to the previous status. Internal and external communications are more consistent and frequent; however, communication needs to increase in frequency, modes, and audience so that staff, students, parents and the community understand the changes that are implemented and are apprised of the district’s progress toward recovery. In addition, this will strengthen the community’s and staff members’ understanding of the depth and span of changes, and the fact that those changes are systemic rather than isolated to the state administrator, district office and administration. The district has become more focused on the best interest of students, and decisions are based on student needs. More board meetings, staff meetings, and energy are directed toward student outcomes; however, employee issues including collective bargaining continue to require considerable administrative time. Introduction and Executive Summary 11 The district made significant gains in student achievement, which staff and administrators attribute to student effort and newly implemented incentives. The districtwide Annual Performance Index (API) is 689, an increase of 50 points from 2009. Although progress should be recognized and rewarded, the district’s API remains 57 points below the state average of 746 for high schools and 111 points below the state goal of 800. For the 2010-11 school year, the district increased the number of strategic and intervention classes to further improve student achievement. This report contains numerous findings and recommendations for recovery in five major operational areas. Prioritizing these recommendations and redirecting resources to address these issues will be essential to recovery. At the time of the initial comprehensive review the district lacked systems in almost all operational areas, and the few systems that were in place did not function effectively. During this second review FCMAT found evidence that the district was developing operational systems in many areas of district management. When any system change is implemented it is critical to provide strong guidance and monitoring through frequent communication to sustain momentum; however, in some cases FCMAT found that communication was lacking. A theme repeated throughout this report is the need to continue developing effective operational systems, building infrastructure and tools, and communicating and training staff throughout systems change implementation so that all responsible and affected staff understand their role and become committed to the systems change. 12 Introduction and Executive Summary Summaries of Findings and Recommendations in Five Operational Areas The full report includes all of the various findings and recommendations for fiscal and operational recovery in five operational areas. Each finding and recommendation addresses a previously identified professional or legal standard. Following is a summary of the major findings and recommendations for each operational area, which are presented in greater detail in the body of this report. This assessment is the product of data collection and analysis of the district’s status at a specific point in time. The ratings indicate the district’s status during the rating period of October 2009 through September 2010. Events subsequent to fieldwork are acknowledged but were not considered in the application of FCMAT’s rating rubric. The assessment team began work in September 2010 and concluded in November 2010. The formal report is scheduled for presentation to the district in March 2011. The district has addressed some preliminary findings reported during the assessment and is benefiting from the assessment team’s ongoing feedback. The district is also implementing some of the recommendations FCMAT provided in a separate maintenance, operations and transportation staffing and organizational review and in a food services review requested by the state administrator in October 2010. Introduction and Executive Summary 13 Community Relations and Governance The community relations and governance section of this report assessed the district based on 18 FCMAT standards in seven categories. The district received a mean rating of 2.83, with no standards not implemented; all 18 standards partially implemented, with a rating of one through seven; and no standards fully implemented, with a rating of eight through 10. The February 2010 average scaled score for the identified subset of priority standards was 0.89. The March 2011 average scaled score is 2.83, demonstrating significant improvement. Communications The initial comprehensive report identified board members’ limited experience, training, and knowledge in governance as factors contributing to the district’s need for intervention and as a significant hindrance to the district’s recovery. During this review period the district made substantial progress in providing essential training to board members in governance and communication. Board members more clearly understand their roles and responsibilities, and the extent of their authority as members of the board. Board meetings are held in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, and members and attendees follow board policies regarding communications. Board members’ external communications are limited to those areas of authority. Board members consult with the state administrator more regularly when they have a question about district policy, student or personnel issues. Board members generally refrain from speaking outside of their authority and refer matters to the state administrator. Communication is essential to the success of any organization. Although the state administrator has provided consistent communication with the staff through monthly newsletters, the frequency and scope of communication must increase to effect systems and culture change. With the addition of district office and other administrative staff, the district will now have the resources and time to commit to this important task. The district must develop a comprehensive plan that identifies goals for external and internal communications, target audiences, strategies for reaching those audiences, and an accountability system for monitoring and implementing the plan. Elements of the plan should include a system of communication protocols and procedures for ongoing and timely two-way communication between the district office and all staff. The district should establish advisory committees, such as a budget committee and a facilities management committee, that meet monthly to advise the district’s administrators and board regarding priorities and issues. The district should also schedule regular meetings with the media, employee organization representatives and administrative staff. During this reporting period the district revised its board vision statement to provide a framework to develop goals for student achievement. The district should establish, monitor and hold staff accountable for progress toward the stated goals. It should determine the effectiveness of implemented strategies and make adjustments based on an ongoing assessment of student outcomes. Finally, it should review and revise its vision statement annually to ensure that it is consistent with the recovery plan and based on the needs of students, staff and the community. Parent/Community Relations The district is beginning to make progress engaging parents and the community in supporting the schools. School site administrators increased the frequency and number of parent meetings, and the district improved its website to improve communications with parents. However, parents, the media and community members continued to express their need for more 14 Introduction and Executive Summary frequent communication from the district. During this review period the district reorganized two continuation high schools that had lost their accreditation by closing one, renaming and restructuring the other, and opening a new charter independent instruction school. This proactive and positive change provided students with more options to obtain their diploma. However the renaming of the continuation high school became a focal point for many community members and to some degree diminished the community’s perception of the positive changes occurring in the district. More extensive and engaged communications with the community may have facilitated the name change. The district has taken a proactive and systematic approach to reviewing and revising board policies. Board policies regarding community relations were revised, and although not yet fully implemented, the board now has a plan for involvement and an understanding of their role and responsibilities in this area, particularly with regard to public complaints outside of a board meeting. Training will need to be provided and reinforced as board membership changes. The board should receive ongoing training in building community relations. During this review period the board has engaged in more district and school functions; however, the board should develop a schedule to ensure that its members regularly attend district functions, and develop a plan to work collaboratively with local governments, agencies and school organizations on issues of mutual concern. The district should make a strategic effort to engage more students, parents and community members while ensuring that such efforts are aligned with district goals. During recovery the district should conduct regular forums with staff, parents and interested community members, and should engage local media in scheduled meetings, particularly when considering a change to district policy or longstanding practices that affect the larger community. There are many areas in which a community advisory committee would be beneficial to the district as well as facilitate communication between the community and the district. One such area is facilities use and development; the district should consider creating one advisory committee this fiscal year to facilitate this process. During this reporting period the district implemented the Parent Portal on the Aries student attendance system, providing parents and guardians with the opportunity to view student grades, attendance, and academic progress. The district’s Web site has been revised and is more comprehensive; however it still needs to provide more information about how parents can become involved in school activities. Community Collaboratives, LEA Advisory Committees and School Site Councils During this reporting period the district was focused in other operational areas and has not developed community collaboratives and local educational agency (LEA) advisory committees. The district’s school site councils are organized and conducted in accordance with legal requirements; however, the school site councils were not operational at the time of this review because of a lack of a quorum to confirm elections. The school site councils continued to experience difficulties obtaining timely and regular working budgets; however, they did receive formal training and operational guidelines. The district office needs to provide the school site councils with regular and timely budgets for categorical programs and ongoing training regarding their roles and responsibilities. The state administrator issued district goals for student outcomes in spring 2010. The district should revise its goals annually to align with this recovery plan. The board should be actively engaged in this process. There should be a clear link between the district’s goals and its recovery plan. Test scores and consequent outcome goals should be analyzed at both the district and site Introduction and Executive Summary 15 levels. The district should also form partnerships with feeder elementary districts and develop and implement a plan that aligns goals for student achievement and focuses on improved student outcomes. Policy The board is systematically updating board policies under the leadership of the state administrator, who addresses the review and update of board policies at each board meeting, and is using the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA’s) Gamut system as a guide in this process. The district is not using the Gamut online system to post new board policies, though it is posting its board policies on its website. In the past the district maintained only one board policy manual in the district office, and many policies and regulations were out of date. Board members and administrators are now involved in policy development, and they review and have copies of the new board policies. The policy development and review process should include meaningful input from the public, as well as a plan for communicating changes to board policy. The district provides training to administrative staff responsible for implementing new policies; however, perhaps because of the number of revised policies, the district has not consistently provided communication to staff members who are affected by policy change. The district should consider providing a summary of policy changes to staff members monthly with a link to the website where staff members can find and read the entire policy. Board Roles/Boardsmanship During the last reporting period the state administrator appointed one new member to the board. Board members regularly attend meetings, read board materials and come to meetings prepared. Board members engaged with FCMAT during site visits and had a better understanding of the fiscal recovery process and their role in it. The state administrator provided board members with direct instruction in boardsmanship and in differentiating the roles and responsibilities of the board and the district’s administration. Additional training was provided by the California School Boards Association (CSBA) regarding legal and professional duties and practices for effective governance. The board of trustees is beginning to meaningfully engage in public meetings and has participated in training to develop their capacity to perform their duties. Many of the district’s current problems originated with its current and former boards’ lack of consistent practices. A lack of training and an absence of understanding regarding board members’ roles and responsibilities contributed to the district’s fiscal crisis. The board had a history of not following its own adopted policies, including policies regarding collective bargaining and informal complaint procedures. The district must provide continual and ongoing training to current and new board members to ensure effective governance and recovery. Although the board does not currently have decision-making authority, the state administrator ensures that the board receives appropriate materials and information to facilitate informed discussion. When the board’s authority is restored, board members should be practiced in making decisions based on objective data. Most board members and staff understand the new role of the board and the state administrator. As the district implements the recovery plan it must continue to establish clear policies and protocols related to operations and oversight. The board and staff must understand their roles in all areas, and intervention must be immediate when board members or staff do not follow 16 Introduction and Executive Summary policies. The board should establish mechanisms to hold its members accountable for adhering to board policies and the state administrator’s decisions. Board Meetings Board meetings are held in a public forum and the entire board participates, but the state administrator has sole authority in all matters. The district has adopted a schedule of board meetings and a calendar for 2010-11 and has published and distributed this information throughout the district and to local media and the community. Board meeting agendas are posted in a timely manner and are consistent with legal requirements. Meetings include opportunities for public input, and both open public board meetings and closed sessions are conducted in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Board members review the meeting agenda and support materials prior to board meetings, and ask questions that illustrate their interest in and familiarity with the material. To be better prepared, board members contact the state administrator with any questions they may have regarding the material prior to the meeting. In the past, some board members did not contact the superintendent prior to the board meeting for answers to questions or clarification of board agenda items and were unprepared. Prior to the appointment of the state administrator, the board did not consistently adhere to Board Bylaw 9323, Meeting Conduct since revised and adopted September 9, 2009. During this review period the state administrator trained the board and the public attendees in the legal requirements and protocols of addressing and engaging the board during a public meeting. Board meetings are now orderly and provide an opportunity for public input and for the board to conduct its business. Introduction and Executive Summary 17 Personnel Management Introduction The district’s human resources department plays an important role in students’ academic and co-curricular success by providing an effective and efficient recruitment, selection, orientation and training program for all district employees. The personnel management section of the comprehensive report assessed the district based on 26 FCMAT priority standards in eight categories. The district received a mean rating of 2.69; one standard was not implemented; 25 standards were partially implemented, with a rating of one through seven; and no standards were fully implemented, with a rating of eight through 10. The human resources department has made measurable progress during the last reporting period. The February 2010 average scaled score for the subset of priority standards on which the department’s recovery plan is based was 0.92. The March 2011 average scaled score is 2.69, demonstrating significant improvement. One of the most noteworthy improvements was the successful negotiation of collective bargaining agreements with both classified and certificated staff. The state administrator and district staff meticulously reviewed every article in the collective bargaining agreements and determined priority articles. The extensive and engaged bargaining process required a significant commitment of the state administrator’s time and resources. However, the successful outcome resulted in a considerable improvement in the district fiscal solvency and ability to affect academic programs. The collective bargaining agreement with certificated employees maintains highly competitive salaries and benefits while facilitating implementation of the district’s fiscal recovery plan. Additional concessions in working conditions and the restoration of management flexibility through the elimination of restrictive contract language are still needed to ensure fiscal solvency and restore a commitment to quality educational programs that improve student outcomes. Because of the effect collective bargaining contracts have on the district’s budget, policy and academic and co-curricular programs, it is imperative that the district continue to address articles that impede management’s ability to address personnel and student issues. The state administrator has already identified articles that will be addressed when renegotiating. In the future the board will need to be more engaged in establishing the district’s bargaining goals. The state administrator and other members of the district’s bargaining team should meet regularly with the governing board to review the collective bargaining process and the continuing impact any proposal or agreement may have on the district’s budget and programs for students, so that when authority is returned to the district the board will better understand their role in the bargaining process. During this review period, individual board members refrained from any formal or informal involvement in the collective bargaining process. It is imperative that this practice continue and that board members understand that their role is to set goals for negotiations rather than to be directly involved in negotiations before the state returns the district to local governance. In August 2010, the district and its classified employees reached a mediated agreement on a number of contract provisions. The district reached an agreement with its certificated employee bargaining group and the contract was approved by the board in December 2010. The district’s ability to manage operations continues to be constrained by certificated and classified employee 18 Introduction and Executive Summary bargaining agreement language that provides overly generous benefits or that is overly restrictive. The district has a long history of providing a higher level of staffing than is required by the collective bargaining agreement with certificated employees. This overstaffing has been costly and largely unnecessary. New language in the certificated employee bargaining agreement provides a higher per-period maximum and increased daily student contacts. However, despite these changes and a concerted effort by the district to reduce staffing at schools for the 2010-11 school year, some overstaffing persists, and it is exacerbated by declining enrollment. At the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork more than one month into the school year, changes to the master schedule were still being made. The district needs to have a well coordinated enrollment and staffing plan that provides for early involvement by the human resources, educational services, and business services departments. All departments must work closely together to ensure that layoffs and hiring match the district’s needs and that schools are efficiently staffed. This process should begin no later than January of each year. The district has made measurable progress in the area of leave management, largely as a result of negotiated changes to bargaining agreements. Successful negotiation resulted in revisions to the certificated staff collective bargaining agreement that eliminate leave entitlements in excess of those provided for by law. Vacation and compensatory time must be tracked and closely monitored. During the reporting period, the state administrator addressed compensatory time anomalies and payouts that represented a costly liability to the district. The district began requiring that all staff receive administrative approval before accruing compensatory or overtime hours; however, this practice has not been fully developed with written policies adopted and communicated to all staff and administrators. FCMAT found incidents of continued unauthorized accrual of compensatory time. The district needs to develop and communicate to supervisors guidelines that provide a system of accountability. This system should include a secondary administrative review of compensatory time requests by district administration. Communications: Internal/External In June 2010 the district hired an assistant superintendent of educational service/human resources, who has been identified as the chief personnel officer and is now responsible for supervising and directing the department. This shifts the responsibility for the department from the state administrator and chief business official to the assistant superintendent of educational services. However, this change does not represent an increase in department staffing. The human resources department consists of the human resources manager and a receptionist who also serves as clerical support. The human resources manager is a member of the superintendent’s cabinet, which meets weekly. The human resources department now communicates with district staff members regarding issues of importance to employees, such as employee benefits, tax sheltered annuities and new federal and state regulations. Communication should be more consistent and the use of technology will allow the department to communicate more effectively. Current staffing levels significantly limit the department’s ability to invest time in developing and implementing written procedures for essential personnel functions. Without additional staffing, or short-term employees or consultants to complete major projects, it will be difficult for the department to fully implement the recovery plan. The thoughtful articulation of procedures and the creation of desk manuals are likely to be secondary to day-to-day operations. While written procedures and desk manuals are critical to the sustainability of needed improvements, they will be difficult to develop unless there is additional staffing. The district should consider conducting Introduction and Executive Summary 19 a comparative analysis of staffing levels in human resources to determine an appropriate level of staffing, and provide additional staffing as needed and as the budget permits during the recovery period. Employee Recruitment and Selection The district has continued to improve in meeting the legal requirements that teachers be properly credentialed in the subject matter being taught and receive certain certifications (such as the cross-cultural, language and academic development certificate, or CLAD). The district also complies with legal requirements regarding fingerprinting, tuberculosis testing, and filing complaints related to teacher misassignments or vacancies. The district needs to develop a written, comprehensive recruitment plan for administrators, teachers and support staff, as well as written procedures for the selection and hiring of certificated and classified staff. During this review period the district hired administrative, certificated and classified staff. It is a challenge for so few staff members to recruit, screen, interview, check backgrounds and select candidates. A comprehensive plan would provide the guidance, formal procedures and forms needed to complete this process in an effective and timely manner to select the most highly qualified candidates. Induction and Professional Development During this reporting period the human resources department developed an orientation program for new certificated and classified employees. Orientation meetings for each group were conducted separately; each group received information and materials specific to their employment classification. The orientation meetings introduced district office staff to new staff and included an overview of human resource services, salary and benefits, absence reporting, workers compensation procedures and other relevant topics. The department should continue to provide orientation as part of new employee induction. As part of the new employee induction in future years, the district needs to also ensure that it meets the needs of new employees by soliciting participant feedback. The district is beginning to implement professional development for all employees on topics related to federal and state laws, such as sexual harassment training for supervisors, reporting of sexual harassment, diversity, and child abuse reporting. The district should continue this effort to provide ongoing professional development for all employees districtwide, including substitutes. Evaluation/Due Process Assistance In addition to concessions in certificated employee compensation, the district also negotiated a change to the evaluation process and criteria, which can positively affect classroom instruction. The district has developed a system to monitor certificated, classified and management evaluations to ensure that they are completed on time and are consistent with language in the collective bargaining agreements and employee contracts. The district provided administrators and classified managers with an overview of new evaluation processes and forms and newly negotiated collective bargaining agreement articles on leaves. However, not all management staff attended this training and some were uncertain about some aspects of the new agreements. A more comprehensive training will be required to ensure that new practices and policies are consistently implemented and applied. The district needs to continue to place a much greater emphasis on employee evaluations as a tool to improve performance. The district should provide 20 Introduction and Executive Summary support to management staff as they proceed with evaluations that indicate improvement is needed. Use of Technology Successfully staffing school sites and effectively monitoring position control will facilitate the district’s fiscal recovery. Unfortunately, the district’s ability to successfully implement and monitor position control is constrained by the financial system currently in use by the Monterey County Office of Education. The county office has issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a new financial system, and the district will participate in selection of the new system. In the interim, the district’s human resources and business services departments will continue to rely on multiple and separate manual systems to capture and monitor required data such as credentialing, seniority and demographics. In the January 2010 report, FCMAT recommended that the department invest in training related to the existing financial system; however, training for a system that will soon be replaced is not recommended at this time. After a new system is selected, the district should ensure that it is fully implemented. This will require considerable training and support. Given existing staffing levels, the human resources department may need short-term assistance during this time to ensure that day-to-day operations do not suffer. Operational Procedures The human resources department staff have attended professional development workshops to stay abreast of new federal and state laws and regulations related to personnel issues. In addition, the human resources manager is enrolled in the Association of California School Administrators’ (ACSA) personnel academy. The district still lacks procedural manuals. The district needs to develop and maintain a manual for all functions in the human resources department and distribute it to all district-level staff, site administrators and managers so that procedures are implemented consistently. The manual should clearly explain policies and procedures for leaves, salary placement, overtime approval, use of substitutes and other functions. As stated earlier, the district may not currently have the staff resources needed to address this goal until other higher priorities are complete. State and Federal Compliance The district acknowledges that it still lacks job descriptions for some positions and has outdated job descriptions for most other positions. The district has established a process for developing new job descriptions when new positions are created; however, the district needs to revise existing job descriptions for all positions. Because of limited staff, the district may need to hire an outside consultant to accomplish this. Introduction and Executive Summary 21 Pupil Achievement The FCMAT pupil achievement team assessed progress on 32 priority standards in six categories (planning process, curriculum, instructional strategies, assessment and accountability, professional development, and data management/student information systems). Priority standards selected were those that will have the greatest impact on improving student achievement. The mean rating for the subset of priority standards in the February 2010 comprehensive report was 1.38. The mean rating on the standards in this March 2011 review is 1.87. One standard was not implemented; 31 standards were partially implemented, with a rating of one through seven; and no standards were fully implemented, with a rating of eight through 10. The district focused primarily on fiscal and personnel issues during the first year of the recovery plan’s implementation. Minimal progress was made on pupil achievement standards, as indicated by the small change in mean rating. The pupil achievement report for this second comprehensive review reiterates many of the recommendations from the initial comprehensive review but also provides additional detail and prioritized recommendations. The 2010 state testing results show districtwide and schoolwide growth for all students as a group on the California Standards Test (CST) and California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). However, the disaggregated results show that even though subgroups made gains, a significant gap in achievement remains for English learners and students with disabilities. The districtwide API is 689, an increase of 50 points from 2009. This progress should be recognized and rewarded; however, the district’s API remains 57 points below the state average of 746 for high schools and 111 points below the state goal of 800. The 2010 districtwide API for English learners is 657, an increase from the 2009 API of 621. The 2010 districtwide API for students with disabilities is 462, an increase from the 2009 API of 438. The CAHSEE results show the same gap in achievement for these groups. The 10th grade CAHSEE results for the 2009-10 school year indicate a districtwide passing rate of 72% in math and 69% in English language arts (ELA). However, the disaggregated data show that the passing rate for English learners was 48% in math and 30% in ELA, while students with disabilities had a passing rate of 41% in math and 39% in ELA. Only 15 of the 270 English learner students who took the CST/ELA scored at a level of proficient or better, and only four of the 140 English learner students who took the Algebra I CST scored at a level of proficient or better. The odds for these students, and all other students at Kings City Joint Union High School District, can be changed. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) recently released a report titled Changing the Odds for Student Success: What Matters Most, which outlines areas that, when addressed properly, are most likely to have positive effects on student success. A copy of this report can be downloaded at www.changetheodds.org. The following four topics recur throughout the pupil achievement findings. The pupil achievement recommendations address many of the areas that are also the focus of a report titled, Changing the Odds for Student Success: What Matters Most and suggests actions to help change the odds for student success at King City Joint Union High School District. Systems The district does not yet have a unified approach and systems in place to guide its work in the area of pupil achievement. Some board policies and administrative regulations in this area are being revised systematically, but they either do not provide the framework for communicating standardized and high expectations to staff and students or they are not communicated to staff. 22 Introduction and Executive Summary The district has aligned textbooks and some course descriptions between school sites; however, much work remains in this area. Written fiscal policies still do not include an allocation plan that is aligned with student achievement outcomes and instructional goals, and current policy does not reference the essential program components (EPCs), which are the foundation for implementing state accountability measures. School site goals are more closely aligned with district goals in plans but not consistently in practice. Improvement efforts remain school-centered or isolated by department or classroom rather than unified with a districtwide approach. In the past, individual teachers were allowed to set their own grading policies, and staff and students reported that grading practices varied greatly among teachers. During this reporting period the district adopted grading policies and practices to guide staff regarding the elements that should be included in grading. This created alignment across the district. With the addition of the newly hired assistant superintendent of educational services/human resources, the district now has the expertise and resources to develop a unified approach and the systems to guide pupil achievement efforts. The district successfully negotiated additional minutes in the schedule to provide collaboration time for teachers, which provides an opportunity to better align improvement efforts. Strong systems can establish, promote and consistently communicate high expectations for learning as well as accountability for results. Systems must be supported by policies, procedures, and practices. To concentrate the time and resources needed to ensure high levels of student achievement, the district must develop, formalize and implement policies, procedures and practices that communicate to all employees, students, families and community members the district’s purpose and goals and the process by which those goals will be accomplished. It is the district’s leaders’ responsibility to see that policies, procedures and practices are developed that support student success and to eliminate those practices that have developed for the convenience of the adults in the system. It is also the responsibility of leadership to see that policies, procedures and practices are developed and implemented in an atmosphere of open communication and collaboration. District leaders must constantly and consistently monitor the implementation of policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that systems are working, and must act when they are not. A High Quality Instructional Program for All Students During this reporting period, monitoring of classroom instruction was inconsistent across the district. Some administrators monitored classroom instruction and provided feedback, and some progress was made in developing pacing calendars. However, the district made little progress developing common assessments, which are critical to monitoring student achievement and the results of which should be used to help improve instruction. During the reporting period, lessons plans were not regularly reviewed by administrators, and accountability was minimal. The district’s highest priority should be to ensure that every student in the district has access to appropriate and high quality instruction in every classroom, every day. The state administrator replaced the principals at both comprehensive high schools and hired two new principals and three new assistant principals for the 2010-11 school year. At the time of FCMAT’s review the new administrators has been in place for two months. The leadership behavior that best helps improve student achievement is to invest time and resources in developing teachers. Research clearly and conclusively indicates that what has Introduction and Executive Summary 23 the greatest impact on learning is the presence of a teacher in every classroom who has high expectations for all students, has developed positive relationships with their students, and intentionally uses a wide repertoire of teaching strategies. District and site administrators need to monitor classrooms systematically to ensure that these behaviors are occurring every day in every classroom. When this is not happening, the teacher should be given specific feedback and the support needed to improve. This may include training, mentoring, modeling and other resources. The low performance of the majority of English learner and special education students must be addressed with urgency. The majority of these students are performing at the basic, below basic, and far below basic levels. Because the district has a large student population of English learners, every teacher needs to be prepared to support English learners with appropriate teaching strategies that will change the odds for these students. District and site administrators need to monitor the support being provided by conducting frequent classroom observations. English language development training for all teachers and administrators is essential; it cannot be left only to the intervention class teachers. During this reporting period, the district returned special education programs and services from operation by the Monterey County Office of Education to district operation. Facilities, equipment, and curriculum materials were coordinated, IEPs were legally held, and parents were notified. However, the district had some difficulty with the transition, including acquiring all the appropriate services for students with special needs and coordinating student placement. The district also decided to mainstream students in regular education classrooms. In the past students had been served in a more restrictive environment. However this was not fully planned and articulated to the regular education teachers, and in many cases students were mainstreamed in classrooms without conducting a conference and review of the student’s IEP with the general education teacher. At the time of fieldwork, special education student placement was still being resolved, and some regular education teachers felt ill-equipped to meet the needs of these students. Because of the change in the placement of special education students, teachers need to receive training and support in the specific strategies that will ensure that these students are successful in a mainstream setting. FCMAT found little evidence of effectively functioning professional learning communities (PLCs), though this may have been due in part to the fieldwork being conducted early in the school year. The collaboration time scheduled for the 2010-11 school year presents a significant opportunity and can be a key factor in student success if used to improve instruction. To make this time productive and improve results for teachers and students, a well-planned system of local and state assessments must be established. Currently, the schools depend heavily on state assessments, with a variety of independent assessments by individual teacher or by department on each campus, and with little accountability for implementation. The district is currently using the SChoolPlan data and assessment system but has made little progress training staff in this system’s use or in loading additional assessments into the system. It is imperative that the district fully implement a data management system that is current, accessible, and includes results of all assessment, including the California English Language Development Test (CELDT), CST, CAHSEE, district benchmark assessments and other common assessments. The district should ensure that all instructional staff and administrators understand how to read and interpret data and use results to help improve instruction. Clear guidance about how to use collaboration time and outcomes of collaboration time should be communicated to certificated staff. Student data, including results of state testing, common benchmarks and formative assessments, should be 24 Introduction and Executive Summary reviewed and analyzed during this time. In addition collaboration time should be used to review successful instructional strategies that can be replicated, discuss readings from experts in the field, and change instructional strategies to meet student needs. Site and district administrators should participate in and monitor the use of collaboration time to maximize effectiveness. Accountability Well-developed plans and directives are necessary but will not affect student achievement unless they are implemented. Although the district has made progress by developing collaboration time and revising other plans, it needs to make progress implementing the pupil achievement recommendations in the first comprehensive review report. Because professional development is a substantial investment of time, resources, and energy, it is critical that it address identified needs and focus on teaching and learning, and that its implementation be monitored. Monitoring includes identifying additional support and training that may be needed to ensure successful implementation. Monitoring also holds people accountable for implementing what they have learned. For example, if the district provides teachers with training in specially designated academic instruction in English (SDAIE), administrators should monitor classrooms to ensure that teachers are implementing the training. If administrators are trained in conducting classroom walk-throughs, hold them accountable for regularly conducting them; hold the district office accountable for providing student achievement data in a timely manner and keeping the data management system current. The district has made some progress in developing pacing calendars. Pacing calendars and classroom instruction should be monitored regularly to ensure that all students are given the time and opportunity to learn the course-specific standards assessed on the CST and the CAHSEE. Grades should be evaluated and teachers should be held accountable for following newly established grading practices. Everyone in the district needs to be held accountable for his or her role in ensuring the academic success of every student. It is equally important that everyone in the system believe that success is possible; district leaders play a key role in modeling this behavior. Leadership Study after study shows the impact of effective leadership on school and student success. It is critical that every administrator in the district stay current on research regarding the role of leadership in the continuous improvement of schools. Examples of recent research include Professional Learning Communities, the McREL study referenced above, and work by educational experts Douglas Reeves and Michael Fullan. During this reporting period the district redesigned the administrative leadership team. The district hired an assistant superintendent of human resources/educational services, two new principals at each comprehensive high school, and three new assistant principles. It is essential that the new administrative team provide the leadership necessary to make improving student achievement a priority. District and site leaders should be held responsible for implementing policies, practices, and procedures that support the common elements found in highly effective schools. Leaders in highly effective schools and districts develop clear statements of mission and a vision of what the schools can be, and have a commitment to carry out the mission. They ensure that everyone in the system knows what students are to learn and have high expectations for the success of all students. Leaders develop and support a system of assessment and data Introduction and Executive Summary 25 management to ensure that every student is learning. They have systems in place to ensure that students receive additional time and support for learning, and they have a plan for enrichment and extended learning for students who are already proficient. They recognize and celebrate success. District and site leaders need to take responsibility for engaging parents and community members in supporting student success. There needs to be open and systematic communication with parents and community members that makes them feel that they are welcome, valued and given a meaningful role in improving student achievement. There are districts and schools across the state that are similar to King City Joint Union High School District in demographics and that are making great strides in improving achievement for all of their students. The district should develop a team of teacher leaders to visit high- performing schools with similar demographics and determine practices and strategies that could be replicated to help increase student success. This report provides prioritized recommendations that when implemented can result in a highly effective professional learning community. Structured visits to high-achieving districts will help staff gain a broader perspective on what is possible and better prepare staff to implement the recommendations contained in this report. 26 Introduction and Executive Summary Financial Management The financial management section of the comprehensive report assessed the district based on 41 FCMAT standards in 18 categories. The district received a mean rating of 2.95 with five standards not implemented; 36 standards partially implemented, with a rating of one through seven; and no standards fully implemented, with a rating of eight through 10. The February 2010 average scaled score for the subset of priority standards was 1.54. The March 2011 scaled score is 2.95, indicating improvement. The King City Joint Union High School District’s financial condition has been developing for many years because of deficit spending, declining enrollment and state budget reductions. In June 2009, the state Legislature approved a $13 million emergency loan for the district. Of the $13 million, the district drew $5 million in fiscal year 2009-10. The district’s most recent general fund cash flow projection, dated September 26, 2010, indicates that the district will draw another $3.5 million in fiscal year 2010-11, $2.5 million in 2011-12, and the remaining $2 million in 2012-13. Ultimately, the $13 million King City Joint Union High School district loan was funded through a bond sale through the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I Bank). Unlike other state loans, however, King City was not held harmless from the costs of financing and increased interest associated with the bond sale. The King City Joint Union High School district loan carries an interest rate of 5.44%. The state loan has a repayment period of 20 years and includes an annual debt service payment of approximately $1.24 million beginning in 2010-11. The annual debt service payment is approximately 10% of the district’s projected unrestricted general fund revenue in fiscal year 2010-11. Although there are no standards for the amount of unfunded debt that is considered prudent for California school districts, debt service payments in the range of one to two percent of the unrestricted general fund revenues are typically considered reasonable. Any long-term debt that the district must pay out of the unrestricted general fund is considered unfunded because it requires the use of resources typically dedicated to the current costs of education, such as salaries, supplies and services. Although most districts are able to fund some long-term debt out of their general fund, a debt service payment of 10% of the unrestricted general fund revenue will be extremely difficult to maintain. In addition, although the district does have the option to defease (that is, secure with other collateral) or prepay the bonds, in order to do so, the district would need the cash at the beginning to set aside in an escrow account in an amount sufficient to pay debt service on the bonds on the normal maturity schedule as well as funds to cover additional costs for legal counsel, trustee and financial advisor services, and possibly a fee from I-Bank related to setting up the escrow account. In comparison to other districts with state loans, the King City Joint Union High School District bears an increased burden in financing and repayment of their state loan because it is not held harmless from the costs associated with financing, and the loan carries a significantly higher interest rate. For point of reference, the CDE lists the terms of previous state loans on its website at http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fi/ir/loanlist.asp. In addition, while the King City loan carries no prepayment penalty per se, the district would be responsible to cover the costs of defeasance in order to prepay, which could be significant and would diminish any benefit of interest savings sought through prepayment. The ongoing costs to the district’s general fund to cover the annual debt service payment and the high costs associated with prepayment constrain the district’s fiscal recovery efforts. The district will need a solution such as restructuring of the loan, or an amendment to SB 130. Introduction and Executive Summary 27 During this review period, the district settled negotiations with its certificated and classified employee bargaining units for July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013. The public disclosure documents prepared for these settlement agreements indicate a savings of approximately $2.27 million for fiscal year 2010-11 and show progress toward fiscal recovery. However, the 2012-13 multiyear financial projection continues to include a negative general fund ending balance. Thus, the district still has a significant amount of work to do to ensure that its budget is structurally balanced. Negotiated concessions in the collective bargaining agreement resulted in an increase of three school days, bringing the total contract year to 183 days for existing employees and 184 for all new hires, Certificated salary schedules were reduced by 9%, and steps and columns were frozen at the fiscal year 2010-11 level through fiscal year 2012-13. For fiscal year 2009-10, the district’s health benefit costs were $10,693 for an individual, $16,479 for two parties and $23,363 for a family. Under the new collective bargaining agreements and agreements regarding administrator compensation, health and welfare benefits were capped at $10,000 for all employees. Employees could select from a menu of new plans or elect to remain on the existing plan by paying the difference between the cost of the plan and the district cap. In addition, the district eliminated a certificated staff annual stipend of $1,225 to a tax- deferred annuity and a similar payment for administrators, a $550 annual payment to certificated staff who have cross-cultural language and academic development (CLAD) certification, and $122 in district-paid life insurance premiums for all employees. Stipends for additional duties were also reduced or eliminated. The district also eliminated the district-paid tax-deferred annuity benefit for classified staff, eliminated its payment of the employee portion of PERS contributions, reduced the classified salary schedule by 2%, and froze salary increases for two years. The district has made significant progress in the training provided to board members, including providing training regarding the board’s fiduciary responsibilities, providing online ethics training through the California Fair Political Practices Commission, and participation in the CSBA’s Masters in Governance training program. District staff members have provided the board with monthly budget information as well as a budget workshop in June 2010, which has helped to further educate members regarding the district’s finances. Interviews with staff from the Monterey County Office of Education indicate that the district is providing the county office with budget information that is timely and more accurate. The district’s business department consists of two employees: the interim chief business official and the interim fiscal services manager, both of whom are retired from other educational agencies and have extensive experience in school business. However, because of the California Public Employee Retirement System’s (CalPERS) restrictions regarding the number of hours that retirees may work, these employees will not be able to continue with the district in their current roles after approximately December 2010 and January 2011, respectively. In addition, the district’s organizational chart includes two 11-month per year fiscal services technician positions. During FCMAT’s fieldwork the positions were changed to two year-round budget and accounting coordinator positions with a higher pay rate to increase the number of qualified applicants. One of the accounting coordinator positions was filled during FCMAT’s fieldwork, but the district has not received applications for the other position or for the position of chief business official (CBO, formerly director of fiscal services). It is imperative that the district increase its efforts to find qualified individuals to fill these positions permanently so that progress made thus far is not lost. 28 Introduction and Executive Summary Following FCMAT’s fieldwork, the district changed its business department staffing to include one CBO and two 12-month per year budget and accounting coordinator positions, one of which was filled. However, this plan did not come to fruition. As of the time of this report’s publication, the district’s business office is staffed with a CBO and two 12-month per year fiscal services manager positions, one of which has been filled. Communication Site and department staff members indicate that communication with the business department has improved and information is being provided in writing or verbally. However, site administrators and department managers have been provided with minimal formal training related to business functions such as budget development, account coding, processes and procedures, and the Financial Management System (FMS) program’s capabilities. Because there are a significant number of new administrative staff and newly implemented processes and procedures, it will be important for the business department to create a professional development plan for staff training. District office and school site attendance accounting staff members have been with the district for several years and are knowledgeable regarding the district’s student attendance system. The district implemented procedures to increase student attendance; updated internal forms; provided guidance on uniform codes to use in the Aeries student information system; and conducted trainings to ensure that staff consistently follow proper attendance procedures. The district has also hired a bilingual/bicultural truancy specialist to work with parents, guardians and the Monterey County district attorney’s office. The district has opened the South Monterey County Charter Independent Study School. The charter school’s attendance is completed on Excel spreadsheets; however, the district should use the Aeries system for all attendance reporting. Associated Student Body The district has centralized associated student body (ASB) operations at the district office. However, the district did not develop a detailed plan prior to centralization to ensure that internal controls are maintained and that the district continues to comply with regulations related to ASB. As a result, the comprehensive high school sites are out of compliance with many regulations, internal controls and generally accepted accounting principles. In addition, the district has not adopted board policies and administrative regulations that govern student body activities at school sites. Food Services The district began operating its own food service program in fiscal year 2010-11. The district contracted with a private food service vendor and hired a food and nutritional services manager and nine food service workers. However, the application for funding was not submitted to the California Department of Education’s nutrition services division. As a result, the district will lose several months of funding for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program, requiring a substantial contribution from the unrestricted general fund to the cafeteria fund. The district is working with a team of consultants to rectify the issues involved, and a separate subsequent report will be issued following the analysis and conclusion of the consultants’ work. Introduction and Executive Summary 29 Facilities Management The facilities management section of the comprehensive report assessed the district based on 27 FCMAT standards in nine categories. The district received a mean rating of 2.15, with four standards not implemented; 23 standards partially implemented, with a rating of one through seven; and no standards fully implemented, with a rating of eight through 10. The January 2010 average scaled score for the subset of priority standards was 1.04. The March 2011 scaled score is 2.15, indicating improvement. FCMAT inspected all school and district facilities and grounds to assess their general condition; interviewed district and site staff, board members, staff of the Monterey County Office of Education, parents, and community members; and reviewed district documents and board policies. Leadership The district employs one full-time director of maintenance, operations, grounds and transportation, who is responsible for management and oversight of all maintenance, custodial and grounds staff, and the home-to-school transportation program, including bus repair and maintenance. This is consistent with high school districts of similar size and structure. The director is also responsible for developing and implementing all of the district’s regulatory and legal compliance programs, which remain deficient in several areas. The MOT department continues to be challenged with a lack of accountability and knowledgeable leadership. This has resulted in persistent inconsistent policy administration and an absence of planning and coordination in facility operations. In addition, the lack of knowledgeable leadership has made it more challenging to develop procedures to improve the department’s efficiency and effectiveness. The new state administrator brought stability to the district and department, and most employees interviewed viewed this as a positive step forward. The district has made efforts to provide training and clerical support to the department to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Both comprehensive high school sites received a rating of “Fair” on their recent Williams Facility Inspection Tool (FIT) reports, indicating that 10% to 20% of the areas evaluated were in poor repair and that some deficiencies were critical and/or widespread. The grounds at each site show signs of neglect, particularly at King City High School. Several deficiencies were identified during previous inspections conducted by the Monterey County Office of Education and during FCMAT’s field work, including trip hazards and standing water that could cause a slip and fall accident and injury. These deficiencies were noted in several previous reports and had still not been repaired at the time of fieldwork for this report. It is imperative that the district support the department director by helping this individual attain the knowledge and skills necessary to bring the MOTF departments into compliance with all regulations. The district could be held legally and financially responsible for health and safety issues and for areas in which the department is out of compliance. The state administrator requested a separate FCMAT management review of the MOTF department to rectify the issues involved, and a separate subsequent report will be issued following the conclusion of work and analysis. 30 Introduction and Executive Summary Staffing The first comprehensive review reported that the MOTF department was understaffed and cited several health and safety issues. The district recognizes the need to increase MOTF staffing, but it is constrained by the state budget, declining enrollment and diminishing general funds. Based on the information provided by the district, the custodial department remains staffed at approximately 60% of generally accepted standards when measured by the CASBO statewide custodial formula. The CASBO formula factors in the square footage of sites and the number of students, staff, classrooms, offices and general purpose areas. MOTF department staff members usually perform multiple duties that include building maintenance, grounds maintenance, custodial service, bus driving and vehicle maintenance. Most MOTF staff members hold a California special certificate valid for driving a school bus. Seven staff members regularly drive a school bus route as a part of their daily duties, and others who hold the school bus certificate drive as substitutes or on field trips. The utility position usually performs grounds work and some custodial work. Splitting job assignments is often a byproduct of insufficient funding and is not generally viewed as an effective means to fulfill the department’s work and responsibilities. Ideally, the district should be staffed according to standards used in other school agencies of similar size and type, and in accordance with generally accepted theories of organizational structure. Reorganizing and creating full-time maintenance, custodial, and grounds positions, hiring part-time bus drivers, and hiring additional custodial staff will allow personnel to focus on their area of expertise. This will increase accountability and ownership and should also help better address some of the health and safety issues. In addition to reviewing staffing, the district should conduct a review of custodian, bus driver, groundskeeper and maintenance job descriptions to align roles and responsibilities with the appropriate positions and redistribute the workload as needed. Staffing and reorganization are addressed in a subsequent report that will be issued under separate cover. Administrative support and resources will be essential to successfully restructuring the department and providing the leadership and technical guidance required to position the district to improve facilities and develop a comprehensive facility master plan. Maintenance, Custodial and Groundskeeping The district uses an automated work order system called Help Desk that tracks work requests and their status, but the system is still not used to assign staff, forecast supply and equipment needs, or plan for preventive maintenance projects. The district routes all work orders directly to the maintenance worker assigned to that site. This appears to be a basic work order system that allows any staff member to generate a work request from any location. However, the district has no formal procedure for prioritizing and assigning work requests. In addition, the computer used to track and print work requests is shared by several district employees and with employees of King City Elementary School District who also occupy the facilities. The director of MOTF should research options for implementing a more formal work order system such as School Dude or Maintenance Tracker. A software program designed for maintenance and operations can track preventive maintenance scheduling, safety meetings, asbestos inspections and many other items. Work order systems can be established that route all requests from staff to the building administrator (such as the school principal or district chief business official) for approval prior to submission to the MOTF director. This reduces Introduction and Executive Summary 31 unnecessary work requests and duplications and increases communication between the MOTF department and the administration. Most work order systems allow staff to track the progress on their request, which increases accountability. Establishing this protocol with the work request process would improve the MOTF department’s ability to become more efficient and effective in prioritizing and responding to the district’s needs. The district has no formal or written plan for scheduled preventive maintenance. A preventive maintenance plan should include a database of buildings and equipment that may require ongoing preventive maintenance and repair. A preventive maintenance plan would typically include purchase prices, anticipated life expectancies, replacement schedules and budget information needed to implement the program. Without a scheduled preventive maintenance program, the MOTF department must provide emergency response, leaving little time for scheduled preventive maintenance. Developing a comprehensive written preventive maintenance plan should be a top priority, and the district should improve the work order system to include scheduling of preventive maintenance work. Daytime custodians are not assigned to either high school to respond to immediate needs in case of student illness or injury, or to clean up hazardous fluid or deal with blood-borne pathogens. The staffing shortage in the MOTF department has significantly affected the condition and cleanliness of school sites. Although the custodial continue to have a positive attitude in their work efforts, the negative impact of the heavy workload is considerable. Despite understaffing, the district needs to develop systems and procedures for cleaning schools to an acceptable standard. The district has not developed an inventory of its equipment, vehicles and facilities, and the district does not maintain a facilities inspection and maintenance program as required by Board Policy 3517. In January 2010, the district adopted Board policy 3270, which authorizes a process for declaring equipment and supplies obsolete and disposing of them. However, FCMAT found many instances of disorganized work facilities, missing equipment and lack of inventory control. Training and Safety The district is beginning to provide training to MOTF department staff but remains out of compliance in a number of areas related to health and safety. FCMAT found no current written district policies or procedures regarding training, safety issues or department protocols. Sufficiently training employees in the responsibilities of their respective positions helps ensure that they will be successful. The district should immediately develop a thorough, standard training program to bring the department into compliance with federal, state and local regulations. Consistent, standardized initial and ongoing training for all maintenance and operations staff should be a part of this program. In addition the director should conduct a monthly safety meeting for all MOTF department staff to improve communication and education and to resolve issues as they arise. School Safety The district has made progress in this area. The district contracted with a consultant to conduct a campuswide inventory of hazardous substances and develop a systematic process for collecting and referencing material safety data sheets (MSDS). The district has updated its MSDS and maintains copies in more locations. It has also updated board policies to recognize workplace 32 Introduction and Executive Summary hazards and training needs; disposed of many chemicals; commissioned an inspection and survey to identify safety issues; and raised employee awareness regarding hazardous materials. The district also replaced and rekeyed locks at both high schools and implemented a more stringent key control system and procedures. However, adherence to the newly implemented key control policy may be jeopardized by a lack of oversight. The district does not have a designated safety officer who is responsible for developing safety policies and training employees. In March 2010, the board adopted policies and administrative regulations 4157, 4257 and 4357, which address an IIPP. However, the district still lacks an IIPP, proper documentation for the care and disposal of asbestos, and proper storage and filing of MSDS sheets. The district should work with the Monterey County Office of Education and its insurance carrier to develop an IIPP that is in accordance with Senate Bill 198 and the district’s recently passed board polices. Lack of Documented Processes The district still lacks written policies and procedures that clearly state its expectations regarding campus safety and the condition of its physical plants. The district is reviewing or revising board policies and administrative regulations regarding facilities maintenance and health and safety standards. The MOTF department does not have a policies and procedures manual. Inconsistent operating procedures have created systemwide weaknesses in the department, and inconsistent evaluations of staff have led to a lack of accountability and understanding regarding the district’s expectations for campus cleanliness and care. A manual should be developed to provide employees with consistent and clear policies to follow. The manual should outline legal and procedural mandates to ensure the department’s compliance and optimal functioning. Physical Plant The district’s primary issue in the area of facilities is its inability to properly maintain them. The location, general appearance and function of the district’s campuses are conducive to learning. The facilities are not overcrowded and there is capacity for student growth. However, the district still has several nonconforming buildings that do not meet the requirements of the Field Act. The district has not determined which buildings are nonconforming, nor has it determined whether it has obtained waivers. The district has not inventoried its sites as recommended in the previous comprehensive review. The district still has relocatable buildings at each site that appear to have been built without an architect or state approval. The district has not located any records or documents indicating that these structures meet statutory requirements. The director of MOTF should arrange to have assessments completed on building roof systems, paving needs, painting requirements, asbestos removal, HVAC replacement requirements, and other facilities items. The director should prioritize projects and develop a five-year plan to correct system deficiencies. The district has completed construction of a new building for its district office. The previous building was in extremely poor condition and had documented mold and health and safety issues. Introduction and Executive Summary 33 Fiscal Issues The district’s financial difficulties have led to significant reductions in staff. For the district to recover in the area of facilities, it is essential for MOTF department staffing to be maintained at levels adequate to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations and standards. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) statement 34 requires that the district complete and maintain a fixed asset record for accounting purposes. The district implemented fixed asset accounting in fiscal year 2001-02 but has failed to properly maintain records of additions and deletions. The procedures and reporting time lines for fixed assets should be updated, revised and distributed to all departments. The MOTF department should be responsible for maintaining a current record of the department’s equipment and coordinating with the business office to maintain a record of fixed assets. The department has not established standard protocols for procuring equipment and materials. It does not maintain an inventory of stock materials, and there is also no inventory control of department tools or materials. The district’s maintenance workers spend much of their time obtaining parts and materials for their work projects, which is an inefficient use of employee time. Facilities Planning and Construction The district has hired TSS Consultants, a school facilities consulting firm, to develop a comprehensive school facilities master plan. The plan will include a capital planning budget and is expected to be complete before the end of fiscal year 2010-11. Senate Bill (SB) 130 restricts the district’s eligibility for state financial hardship facility funding. Specifically, the bill states that it will “prohibit the district from being eligible for financial hardship assistance under the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998.” In addition, SB 130 Chapter 20 (b) states,“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, from June 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014, inclusive that King City Joint Union High School District is not eligible for financial hardship assistance pursuant to Article 8.” It is unclear whether the prohibition from eligibility is for a term of five years or the entire term of the state loan. The district’s facilities need significant repairs, and some identified projects may be considered health and safety hazards. Compounded with the district’s current fiscal status, a prohibition of eligibility for financial hardship funding during the period of the state loan will severely limit the district’s ability to address current and future health Key to Recommendation and safety concerns. Priority Indicator Graphics The district has obtained approval from the Office Each recommendation in this of Public School Construction (OPSC) to proceed report is accompanied by one of with the use of prior modernization project savings the following graphics to indicate to complete a modernization project approved by the the priority that should be given Division of the State Architect (DSA). The project to its implementation. should be completed in fiscal year 2010-11 and • First Priority: includes needed improvements to King City High School, including a new roof for the gymnasium and • Second Priority: improvements to the girls’ bathroom and locker room • Third Priority: facility. 34 Introduction and Executive Summary Community Relations and Governance 35 36 Community Relations and Governance 1.1 Communications Professional Standard The LEA has developed a comprehensive plan for internal and external communications, including media relations. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with KRKC 1490AM Radio spokesperson 3. Interview with editor of the King City Rustler newspaper 4. Interview with assistant superintendent, educational services/ human relations 5. Board policies 1100–1700 regarding communication with the public 6. Interviews with board members 7. Interview with principals and vice principals 8. Interview with president, district California State Employees Association (CSEA) local chapter 529 9. Interview with president, King City High School Teachers Association (KCHSTA) 10. Interview with parent representatives 11. Sample press releases 12. Board agendas and weekly updates from state administrator Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had no written communications plan and no system for contacting the media. Board policy regarding communication with the public was outdated. The district did not consistently follow the CSEA bargaining agreement language with regard to communications. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Although the district has not developed a comprehensive plan for internal and external communications, it has made some progress on elements of a plan, including new board policies, a new website and improved communication. Community Relations and Governance 37 Findings 1. The district has not developed a written comprehensive plan for internal and external communications, including media relations. 2. Other than sending board packets, the district has not implemented a systematic plan to contact the media and keep the media apprised of the district’s progress. 3. Board polices 1100–1700 regarding communication with the public were revised and approved in 2010. 4. The district regularly sends board agendas and packets to the media and posts them on its website, which has recently been updated. 5. The state administrator issues written updates to staff with payroll checks each month to keep them apprised of district progress. 6. News media outlets do not have regular meetings with district administrators regarding educational issues and have requested a regularly scheduled meeting. 7. Contract language is being followed but working relationships with CSEA and KCHSTA leadership continue to require attention to ensure improvement, 8. The district spent a significant amount of time negotiating with the employee bargaining units and successfully settled both contracts. During this period there were no regularly scheduled meetings with either CSEA or KCHSTA leadership other than contract negotiations and meetings related to immediate issues and concerns. Now that the bargaining agreements have been settled, the district will need to establish a schedule with bargaining unit leadership to discuss progress and issues, and to identify and address potential issues before they arise. Recommendations for Recovery The district should 1. Develop a comprehensive plan for internal and external communication, including a media relations component. 2. As the communication plan is implemented, develop and disseminate goals, guidelines and procedures to all staff, board members and school sites in a timely and effective manner. 3. As the communication plan is implemented, evaluate its effectiveness through surveys, focus groups or other methods that encourage participants to give their opinions freely. 4. Adjust the communications plan based on survey results to continually improve communications. 38 Community Relations and Governance 5. Consult with the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) and the California School Boards Association (CSBA) regarding model plans for communications and media relations. 6. Continue to post board agendas and minutes on its website regularly, and continue to disseminate board agendas and packets to news media. 7. Initiate and schedule regular meetings with local media representatives and staff to apprise the community of the district’s progress toward recovery and to seek community comment on initiatives. 8. Schedule regular meetings with CSEA and KCHSTA representatives to discuss issues of mutual concern. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 39 1.2 Communications Professional Standard Information is communicated to the staff at all levels in an effective and timely manner. Two-way communication between staff and administration regarding the LEA’s operations is encouraged. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with site and district administrators 2. Interviews with board members 3. Interview with president of KCHSTA 4. Interview president of local CSEA chapter 5. Letters to staff and parents regarding the state intervention and loan, written in August and September 2009 6. Memo dated September 30, 2009 to all staff regarding community forums and September board meeting highlights. 7. Goals of the district and student attendance article in the King City Rustler newspaper, September 2, 2009. 8. King City Rustler newspaper article dated March 3, 2010 regarding changes in course offerings. 9. March 10, 2010 King City Rustler newspaper article written by the state administrator regarding the first comprehensive review report on the district. (March 10, 2010) 10. Updates to Greenfield High School and King City High School staff from the state administrator 11. Samples of district and school site staff meeting minutes 12. Interview with Greenfield High School site council members 13. Interview with King City High School site council members 14. Interviews with parent representatives 15. Interview with editor, King City Rustler newspaper 16. Interview with KRCK radio representative 40 Community Relations and Governance Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 There was no evidence of regular communication with staff and limited communication with sites prior to the appointment of the state administrator. Communication occurred as needed but not on an ongoing or proactive basis with staff or the public. The district curriculum committee was operational, as were routine advisory committee meetings to encourage communication. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The state administrator has implemented regularly scheduled meetings with the cabinet and principals to improve communication. The administrative team is now fully staffed. Written information and updates are provided to staff; however, there is limited opportunity for staff to communicate effectively with the administration. Findings 1. Each month the state administrator provides all staff with an update on the district’s progress. The letter is included with pay warrants. 2. The state administrator sent memos informing staff of the state loan and emergency appropriation and the appointment of a state administrator. 3. Some staff have communicated informally with the state administrator via e-mail or other means. 4. The state administrator conducts regular cabinet meetings and principals’ meetings. 5. There is no regular communication indicating ongoing, proactive contact with staff other than the monthly letters included in the pay warrants and an article in the local newspaper. 6. There is evidence of some systematic communication at school sites regarding monthly staff meetings, State Testing and Reporting (STAR) meetings, English Learner Advisory Council (ELAC) meetings, and weekly professional learning communities (PLCs). 7. The district has improved the high schools’ websites to provide parents with online access to their children’s grades, attendance and discipline records. Parents who do not have a computer can receive this information through the mail. 8. There are no routine advisory committee meetings with nonadministrative staff, parents or the community at the district level to encourage communication that will help all involved parties understand the district’s operation and status. 9. There is a district curriculum committee but no evidence that it meets regularly. Community Relations and Governance 41 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue expanding a system of ongoing two-way communication between the district office and all staff to ensure a timely flow of information and direction. 2. Continue to encourage classified and certificated staff to provide feedback to the district office. 3. Establish additional, permanent advisory committees, such as a budget committee and a facilities management committee, that meet regularly to provide comment to district administrators and the board regarding priorities and issues. 4. Schedule regular meetings with the media, employee organization representatives and advisory committees. 5. Provide the media with regular press releases containing accurate and up-to-date information for the public regarding the district’s progress. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 42 Community Relations and Governance 1.4 Communications Professional Standard Individuals not authorized to speak on behalf of the LEA refrain from making public comments on board decisions and the LEA’s programs. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with assistant superintendent, educational services/human relations 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. State administrator’s status report 6. Interview with executive assistant to the state administrator Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Individual board members were speaking publicly regarding education and fiscal issues without the knowledge or approval of the board or administration, and no board policy was in place to provide direction regarding authorized spokespersons. The media sometimes did not receive timely information from the district. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has made significant reductions in individual board members’ public comments and has prepared board policy to address this issue. The district has also increased communication and improved relations with the media. Continued efforts in this area will be required as the district adopts new policies and programs during recovery. Findings 1. Board Policy 1100, adopted September 8, 2010, designates roles, responsibilities and methods of communication with the public regarding district programs and decisions. 2. Board Bylaw 9010, Public Statements, was on the agenda for review at the October 2010 board meeting. This policy would authorize only the board president, state administrator or other designated administrators to make public statements on behalf of the district. 3. In the past, individual board members have spoken publicly on education issues without the knowledge or approval of the district’s administration or the board as a whole. This has significantly improved to the point where there is little evidence of any unauthorized public communication by any board member. Community Relations and Governance 43 4. On some occasions the media does not receive information from the district in a timely manner. 5. Though improvement is still needed, there has been an effort to make more effective use of the media to cover school district news and programs. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Implement Board Policy 1100 by developing a communications plan. 2. Ensure that board members continue the recently improved practice of not speaking publicly about decisions or programs without the knowledge and support of the full board and the state administrator. 3. Provide media relations training for board members and district administrators. 4. Strive to provide regular meetings of the media and authorized district spokespersons to improve communication; increase an understanding of which individuals are authorized to speak on the district’s behalf; and gain more positive and accurate press coverage; and better inform the public of school district policies and activities. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 44 Community Relations and Governance 2.4 Parent/Community Relations Legal Standard Parents and community members are encouraged to be involved in school activities and in their children’s education. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with assistant superintendent, educational services/human relations 3. Interview with principals and vice principals 4. Interview with parent representatives 5. Interview with KRKC radio representative 6. Interview with editor of the King City Rustler newspaper 7. Board Policy 0420 (a), School Plans/Site Councils 8. Board Policy 0420.1 (a), School-Based Program Coordination 9. Student information letter to parents from King City High School principal 10. Greenfield High School back-to-school notice to staff 11. King City High School principal’s letters to parents concerning academic achievement, test scores, attendance rules, dress code and other student issues. 12. King City and Greenfield High Schools’ student/parent handbooks for 2010-11 13. Agenda notice to parents announcing school site council information 14. Notice to parents regarding Principals’ tours on campus, August 2009 15. Greenfield and King City high schools’ back-to-school night notices to parents 16. King City and Greenfield high schools’ accountability report cards for the 2008-09 school year, published in 2009-10. 17. Interview with president of CSEA local chapter 18. Interview with president of KCHSTA 19. Interview with truancy specialist Community Relations and Governance 45 20. Board Policy 1312.1, Complaints Regarding School Employees, adopted January 13, 2010 21. Administrative Regulation 1312.4, Williams Uniform Complaint Procedure, adopted December 9, 2009. Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Principals were communicating with parents regarding what was happening at school and encouraging parent involvement in activities, but were holding no public forms for discussion of issues. There was no proactive systematic plan to engage parents, and no regular parent meetings or media coverage regarding the status of the district. Many parents did not know how or were not able to become involved in school activities. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district is improving communication between school district officials and the community through routine meetings with parents and back-to-school nights to which parents are invited to meet with school staff. Findings 1. The principals communicate with parents regarding what is occurring at the school, and they encourage parent involvement in school activities. Communications include monthly newsletters, back-to-school night information, recruitment of school site council members, and notices of upcoming English Learner Advisory Council (ELAC) meetings. 2. There is an effort to improve participation in the public open forums held by principals to discuss school issues. New efforts include coffee klatches held by the principals and printed notices of school site council meetings. 3. The King City High principal spoke at meetings of the local Rotary club and chamber of commerce. 4. There is no regular media coverage of parent meetings regarding the status of the district. 5. Many parents do not know how to get involved in school activities, do not want to be involved, or are not able to be involved except on a limited basis because of their work hours. 6. There is limited involvement of parents in school activities such as school site councils and ELAC, but there is little evidence of a proactive, systematic plan to increase involvement. 7. The district’s website has been updated and significantly improved: parents can now access their student’s grades, attendance and discipline records as well as announcements regarding school meetings and events. 46 Community Relations and Governance Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue the coffee klatches and encourage principals and administrators to attend community functions to increase visibility. 2. Conduct more frequent principals’ forums with parents and interested community members. 3. Ensure that principals send press releases regarding school events to the local media regularly. 4. Determine who will be authorized to meet with the media regularly to discuss school events to ensure more regular and positive media coverage of school programs. 5. Create a section of the district’s website that explains ways for parents to become more involved in school activities and encourages them to do so. 6. Invite the media to meetings with parents at which the administration is discussing items of interest to the public such as the district’s progress toward recovery. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 4 March 2011 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 47 2.8 Parent/Community Relations Professional Standard Board members are actively involved in building community relations. Sources and Documentation 1. Board Policy 1400 (a), Relations between Other Governmental Agencies and the Schools, revised and adopted March 10, 2010. 2. Board Policy 1700, Relations between Private Industry and the Schools, revised and adopted March 10, 2010. 3. Board Policy 9012, Board Member Electronic Communication, adopted June 9, 2010. 4. Board Policy 9000, Role of the Board, adopted November 4, 2009. 5. Board minutes addressing board involvement in community relations. 6. Interview with state administrator 7. Interview with assistant superintendent, educational services/human relations 8. Interviews with principals and vice principals 9. Interviews with board members 10. Interviews with parent representatives 11. Interview with executive assistant to the state administrator Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Board policies in this area were outdated, and the board lacked both a plan for and an understanding of their role and responsibilities in the area of community relations. They did not attend school functions regularly. The district also lacked a plan for board member involvement in building community relations. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Some progress has been made on this standard. Board policies were updated and board members have an improved understanding of their role and responsibilities regarding community relations. However, board members’ attendance at school events is intermittent and the board still lacks a formal plan for community relations. 48 Community Relations and Governance Findings 1. Board policies concerning community relations have been updated. 2. The board is improving in its understanding of a board member’s role and responsibilities with regard to community relations as a result of training from the California School Boards Association and guidance from the state administrator. 3. Board members have been trained in board roles and responsibilities. 4. Board members are attending school functions intermittently, and site administrators appreciate their visibility on campus. 5. Some board members are involved with athletics, FFA and booster clubs. 6. The board does not have a formal, written strategy to improve community relations. 7. The district does not yet have a plan for how board members should be involved in building community relations. Recommendations for Recovery The district should 1. Continue to ensure that the board conducts an annual systematic review of its board policies, including newly reviewed and updated policies, to determine if further revision is necessary. 2. Provide board members with ongoing training in developing a community relations strategy and in building community relations. 3. Ensure that the board reviews and updates its communications plan to achieve alignment with the CSBA’s series 1000 policies regarding community relations and communications, including policies 1220, 1112 and 1000, which provide guidance in communicating with and involving the community as a partner in school success. 4. Ensure that the board, in conjunction with the state administrator, has a written calendar that includes a schedule for each board member to attend some school functions so that school events are well attended by board members. Rotate the schedule periodically so that over time every board member attends most of the important school functions. 5. Ensure that the board develops a plan to work collaboratively with local governments and agencies as well as school organizations. This element should be part of the total communications plan. Community Relations and Governance 49 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 50 Community Relations and Governance 3.1 Community Collaboratives, LEA Advisory Committees, School Site Councils Legal Standard Policies exist for the establishment of school site councils. The school site council develops a single plan for student achievement at each school, applying for categorical programs through the consolidated application. (EC 52852.5, 64001) Sources and Documentation 1. 2010-2011 consolidated application for funding categorical programs 2. Board Policy 0420 (a), School Plans/Site Councils, adopted March 3, 2010 3. Board Policy 0420.1 (a), School Based Program Coordination, adopted September 8, 2010 4. Interviews with board members 5. Interview with state administrator 6. Interview with assistant superintendent, educational services/human relations 7. Interview with principals and vice principals 8. Interview with president of CSEA local chapter 9. Interview with president of KCHSTA 10. Interview with Greenfield High School site council members 11. Interview with parent representatives 12. King City and Greenfield high schools’ single plans for student achievement, adopted November 4, 2009. 13. King City High School focus groups for 2009-10 14. Sample issue of King City High School’s “Principal’s Minute” newsletter 15. Samples of parent meeting agendas 16. King City High School site council minutes dated June 9, 2010 17. King City High School graduation requirements for 2010-11 Community Relations and Governance 51 18. King City High School academic programs for 2010-11 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had policies for school site councils, membership was in accordance with the law, and the councils were involved in developing a single plan for student achievement. However, there was limited evidence that student achievement was the main focus at the school sites, and the single plans did not fully address improving test scores or academic achievement. The site councils also had no working budgets. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The school site councils for the 2010-11 school year had not been elected and had not met at the time of FCMAT’s review. The district has improved school site council involvement in the development of school site plans. However, timely budget information is not provided to the school site councils, which limits their ability to address student achievement. Findings 1. The district has policies for establishing school site councils. 2. The school site council membership is organized in accordance with legal requirements. 3. The school site councils have meeting agendas and minutes. 4. There is a single plan for student achievement at each school site, and school site council members are genuinely involved in the development of these plans. 5. Parents acknowledge and are concerned about low test scores. 6. Parents want the district to have higher expectations for students 7. There continues to be no working budget for the school site councils. This is a continued source of frustration for site council members. The district has an obligation to provide a budget amount for each program; not providing budget information in a timely manner prohibits the council from taking action to address identified issues. 8. For the 2010-11 school year, there has been an attempt to form the membership of the school site councils, but this had not been accomplished at the time of field work, six weeks into the school year, because of the lack of a quorum at the meetings. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that school site councils continue to follow the law with regard to organization and membership, agendas, and meeting minutes. 52 Community Relations and Governance 2. Ensure that school site councils continue to address the issue of student performance expectations. 3. Give more clear direction to the school site councils regarding how much money is available for planning and spending in the categorical programs. 4. Provide the school site councils with conservative budget numbers based on the previous year’s funding. The budgets can be adjusted at first interim. This will provide councils with the initial information needed for planning. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 53 3.4 Community Collaboratives, LEA Advisory Committees, School Site Councils Professional Standard The board and superintendent have established broad-based committees and councils to advise the LEA on critical issues and operations as appropriate. The membership of these committees and councils reflects the full cultural, ethnic, gender and socioeconomic diversity of the student population. Sources and Documentation 1. Regional Occupational Program (ROP) advisory committee membership list for 2008-09. 2. King City High School curriculum council members for 2009- 10 (no updated membership list was provided). 3. King City High School Junta de ELAC agenda, Sept 29, 2008 4. King City High School site council meeting minutes, Sept 30, 2009. 5. Interview with state administrator 6. Interview with assistant superintendent, educational services/human relations 7. Interview with principals and vice principals 8. Interview with board members 9. Interview with parent representatives 10. Interview with president of CSEA local chapter 11. Interview with president of KCHSTA Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had school site councils but for the most part had not established broad-based ongoing distictwide committees. District and site-based curriculum committees were an exception to this. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 With the exception of the curriculum committee, the district has not yet established broad-based districtwide committees. 54 Community Relations and Governance Findings 1. The district has school site councils but at the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork had not updated membership due to the lack of a quorum at meetings. 2. The district has not established broad-based ongoing committees at a district level except for the curriculum committee, and no agendas or meeting minutes were provided to demonstrate the ongoing involvement of this committee. 3. There are curriculum committees and other committees at school sites, but no evidence to indicate that they meet regularly. 4. There are liaison committee meetings between district administrators and school sites. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Establish broad-based committees that reflect the district’s full cultural and ethnic diversity to advise the district on critical issues. It is critical that parents and staff be involved in these committees during the recovery process. 2. Ensure that any committee formed develops and maintains a membership list, a description of member roles and duties, and agendas and minutes. 3. Establish an ongoing budget committee that includes staff and parents. The committee should provide input regarding budget development and budget priorities, consistent with the requirements and guidelines established by the state administrator. This committee should also assist the administration as requested in presenting the budget development process to the public. 4. Establish an ongoing facilities committee that includes staff, parents and students to advise the district regarding maintenance and facilities priorities, including safety issues, cleanliness and sanitation issues, construction or remodeling needs, landscaping and grounds issues, handicap compliance issues and appearance of schools. 5. Establish other committees as directed by the state administrator. 6. Ensure that all committee duties are consistent with meeting and implementing the recommendations and requirements of the Recovery Plan. Community Relations and Governance 55 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: 56 Community Relations and Governance 3.6 Community Collaboratives, LEA Advisory Committees, School Site Councils Professional Standard The LEA encourages and provides the necessary training for collaborative and advisory council members to effectively fulfill their responsibilities and to understand the basic administrative structure, program processes and goals of all LEA partners. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with assistant superintendent, educational services/human relations 3. Interview with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principal 5. Interview with president of KCHSTA 6. Interview with president of the local chapter of the CSEA 7. Interview with Greenfield High School site council members 8. Interview with King City High School site council members 9. Interview with parent representatives Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 No training was provided for advisory and site council members or for curriculum committee members. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district does not have standing advisory committees or a community collaborative. It was filling the membership of school site councils during this review. The district made progress in training members of school site councils in their committees’ roles and responsibilities last year and encouraged increased participation. Findings 1. There is some evidence of a formal training program for advisory and site council members. The Monterey County Office of Education provided parents and staff of the English Learner Advisory Commmittee (ELAC) with training regarding the purpose and functions of an of the committee, and the committee held one meeting in June 2010. Community Relations and Governance 57 2. There is no evidence of formal training for curriculum committee members or any other committee. 3. The district has provided training for school site council members and increased their participation. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Implement a formal training program for school site council members once elected to the committee. The training should include information regarding roles and responsibilities, legal requirements, budget overview and other relevant requirements. 2. Ensure that ELAC members continue to receive some formal training regarding their roles and responsibilities and the legal requirements of ELAC programs. Work with the Monterey County Office of Education to provide this training. 3. Ensure that curriculum committee representatives receive training in their subject and their role on the committee. Ensure that committee members understand the budget and goals of the district with regard to curriculum. 4. Provide community collaborative and future LEA advisory committees, such as a budget committee or facilities committee, with training in relevant subject matter and the role and responsibilities of their committee. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: 58 Community Relations and Governance 4.5 Policy Professional Standard The board supports and follows its own policies once they are adopted. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with assistant superintendent, educational services/human relations 3. Interview with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with executive assistant to the state administrator Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Board members lacked an understanding of their role and responsibilities, and the board had not historically followed its own policies. Board members did not understand that their authority rests with the board as a whole rather than with individual members, or that the board is an ongoing entity bound by its own previously passed policies until and unless those are changed in a legal public board meeting. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has made significant progress on this standard. The board is now following its own policies and refrains from discussing collective bargaining or personnel issues outside of board meetings. The board has received the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA’s) boardsmanship training, ongoing training from the state administrator, and on line ethics training. Findings 1. Because of CSBA training and consistent leadership by the state administrator, the board has improved its understanding of the role and responsibilities of board members. 2. The board has also gained an improved understanding of the fact that a school board is an ongoing entity regardless of board membership and that policies adopted by previous boards are still in effect until or unless the current board changes those policies at a legal public board meeting. 3. The present board clearly understands that it has no authority to govern the district or to speak for the state administrator. 4. The board has received CSBA training in board ethics and other topics. Community Relations and Governance 59 5. Further CSBA Masters in Governance training for the board is planned for the near future. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the board receives further ongoing training regarding the roles and responsibilities of board members. The CSBA Masters in Governance training should meet this requirement. 2. Ensure that the board continues to understand and act on the fact that they are obligated as a board to follow the policies set by both the current board and its predecessors until or unless those policies are changed. 3. Ensure that the board and staff continue to strictly comply with the advice and decisions of the state administrator to help ensure progress toward the district’s ability to regain local control in the future. 4. Establish mechanisms to ensure accountability for adherence to the state administrator’s policies and decisions so that board members do not deviate from the state administrator’s direction. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 60 Community Relations and Governance 5.2 Board Roles/Boardsmanship Professional Standard Board members receive necessary training to better fulfill their roles. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with assistant superintendent, educational services/human relations 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with executive assistant to the state administrator 6. Board meeting agendas for August 31, 2010 and September 1, 2010 showing training and study sessions with California School Boards Association (CSBA) representative. 7. The draft governance handbook showing a compilation of work accomplished during governance workshops for board members. 8. Governance workshops notes from the CSBA representative showing that the board has received training in topics such as effective communication techniques, roles and responsibilities of the board president; the roles of the state administrator or superintendent and the board; board member visits to school sites; designated spokesperson(s) for providing information to the media and the public; sample norms for productive interactions; types of board meetings; conducting effective board meetings; and the board’s leadership role. 9. CSBA sample board meeting guidelines and other documents concerning effective governance 10. Sample board policies regarding limits on board member authority; board bylaws; and principles of ethics. 11. CSBA governance consulting service handbook 12. Sample working styles questionnaire Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Board members had not received any training regarding their responsibilities, and there was confusion and conflict regarding the roles of the board, staff and state administrator. All board members had served less than one term. Community Relations and Governance 61 Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has made significant progress on this standard. Board members have completed the required online ethics and governance training and are receiving the complete CSBA Masters in Governance training. Board members are developing a better understanding of their role and responsibilities. Board membership has been stable, with four returning members and one new appointee. Findings 1. The stability of board membership is improving, with members serving longer terms. Board members have been on the board for varying lengths of time; one new board member was appointed by the state administrator because of a vacancy. 2. Board members have completed the required ethics training and are receiving the complete CSBA Masters in Governance training, which consists of 9 training modules provided over 18 months. 3. The board has attended CSBA governance workshops that include topics such as effective communication techniques, roles and responsibilities of the board president; the roles of the state administrator or superintendent and the board; board member visits to school sites; designated spokesperson(s) for providing information to the media and the public; sample norms for productive interactions; types of board meetings; conducting effective board meetings; and the board’s leadership role. 4. Board members are developing a better understanding of their role and responsibilities. 5. Board members have gained a better understanding regarding the role of the state administrator. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to coordinate and schedule CSBA Master of Governance training for all board members. 2. Ensure that board members consistently attend CSBA training modules, workshops and conferences to gain a better understanding of how boards operate throughout the state. Interacting with other board members from other districts should be encouraged to help board members gain a broader understanding of board issues, problems and solutions. 62 Community Relations and Governance Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 63 5.3 Board Roles/Boardsmanship Professional Standard The board has established an LEA-wide vision/mission and uses that vision/mission as a framework for LEA action based on the identified needs of the students, staff, and educational community. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with assistant superintendent, educational services/human relations 3. Interview with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with executive assistant to the state administrator 6. Interview with parent representatives 7. Board-adopted mission statement 8. Board agenda and minutes showing approval of district goals Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district’s mission statement was displayed on its website but was out of date and had not been used to shape goals for academic change or success. School staff and community members had limited involvement in its development. The board’s ability to implement the mission statement was limited by a lack of resources. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district’s mission/vision statement has been updated with involvement from a variety of stakeholders and is available and on display at the district office and on the district’s website. The board is beginning to use the mission/vision statement to provide a framework for goals and academic change. Findings 1. A vision statement and goals have been developed and adopted by the board. 2. The vision statement and goals are displayed on the district’s website and in the district board room. 64 Community Relations and Governance 3. The district is beginning to use the vision statement to provide a framework for goals and academic change, but the vision statement does not address closing the achievement gap. 4. Under the direction of the state administrator the board, staff and community were involved in developing the district’s vision statement and goals. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Review the vision statement and goals annually, and refine them as needed. 2. Continue to ensure that the vision statement is based on the needs of students, staff and the community. 3. Ensure that annual review of the vision statement and goals involves the board, staff and community under the guidance of the state administrator. 4. Ensure that working objectives and implementation plans developed from the vision statement and goals are consistent with the recovery plan and identified needs. 5. Establish processes to measure and monitor progress toward the goals. 6. Hold district staff accountable for progress toward the goals. 7. As long-term strategies and goals are implemented, ensure that the board, staff and community are involved in determining the effectiveness of the strategies and goals. 8. Update strategies, goals and action plans periodically as needed, based on ongoing evaluation. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 65 5.5 Board Roles/Boardsmanship Professional Standard Board members maintain functional working relationships. Individual board members respect the decisions of the board majority and support the board’s actions in public. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with assistant superintendent, educational services/human relations 3. Interview with board members 4. Interview with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with executive assistant to the state administrator 6. Certificates of public service ethics education for board members, February 2010 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Some board members had not respected the board’s authority to make decision that affect the district, and some had met improperly with individual staff members outside of board meetings regarding collective bargaining and personnel issues, thus disregarding the full board’s confidentiality. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has made significant progress in this standard. Board members have improved their respect for the authority of the board as a whole and have become more accepting of the state administrator’s role and decisions. Board members now refer any individuals who come to them with issues or problems to the district administration. Findings 1. The district is governed by the state administrator. The board members in their advisory capacity have become more accepting of the role and decisions of the state administrator. 2. Board members have improved their respect for the authority of the board as a whole in making decisions that affect the district. 3. Board members have improved their understanding of and adherence to confidentiality in collective bargaining matters and in referring problems to the state administrator. 66 Community Relations and Governance Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the board continues to cooperate and honor the decisions and directions of the state administrator. 2. Ensure that individual board members continue to demonstrate an understanding that they have authority as a board member only during a legal public board meeting, and that as individuals they have no authority when meeting with people outside the board meeting. 3. Ensure that training for board members emphasizes the fact that board members have authority only in a public board meeting. 4. Ensure that individual board members continue to refer to the district administration any individuals who come to them with issues or problems, rather than attempting to provide advice or resolve the issues themselves. 5. Train board members to understand that they are viewed as board members while in public. When making a statement as the member of the public, a board member must identify himself or herself as such or the public will perceive that he or she is speaking in their capacity as a board member. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 67 5.6 Board Roles/Boardsmanship Professional Standard The board and administrative team maintain functional working relationships. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with assistant superintendent, educational services/human relations 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with executive assistant to the state administrator Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Board members had worked outside of the chain of command rather than referring staff and community members’ concerns to the district’s administration. Prior to the state administrator’s arrival, some board members met with individual staff regarding parent complaints, confidential collective bargaining issues and personnel issues. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Board members have made significant progress in working through the chain of command, improving relationships with the state administrator and gaining an increased awareness of the appropriate means of resolving community concerns and other issues. Findings 1. Board members are doing better at working through the chain of command, including referring staff and community member concerns to the district administration. 2. Board members are more aware that it is not appropriate for them as individuals to resolve parent complaints, confidential collective bargaining issues or confidential personnel issues; they recognize that these matters should be referred to the state administrator. 3. Board members are improving their relationships with the state administrator and their respect for the decisions of the state administrator or the board majority in regard to implementing districtwide policy. 4. However on at least one occasion a board member spoke publicly as a citizen and parent in disagreement with the state administrator’s decision. The board member did not 68 Community Relations and Governance indicate that he/she was not speaking in his/her capacity as a board member. This can lead to a faulty perception by the public. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the board continues to receive training regarding a board’s legal roles and responsibilities. 2. Ensure that board members continue to receive training in differentiating between the board’s role of broad policy guidance and the state administrator’s or superintendent’s role of administering the district’s operational details. 3. Ensure that board members continue to refer complaints, collective bargaining issues, personnel issues and other matters to the district’s administration rather than becoming involved in providing advice or trying to resolve such issues on their own. 4. Provide the board with training in how to communicate with the administration in advance of public meetings if a board member plans on speaking on issues as a parent or community member. This will improve positive communication between the board and the administration. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 69 5.9 Board Roles/Boardsmanship Professional Standard Board members respect the confidentiality of information shared by the administration. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with assistant superintendent, educational services/human relations 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with executive assistant to the state administrator 6. Certificates of public service ethics education for board members, February 2010 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Board members did not understand their role and responsibilities regarding confidential issues and did not respect the confidentiality required to function properly. Board members discussed collective bargaining and other confidential issues among themselves outside of board meetings. School Services of California had provided a board workshop regarding confidentiality and collective bargaining, but the board had received no training from CSBA. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The board has gained a better understanding of the importance of the confidentiality of certain issues and discussions. Training has been and continues to be provided. Findings 1. Board members have an improved understanding of their role and responsibility regarding confidential collective bargaining and personnel issues. 2. Board members now discuss collective bargaining and personnel issues within the confines of a public board meeting in open or closed session as appropriate. 3. Under the leadership of the state administrator, the district contracted with the CSBA for a consultant to provide the board with training in boardsmanship, ethics, personnel, confidentiality and other topics. 4. There is no evidence of individual board members compromising the confidentiality of personnel or collective bargaining issues. 70 Community Relations and Governance Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to ensure that board members discuss collective bargaining, personnel and other confidential matters in a public board meeting or confidentially with the state administrator. 2. Encourage the board to consistently read the CSBA Journal and other CSBA materials on an ongoing basis to gain a perspective on how to be an effective school board member. 3. Provide continued training for the board regarding their roles and responsibilities related to negotiations, personnel issues and other confidentiality issues. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 71 5.10 Board Roles/Boardsmanship Professional Standard Board members effectively develop policy and set the direction of the LEA while supporting the superintendent and administrative staff in their responsibility to implement adopted policies and administrative regulations. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with the state administrator 2. Interview with assistant superintendent, educational services/human resources 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with executive assistant to the state administrator 6. Board agendas showing revision of board policies Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Past boards had a history of a lack of support for the superintendent’s operation of the district. The board had interfered with and undermined former superintendents in the collective bargaining process, personnel matters, parent complaints and implementation of policy. One board member stated that they would not adhere to a particular board policy. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The board has updated many board policies and bylaws and has demonstrated increasing support for the district’s administration. Findings 1. The board has demonstrated increasing support for the state administrator’s leadership, decision making and accomplishments, including the negotiations process and administrative assignments. 2. There is little evidence that board members any longer interfere with or undermine the state administrator regarding the collective bargaining process, personnel matters, parent complaints or implementation of policy. 3. The board has revised and updated many board policies and bylaws. 72 Community Relations and Governance Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the board continues to support the state administrator in handling difficult issues such as negotiations and personnel matters, and that any questions or concerns regarding these issues continue to be referred to the state administrator. 2. Ensure that the board understands that support for the district’s administration means that negotiations and personnel issues should not be discussed anywhere outside of a public board meeting (in closed session) or with the state administrator in private. No individual board member should engage in discussion with staff, union members or public citizens regarding negotiations or personnel matters. In addition, no board member should discuss these issues with another individual board member except during a legal public board meeting. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 73 5.11 Board Roles/Boardsmanship Professional Standard The board acts for the community and in the interests of all students in the LEA. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview assistant superintendent, educational services/human resources 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with executive assistant to the state administrator 6. Board minutes of meetings on September 29, 2009 and December 2, 2009 showing planning for community meetings and forums. 7. Board minutes from May 12, 2010 showing board member comments and input to the state administrator regarding student issues. Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Board members attended graduation and other school events, and the board recognized student achievement. However, the board had no policies or expectations regarding increasing test scores and did not use data or state norms to evaluate and develop programs to increase student achievement Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The board members demonstrate a sincere interest in the district’s students and attend many school functions. The board is beginning to use data to evaluate and develop programs to improve student achievement but has not addressed the achievement gap. Findings 1. Board members attend graduation and other high school programs and events. 2. The board recognizes student and staff achievement at board meetings. This public recognition is important to helping set a positive tone. 3. The board is beginning to use data, criteria for test scores and comparison of similar schools and state norms to evaluate and develop programs to improve student achievement. 74 Community Relations and Governance 4. The board is supporting the state administrator in regard to setting higher expectations for teachers and students to improve student achievement. 5. The board is improving in referring sensitive issues such as parent complaints, negotiations issues and personnel issues to the state administrator. 6. The board has reviewed data related to the achievement gap but has not yet developed policies or practices to address this area of concern. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that board members continue to attend high school events and programs as part of being visible and supportive of schools, students and the community. 2. See that the board develops a process and a calendar to ensure regular visits to school sites and familiarity with site issues. 3. Ensure that the board continues to recognize student and staff achievement at board meetings. 4. Ensure that the board continues to review and discuss student test data, criteria of test scores, comparison of similar schools, and state norms to evaluate student performance and set educational goals. 5. Ensure that the board reviews student achievement data and address gaps in achievement by supporting the development of comprehensive programs for struggling students. 6. Ensure that the board continues to support the state administrator in setting a policy for higher expectations of teachers and students to increase student achievement. 7. Ensure that the state administrator, the board and principals perform ongoing evaluations of student program effectiveness. 8. Always include on board meeting agendas some items related to student performance and achievement to become better informed of student progress and so that the community knows that student learning is the highest priority. 9. Hold principals, teachers and students accountable for student achievement. Community Relations and Governance 75 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 76 Community Relations and Governance 6.6 Board Meetings Professional Standard Board members prepare for board meetings by becoming familiar with the agenda and support materials prior to the meeting. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with assistant superintendent, educational services/human relations 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with executive assistant to the state administrator Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Some board members reviewed materials before meetings, but the depth of reading and review varied. Other members did not review these materials beforehand. Some board members did not contact the state administrator before board meetings to ask question or seek clarification of agenda items, resulting in longer meetings and delays. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Board members’ preparation for meetings is becoming more consistent. Some board members ask questions relevant to the material at board meetings and some contact the state administrator in advance for clarification of agenda items. Findings 1. Board members’ preparation is becoming more consistent; most board members consistently review the agenda or support materials prior to the meeting. 2. Board members’ preparation is becoming more consistent. 3. Some board members contact the state administrator prior to the board meeting to ask questions or seek clarification of board agenda items; this causes the board meetings to be more efficient. 4. During board meetings board members ask questions relevant to the material, which indicates that they have thoroughly reviewed board materials. Community Relations and Governance 77 Recommendations for Recovery Board members should: 1. Continue to consistently and thoroughly read and review the board agenda and support documents. 2. Contact the state administrator prior to board meetings to obtain more information, get answers to questions or seek clarification regarding agenda items. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 78 Community Relations and Governance 6.9 Board Meetings Professional Standard Board meetings focus on matters related to student achievement. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with assistant superintendent, educational services/human relations 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with executive assistant to the state administrator 6. Review of sample board meeting agendas 7. Review sample board meeting minutes 8. Board agenda from October 14, 2009 highlighting API/AYP report and emphasis on student progress Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Board meetings had historically focused more on business and personnel matters than on student achievement. The May 13 2009 meeting agenda indicated some discussion of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) 10th grade report. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The board is starting to pay more attention to student achievement and is discussing test scores and student achievement more frequently; however, because of the district’s low student achievement, this attention still needs to increase. Findings 1. Test scores and student achievement are being discussed more frequently at Board meetings 2. Board agenda items show information and discussion items that focus on curriculum and instruction. The California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) 10th grade report was noted on one board agenda. Community Relations and Governance 79 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Because of the district’s low student achievement, ensure that board meetings include more agenda items that focus directly on student achievement and programs to address gaps in achievement. 2. Ensure that the board, under the direction of the state administrator, develops goals for, and engages in more discussion focused on, higher expectations for student achievement and improved test scores. 3. Continue working to ensure that meeting agendas allow for frequent discussion of policies related to student achievement, and that ongoing evaluation of program effectiveness is carried out. 4. Frequently discuss outcomes and progress on programs to improve student achievement. 5. At regularly scheduled meetings discuss budget commitments to programs designed to improve student achievement. 6. Adopt board policies and administrative regulations related to the use of collaboration and professional learning communities to improve instructional practices. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 80 Community Relations and Governance Table of Community Relations and Governance Ratings Community Relations and Governance 81 82 Community Relations and Governance February March Community Relations and Governance Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – COMMUNICATIONS 1.1 The LEA has developed a comprehensive plan for internal and 1 1 external communications, including media relations. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – COMMUNICATIONS Information is communicated to the staff at all levels in an effective 1.2 1 2 and timely manner. Two-way communication between staff and administration regarding the LEA’s operations is encouraged. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – COMMUNICATIONS Individuals not authorized to speak on behalf of the LEA refrain 1.4 0 4 from making public comments on board decisions and the LEA’s programs. LEGAL STANDARD – PARENT/COMMUNITY RELATIONS 2.4 Parents and community members are encouraged to be involved in 4 5 school activities and in their children’s education. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – PARENT/COMMUNITY RELATIONS 2.8 1 2 Board members are actively involved in building community relations. LEGAL STANDARD – COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVES, LEA ADVISORY COMMITTEES, SCHOOL SITE COUNCILS Policies exist for the establishment of school site councils. The 3.1 2 5 school site council develops a single plan for student achievement at each school, applying for categorical programs through the consolidated application. (EC 52852.5, 64001) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVES, LEA ADVISORY COMMITTEES, SCHOOL SITE COUNCILS The board and superintendent have established broad-based 3.4 1 1 committees and councils to advise the LEA on critical issues and operations as appropriate. The membership of these committees and councils reflects the full cultural, ethnic, gender and socioeconomic diversity of the student population. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVES, LEA ADVISORY COMMITTEES, SCHOOL SITE COUNCILS 3.6 The LEA encourages and provides the necessary training for 1 1 collaborative and advisory council members to effectively fulfill their responsibilities and to understand the basic administrative structure, program processes and goals of all LEA partners. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – POLICY 4.5 The board supports and follows its own policies once they are 0 4 adopted. Community Relations and Governance 83 February March Community Relations and Governance Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BOARD ROLES/ BOARDSMANSHIP 5.2 0 3 Board members receive necessary training to better fulfill their roles. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BOARD ROLES/ BOARDSMANSHIP 5.3 The board has established an LEA-wide vision/mission and uses 1 3 that vision/mission as a framework for LEA action based on the identified needs of the students, staff, and educational community. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BOARD ROLES/ BOARDSMANSHIP 5.5 Board members maintain functional working relationships. 0 3 Individual board members respect the decisions of the board majority and support the board’s actions in public. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BOARD ROLES/ BOARDSMANSHIP 5.6 0 3 The board and administrative team maintain functional working relationships. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BOARD ROLES/ BOARDSMANSHIP 5.9 0 3 Board members respect the confidentiality of information shared by the administration. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BOARD ROLES/ BOARDSMANSHIP Board members effectively develop policy and set the direction of 5.10 0 3 the LEA while supporting the superintendent and administrative staff in their responsibility to implement adopted policies and administrative regulations. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BOARD ROLES/ BOARDSMANSHIP 5.11 1 2 The board acts for the community and in the interests of all students in the LEA. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BOARD MEETINGS 6.6 Board members prepare for board meetings by becoming familiar 2 4 with the agenda and support materials prior to the meeting. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BOARD MEETINGS 6.9 1 2 Board meetings focus on matters related to student achievement. Collective Average Rating 0.89 2.83 The collective average ratings for both February 2010 and March 2011 are based on the subset of priority standards used in this second comprehensive review. 84 Community Relations and Governance Personnel Management Personnel Management 85 86 Personnel Management 1.1 Organization and Planning Professional Standard The LEA has clearly defined and clarified roles for board and administration relative to recruitment, hiring, evaluation and discipline of employees. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with school board members 2. Interview with state administrator 3. Interview with chief business official 4. Interviews with district administrative and human resources department staff 5. Interviews with school site administrators 6. Interview with human resources consultant 7. Interview with district California Teachers Association representative 8. Board Policy 4111– March 10, 2008 9. Board Policy 4115 – Oct. 11, 2000 10. Board Policy 4118 – Oct 11, 2000 11. Administrative Regulation 4112 – Oct 11, 2000 12. Administrative Regulation 4212 – Oct 11, 2000 13. Administrative Regulation 4118 – Oct 11, 2000 14. Board Policy 4100 – September 8, 2010 15. Board Policy 4115 – November 4, 2009 16. Board Policies 4119.11, 4219.11, 4319.11 – November 4, 2009 17. Board Policy 4139 – September 8, 2010 18. Board Policy 4213 – September 8, 2010 19. Board Policy 4300 – September 8, 2010 20. Administrative Regulations 4112.5, 4312.5 – September 8, 2010 Personnel Management 87 21. Administrative Regulations 4112.62, 4312.62 – September 8, 2010 22. Administrative Regulation 4115 – November 4, 2009 23. Administrative Regulation 4139 – September 8, 2010 24. Administrative Regulation 4212.5 – September 8, 2010 25. Administrative Regulation 4218 – October 14, 2009 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Some personnel-related policies were being followed while others were not. Some policies were outdated. The district had no organized process for reviewing and updating personnel-related policies. Although board members’ roles were clearly defined in board policy, the board members were bypassing administration and interacting directly with staff members. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has revised 35 personnel-related policies and 26 administrative regulations, including but not limited to those regarding the hiring, evaluation and discipline of employees. There is a process to ensure that all personnel-related policies are updated. The district needs to ensure that personnel-related policies are communicated to district personnel and implemented. Findings 1. The district’s personnel-related board policies and administrative regulations (BP 4000[a]) continue to retain the California School Boards Association (CSBA) format. The board adopted revisions in November 2009, December 2009, January 2010, March 2010, June 2010, August 2010, and September 2010. 2. The district’s revised personnel policies and regulations are specific to the district’s operational requirements. 3. Although the board has revised and adopted a number of policies, recruitment and selection policies have yet to be revised. 4. The district is taking revisions to the board monthly. When all polices and administrative regulations have been reviewed and revised, the human resources department will follow the CSBA process for updating personnel-related policies. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to review and revise the 4000 series of board policies related to personnel functions. Policies related to recruitment and selection and nondiscrimination in employment should be a priority. These policies will form the basis for developing the 88 Personnel Management human resources department’s day-to-day operating procedures and will ensure legal compliance with state and federal employment laws. 2. Ensure that personnel-related policies and procedures adopted by the board are implemented with fidelity. 3. Ensure that the ongoing review and revision of board policies and administrative regulations align with the department’s operational needs and do not conflict with any provisions of employee collective bargaining agreements. 4. Communicate policy and administrative regulation revisions to affected personnel, and ensure that administrators responsible for implementing and monitoring new policies have the resources needed to do so. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 89 1.2 Organization and Planning Professional Standard The personnel function has developed a mission statement and objectives directly related to the LEA’s goals and provide an annual report of activities and services offered during the year. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with state administrator and business office staff 2. Interviews with human resources department administration and staff 3. Human resources department vision and mission statement Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The human resources department had no mission statement, annual report or annual plan. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Draft vision and mission statements are being developed. The vision and mission statements have not yet been reviewed by the cabinet or department staff. Findings 1. The assistant superintendent of educational service and human resources has drafted vision and mission statements for the department. The draft human resources department vision states, “Promoting student achievement through our most valuable resources – our people.” The mission statement includes a list of essential personnel functions that the department is committed to providing and indicates a commitment to diversity, nondiscrimination in the workplace, compliance with employment and labor laws, and personnel services that support the district’s student achievement goals. 2. The vision and mission statements have not been reviewed by the cabinet or by human resources department staff. 3. The department does not provide annual reports to district administration and the board regarding the number of staff, staffing ratios, and other personnel-related matters. 4. The human resources department has not yet developed goals and objectives that measure achievement of its mission. 90 Personnel Management Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the human resources department’s vision and mission statements align with the district’s mission and objectives to provide the services employees require. 2. Implement a process for review of the human resources department’s vision and mission statements by cabinet and human resources department staff. 3. Ensure that the human resources department annually develops measurable goals and objectives that facilitate achievement of its stated mission. 4. Develop a template and produce an annual board report regarding the human resources department, including the services it provides to employees and information such as the number of certificated, classified and management staff employed by the district, employees hired during the fiscal year, transfers, grievances, and retirements by classification. 5. Ensure that the annual board report includes evidence of progress toward meeting the department’s goals and objectives for the year. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 91 1.3 Organization and Planning Professional Standard The personnel function has an organizational chart and functions chart and a menu of services that include the names, positions and job functions of all personnel staff. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with the state administrator, business office staff and human resources department employees 2. Interview with assistant superintendent of education services and human resources 3. Department organizational chart 4. Organizational responsibilities list Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 There was no evidence of an organizational chart or manuals of processes and procedures for the human resources department, and staff were uncertain about their responsibilities. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The human resources department has a list of major areas of responsibility but has not created a functional organizational chart showing all essential personnel functions and the positions that support those functions. The assistant superintendent of educational services has been identified as the chief personnel officer, and the organizational chart shows this and lists the personnel manager as the only department staff. However, some personnel functions are shared with staff from other departments. Findings 1. The district’s organizational chart for 2010-11 lists the human resources department under the supervision and direction of the assistant superintendent of educational services and human resources. This shifts the responsibility for the supervision and direction of the department from the state administrator and chief business official to the assistant superintendent of educational services and human resources but does not create an increase in staffing. There is no evidence that the district has conducted a comparability survey to determine appropriate staffing levels, and no other changes have been made to human resources department staff since the first comprehensive review. Additional staff or other support will be required during the district’s recovery period to implement needed policies and procedures. 2. The department has a list of organizational responsibilities for the assistant superintendent, personnel manager and district receptionist. The list identifies major areas of responsibility but is not a functional organizational chart. A functional organizational 92 Personnel Management chart would provide a visual illustration of positions, lines of reporting authority, as well as level of responsibility and accountability. 3. One human resources staff member expressed uncertainty regarding their role and responsibilities; however, this uncertainty may have been due in part to the fact that the department may not yet have had the opportunity to clarify staff roles and responsibilities after the recent addition of an assistant superintendent of human resources and educational services. 4. The department has no reference manual for employees that documents processes, procedures and duties. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Survey other districts with similar enrollments and configurations to determine an appropriate staffing level for the human resources department. This staffing comparison should be viewed as providing a minimum level of staffing. 2. Until it is possible to hire additional staff, continue the short-term use of consultants, retirees, or short-term contract employees on a project basis to facilitate implementation of the recovery plan without increasing staffing levels. 3. Develop a functional organization chart and make it readily available to all district staff to ensure a clear delineation between various human resources department functions and the employees who are responsible and accountable for those functions. The chart should be updated as changes occur to make the department’s workflow more efficient and effective. 4. Ensure that the human resources department develops a department reference manual that lists the department’s functions and uses it in part to assign human resources department- related duties on the functional organization chart. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 93 1.4 Organization and Planning Professional Standard The personnel function head is a member of the superintendent’s cabinet and participates in decision making early in the process. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with chief business official 3. Interviews with educational services and district administrative support staff 4. Interview with human resources consultant 5. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel 6. Outlook cabinet meeting notice 7. Cabinet meeting agenda and notes Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Members of the human resources department had not been involved in the superintendent’s cabinet for several years, though a consultant was in 2008-09. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The personnel technician position was changed to personnel manager, and this employee has been participating in cabinet meetings. With the responsibility for the department shifting from the state administrator and chief business official to the assistant superintendent of educational services and human resources, the role of the chief personnel officer and the personnel manager in cabinet- and department-level decision making needs to be well articulated. Findings 1. The personnel manager has been involved in the superintendent’s cabinet since the February 2010 review. 2. The personnel manager reports to the assistant superintendent of educational services and human resources, who has been identified as the chief personnel officer. The chief personnel officer has experience in personnel management and will be responsible for working with district staff to define and establish practices, procedures and systems for this department. 94 Personnel Management Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the personnel manager’s role in the cabinet and in department level decision making is clearly articulated. The department’s reference manual should clearly distinguish this position’s role from that of the chief personnel officer, including what activities and decisions each position directs, facilitates and supports. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 95 1.5 Organization and Planning Professional Standard The personnel function has a data management calendar that lists all the ongoing data activities and responsible parties to ensure meeting critical deadlines on CALPADS/CBEDS reporting. The data is reviewed by the appropriate authority prior to certification. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with chief business official 3. Interviews with district and school site administrators 4. Interview with human resources consultant 5. 2009-10 Information Services Data Calendar 6. 2010-11 Information Services Data Calendar 7. CALPADS Modified Collection and Submission Methods: Description and Deadlines Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The human resources department did not have a data management calendar and was not providing information to employees responsible for submitting data to the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), California School Information Systems (CSIS) or the California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS). Instead, the data department was providing this information to the human resources department. No supervisor was reviewing data before certifying the CALPADS, CSIS and CBEDS data sent to the state. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The educational services department has historically been responsible for the collection, certification, and submission of CALPADS, CSIS, and CBEDS reports for the district. The student information manager develops a data management calendar for these activities and is supported in the collection of personnel data by the personnel manager. Findings 1. The human resources department does not have a data management calendar or a list of data activities and responsible parties. 2. The student information manager has a data management calendar that lists CALPADS and CBEDS dates and activities. 96 Personnel Management 3. The human resources department provides the student information manager with information needed for CALPADS and CBEDS. 4. The personnel manager has created a Microsoft Access database for managing employee data. Previously, the data had to be prepared manually for CALPADS and CBEDS reporting because the county office system for entering data and generating reports was ineffective. 5. The personnel manager and the chief personnel officer review data prior to certification and transmission of the CALPADS and CBEDS information to the state of California. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the human resources department develops a data management calendar that identifies critical data elements and tasks that must be completed annually to ensure timely submission of required state reports. 2. Ensure that the department supervisor continue to review all information before certification and transmission to the state of California. 3. Ensure that the human resources department takes responsibility for human resources- related data and functions related to CALPADS and CBEDS. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 97 3.5 Employee Recruitment/Selection Legal Standard The LEA has a system in place to routinely monitor teacher assignments for the appropriate credential authorization, including CLAD or other documents necessary to instruct English Language Learner students. (EC 44258.9, 44265.1, 44265.2, and 33126) Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with chief business official 3. Interviews with district and school site administrators 4. Interviews with human resources department and business office staff 5. Interview with human resources consultant 6. Interview with district California Teachers Association representative 7. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel 8. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education credentials department personnel 9. Letter from Monterey County Office of Education credentials department dated March 11, 2009, and various responses from district staff 10. District’s assignment monitoring and review report dated June 30, 2009 11. No Child Left Behind teacher action plan dated October 22, 2009 12. 2009-10 Williams Monitoring Report 13. Memorandum of understanding eliminating CLAD certification stipend Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Before fiscal year 2008-09, the district did not have a procedure for routinely monitoring teacher assignments for the appropriate credentialing. The district was out of compliance with Cross- cultural Language and Academic Development (CLAD) certification until February 2008. The district had approved an annual payment to all teachers if at least two-thirds of teachers received their CLAD certification. 98 Personnel Management Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The personnel manager reviews the master schedules to identify teacher misassignments. Late adjustments to the master schedule have made credential monitoring particularly challenging this year. During FCMAT’s fieldwork, the master schedule was still being modified and therefore had not yet been reviewed by human resources for misassignments. The district does not have a written procedure that ensures newly hired certificated employees are properly credentialed for vacant positions. Findings 1. Prior to fiscal year 2008-09, the district did not have a procedure or program to routinely monitor teacher assignments for the appropriate credential authorization. Since that time, the personnel manager annually reviews the master schedule to identify any misassignments. 2. The personnel manager reviews the master schedules to identify teacher misassignments. Late adjustments to the master schedule have made credential monitoring challenging this year. 3. The district was successful in eliminating the CLAD certification stipend during the most recent negotiations. All teachers are now CLAD certified. 4. The annual Williams report for 2009-10 indicated seven misassignments. All misassignments were corrected for the 2010-11 school year. 5. The district does not have a written procedure that ensures newly hired certificated employees are properly credentialed for vacant positions. Site administrators do not have a clear understanding of their role and the role of human resources staff in the hiring and assignment of new certificated staff. 6. Revisions to the high schools’ master schedules were not completed until well after the start of the school year, which hampered the personnel manager’s ability to monitor the schedule for compliance and misassignments. Personnel Management 99 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Implement a plan for the human resources department to routinely monitor teacher assignments to ensure that all teachers are teaching in programs for which they are credentialed. 2. Develop a written hiring procedure that ensures new hires are properly credentialed for vacant positions. The written procedure should clearly identify the roles and responsibilities of school site administration and human resources department staff in the recruitment, screening, selection and assignment of newly hired certificated staff. 3. Develop a process for creating and completing the master schedule early in the preceding school year so that layoffs, transfers and reassignments, recruitment, and hiring are aligned with the needs of each school site. 4. Strive for minimal assignment changes and modifications to the master schedule after school has started. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 100 Personnel Management 3.9 Employee Recruitment/Selection Professional Standard The personnel function has a recruitment plan based on an assessment of the LEA’s needs for specific skills, knowledge, and abilities. The LEA has established an adequate recruitment budget. Job applications meet legal and LEA needs. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with chief business official 3. Interviews with district and site administrators and support staff 4. Interview with human resources department staff 5. Interview with human resources consultant 6. Interview with district California Teachers Association representative 7. Classified employment application, updated 2005-06 8. Supplement for experienced custodian position, no date provided 9. Brandman University Student Teacher Agreement 10. La Verne University Student Teacher Agreement 11. Brandman University Internship Agreement 12. Certificated employment application, updated 2009-10 13. Management employment application, updated 2009-10 14. Classified employment application, updated 2009-10 15. 2010-11 Teacher Recruitment and Hiring Procedure Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The human resources department did not have a recruitment plan for 2008-09 or 2009-10. Hiring was done in late summer because of inadequate enrollment projections, and there was neither a formal recruitment process for classified staff nor a recruitment budget. The district was using EDJOIN (www.edjoin.org) for certificated staff recruitment but outdated paper applications for classified and administrative staff positions. Personnel Management 101 Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The human resources department did not have a recruitment plan for 2010-11. The district has updated all employment applications and is currently using EDJOIN (www.edjoin.org) for recruitment and selection of all new employees. Significant turnover in site administration made development and implementation of master schedules particularly challenging for the 2010-11 school year. At the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork the master schedules were not settled and changes were still anticipated. Site and district administrators felt that some schools were overstaffed as a result of enrollment projections and layoffs. Findings 1. The human resources department did not have a recruitment plan for fiscal year 2010-11. 2. The district developed a 2010-11 teacher recruitment and hiring procedure for filling vacancies. While the procedure is a step in the right direction, it is only one part of a comprehensive plan that is needed and that would address enrollment and staffing projections, master schedule development, layoff planning, transfer and reassignment, and recruitment and selection. 3. The district hired individuals for positions late in the summer because of unexpected personal leaves and because some applicant pools lacked individuals who met the district’s requirements. 4. The district has no formal recruitment plan for hiring classified staff that delineates the task to be accomplished, the position responsible for carrying out that a task and the time line for completion. Common tasks include review of current job description and salary placement, determining where to advertise open positions to obtain a pool of quality applicants, development of recruitment flyers that included a description of the district, the position and other relevant information. In best practice, the process also usually includes a budget for advertising, printing and attendance at county or other recruitment events. 5. The district uses EDJOIN (www.edjoin.org) for recruitment of certificated staff, classified staff and administrative positions, and all classified staff and administrator applications are received through EDJOIN. 6. The district has updated its certificated and classified management and nonmanagement applications for employment. 102 Personnel Management Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the human resources department works cooperatively with the business department and the sites to develop accurate enrollment projections that enable the administration to adequately define the district’s staffing requirements for at least the current and two subsequent fiscal years. Changes in the instructional program should also be taken into consideration when identifying staffing needs for subsequent years. Enrollment projections and the needs of students should also be considered when developing master schedules. 2. Develop a certificated staffing recruitment plan based on the district’s needs. Recruitment goals should change annually based on changing needs. However, a template for the annual recruitment plan should be developed to facilitate efficient and effective planning. The plan should provide a clear time line for activities and should identify site and district staff roles and responsibilities as well as needed resources. The plan should also include a budget for printing, advertising and staff attendance at recruiting events. 3. Develop written practices and procedures for recruitment of certificated and classified staff. 4. Expand recruitment of classified management positions to additional venues. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 103 3.11 Employee Recruitment/Selection Professional Standard Selection procedures are uniformly applied. The LEA systematically initiates and follows up and performs reference checks on all applicants being considered for employment. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with chief business official 3. Interviews with district administrators and support staff 4. Interviews with human resources department and business office staff 5. Interview with human resources consultant 6. Interview with district California Teachers Association representative 7. Interview questions, not dated 8. Position testing documentation dated 1/2003 and 10/2004 9. 2010-11 Teacher Recruitment and Hiring Procedure 10. Certificated reference check form 11. Interview packets and sample completed reference check forms Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district was using standard interview questions but had no form for background or reference checks and no evidence of background and/or reference checks having been performed on candidates interviewed or on the candidate recommended for a position. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has developed a standard reference check form. Reference checks were performed on all candidates recommended for hire for the 2010-11 school year. Findings 1. The district has standard interview questions for certificated and classified positions, and interviews with the personnel manager and site administrators confirmed that standard interview questions are used in the selection of certificated personnel. The district conducted reference checks on all candidates recommended for hire. 104 Personnel Management 2. The district has developed a form for background and/or reference checks. 3. The district has not developed a procedure for properly filing reference check forms. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the newly implemented reference check policy and procedure is consistently followed and the standard district reference check form used when recommending certificated and classified management and nonmanagement candidates for hire. 2. Require all hiring managers to use the standard reference check form to record the name and responses of persons contacted, and to sign, date, and return the form to human resources. 3. File all reference check forms in the personnel selection process folders, not in the personnel files of employees who are hired. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 105 3.12 Employee Recruitment/Selection Professional Standard The LEA recruits, selects, and monitors principals with strong leadership skills, with a priority on placement of strong leaders at underperforming schools. Sources and Documentation 4. Interview with state administrator 5. Interview with chief business official 6. Interviews with district and school site administrators and support staff 7. Interview with human resources department staff 8. Interview with human resources consultant 9. Interview with district California Teachers Association representative 10. 2010-11 principal applications 11. 2010-11 principal selection materials Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district’s principals included a lifelong resident and former teacher, and an administrator with four years of teaching experience elsewhere and one year as assistant principal in the district. One of the assistant principals had led King City High School in regaining accreditation. Administrator’s salaries were competitive and, with the benefits, sufficient to recruit and maintain experienced administrators. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The state administrator gave the high school principals notice of termination of contract or reassignment based on their failure to improve student outcomes and move the district out of Program Improvement status. Candidates were selected after the second round of recruitment, and the state administrator performed reference checks on all principal candidates. Findings 1. Based on the district’s lack of academic progress and continuing Program Improvement status, the state administrator elected to issue notice of termination of contract to all principals in the district. One principal found other employment and the other was laid off. Principals were allowed to reapply for their positions. 106 Personnel Management 2. The district’s salaries for school administrators are competitive with salaries for similar positions in school districts throughout California. 3. Existing salary and employee benefits schedules should enable the district to recruit and maintain experienced school site administrators. 4. Principal recruitment efforts resulted in a large applicant pool out of which approximately 12 candidates were selected for interview. The district chose to advertise again after completing the first round of principal interviews to find the right fit for each school. Candidates were selected after the second round of recruitment, and the state administrator performed reference checks on all principal candidates. 5. Principal candidates were selected for interview based on their secondary leadership experience. Candidates selected for hire demonstrated values and beliefs that made them a good fit for the district. 6. The district has not developed a budget for an annual recruitment process. Broad recruitment of classified and certificated managements is necessary to develop a quality applicant pool. 7. The district developed a reference check form but has not systematically implemented the use of the form. If school was in session, the district visited the current employment sites of the candidates prior to selection. 8. The district has revised evaluation processes for certificated and classified staff. Consistent evaluation of administrative staff based on stated measurable goals, including student achievement, is planned. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide the district’s administration with the funds needed to conduct a thorough recruiting process to ensure a broad pool of candidates. 2. Continue to select candidates for interview based on minimum criteria for site administrator positions, including number of years of experience in administration and level of education and training. 3. Ensure that the standard reference check form is used, and begin recruitment early in the year so that there is opportunity to visit the school sites where candidates are employed while school is in session. 4. Review administrative assignments annually to place the strongest administrators at underperforming school sites. 5. Monitor administrators’ progress toward meeting identified goals, and conduct regular evaluations. Personnel Management 107 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 108 Personnel Management 4.3 Induction and Professional Development Legal Standard The LEA has developed a systematic program for identifying areas of need for in-service training for all employees. The LEA has established a process by which all required notices and in-service training sessions have been performed and documented such as those for child abuse reporting, blood-borne pathogens, drug and alcohol-free workplace, sexual harassment, diversity training, and nondiscrimination. (cf. 4112.9/4212.9/4312.9), GC 11135 EC 56240, EC 44253.7) Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with chief business official 3. Interviews with district and school site administrators and support staff 4. Interview with human resources department staff 5. Interview with human resources consultant 6. Interview with district California Teachers Association representative 7. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel 8. Certificates of completion for sexual harassment training, drug- and alcohol-free workplace training, and diversity training 9. Copies of 2010-11 annual legal notice forms that are sent to all employees and that include policies and regulations related to child abuse reporting, bloodborne pathogens, drug and alcohol-free workplace, sexual harassment, and nondiscrimination Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had no process for providing or documenting required notices and training regarding child abuse reporting and blood-borne pathogens, and personnel files reviewed did not indicate that employees had received the training listed in this standard. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has improved the process for ensuring that required legal notices are delivered to and signed by all employees, and the human resources department is monitoring and tracking participation in required trainings. In addition, the human resources department is working to implement Keenan Safe Schools, an online training module that can provide child abuse reporting, bloodborne pathogens, drug- and alcohol-free workplace, sexual harassment, diversity and nondiscrimination training to all employees annually. Personnel Management 109 Findings 1. The district does not have a process to ensure that it provides and documents all required notices and in-service training sessions related to child abuse reporting and blood-borne pathogens. 2. The district had a sign-in sheet that included the names of employees, indicating that employees received training regarding sexual harassment. 3. The personnel files reviewed did not contain any documents indicating that the employee received the required training listed in this standard. 4. In interviews, employees indicated that they receive no training related to mandatory reporting of child abuse concerns. 5. The district sent the required annual legal notices to employees and plans to file the signed coversheet in each employee’s personnel record. 6. The district is working with Keenan to implement the Keenan Safe Schools’ training program to provide online training based on job classification requirements. The Keenan Safe Schools’ training program can send electronic notifications to employees and track their participation and completion of required trainings. Keenan Safe Schools may not replace all required trainings in the district; however, it is a cost-effective way to meet training requirements and offer trainings that the district may not have the economy of scale to make available on site. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Support the personnel manager in implementing the Keenan Safe Schools’ training program and ensuring that all district employees satisfy the online training requirements including but not limited to child abuse reporting, blood-borne pathogens, drug- and alcohol-free workplace, sexual harassment, diversity training and nondiscrimination. 2. Ensure that the personnel manager sends all required notices to employees annually and maintains documentation of these notifications in the human resources office. 3. Consider implementing a paperless process for sending required legal notices to employees annually. Similar to the implementation of Keenan Safe Schools, this would require that all employees have a district e-mail account and access to a computer at their worksite or at the district office. 110 Personnel Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 111 4.5 Induction and Professional Development Professional Standard Initial orientation is provided for all new staff, and orientation materials are provided for new employees in all classifications: substitutes, certificated and classified employees. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with chief business official 3. Interviews with district and school site administrators 4. Interviews with human resources department and business office staff 5. Interview with human resources consultant 6. Interview with district California Teachers Association representative 7. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel 8. New employee checklist 9. New teacher orientation agenda and materials 10. New teacher handbook 11. New classified employee orientation agenda and materials Summary of First Comprehensive Review, January 2010 The district had not held in-service sessions in the current or previous years, and no packets of materials for new hires were available for review. Personnel files contained no evidence that employees had completed all legally required documents prior to employment, and the district had no employee handbooks. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, January 2011 The district developed an orientation program for new certificated and classified employees. Orientation meetings for each group were conducted separately, and each group received information and materials specific to their employment classification. Findings 1. Information from interviews with staff indicates that the district did not hold in-service sessions in previous years. 112 Personnel Management 2. The district held new employee orientations for certificated and classified employees in August 2010. The orientation meetings introduced district office staff to new employees and included an overview of human resource services, salary and benefits, absence reporting, workers compensation procedures, and other relevant topics. 3. Orientation for substitute employees has not yet occurred. 4. There was no assessment or evaluation of the orientation program by new employees, resulting in a lack of evidence regarding the program’s effectiveness. 5. The district has developed a new hire checklist to ensure that all legally required documents are provided before the first day of employment. Checklist are filed in the employee’s personnel file. 6. The district has no handbooks for certificated or classified staff. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide orientation meetings for substitute employees 2. Continue to develop a rich program of orientation for certificated and classified employees. Ensure that the program meets the needs of new employees by developing an orientation evaluation. The evaluation should be to assess the effectiveness of the program and to determine other information new employees want to know or learn more about. 3. Develop employee handbooks for management, certificated and classified employees, and include the handbooks as part of the employee orientation process. 4. Continue to ensure that the hiring process includes completion of the new employee checklist and filing of the checklist in the employee’s personnel record. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 113 5.1 Operational Procedures Legal Standard Regulations or agreements covering various types of leaves are fairly administered. (EC 45199, EC 45193, EC 45207, EC 45192, EC 45191) Tracking of employee absences and usage of time off in all categories should be timely and should be reported to payroll for any necessary salary adjustments. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with chief business official 3. Interviews with district and school site administrators and support staff 4. Interviews with human resources department and business office staff 5. Interview with district California Teachers Association representative 6. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel 7. Report of Absence by type (e.g. sick leave, vacation, etc.) (3), not dated 8. Report of compensatory time and vacation balances as of June 30, 2010 9. District annual leave reporting forms 10. Certificated collective bargaining agreement, Article XIII: Leaves 11. District’s proposal to CSEA, Article XII: Leaves 12. District’s proposal to CSEA, Article V: Hours and Overtime 13. District’s proposal to CSEA, Article IX: Vacation 14. Administrative Regulations 4161.2, 4261.2, 4361.2 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district provided no board policy addressing personnel absences and leaves, no process for reporting teachers’ daily absences, personal illness and injury, or the right to sick leave, and no process for using these types of leave. Conflicting statements suggested that practices were not consistent with legal requirements. However, both classified and certificated bargaining agreements outlined the types of leaves of absence for which bargaining unit members were eligible. It was difficult to determine workflow and tracking of leaves of absence. Compensatory time and overtime also lacked documentation. 114 Personnel Management Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has made measurable progress in the area of leave management, largely as a result of successfully negotiating changes with employee bargaining groups. The district successfully negotiated revisions to the certificated collective bargaining agreement that eliminate leave entitlements in excess of those provided for by law, and has proposed to the classified unit changes in the leave, vacation, and compensatory time provisions that would similarly ensure that benefits do not exceed statutory requirements. There is minimal evidence of a plan to eliminate existing vacation and compensatory time liabilities. Findings 1. The newly ratified certificated collective bargaining agreement contains revised leave language that ensures consistency with provision of the California Education Code and other state and federal laws related to employment-protected leaves. 2. The district reached an agreement with the classified collective bargaining unit in August 2010. The proposal will ensure consistency with the California Education Code and other state and federal employment laws. The district was scheduled to negotiate remaining items of the bargaining agreement with certificated staff by by January 31, 2011. 3. The district has revised and the board has adopted administrative regulations related to certificated, classified and management leaves. 4. The leave language for certificated and classified employees requires prior notification for personal necessity leave in accord with the education code. 5. The district is tracking employee leaves for all groups. For classified employees, the district is also tracking vacation accruals, overtime and compensatory time. The district has made progress in reducing the vacation and compensatory time liability. However, documents indicate that payouts and/or scheduling of time off for employees with vacation accruals over the maximum were not consistent. In addition, compensatory time that is not paid must be taken in the form of time off within 12-months from the date it is earned; however, the district does not ensure that compensatory time is either paid or taken as time off. 6. FCMAT found evidence of classified staff accrual of unauthorized compensatory time. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop a plan to eliminate the existing vacation and compensatory time liability. 2. Develop a procedure for monitoring vacation time that ensures employees do not exceed the maximum accrual. Vacation accruals that exceed the maximum allowed by the collective bargaining agreement should be paid out or employees should have time off scheduled by their supervisor. Personnel Management 115 3. Ensure that supervisors limit the use of compensatory time and that any overtime is approved in accordance with Article 5.8.4 of the collective bargaining agreement. When compensatory time is required, work with site and department supervisors to ensure that compensatory time is paid or used in the period in which it is earned. 4. Develop an annual report of all leave earned and taken by each employee and by the district as a whole. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 116 Personnel Management 5.3 Operational Procedures Legal Standard Transfer and reassignments — LEAs that have been identified as Program Improvement are subject to corrective action including demotion or reassignment of school staff. (EC 52055.57, 20 USC 6316) Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with chief business official 3. Interviews with district and school site administrators and support staff 4. Interview with human resources consultant 5. Interview with district California Teachers Association representative 6. PowerPoint presentation and letter to parents, dated August 23, 2009 7. Certificated collective bargaining agreement, Article XXIV: Assignment, Reassignment and Transfer Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district did not demote or reassign any school staff in relation to its Program Improvement status. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Consistent with Education Code 52055.57, the district removed one principal for the 2010-11 school year. Although not required, there were no demotions or reassignments of teaching staff related to the district’s Program Improvement status. The certificated collective bargaining requires the district to consider all transfer requests but is consistent with Education Code 35036, which prohibits granting priority to a teacher who requests a transfer to another school over other qualified applicants. Findings 1. The district did not carry out any demotion or reassignment of nonmanagement school staff related to its Program Improvement status. Instead, the district chose to exercise an option that did not require reassignment of staff. 2. The district issued notifications of termination of employment to school site principals as a corrective measure. Personnel Management 117 3. The collective bargaining agreement with certificated employees does not limit the district’s ability to initiate transfers and reassignments as a corrective action because of Program Improvement status. 4. Voluntary transfer language references Education Code 35036, which prohibits the granting of voluntary transfers without the principal’s approval at schools in deciles 1 to 3. Education Code 35036 prohibits language in a collective bargaining agreement that grants priority to a teacher who requests to be transferred to another school over other qualified applicants who have applied for positions requiring certification qualifications at that school. The contract with certificated employees requires the district to consider all transfer requests but does not guarantee the granting of such request or prohibit the district from considering other qualified applicants. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Work closely with the Monterey County Office of Education advisors to develop a policy for implementing Program Improvement corrective actions. 2. Ensure that Education Code 35036 is followed when considering transfer requests and making teacher assignments related to the district’s Program Improvement status. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 118 Personnel Management 5.4 Operational Procedures Legal Standard Personnel file contents are complete and available for inspection. (EC 44031, LC 1198.5) Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with chief business official 3. Interview with personnel technician 4. Interview with executive assistant to superintendent 5. Interview with director of maintenance, operations, transportation and facilities (MOTF) 6. Interview with district California Teachers Association representative 7. Sample personnel file, recreated from actual employee files, reviewed October 28, 2009 8. Sample personnel file reviewed on September 29, 2010 9. Copies of certificated and classified evaluation lists provided to site and department supervisors Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had made a concerted effort to update personnel files in 2008-09, but sample personnel files reviewed lacked required documentation, including annual evaluations. Individual files were available for staff to inspect. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The human resources department is making significant progress in the organization of personnel files and ensuring that required documents are filed annually. The department is also making a concerted effort to ensure that site and department supervisors are notified of the employees to be evaluated during the 2010-11 school year. The district needs to ensure that supervisors are held accountable for completing the required evaluations. Findings 1. Sample personnel files provided for review lacked the required documentation. The most significant missing items were annual evaluations. 2. At the beginning of the 2010-11 school year, the district provided site and department supervisors with lists of classified and certificated employees due for evaluation. Personnel Management 119 3. Required annual notices were sent to all employees at the beginning of the 2010-11 school year. Human resources staff reported that these would be filed in employees’ personnel files. 4. Individual personnel files are available for staff to inspect. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the human resources department creates a checklist of annual updates for each type of personnel file and files the appropriate documentation annually. 2. Ensure that site and department supervisors complete required evaluations based on the list provided by the human resources department. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 120 Personnel Management 5.5 Operational Procedures Professional Standard Personnel function nonmanagement staff members have individual desk manuals for all of the personnel functions for which they are held responsible, and the department has a process for cross training. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with chief business official 3. Interviews with district administrators and classified management 4. Interviews with human resources department and business office staff 5. Interview with human resources consultant 6. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The human resources department did not have desk manuals or procedural manuals for its one employee. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The department’s ability to develop and implement written procedures for essential personnel functions is significantly limited by current staffing levels. Thoughtfully articulating procedures and creating desk manuals is likely to remain secondary to completing the day-to-day work and implementing essential elements of the recovery plan. Findings 1. The human resources department does not have desk manuals for its staff, or any manuals that describe how job functions are to be performed. 2. Essential personnel functions are shared by the chief personnel officer, the personnel manager, and the district’s receptionist. Desk manuals would be a helpful learning aid for any employees who may be added to the department in the future or for department staff who assist co-workers with essential tasks or complete them in their absence. However, the human resources department may lack adequate staffing, making the development of written procedures and desk manuals unlikely. Personnel Management 121 3. Payroll and other district staff positions have not been cross trained to perform essential personnel duties in the absence of the personnel manager. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Request assistance from the Monterey County Office of Education or use consultants, retirees, or short-term contact employees to document personnel processes in the human resources department and develop desk manuals for the various functions in the department. 2. Cross train the human resources department and payroll department staff in essential human resources department functions, at least until additional staff are assigned to the human resources department. Standard Not Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: 122 Personnel Management 5.7 Operational Procedures Professional Standard The personnel function has procedures in place that allow for both personnel and payroll staff to meet regularly to solve problems that develop in the processing of new employees, classification changes, employee promotions, and other issues that may develop. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with chief business official 3. Interviews with human resources department and business office staff 4. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel 5. Copies of e-mail exchanges between human resources and payroll staff Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The payroll and human resources department staff had been meeting for the past 18 months, and interdepartmental communication had improved. Incorrect payment of employees was still frequent, however, and the two departments maintained separate manual spreadsheets, resulting in inconsistent data. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Formal meetings of the payroll and human resources department staff were infrequent. Although the departments are not meeting formally, the personnel manager reports that communication is frequent. The departments are small and staff have positive working relationships; however, formal meetings are still necessary. Findings 1. The payroll and human resources department maintain separate manual spreadsheets because the county office system is antiquated and ineffective. Consequently, the data remains inconsistent. 2. Formal meetings of the payroll and human resources department staff were infrequent during the last reporting period. 3. Although the departments are not meeting formally, the personnel manager reports that communication is frequent. The departments are small and have positive working relationships. Personnel Management 123 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the human resources and payroll departments schedule and conduct formal meetings regularly. 2. Schedule these meetings regularly and provide an agenda and list of agreed upon action items to the state administrator for review. 3. Use these meetings as a forum for developing a schedule of interdepartmental procedures, time lines, and deadlines. 4. Use the procedures, time lines and deadlines that are developed as the basis for desk manuals for each department. 5. When the county office of education adopts a new financial and personnel management system, ensure full implementation by the human resources and payroll departments. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 124 Personnel Management 5.8 Operational Procedures Professional Standard Personnel staff members attend training sessions/workshops to keep abreast of best practices and requirements facing personnel administrators. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with former superintendent 3. Interview with chief business official 4. Interviews with district administrators 5. Interview with human resources department staff 6. Interview with district California Teachers Association representative 7. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education assistant superintendent of human resources 8. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel 9. Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) Personnel Academy registration form 10. Credential Counselors and Analysts of California (CCAC) Credential Conference registration confirmation 11. CalPERS Disability Seminar registration confirmation Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 District staff had participated in few trainings, human resources department staff lacked adequate training, and there was little cross training. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The personnel manager is scheduled to attend the year-long ACSA Personnel Academy. The personnel manager’s commitment to this extended training and the district’s investment of resources are commendable. Because the human resources department is small, identifying backup personnel for essential functions is essential. Personnel Management 125 Findings 1. District staff report attending training sessions offered by the Monterey County Office of Education since the last reporting period. 2. The personnel manager is enrolled in the ACSA Personnel Academy. 3. The personnel manager attended the October CCAC credentials conference. 4. The personnel manager attended the CalPERS disability seminar. 5. The district receptionist position was vacant for a time and was recently filled. The personnel manager is training the receptionist in assigned personnel functions. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Establish an annual staff development plan that identifies the training needs of individuals in the department and the availability of training resources. 2. Ensure that the human resources department has a representative at all personnel-related trainings provided by the Monterey County Office of Education. 3. Identify and train backup personnel for essential human resource functions. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 126 Personnel Management 5.10 Operational Procedures Professional Standard Established staffing formulas dictate the assignment of personnel to the various sites and programs. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with chief business official 3. Interviews with district and school site administrators, classified management, and support staff 4. Interview with human resources department staff 5. Interview with human resources consultant 6. Interview with district California Teachers Association representative 7. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel 8. Collective bargaining agreement with certificated staff, Article XIV: Class Size Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district did not provide board policies or administrative regulations regarding staffing formulas. Staffing allocations were based on enrollment projections, but there was no information about how the projections were prepared. Although both high schools had similar enrollment, King City High School employed five more teachers. Staffing increases were decided on a case-by-case basis at the request of school sites. Staffing ratios were well below what was specified in contract provisions. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district and the certificated staff bargaining unit have ratified a class size agreement that eliminates the 32:1 staffing ratio. The new language provides for higher per-period and student contact maximums. The changes in administration made it difficult to accomplish early enrollment projections, master schedule planning, or hiring based on staffing at or near the new contractual maximums. Findings 1. Staffing allocations are based on enrollment projections; however, FCMAT was not able to locate any supporting information indicating how the projections were prepared. Because of changes in site and district administration for 2010-11, the process for Personnel Management 127 projecting enrollment and staffing needs was not well coordinated and resulted in some overstaffing, as reported by district and school site administrators. 2. Balancing of classes and adjustments to the master schedules were not complete at the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork, making review and analysis of enrollment and staffing difficult. 3. The collective bargaining agreement with certificated staff has historically contained maximum class size, student contact parameters and student-to-adult ratios for certificated support personnel. Staffing ratios were not followed in the past, resulting in unnecessary overstaffing. During the 2009-10 school year, the district and the certificated bargaining unit negotiated changes to the contract article regarding class size. The ratified agreement eliminates the 32:1 ratio and adds per-period maximums and a maximum number of daily student contacts. The ratified agreement also provides overage payments when the per-period or per-day maximums are exceeded. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop an instructional plan for each school based on enrollment projections and students’ needs, and staff at or near the new contract maximums. 2. Develop school site and district office staffing formulas for classified, certificated and management groups to ensure consistency between sites and effective management of personnel expenditures. 3. Ensure that staffing formulas are based on full-time equivalents and that they indicate the work year for each program and school site. 4. Ensure that the human resources department works cooperatively with the business department and the sites to develop accurate enrollment projections no later than January of each year. Take into consideration changes in the instructional program when identifying staffing needs for subsequent years. Consider enrollment projections, changes in the instructional program, and the needs of students when developing master schedules. 5. Develop a time line for staffing and enrollment projections that identifies site and district administrators’ roles and responsibilities. The time line should ensure that reductions in certificated service are identified by the end of January so that necessary reductions can be made within the statutory timeline and preliminary layoff notices issued by March 15. 6. Monitor enrollment and class sizes after the school year begins to determine if second semester staffing should be adjusted and to help ensure that staffing levels remain constant throughout the school year. 128 Personnel Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 129 7.1 Use of Technology Professional Standard An online position control system is utilized and is integrated with payroll/financial systems. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with former superintendent 3. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel 4. Interview with interim chief business official Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district was using a manual position control system that staff did not understand; it had no automated position control system that integrated with the payroll and financial systems. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district is constrained by the system currently in use by the Monterey County Office of Education. Staff members describe the system as inadequate in terms of the district’s needs. The county office has issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a new financial system, and the district will participate in selection of the vendor. Findings 1. The district does not have an automated position control system that is integrated with the payroll and financial reporting system software. 2. Human resources staff maintain personnel data in a separate database. 3. The district is constrained by the system used by the Monterey County Office of Education, which human resources and business office staff described as antiquated and ineffective. 4. The Monterey County Office of Education is requesting proposals for a new financial system, and the district’s interim chief business official will be on the RFP selection committee. 130 Personnel Management Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Work closely with the Monterey County Office of Education in evaluating, selecting and implementing a new financial system that integrates budget, payroll and position control. 2. Fully implement the new financial system when it is adopted to ensure accurate and effective position control. 3. In the interim, continue to maintain, monitor and update the current personnel database so that data is accurate and reports are timely. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 131 7.2 Use of Technology Professional Standard The LEA provides professional development in the appropriate use of technological resources that will assist staff in the performance of their job responsibilities when need exists and when budgets allow such training. (cf. 4131, 4231, 4331) Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interviews with district and school site administrators 3. Interviews with human resources staff and the chief personnel officer 4. Interview with district California Teachers Association representative 5. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district did not have a professional development plan for the human resources department and had not provided training in the various technologies used. Employees noted their lack of training on the personnel and payroll systems. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Investment in training related to the existing financial system is not recommended; the district is working with the county office to select a new countywide system. When a new system is selected, the district should ensure that it is fully implemented. This will require significant training and support. Because the level of staffing is low, the human resources department may need short-term assistance during the transition and training to ensure that day-to-day operations do not suffer. Findings 1. The district does not have a professional development plan for the human resources department. 2. Training on the various software products employees use has been minimal in the past, though the Monterey County Office of Education provides some training. 3. Because the county office is planning to purchase and implement a new system, training on the existing system is unnecessary. In the interim, the district will continue to rely on manual systems currently in place in the business and human resources departments. 132 Personnel Management 4. The district does not conduct assessments of employees’ skill levels and knowledge of software and systems used within the human resources and payroll departments. This assessment will be essential to developing a professional development program. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop a professional development plan and schedule to ensure the highest level of performance by the individuals in the human resources department. Ensure that the plan and schedule specify who is to provide the training and how it is to be accomplished. 2. Conduct an assessment of employees’ skill levels in all technology systems, including Microsoft Office applications and the personnel system provided by the Monterey County Office of Education. 3. When a new countywide financial and personnel system is selected, ensure that all employees have adequate training and support to ensure successful implementation. This should include participation in all county office trainings related to the new system. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 133 8.1 Evaluation/Due Process Assistance Legal Standard Clear policies and practices exist for the regular written evaluation and assessment of classified (EC 45113) and certificated employees and managers (EC 44663). Evaluations are done in accordance with negotiated contracts and based on job-specific standards of performance. A clear process exists for providing assistance to certificated and classified employees performing at less-than-satisfactory levels. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interviews with district and school site administrators and support staff 3. Interviews with human resources department and business office staff 4. Interview with district California Teachers Association representative 5. Article 15 of the collective bargaining agreement with certificated employees, regarding certificated employee evaluation, pages 32-35, not dated 6. Article 10 of the collective bargaining agreement with classified employees, regarding evaluation procedures, page 36, not dated 7. Two reports identifying the last date certificated and classified employees were evaluated 8. 2010-11 collective bargaining agreement with certificated employees, Article XV – Certificated Employee Evaluation 9. 2010-11 collective bargaining agreement with classified employees, Article X – Evaluation Procedures 10. Certificated and classified employee evaluation schedules for 2010-11 11. Sample e-mails to site and department supervisors regarding evaluation schedules Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Both the certificated and classified bargaining agreements contained evaluation processes, though only the certificated agreement contained steps to assist staff in correcting deficiencies. However, the district was not consistently following these evaluation procedures, and there was no evidence of evaluations of management personnel. 134 Personnel Management Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district successfully negotiated evaluation criteria for certificated employees based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. In addition, the human resources department provided all site and department supervisors with lists of certificated and classified staff who needed to be evaluated in 2010-11 and is developing a process to track evaluations annually. Findings 1. Article XV of the collective bargaining agreement with certificated employees, titled Certificated Employee Evaluation, contains an evaluation process for probationary and permanent employees. Newly negotiated evaluation criteria are based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. New evaluation forms reflect changes to Article XV. Article X – Evaluation Procedures, of the agreement with the classified employee bargaining unit provides detailed evaluation procedures for classified employees. 2. The district provided training to site and department supervisors on new evaluation criteria and forms. 3. Lists of certificated and classified staff that were due for annual evaluations were provided to site and department supervisors. 4. Management employees have not been evaluated regularly. In 2010-11, the state administrator is evaluating all department directors and site principals. Site principals are expected to conduct evaluations of their assistant principals. 5. The district has not developed an evaluation process for management employees that includes evaluation criteria, procedures and forms. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that supervising managers follow the 2010-11 evaluation schedules provided by the human resources department for certificated and classified staff. 2. Hold supervising mangers accountable for completing evaluations in accordance with the provisions of the bargaining agreements with certificated and classified employees. 3. Develop an evaluation system for management employees that includes evaluation criteria, procedures and forms. Ensure timely annual evaluations of all certificated and classified managers. Personnel Management 135 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 136 Personnel Management 8.3 Evaluation/Due Process Assistance Professional Standard Management has the ability to evaluate job requirements and match the requirements to the employee’s skills. All classified employees are evaluated on performance at least annually by a management-level employee knowledgeable about their work product. Certificated employees are evaluated as agreed upon in the collective bargaining agreement and California Education Code. The evaluation criteria are clearly communicated and, to the extent possible, measurable. The evaluation includes follow-up on prior performance issues and establishes goals to improve future performance. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interviews with district and school site administrators and support staff 3. Interview with human resources department staff 4. Article 15 of the collective bargaining agreement with certificated staff, regarding certificated employee evaluation, pages 32-35, not dated 5. Article 10 of the collective bargaining agreement with classified staff, regarding classified employee evaluation, page 36, not dated 6. Two reports identifying the last date certificated and classified employees were evaluated 7. 2010-11 collective bargaining agreement with certificated employees, Article XV – Certificated Employee Evaluation 8. 2010-11 collective bargaining agreement with classified employees, Article X – Evaluation Procedures 9. Certificated and classified employee evaluation schedules for 2010-11 10. Sample e-mails to site and department supervisors regarding evaluation schedules Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 There was no evidence of any process for evaluating management and confidential employees. The bargaining agreements with certificated and classified staff called for evaluations every two years and every year, respectively, but this was not occurring regularly. The certificated staff bargaining agreement did not give management the ability to evaluate teachers based on their job requirements. Personnel Management 137 Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has made progress toward ensuring a meaningful evaluation process for certificated and classified employees based on measurable criteria. Managers were provided with training on the new evaluation language and use of district forms. The evaluation process does not provide a structured program to plan for and make improvement, but this does not relieve management of the responsibility to make expectations clear to struggling employees and offer meaningful support. Findings 1. Article XV of the collective bargaining agreement with certificated employees, titled Certificated Employee Evaluation, contains an evaluation process for probationary and permanent employees. Newly negotiated evaluation criteria are based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. New evaluation forms reflect changes to Article XV. 2. Article X of the collective bargaining agreement with classified employees, titled Evaluation Procedures, details the evaluation procedures for classified employees. 3. The district provided training to site and department supervisors on new evaluation criteria and forms. 4. Lists of certificated and classified staff that are due for evaluations were provided to site and department supervisors. 5. There is no evidence of a district-adopted improvement planning process for struggling employees and no evidence that they are provided with clear direction or meaningful support. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that supervising managers follow the 2010-11 certificated and classified employee evaluation schedules provided by the human resources department. 2. Hold supervising mangers accountable for completing evaluations in accordance with the provisions of the collective bargaining agreements with certificated and classified employee groups. 3. Create a procedure for developing improvement plans for struggling employees. An improvement plan should include, but may not be limited to, the following: Goals and objectives: what does the employee need to change? a. Evidence and artifacts: what evidence will demonstrate progress towards meeting the desired goals and objectives? 138 Personnel Management b. Time line: when will progress be measured? c. Monitoring: who will support the employee and monitor progress? d. Identification of resources e. Date of the next review f. Employee and evaluator signatures Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 139 9.2 Employee Services Professional Standard The personnel function has developed recognition programs for all employee groups. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interviews with district administrators and support staff 3. Interview with human resources department staff 4. Interview with district California Teachers Association representative 5. Board policies 4156.2, 4256.2 and 4356.2 – Awards and Recognition Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district provided employees with certificates for years of service but had no formal employee recognition program; morale was extraordinarily low. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has been wary of implementing a recognition program at a time when employees have made significant concessions in compensation and working conditions. The district opted instead to celebrate employees for their years of service. The board adopted an awards policy. Findings 1. The district has been wary of implementing a recognition program at a time when employees have made significant concessions in compensation and working conditions. However, on September 8, 2010, the district adopted an employee recognition policy. 2. The district provides employees with a certificate for years of service at the end of each year. 3. Awards for years of service were planned for November 2010. 4. FCMAT’s first comprehensive review in February 2010 indicated that employee morale was low and that a program of recognition may improve the situation. Although the district has not yet developed a recognition program, it recognizes employees for years of service, and employee morale has improved slightly. 140 Personnel Management Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue a program of awards for years of service. 2. Carefully weigh the risks and benefits of implementing an employee recognition program at this time. Any program of recognition that requires assistance from staff in the human resources department should consider the department’s capacity to meet current service demands and provide for a highly authentic process. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 141 10.2 Employer/Employee Relations Professional Standard The personnel function provides a clearly defined process for bargaining with its employee groups that involves site-level administrators. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator. 2. Interviews with district administrators. 3. Interview with district California Teachers Association representative. 4. Districts proposals to certificated and classified employee groups Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 There was no evidence of a clearly defined process for negotiating with the certificated and classified employee bargaining units, and collective bargaining proposals did not contain a date after which they would no longer be applicable. Site administrators were no longer involved in collective bargaining, and staff members expressed frustration with both the bargaining process and existing agreements. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district successfully negotiated with certificated and classified employee bargaining groups and gained concessions in employee compensation and working conditions. Both parties negotiated in good faith, and the changes will facilitate the district’s fiscal recovery and eventual return to local control. District staff characterized negotiations as cooperative and reported relative goodwill in labor relations. The district and both employee groups agreed to set aside a number of articles in the interest of reaching tentative agreement on the most significant issues. Findings 1. Site administrators are no longer involved in collective bargaining with the certificated employee bargaining unit. 2. Prior to 2009-10, the superintendent and chief business official represented the district in labor negotiations. 3. In the past, individual board members have involved themselves in the collective bargaining process with the certificated employees association. The state administrator did not involve board members in the collective bargaining process in 2009-10. 4. The district’s proposals were made public in accord with provisions of the government code that require disclosure and provide for public input. 142 Personnel Management 5. Negotiation proposals contained core values and negotiations parameters. 6. The state administrator, interim chief business official and personnel manager participated in negotiations at the end of the 2009-10 process. Principals were not involved in negotiations because their employment with the district had been terminated. 7. The district reached a tentative agreement with the certificated employee bargaining unit during negotiations. 8. The district reached a tentative agreement with the classified employee bargaining unit during mediation. 9. The district and the KCHSTA agreed to set aside a number of articles for negotiation during the 2010-11 school year. Outstanding articles were expected to be negotiated and tentative agreement reached by the end of January 2011. 10. Current board policy regarding collective bargaining does not provide the district with guidance throughout the negotiation process regarding balancing staff needs and district priorities, delivering a high quality instructional program, board member engagement, communication with employee groups and the public, and other items. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Include a member of one of the school site leadership teams on each of the district’s negotiating teams, especially the team negotiating with the certificated employee bargaining unit. 2. Include board members in establishing goals for negotiations; however, continue to refrain from including individual board members in the collective bargaining process. 3. Continue to make public the contract proposals in accordance with Government Code 3547 (a) and 3547 (b). 4. Develop a board policy related to the negotiations process that ensures the governing board represents the public’s interests in the collective bargaining process. Specifically, the policy should ensure the following: a. Proposals and agreements balance staff needs and the district’s priorities to provide students with a high quality instructional program based on a sound, realistic budget. b. The board and its bargaining team establish standards of conduct pertaining to the negotiations process for individual board members and members of the bargaining team. Hold meetings related to negotiations in closed session in accordance with Government Code 3549.1 when meetings are not required by state open meeting Personnel Management 143 laws (the Brown Act) to be held in public. Matters discussed in closed meetings should be kept in strict confidence. c. The district provides the employee organizations with accurate information regarding its financial resources. d. The board closely monitor the progress of negotiations and carefully considers how proposed contract provisions would affect the district’s short- and long-term fiscal, programmatic, instructional, and personnel goals. e. The district carefully considers how proposed contract provisions would affect its short- and long-term fiscal, program, instructional and personnel goals. f. The public is kept informed about the progress of negotiations and how negotiations may affect district goals. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 144 Personnel Management 10.3 Employer/Employee Relations Professional Standard The personnel function provides all managers and supervisors (certificated and classified) training in contract management with emphasis on the grievance process and administration. The personnel function provides clearly defined forms and procedures in the handling of grievances for its managers and supervisors. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interviews with district administrators and support staff 3. Interview with human resources department staff 4. Interview with district California Teachers Association representative 5. Classified and certificated collective bargaining agreements Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The collective bargaining agreements documented the district’s grievance procedure, but employees could not recall being trained in the administration of the agreements and were unable to confirm whether they had received training in the grievance process. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district provided all managers with copies of the newly negotiated collective bargaining agreements with certificated and classified employee groups. Training was provided on the certificated evaluation article but not on any other contract administration topics. The district lacks a formal plan to provide managers with training regarding other contract articles. However, these issues are discussed as they arise in the district’s twice monthly administrative council meetings. Findings 1. The district’s grievance procedure is documented in the collective bargaining agreements with certificated and classified employees. 2. Prior to 2010-11, individual employees could not recall being trained in the administration of either of the district’s collective bargaining agreements, nor were they able to confirm that they had received training in how to handle the grievance process. 3. Management staff reported that they had received a copy of the new bargaining agreements with certificated and classified employees and were provided with in-service training on the changes to the article regarding certificated evaluation. Personnel Management 145 4. The district lacks a formal plan to provide managers with training regarding contract articles with the classified and other employee groups, including training regarding the grievance process, administrators’ role in resolving conflict at the lowest possible level, and the level of support they can expect from the chief personnel officer. However, these issues are discussed as they arise in the district’s twice monthly administrative council meetings. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that management personnel are trained in the grievance process and that there is a procedure that ensures communication with human resources department staff when a grievance is initiated. The chief personnel officer should work closely with managers to ensure grievances are resolved at the lowest possible level. 2. Develop and implement a districtwide training program for all management personnel that focuses on managing and administering the district’s current labor agreements. 3. Ensure that in the future all newly hired management personnel are provided with training regarding labor agreements. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 146 Personnel Management 10.4 Employer/Employee Relations Professional Standard The personnel function has a process that provides management and the board with information on the impact of bargaining proposals, e.g., fiscal, staffing, management flexibility, student outcomes. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interviews with district administrators 3. Ratified 2010-11 collective bargaining agreement with certificated employees 4. 2010-11 collective bargaining agreement with classified employees Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had an ineffective collective bargaining strategy, and as a result the agreements were poorly written and negatively affected the district and the quality of education, including making it difficult for administrators to operate the district. Board members had also occasionally become involved in contract negotiations. Employee compensation packages were exceptionally generous and not affordable. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district successfully negotiated concessions in compensation with certificated employees. The agreement keeps certificated employee salaries and benefits highly competitive while facilitating implementation of the district’s fiscal recovery plan. To ensure fiscal solvency and restore a commitment to quality educational programs that improve student outcomes, the district needs to negotiate additional concessions in working conditions and eliminate restrictive contract language that limits management flexibility. Findings 1. Prior to initiating negotiations with employee groups, the state administrator worked with legal counsel and School Services of California, Inc. to review and analyze the fiscal issues and effects of the agreements with certificated and classified employees. 2. The district was successful in negotiating concessions in compensation with certificated employees. Certificated employee salaries and benefits continue to be highly competitive while facilitating implementation of the district’s fiscal recovery plan. To ensure fiscal solvency and restore a commitment to quality educational programs that improve student outcomes, the district needs to negotiate additional concessions in working conditions and eliminate restrictive contract language that limits management flexibility. Personnel Management 147 3. The district and employee groups have ratified agreements that included changes to the following provisions: Collective Bargaining Agreement with Certificated Employees: • Article V: Association Rights • Article VI: Management Rights • Article IX: Professional Dues or Fees and Payroll Deductions • Article XI: Hours of Employment • Article XII: Extra duty Assignments • Article XIII: Leaves • Article XIV: Class Size • Article XV: Evaluations • Article XVII: Salary • Article XVIII: Safety • Article XX: Benefits • Article XXIII: Work Year • Article XXIV: Assignment, Reassignment, and Transfer • Article XXVI: Unit Member Expenses • Article XXXII: Site-Based Decision Making was eliminated • Appendices dealing with salaries, extra-curricular stipends and approved forms Collective Bargaining Agreement with Classified Employees: • Article II: Maintenance of Policies, Rules, and Regulations • Article III: Organizational Rights and Responsibilities • Article IV: Organizational Security • Article V: Hours and Overtime • Article VI: Pay and Allowance • Article VII: Health and Welfare Benefits • Article VIII: Holidays • Article IX: Vacation Plan • Article X: Evaluation Procedures • Article XI: Promotion/Transfer Procedure • Article XII: Leaves • Article XIV: Safety • Article XVIII: Contracting Out/Volunteers 148 Personnel Management • Article XIX: Duration • Article XX: Drug and Alcohol Testing for Safety Sensitive Positions • Article XXI: No Child Left Behind Act • Article XXII: Layoff and Reemployment • Appendices dealing with salary, calendar, and approved forms 4. Board members did not participate in collective bargaining negotiations in 2009-10. 5. The district’s negotiations with its classified employee bargaining unit were largely completed in August 2010 and a contract was on the August 31, 2010 board agenda for approval. Both parties agreed to and completed negotiations regarding certain remaining articles prior to January 31, 2011. The district completed negotiations with the certificated employee bargaining unit in December 2010 and a contract was on the December 17, 2010 board agenda for approval. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue working to meet the established time line and reach agreement on the following provisions by the agreed upon date: Collective Bargaining Agreement with Certificated Employees: • Article I: Agreement • Article III: Definitions • Article VII: Grievance Procedures • Article VIII: Liaison Committee • Article XVI: Peer Assistance and Review • Article XIX: Compensatory Time and Preparation Period Substitution Policy for Teachers • Article XXI: Early Retirement Incentives • Article XXII: Part-Time Employment with Full-Time Retirement Credits • Article XXV: Certificated Hourly Employees • Article XXXIII: Miscellaneous Provisions • Article XXXIV: Duration and Reopeners • Appendix D: Professional Growth • Appendix F: Department Chairperson • Appendix G: Conversion of Compensatory Time to Sick Leave Personnel Management 149 2. Conduct additional analysis of the collective bargaining agreements to analyze areas of significant fiscal impact to the district. Use the results of the contract analysis to influence and shape future proposals by the district. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: 150 Personnel Management Table of Personnel Management Ratings Personnel Management 151 152 Personnel Management February March Personnel Management Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ORGANIZATION AND PLANNING The LEA has clearly defined and clarified roles for board and 1.1 2 4 administration relative to recruitment, hiring, evaluation and discipline of employees. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ORGANIZATION AND PLANNING The personnel function has developed a mission statement and 1.2 0 2 objectives directly related to the LEA’s goals and provides an annual report of activities and services offered during the year. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ORGANIZATION AND PLANNING The personnel function has an organizational chart and functions chart 1.3 0 1 and a menu of services that include the names, positions and job functions of all personnel staff. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ORGANIZATION AND PLANNING 1.4 The personnel function head is a member of the Superintendent’s 0 4 cabinet and participates in decision making early in the process. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ORGANIZATION AND PLANNING The personnel function has a data management calendar that lists all 1.5 the ongoing data activities and responsible parties to ensure meeting 0 2 critical deadlines on CALPADS/CBEDS reporting. The data is reviewed by the appropriate authority prior to certification. LEGAL STANDARD – EMPLOYEE RECRUITMENT/SELECTION The LEA has a system in place to routinely monitor teacher 3.5 assignments for the appropriate credential authorization, including 3 4 CLAD or other documents necessary to instruct English Language Learner students. (EC 44258.9, 44265.1, 44265.2, and 33126) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – EMPLOYEE RECRUITMENT/ SELECTION The personnel function has a recruitment plan based on an assessment 3.9 0 2 of the LEA’s needs for specific skills, knowledge, and abilities. The LEA has established an adequate recruitment budget. Job applications meet legal and LEA needs. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – EMPLOYEE RECRUITMENT/ SELECTION 3.11 Selection procedures are uniformly applied. The LEA systematically 3 4 initiates and follows up and performs reference checks on all applicants being considered for employment. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – EMPLOYEE RECRUITMENT/ SELECTION 3.12 The LEA recruits, selects, and monitors principals with strong leadership 0 2 skills, with a priority on placement of strong leaders at underperforming schools. Personnel Management 153 February March Personnel Management Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating LEGAL STANDARD – INDUCTION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The LEA has developed a systematic program for identifying areas of need for in-service training for all employees. The LEA has established 4.3 a process by which all required notices and in-service training sessions 0 2 have been performed and documented such as those for child abuse reporting, blood-borne pathogens, drug and alcohol-free workplace, sexual harassment, diversity training, and nondiscrimination. (cf. 4112.9/4212.9/4312.9), GC 11135 EC 56240, EC 44253.7) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – INDUCTION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 4.5 Initial orientation is provided for all new staff, and orientation materials 2 4 are provided for new employees in all classifications: substitutes, certificated and classified employees. LEGAL STANDARD – OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES Regulations or agreements covering various types of leaves are fairly administered. (EC 45199, EC 45193, EC 45207, EC 45192, EC 45191) 5.1 2 4 Tracking of employee absences and usage of time off in all categories should be timely and should be reported to payroll for any necessary salary adjustments. LEGAL STANDARD – OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES Transfer and reassignments – LEAs that have been identified as 5.3 0 3 Program Improvement are subject to corrective action including demotion or reassignment of school staff. (EC 52055.57, 20 USC 6316) LEGAL STANDARD – OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 5.4 Personnel files contents are complete and available for inspection. (EC 2 4 44031, LC 1198.5) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES Personnel function nonmanagement staff members have individual 5.5 0 0 desk manuals for all of the personnel functions for which they are held responsible, and the department has a process for cross training. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES The personnel function has procedures in place that allow for both 5.7 personnel and payroll staff to meet regularly to solve problems that 3 3 develop in the processing of new employees, classification changes, employee promotions, and other issues that may develop. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES Personnel staff members attend training sessions/workshops to 5.8 0 2 keep abreast of best practices and requirements facing personnel administrators. 154 Personnel Management February March Personnel Management Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 5.10 Established staffing formulas dictate the assignment of personnel to the 0 2 various sites and programs. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – USE OF TECHNOLOGY 7.1 An online position control system is utilized and is integrated with 0 1 payroll/financial systems. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – USE OF TECHNOLOGY The LEA provides professional development in the appropriate use of 7.2 technological resources that will assist staff in the performance of their 1 1 job responsibilities when need exists and when budgets allow such training. (cf. 4131, 4231, 4331) LEGAL STANDARD – EVALUATION/DUE PROCESS ASSISTANCE Clear policies and practices exist for the regular written evaluation and assessment of classified (EC 45113) and certificated employees and managers (EC 44663). Evaluations are done in accordance 8.1 3 4 with negotiated contracts and based on job-specific standards of performance. A clear process exists for providing assistance to certificated and classified employees performing at less-than- satisfactory levels. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – EVALUATION/DUE PROCESS ASSISTANCE Management has the ability to evaluate job requirements and match the requirements to the employee’s skills. All classified employees are evaluated on performance at least annually by a management- 8.3 level employee knowledgeable about their work product. Certificated 1 2 employees are evaluated as agreed upon in the collective bargaining agreement and California Education Code. The evaluation criteria are clearly communicated and, to the extent possible, measurable. The evaluation includes follow-up on prior performance issues and establishes goals to improve future performance. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – EMPLOYEE SERVICES 9.2 The personnel function has developed recognition programs for all 0 2 employee groups. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 10.2 The personnel function provides a clearly defined process for bargaining 2 4 with its employee groups that involves site-level administrators. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE RELATIONS The personnel function provides all managers and supervisors (certificated and classified) training in contract management with 10.3 0 2 emphasis on the grievance process and administration. The personnel function provides clearly defined forms and procedures in the handling of grievances for its managers and supervisors. Personnel Management 155 February March Personnel Management Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE RELATIONS The personnel function has a process that provides management and 10.4 0 5 the board with information on the impact of bargaining proposals, e.g., fiscal, staffing, management flexibility, student outcomes. Collective Average Rating 0.92 2.69 The collective average ratings for both February 2010 and March 2011 are based on the subset of priority standards used in this second comprehensive review. 156 Personnel Management Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 157 158 Pupil Achievement 1.1 Planning Processes Legal Standard Categorical and compensatory program funds supplement and do not supplant services and materials to be provided by the LEA. (20 USC 6321) Sources and Documentation 1. Mission/vision statement on the King City Joint Union High School District website, which states the following: King City Joint Union High School district has one singular focus, our mission, our goal: Maximize student academic achievement in a culture of caring. All of our resources, planning and preparation, instructional activities, homework, assessments, and curricular activities are designed to help us attain this goal. At King City Joint Union High School District we seek to provide our students with engaging and meaningful instructional activities that will maximize achievement and retention of the California Content Standards. (http://www.kingcity.k12.ca.us/King_City_High_ School_District/Home.html) 2. Goals for King City Joint Union High School District, undated, provided by the district 3. Local educational agency (LEA) plan for July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2013, revised January 19, 2009 4. Interviews with teachers, site administrators and district staff 5. LEA plan, revised March 19, 2010 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district did not maintain site budgets, and the budget development process did not include consultation with the school site councils. The director of educational services managed all activities related to developing and administering the instructional support budget. Categorical funding was not aligned with the single school plans, LEA plan or school improvement efforts. It was difficult to determine if supplanting occurred. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district maintains site budgets; however, councils do not receive current and timely information. The director of educational services continues to manage and administer the instructional support budget. Because it has hired an assistant superintendent of educational services and human resources, the district will be able to focus more resources on instruction. Staff indicated that supplemental services are provided with compensatory funding; however, because the school site council budgets were not available, FCMAT was not able to confirm this. Pupil Achievement 159 Findings 1. Documents reviewed and interviews with district staff and site councils do not indicate that categorical and compensatory program funds have supplanted other services and materials the district is to provide. However, without current budgets it is not possible to determine if such funds are supplanting or supplementing services and materials. 2. The director of educational services continues to manage the instructional and categorical support budget. Site administrators have limited working knowledge of categorical budgets and their funding procedures. 3. The services and materials provided by categorical funding are difficult to determine, and there is no evidence that they are aligned with any single plan for improving student achievement, or with any district plans, WASC accreditation or school improvement efforts. 4. Budgets were not in place for the site councils at either school or for districtwide categorical programs. No categorical fund budgets were provided during FCMAT’s fieldwork. 5. Categorical budget development does not include consultation with school sites or site councils. 6. There is not yet evidence of a districtwide vision or long-term plan for categorical funding and support. 7. School sites have not yet been notified of categorical funding allotments. This limits the possibility of yearlong programs and efforts to improve student achievement. 8. There is evidence of training for school site councils regarding the role, purpose and processes of successful programs. 9. The district hired an experienced assistant superintendent of educational services and human resources to direct recovery efforts in the area of student achievement. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide clearly defined categorical budgets for school site councils in a format that parents, staff and community members can easily understand. Budgets should be developed and distributed to site councils and sites before the beginning of each school year. 2. Establish a timeline that identifies deadlines for categorical budget development, site implementation of categorical support, site council selections, meeting dates, training dates for site councils, and dates for reviewing data to determine if categorical funding is achieving the appropriate results. 160 Pupil Achievement 3. Continue to provide annual training to school site council members on the purpose and effective practices of a school site council. 4. Annually develop and adopt an LEA plan, and ensure that it is reviewed by a committee of parents, staff and administrators. 5. Ensure that the single plans for student achievement align with and support the LEA plan. 6. Align the consolidated application and use of funding with the mission, goals and priorities identified in the LEA plan. Standard Not Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 161 1.3 Planning Processes Professional Standard The LEA’s vision, mission, values, and priorities focus on the achievement and needs of all students with the goals of closing the achievement gap and helping all students meet their full potential. Sources and Documentation 1. Mission/vision statement on King City Joint Union High School District website 2. Goals for King City Joint Union High School District, undated, provided by the district 3. Local educational agency (LEA) plan for July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2013, revised January 19, 2009 4. Interviews with teachers, site administrators and district staff 5. 2009-10 master schedules for King City and Greenfield high schools 6. LEA plan, revised March 19, 2010 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district’s vision/mission statement focused on the California content standards and on maximizing student achievement but did not address closing the achievement gap. Gaps in achievement were significant, particularly for students with disabilities and Hispanic students. Support for struggling students was determined individually by teachers and was not consistent districtwide. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 There continues to be a gap between expressed goals to meet the needs of all students and the instructional strategies used by teachers. Without changes in teaching practices, it is unlikely the district will achieve the student achievement gains it hopes for. Findings 1. The posted mission of the district has not changed since FCMAT’s initial review. However, district administrators indicated that it is being revised this year. The district’s goals focus on improving student achievement, but classroom observations and interviews indicate that there has been little or no change in teaching practice since the last review. 2. Closing the achievement gap is not expressly stated in the district’s goals. 162 Pupil Achievement 3. The LEA Plan was revised in March 2010, but Performance Goal #1, the goal for student achievement in English language arts and math, was not included in the documents provided by the district. Performance Goal #4, Learning Environments, was the only goal revised in the plan. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Build a shared vision of what it means to meet the needs of all students, including struggling students, and how policies and practices need to change to accomplish this vision. 2. Ensure that its vision and goals expressly include the goal of narrowing the achievement gap between subgroups. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 163 1.4 Planning Processes Professional Standard The LEA’s policies, culture and practices reflect a commitment to implementing systemic reform, innovative leadership, and high expectations to improve student achievement and learning. Sources and Documentation 1. Mission/vision statement on King City Joint Union High School District website 2. Goals for King City Joint Union High School District, undated, provided by the district 3. Local educational agency (LEA) plan for July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2013, revised January 19, 2009. 4. Interviews with teachers, site administrators and district staff 5. 2009-10 master schedules for King City and Greenfield high schools 6. LEA plan, revised March 19, 2010 7. Board policies 8. Board Policy 4131, Staff Development, dated December 14, 2005 9. Sample summative assessment 10. Sample formative assessment 11. Sample benchmark assessment Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The board’s policies and administrative regulations were outdated and did not provide a framework for communicating standardized and high expectations to staff and students. The continual change in leadership resulted in a lack of clear organizational structure to promote and communicate high expectations for learning. The district’s culture and practices were adult- centered and did not focus on student learning. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Because of budget constraints, limited staffing and a focus on other operational areas in the first year of fiscal recovery, the district dedicated few resources to developing and implementing a cohesive districtwide plan for the delivery of educational services. However, several steps were taken to signal a renewed focus on student achievement in the next reporting period. Newly negotiated contracts extended instructional minutes and provided staff with collaboration time. The master schedule was revised and provides additional strategic and intervention classes for 164 struggling students. Additional district staff were hired in June 2010. The district is continuing to develop common benchmark assessments within departments and subject areas at its two high schools, and is beginning to develop a professional learning community. However, at the time of fieldwork the district was struggling with communicating clear expectations for how the collaboration time should be used, and it lacked a policy to promote and communicate high expectations for learning. Findings 1. There continues to be minimal focus on academic achievement in the schools. During field work the team observed classroom instruction and collaboration time. In both cases the team saw limited examples of best practices in instruction. Collaboration time was not used to analyze and discuss student achievement to shape instruction; rather, it was used to review the LEA plan in preparation for the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) accreditation review. However in June 2010 the district hired an assistant superintendent of educational services with extensive background in curriculum and instruction, signaling a renewed focus on student achievement. The district also hired new principals and vice principals at both schools with explicit goals to improve student outcomes. At the time of the review, the district had not yet developed a coordinated and planned instructional program that challenges all students. District leadership and guidance in providing a challenging educational program will be required to effect change. 2. Because of budget constraints, the district dedicated few resources to developing and implementing a cohesive districtwide plan for the delivery of educational services. Although district staff were added in June 2010, there is not yet any evidence of clear direction regarding student expectations. 3. There is a lack of clear policy to promote and communicate high expectations for learning. This has created a lack of coherence in systems, operations and actions. 4. Although collaboration days have been implemented, there continues to be little or no articulation and communication within departments at each site, between the two comprehensive high schools, with the two continuation schools, or with the feeder elementary school districts. The collaboration days focused on preparing for WASC accreditation and revising plans rather than analyzing student assessment data to shape instruction. 5. There is little evidence that data is reviewed and used to influence and shape instructional practices and student learning. School sites review annual state testing results and make some program adjustments; however, ongoing review of summative and formative assessment has not been completed. 6. The district is continuing to develop common benchmark assessments within departments and subject areas at the two high schools, and the district is beginning to develop a professional learning community. Greenfield High School has made more progress in this Pupil Achievement 165 area under the leadership of the vice principal and as preparation for the self-assessment for the WASC review. 7. The two high schools have begun to use a program called SChoolPlan more reguarly to help staff use data to drive instruction. However, staff members at both school sites still need training to better understand and use the program. 8. Although there have been preliminary steps to refocus on academic achievement, it is still difficult to find evidence that this is becoming a districtwide norm and that past practices are changing. 9. Collaboration days have been instituted for the 2010-2011 school year, but there is limited evidence of districtwide planning, expectations and results for collaboration efforts. 10. No staff development plan is evident, and there was no evidence that funds had been budgeted to provide release time for staff for planning, improving instructional methods or visiting other classrooms and teachers while instruction was taking place. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that changes in policies, expectations, assessment and evaluation are clearly communicated to staff verbally and in writing, and that they are easily accessible to staff, parents and the public. Teachers, parents and administrative staff should be engaged in reviewing and developing policies that directly affect the district’s core mission. 2. Ensure that policy statements include short- and long-range plans that are aligned with the district’s vision and that establish an organized, systematic approach to implementing change. 3. Implement a districtwide plan that clearly establishes the development of high expectations for student learning and academic achievement. 4. Increase collaboration efforts among the comprehensive high schools, the alternative high schools and the feeder districts. Identify and focus on data that establishes benchmarks to assist in improving student outcomes. 5. Ensure that collaboration plans are coordinated and ongoing, and that they are communicated to all staff. Develop a process to hold departments and instructional staff accountable for outcomes of collaboration times. 6. Continue to develop a districtwide plan to create and implement common assessments in subject areas. 166 Pupil Achievement 7. Provide districtwide staff development in using data to influence and shape instruction. Send leadership teams to intensive training and/or a conference to develop their expertise and knowledge of data use and professional learning communities. 8. As funding permits, provide administrators with administrative coaches to help develop and support professional learning communities at their school sites. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 167 1.5 Planning Processes Professional Standard The LEA has fiscal policies and a fiscal resource allocation plan that are aligned with measurable student achievement outcomes and instructional goals including, but not limited to, the Essential Program Components. (Revised DAIT) Sources and Documentation 1. LEA Plan, revised March 19, 2010 2. Greenfield High School’s Single School Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA), currently being revised. 3. Board Policies Board Policy 4131, Staff Development, dated December 14, 2005. Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The board’s fiscal policies did not include an allocation plan, and the policies were not aligned with measureable student achievement outcomes or instructional goals. Board policies did not reference the nine essential program components (EPCs) and did not include current state and federal accountability requirements. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The board has approved policies that guide the development and/or implementation of the LEA Plan or the SPSA. The district’s updated policies do not include policies requiring the alignment of fiscal resources with instructional goals and desired student outcomes. The LEA Plan does not include required district budget information. The LEA Plan was not developed collaboratively and was not fully communicated to and understood by those responsible for its implementation. Findings 1. The district’s updated policies do not include fiscal policies that require the alignment of fiscal resources with instructional goals and desired student achievement outcomes, and do not reference the EPCs. 2. The LEA Plan was revised in March 2010, but Performance Goal #1, the goal for student achievement in English language arts and math was not included in the updated policies. Performance Goal #4, Learning Environments, was the only goal revised in the plan. 3. The staff members responsible for implementing the actions described in the LEA Plan, and implementing the corresponding SPSA at their sites are not familiar with the LEA Plan’s content. 4. The LEA Plan does not include the required district budget information that indicates prior year carryovers, current year district entitlements, the dollar amount provided for 168 Pupil Achievement direct services to students at each school site, and the percentage of each funding source that goes to direct services to students at each school site. 5. The SPSA for each school site has not been revised for the current school year. At the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork, the school sites did not have resource allocation information that would allow them to complete and implement plans. (Final information on allocations for 2010-11 has not been released by CDE, so a common best practice would be to provide school site councils and site administrators with estimates based on prior year funding.) Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Use the information and template provided by the California Department of Education (CDE) (at http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/le/documents/leaplantemp.doc) as a guide for the annual revision of the LEA Plan. The template includes a step-by-step process that ensures that all required elements are included and that the plan and expenditures are aligned with the EPCs and supported by student achievement data. 2. Ensure that the district and site leadership teams (DSLT) review the LEA Plan each year and have an opportunity to recommend revisions. All staff should be familiar with the required performance goals and the district’s plan to meet them. A summary is often used as a way to share the essential information with all staff. The district should work with the DSLT to complete the district assistance survey (DAS) before updating the LEA Plan (see recommendation in Standard 2.3). 3. Use the revised version of the Single School Plan for Student Achievement provided by the California Department of Education. This template ensures that the cost of each activity, an identified funding source, and the person(s) responsible for implementation are included in the plan. It also ensures that the need for each of the expenditures is supported by student achievement data and that the plan is aligned with the EPCs. 4. Ensure that the SPSA and LEA Plan not only meet minimum requirements, but provide information that increases their usefulness and helps unify all plans for improving student achievement. Ensure that plans are shared with all stakeholders and are posted on the district’s and the schools’ websites. Pupil Achievement 169 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: 170 Pupil Achievement 1.6 Planning Processes Professional Standard The LEA has policies to fully implement the State Board of Education-adopted Essential Program Components for Instructional Success. These include implementation of instructional materials, intervention programs, aligned assessments, appropriate use of pacing and instructional time, and alignment of categorical programs and instructional support. Sources and Documentation 1. Mission/vision statement on King City Joint Union High School District website 2. Goals for King City Joint Union High School District, undated, provided by the district 3. Local educational agency (LEA) plan for July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2013, revised January 19, 2009. 4. Interviews with teachers, site administrators and district staff 5. 2009-10 master schedules for King City and Greenfield high schools 6. LEA plan, revised March 19, 2010 7. Board policies 8. Board Policy 4131, Staff Development, dated December 14, 2005 9. Sample summative assessment 10. Sample formative assessment 11. Sample benchmark assessment Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district board policy was outdated and lacked any reference to the nine essential program components. Because of the lack of district policy, implementation of the nine EPCs was nonexistent or disjointed. Instructional materials were not aligned, few intervention programs existed, few assessments were developed, pacing and instructional time was not consistently aligned, categorical programs were in disarray and instructional support was limited. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has not yet developed policies that clearly outline an instructional program for all students that aligns with the EPCs approved by the State Board of Education. There is no evidence that the use of the academic program survey (APS) or other state-developed tools is required in the development of the SPSA to ensure alignment with the EPCs. The district Pupil Achievement 171 has purchased some new instructional materials, revised the master schedule and increased intervention programs. Findings 1. The district’s updated policies do not include policies to fully implement the State Board of Education-adopted EPCs. 2. There is no evidence of a district-imposed time line or districtwide system of accountability for the development of the SPSA or for monitoring implementation of the plan. 3. There is no evidence that the district requires use of the APS or other state-developed tools to ensure alignment with the EPCs when developing the SPSA. 4. At the time of fieldwork, the school site councils had not been elected and seated. The district purchased and implemented new intervention instructional materials such as Read 180; however, the technology was not fully functioning during FCMAT’s fieldwork. 5. The district increased the number of intervention programs and revised the master schedule to support additional instructional time. 6. The district negotiated additional instructional time and days in the collective bargaining agreement with certificated staff. 7. The district is aligning pacing calendars and developing some common assessments. Progress varies by department; however, the district does not monitor development and implementation. 8. The director of educational services coordinates all categorical program funding and support. During the review period, professional development, intervention programs and instructional support were not aligned. Recommendations for Recovery 1. Develop district policies that clearly outline an instructional program that aligns with the EPCs and that addresses the needs of all students. 2. Define a school site council-led process for the annual development/revision of the SPSA that includes a thorough analysis of student achievement data (using multiple sources); completion of the APS to provide the information needed to write the plan and ensure alignment with the EPCs; and a budget that will allow them to prioritize the activities outlined in the plan. The development/revision process should include sharing the completed SPSA with all teachers, administrators and support staff involved in implementing the plan. 172 Pupil Achievement 3. Ensure that school site councils are trained in their responsibilities and that they include all stakeholders as they carry out their work. 4. Require that each site complete the APS by a specified date to ensure that the annual update of the SPSA is completed in time to ensure the maximum effect on meeting instructional program goals and student achievement outcomes. 5. Provide professional development for all staff in the analysis of student achievement data and the use of the APS so they can participate in the development of the SPSA and implement the plan effectively. 6. Ensure that the assistant superintendent of educational services/human resources takes an active role in aligning categorical programs and instructional support efforts. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 173 1.8 Planning Processes Professional Standard The LEA provides and supports the use of information systems and technology to manage student data, and provides professional development to site staff on effectively analyzing and applying data to improve student learning and achievement. (DAIT) Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with teachers, site administrators and district staff 2. Local educational agency (LEA) plan for July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2013, revised January 19, 2009 3. Technology plan 4. LEA Plan, revised March 19, 2010Board Policy 4131, Staff Development, dated December 14, 2005 5. Sample summative assessment 6. Sample formative assessment 7. Sample benchmark assessment Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had implemented the Aries student information program and SChoolPlan software application to analyze student achievement data. Instructional staff were trained on how to access SChoolPlan but not regarding how to analyze and apply data to improve instruction. Few staff accessed the system to obtain student data and analyze it to help improve instruction. Other than state assessments, few benchmark and other assessments were loaded into SChoolPlan. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district continues to provide a student information system and a system for reporting student assessment data; however, little or no progress has been made in helping staff understand how to effectively analyze and apply data to improve teaching and student achievement. Findings 1. The district has provided some staff development on using data to improve student achievement, including a presentation at the back-to-school staff meeting. However, most of the teachers observed during the classroom visits were not using instructional strategies designed to meet the needs of at-risk students; teachers primarily lectured or had students work independently, with little pre-teaching or support. In most cases, there was no observable difference between the teaching strategies used in English language 174 Pupil Achievement development (ELD) or specially designated academic instruction in English (SDAIE) classrooms and those used in regular grade-level classrooms. Teachers interviewed indicated that they needed more training in using data. A message posted on the white board in the teachers’ area at Greenfield High School expressed frustration and doubt over the direction to use data. According to an administrator at the site, the message had been on the board and visible to anyone in the teachers’ area for several weeks. 2. The district has not implemented the recommendation from the prior FCMAT review to visit high-achieving districts to gain a broader perspective on how those districts use data. Staff stated that the district had indicated the visits could be arranged, Collaborative time has been reinstated, but the focus of collaboration has been on developing assessments, not on using assessment results to inform teaching. Without additional and ongoing professional development, it is questionable whether teachers will be able to effectively use the collaborative time to analyze assessment data and plan meaningful improvements. Teachers interviewed indicated that they believed the collaborative time so far this year has made little or no contribution to improving their teaching. 3. The district continues to use Aeries as its student information system and SChoolPlan software to analyze student achievement data. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: Create a team composed of district and site staff to build a common understanding of what it means to use data effectively. This effort should include attending professional development on effective use of disaggregated data as well as ongoing coaching to ensure that changes in teaching practice are implemented and refined over time. Coaching should focus on effective classroom practices to meet the needs of all students and on the effective use of collaboration. In addition, the team should visit high-achieving districts to gain a broader perspective on how data can be used to influence and shape improvements and the specific strategies used by these high-achieving districts to help obtain positive results. These visits should not be isolated efforts by individual teachers; rather, they should be part of a coordinated effort to build a common understanding of best practices in the effective use of data. Participating in the Professional Learning Communities at Work Institute or a similar type of professional development would help the district build a common understanding of how to better meet all students’ needs and how to implement and sustain improvements. 4. Engage teachers in using collaboration time to analyze disaggregated data and identify areas in which additional strategies are needed to narrow the district’s achievement gaps and improve student achievement. Encourage teachers with better results to share strategies with other teachers and/or provide additional professional development on these strategies. Provide coaching and support to help teachers make effective use of collaboration time. Pupil Achievement 175 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 176 Pupil Achievement 1.9 Planning Processes Professional Standard The LEA holds teachers, site administrators, and LEA personnel accountable for student achievement through evaluations and professional development. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with teachers, site administrators, district staff and students 2. Board policies 3. Collective bargaining agreements 4. Greenfield High School Single Plan for Student Achievement, dated October 30, 2008 5. King City High School Single Plan for Student Achievement, dated May 14, 2008 6. 2009-2010 English department professional development proposal 7. Evaluation and observation forms 8. Board Policy 4131, Staff Development, dated December 14, 2005. Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 District evaluations were outdated and did not hold administrators, instructional staff and other personnel accountable for student achievement. The evaluation form had no reference to student achievement and was predesignated as a “satisfactory” evaluation. The district did not analyze student outcomes to determine and provide professional development. Professional development was not coordinated. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The teacher evaluation process has been revised to hold teachers more accountable for student achievement. Changes to the evaluation form and process were agreed upon and are now stated in the certificated collective bargaining agreement. The human resources department notified administrators of teaching staff who are due for evaluations. Findings 1. The teacher evaluation process has been modified to hold teachers more accountable for student achievement. The revised process is based on California Standards for the Teaching Profession and includes classroom observation as well as pre- and post- evaluation conferences with the teacher. However, administrators indicated that a districtwide standard protocol for classroom observations has not yet been established. Pupil Achievement 177 2. Site and district administrators do not analyze test results or student grades by teacher to determine if there are teachers whose students consistently have lower performance than those of other teachers. However, some of those interviewed expressed the hope that this type of analysis could be conducted this year. Some indicated that they know there are discrepancies in teacher grading practices. 3. The district does not provide additional support or professional development to teachers whose students consistently perform lower than others. However, one site administrator indicated that he plans to use classroom observations this year to help determine which teachers need additional support. 4. Teachers are not held accountable for developing interventions for students who are not meeting expectations. 5. Professional development has been minimal and has not been aligned with identified needs in instructional practices. Student outcomes are not analyzed to determine professional development needs. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Implement the new evaluation process for teachers, and develop a similar process to hold administrators accountable for student achievement. 2. Provide training and support for new administrators to ensure a common understanding of how to conduct classroom observations. 3. Analyze student outcome data and classroom observation data to determine which teachers need additional support. Provide additional professional development and coaching to teachers whose students consistently receive lower grades and/or assessment results. 4. Hold site administrators accountable for developing and using single site plans that include specific, measurable student-focused goals aligned with the LEA Plan and district goals and priorities. Hold teachers and site administrators accountable for developing and implementing intervention strategies when sites goals are not being met. 178 Pupil Achievement Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 179 2.1 Curriculum Legal Standard The LEA provides and fully implements SBE-adopted and standards-based (or aligned for secondary) instructional textbooks and materials for all students, including intervention in reading/language arts and mathematics, and support for students failing to demonstrate proficiency in history, social studies, and science. (EC 60119, DAIT) Sources and Documentation 1. Classroom observations 2. Textbook inventory Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district did not have a system to evaluate textbooks that was consistent with the state instructional materials and framework adoption cycles. Instructional materials were not aligned across the district. The district had few adopted intervention materials or texts for reading/ language arts and mathematics, and little support for students who had not demonstrated proficiency in other core areas. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has made significant progress in selecting and purchasing the same standards-aligned materials for both school sites. However, the implementation of these materials varies widely. The district has not established protocols to monitor implementation, and it is not certain that site administrators are aware of the indicators of full implementation Findings 1. Standards-aligned instructional materials, including intervention materials, have been selected and purchased for districtwide use. 2. Implementation of new and existing instructional materials varies from site to site and classroom to classroom. Professional development has been offered for some of the new programs, but not all teachers participated. 3. There is no districtwide plan for monitoring the full implementation of instructional materials. There are no walk-through protocols for administrators, and it is not certain that site administrators are aware of or prepared to look for the indicators that full implementation has occurred. 4. In some classrooms, students reported that they did not have access to a book or that the teacher did not require use of the text selected for the course. 180 Pupil Achievement Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop and implement a districtwide process for monitoring the use of instructional materials selected for use in specific courses and for their full implementation; hold teachers accountable for the use of assigned materials. This should be part of the walk- through protocols. Administrators need to participate in the same instructional materials training as the teachers to understand what full implementation looks like. 2. Ensure that all teachers participate in the appropriate instructional materials training. Allocate funding to allow for this training during the workday so that teachers cannot opt out. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 181 2.3 Curriculum Professional Standard The LEA has planned, adopted and implemented an academic program based on California content standards, frameworks, and SBE-adopted/aligned materials, and articulated it to curriculum, instruction, and assessments in the LEA plan. (DAIT) Sources and Documentation 1. LEA Plan, adopted March 19, 2010 2. Updated board policies 3. Classroom observations 4. Sample summative assessment 5. Sample formative assessment 6. Sample benchmark assessment Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The board had not reviewed or adopted the academic program since 1997. An LEA plan was developed in January 2009 that addressed current state and federal accountability requirements; however, it was not communicated to site administrators, school site councils or instructional staff. The plan lacked critical elements such as deadlines for meeting goals and a method for monitoring implementation. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has made some progress toward districtwide curriculum, instruction and assessments, but there is little evidence of comprehensive implementation. Teachers and site administrators have some understanding of the goals to improve student achievement through standards-based and data-driven instruction, but implementation varies and lacks clear direction or support. Findings 1. The district has made progress in moving toward districtwide curriculum, instruction and assessments. The district provides directives to the school sites, but there is little evidence that implementation is taking place in any comprehensive or cohesive way. 2. Teachers and site administrators have some understanding of the larger goals of improving student achievement through the use of standards-based, data driven instruction, benchmark testing, collaboration, pacing calendars and other tools. They are randomly implementing a variety of these elements with no clear direction or support that will ensure improvement in student achievement. 182 Pupil Achievement 3. The communication regarding expectations for improving student achievement is top down, and there is little engaged participation from staff regarding the plans that the district administration has developed. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Strive to create a single, districtwide, cohesive, clearly understood plan for improving student achievement. Ensure that the plan includes timelines, funding sources and persons responsible. Ensure that all parties are held accountable for following the plan and meeting its goals. 2. Use the state tools for assessing school and district structures and supports for strong instructional programs. The tools are designed to provide a thorough analysis of the district and the schools’ instructional program, the degree of coherence and effectiveness of the program, and a foundation on which to develop the LEA Plan and the SPSA at each site. These tools also ensure an alignment of the instructional program with the EPCs and the districts fiscal resources. The state tools for this process, available at http://www.cde. ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/stateassesspi.asp, are the following: • Academic Program Survey (APS), for schools • District Assistance Survey (DAS), for district use • English Learner Subgroup Self Assessment (ELSSA), for district use • Inventory of Services and Supports (ISS), a district tool for students with disabili- ties. 3. Work to ensure that the development of the LEA Plan and the SPSA is a collaborative process that includes administrators, teachers, parents, other appropriate staff, and students. 4. Ensure that district and site leadership teams (DSLTs) and school site councils meet at least quarterly to monitor implementation of the LEA Plan. 5. Request the Monterey County Office of Education’s assistance in using the tools and analyzing the information derived from the process. Pupil Achievement 183 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: 184 Pupil Achievement 2.4 Curriculum Professional Standard The LEA has developed and implemented common assessments to assess strengths and weaknesses of the instructional program to guide curriculum development. Sources and Documentation 1. LEA Plan, March 19, 2010 2. Observation of collaboration time 3. Sample summative assessment 4. Sample formative assessment 5. Sample benchmark assessment Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district administers assessments required by the state and uses the results to analyze student achievement among subgroups. School sites were independently developing common assessments by department. The district did not provide direction regarding the type and frequency of common formative and summative assessments to be developed and implemented. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 School sites do not currently use collaboration time to develop common assessments, and there is no districtwide development of common formative and summative assessments aligned with pacing calendars or identified standards. Collaboration time is not being used to analyze the results of common assessments to improve instruction. Findings 1. Common assessments continue to be developed inconsistently by department at each site but not districtwide. Some departments are more advanced than others in their understanding of the value and use of common assessments. Because the development is not a district mandate supported and monitored by administrative staff, little progress has been made. 2. The district uses SChoolPlan software as its data management system, but there is no clear direction regarding expectations for teachers’ and administrators’ use of the system. The system has all state assessments and CAHSEE results, loaded into it by district staff. Teachers have been provided with the initial training and information necessary to make use of the system. However, because the training was not mandatory, some staff did not attended the training, resulting in varying levels of proficiency and use of the system. Few additional summative assessments have been added to the system. Pupil Achievement 185 3. Collaboration time is not being used to analyze the results of common assessments to help determine students’ needs and strengthen instruction. It is being used to prepare for the WASC review and other administrative operational matters. The development and review of common formative assessments and results must be a top priority for collaboration time. 4. There is a heavy reliance on state assessment data, primarily the California Standards Tests (CSTs), for individual student placement. The district also considers CELDT and teacher recommendations. There is little evidence that assessment results are used to shape and inform instruction; rather, they are used to identify and place students. 5. Little attention is given to California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) results, which are the determining factor for a high school’s adequate yearly progress (AYP) and program improvement (PI) status. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to implement the following recommendations provided for this standard in the initial report. • Develop and implement a district policy that requires the regular collection and analy- sis of common formative and summative assessment data to establish instructional priorities and shape classroom instruction. • Ensure that the common formative and summative assessments being developed are districtwide by course, based on identified essential content standards for each course, and administered using an agreed upon pacing guide or calendar. Ensure that newly developed common formative assessments are loaded into the SChoolPlan system for easy disaggregation of data and analysis. • Ensure that the results of the common assessments are analyzed by collaborative teams of teachers and used to improve instruction and ensure that all students are achieving at high levels. 2. Use one system of data management for recording and accessing student achievement data from both state and local assessments (formative and summative). Ensure that every teacher and administrator has access to this system and is held accountable for using it. 3. Continue to use multiple sources of data to determine the placement of students in courses and/or interventions. The CST data is not reliable at the individual student level and should not be used as a sole source for determining a student’s instructional level or course placement. 4. Ensure that CAHSEE results are analyzed and that the results of the analysis are used to provide targeted assistance based on a student’s proficiency level. 186 Pupil Achievement 5. Structure collaboration time so that it is clear that the goal of this time is for teachers to work together to analyze assessment results and student work and to use this information to improve their instruction. Monitor collaboration time to ensure that teachers are conducting activities that will improve instruction and student learning. Work group activities such as identifying power standards, developing pacing calendars and developing common assessments should be done as districtwide activities at times set aside for this purpose. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 187 2.5 Curriculum Professional Standard The LEA has adopted a plan for integrating technology into curriculum and instruction at all grade levels to help students meet or exceed state standards and local goals. Sources and Documentation 1. District technology plan for July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013 2. Interviews with teachers, site administrators and district staff Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had recently developed a technology plan for July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013. The plan was developed in consultation with instructional staff and administrators through questionnaires, informal discussions and written feedback. The plan contains goals that are unrealistic and depended on technology committees at each school site, which did not exist when it was written. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Minimal progress has been made in this standard because technology has not been a focus for the district during the past year. Findings 1. The district implemented Read 180 this year and there is some other use of technology in the classroom. However, classroom technology use varies depending on the interest and skills of the individual teacher. Some teachers, including those in Read 180 classrooms, have experienced technical difficulties that impaired their ability to use technology to support learning. District administrators indicated that integration of technology into the curriculum has not been a focus for the district due to other priorities. 2. The LEA technology plan has not been modified since FCMAT’s initial comprehensive review. 3. Extended leaves of absence and difficulties filling the vacancy with substitutes due to the highly specialized skills required have affected the district’s ability to meet technology needs. 188 Pupil Achievement Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Establish common expectations regarding teachers’ use of technology as a tool in teaching and learning, and provide the professional development and support teachers need to implement the district’s technology plan. 2. When priorities permit, form site and district technology committees, and use these committees to help revise the technology plan. 3. Cross train employees in other departments in basic support systems to provide backup during staff absences. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 189 3.1 Instructional Strategies Legal Standard The LEA provides equal access to educational opportunities to all students regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic standing, and other factors. The LEA’s policies, practices, and staff demonstrate a commitment to equally serving the needs and interests of all students, parents, and family members. (EC 51007) Sources and Documentation 1. New master schedules for both school sites 2. 2010 student achievement data 3. LEA Plan, March 2010 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 There was no evidence that the district had a defined and monitored system of interventions to ensure that it was making learning opportunities available equally districtwide. Average class size at King City High School was smaller than at Greenfield High School, though Greenfield High School had a higher English learner (EL) population. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The achievement levels of the district’s EL students and mainstreamed special education students remain far below that of the rest of the student population. Significant numbers of students score in the below basic and far below basic categories on standardized tests. The district is mainstreaming special education students but has provided little or no training or support for regular education teachers. There is no observable difference in instruction between regular grade level classes and ELD and SDAIE classes. Some teachers and administrators stated doubt that English learners and special education students can achieve more than they have. Findings 1. For the 2010-11 school year the district has developed a master schedule at each school site that provides support for English learners during the school day as well as time for additional support to students through strategic and intensive interventions. In 2010, of the 656 students that took the Algebra I CST test, 380 of them scored below basic or far below basic. Algebra is a graduation requirement for every student. The district did not make AYP in 2010 due to math proficiency levels. 2. The district’s 2010 state testing results show districtwide and schoolwide improvement in CST scores and CAHSEE passing rates when all students were reported. However, there is a large gap between achievement levels of English learners and all other students. • King City High School: Schoolwide, 44% of 9th graders, 37% of 10th graders, and 190 Pupil Achievement 37% of 11th graders scored at proficient or above on the English language arts CST. However, among English learner students, 3% of 9th graders, 0% of 10th graders, and 4% of 11th graders scored at proficient or above. In math there were similar gaps. Of the 49 students who took the Algebra II test, 38% of 10th graders and 30% of 11 grad- ers scored proficient or above. In the same school and course, 1 English learner took the same test and did not score at proficient or above. • Greenfield High School: Schoolwide, 42% of 9th graders, 33% of 10th graders, and 30% of 11th graders scored at proficient or above on the English language arts CST. In the same content area, among English learners, 9% of 9th graders, 2% of 10th graders, and 6% of 11th graders scored at proficient or above. Similar gaps existed in math. Of the 79 students who took the Algebra II test, 29% of 10th graders and 7% of 11th graders scored at proficient or above. In the same school and course, 14 11th grade English learners took the test and none scored at proficient or above. No 10th grade English learners were enrolled in Algebra II. 3. The district is moving special education students out of self-contained classes into mainstream classes. Teachers reported feeling unprepared for all of the scheduling changes that were still occurring in the sixth week of school as a result of mainstreaming efforts. They were not prepared for the numbers of special education students that were mainstreamed into their classes. They reported receiving little or no training in this area. It was not clear what the resource specialist program (RSP) and other special education teachers would be doing to assist students and regular education teachers. Instruction that meets the needs of these learners requires the regular use of specific strategies. Teachers reported that no one met with them to review individualized education plans (IEPs) and specific needs of mainstreamed students prior to placement in their classrooms. 4. There was no observable difference between the level of instruction in an ELD class, a SDAIE class, and regular grade level classes. Teachers appeared to be using the same strategies without differentiation for the various language levels and student needs. Students had minimal opportunities to speak. 5. Some teachers and administrators believe that English learners and students with disabilities cannot achieve more than they already have and that parents cannot help. Comments such as, “The decent kids” in reference to higher-achieving students and, “You can tell how a kid will do on the tests by their zip code,” are still voiced with assurance and go unchallenged by colleagues. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide professional development for teams of teachers and administrators from the district and each school site by having them attend the Professional Learning Communities at Work Institute, which is held in California each year and is well worth the investment to help the district begin to become a district where every student meets the standards and succeeds at high levels. The institute features schools and districts just like King City Joint Union High School District that are meeting this challenge and are successful. Before attending the Institute, the district should have all teachers read Pupil Achievement 191 Whatever It Takes – How Professional Learning Communities Respond When Kids Don’t Learn (Richard DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker and Gayle Karhanek, Solution Tree, Bloomington Indiana, 2004) and provide an outline for discussion during collaboration time. 2. Provide teachers and administrators with support to mitigate the impact of changes to the master schedule and maximize the benefits of mainstreaming for special education students. Monitor the support special education teachers provide to regular classroom teachers when students are mainstreamed. 3. Provide training for teachers in the specific strategies that target the needs of EL students, students with disabilities and students assigned to intervention classes; monitor the implementation of these strategies. 4. To address the low expectations for English language learners and special education students, hold teachers accountable for learning strategies that will help them be more successful in teaching these students. Administrators should be in classrooms to observe the use of strategies, encourage and support teachers as they learn to use them, and identify and provide any additional support that is needed. 5. After attending the Professional Learning Communities at Work Institute or some other in depth training institute, have the leadership team that attended develop a plan for how they will implement, support and monitor the learned strategies. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 192 Pupil Achievement 3.6 Instructional Strategies Legal Standard The LEA provides students with the necessary courses to meet the high school graduation requirements. (EC 51225.3) The LEA provides access and support for all students to complete UC and CSU required courses (A-G requirement). Sources and Documentation 1. Mission/vision statement on King City Joint Union High School District website 2. Goals for King City Joint Union High School District, undated, provided by the district 3. Local educational agency (LEA) plan for July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2013, revised January 19, 2009. 4. Interviews with teachers, site administrators and district staff 5. 2009-10 master schedules for King City and Greenfield high schools 6. LEA plan, revised March 19, 2010 7. Board policies Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Course content and offerings were not fully aligned between the two comprehensive high schools. Limited courses were available to meet A-G requirements: there was no music program at Greenfield High School and only one foreign language offering at King City High School. Course standards were not fully aligned with state standards. Students who needed to make up a course to meet A-G requirements were directed to the local community college but were not permitted to be enrolled concurrently. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Discussions and planning is occurring to improve the alignment of courses districtwide, but additional work is needed in this area. The district reached an agreement with Hartnell Community College to allow students to be concurrently enrolled in community college courses. Students can also make up work in continuing education or independent study. However, there is no system within the regular class schedule to support students who need to make up courses required for graduation, and students cannot take vocational courses or electives unless they are offered at their school. Pupil Achievement 193 Findings 1. Course content and offerings need to be further aligned between the two high schools and throughout the district. 2. The district’s students are directed to the continuing education program, the independent study program, or the local community college’s satellite program if they fail a class required to earn a high school diploma or are requesting college instruction versus instruction by a teacher at the high school. Students can enroll concurrently in the high school district and the community college; the district’s ROP program entered into agreements with Hartnell Community College in November 2009 and October 2010 for enrollment in agriculture courses and computer courses, respectively. 3. Discussions and planning are ongoing to improve the alignment of courses and state content standards within departments and between the two high schools. 4. The district has restructured course offerings at both high schools and continues to make adjustments as needed. 5. Ongoing statewide budget issues make it difficult for high school districts to offer certain elective or vocational courses; however, the district does not provide the option for qualified students at one high school to take such courses when they are offered at the other high school site. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that course offerings at the two comprehensive high schools are similar, and offer courses that better prepare students to enter the California State University or University of California system after graduation. 2. Continue to expand opportunities for students to be concurrently enrolled in community college courses for advancement and for college credit. 3. Provide avenues for a greater percentage of students to enroll in colleges or other post- secondary schools. Make information about post-secondary opportunities available to all students and the community at the start of high school to help overcome the barriers of poverty, ethnicity or language. Pursue a partnership with a post-secondary institution. 4. Conduct an assessment and evaluation of the high school guidance program to determine if the district’s goals are being met and if counseling staff reductions have left enough resources to adequately and reasonably meet improved academic expectations. 5. Conduct a periodic survey of students and an assessment of outcomes to determine the helpfulness of the counseling services for career and college decisions. 194 Pupil Achievement 6. Develop a plan to ensure that students who need to make up courses required for graduation, or who qualify for certain elective or vocational courses, can do so at either high school, regardless of their school of residence. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 195 3.7 Instructional Strategies Legal Standard The LEA provides an alternative means for students to complete the prescribed course of study required for high school graduation. (EC 51225.3) Sources and Documentation 1. Mission/vision statement on King City Joint Union High School District website 2. Goals for King City Joint Union High School District, undated, provided by the district 3. Local educational agency (LEA) plan for July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2013, revised January 19, 2009. 4. Interviews with teachers, site administrators and district staff 5. 2009-10 master schedules for King City and Greenfield high schools 6. LEA plan, revised March 19, 2010 7. Board policies Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Both continuation high schools were not accredited at the time of the first review, eliminating this alternative path. Independent study was available and served approximately 30-40 students at each high school. Students were not allowed to be concurrently enrolled in community college. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Progress has been made during this reporting period the district has reorganized and restructured its continuation school and independent study program for the 2010-11 school year, and has begun the process of seeking accreditation for both of these programs. Special education students are enrolled in alternative programs before their individualized educational plan (IEP) is rewritten. Findings 1. The organizational structure and supervision of the alternative education programs are more clearly defined this school year. New administrators have been assigned to the alternative programs. 2. The continuation school and the independent study program have been restructured and reorganized for the 2010-2011 school year. The continuation campus is at King City High School and the independent study program is at Greenfield High School. Students may attend either program after earning approval for enrollment. 196 Pupil Achievement 3. As reported in a June 2010 report on the district’s special education programs, special education students are enrolled in alternative programs before their IEP is rewritten. The district currently does not assign students to independent study through the IEP process pending expulsion. 4. The district has started the WASC accreditation process for both the continuation school and the independent study program. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue seeking accreditation for the alternative education programs. Students should not have to transfer to the comprehensive high schools to earn a diploma. 2. Implement and follow accountability components to ensure that alternative education programs teach all curricula and meet the same standards as the courses taught in the comprehensive high schools. 3. Provide alternative education instructors with staff development opportunities. 4. Establish procedures to ensure that students with an IEP are not enrolled in an alternative education program until their IEP has been rewritten so that their change in placement is acceptable and best meets their educational needs. a. Review the practice of not assigning special education students to a separate independent study teacher but continuing them with their case carrier. Determine if this practice should continue or if special education students should be assigned to the independent study teacher. b. Review practice of not assigning students to independent study through the IEP process pending expulsion. If the current practice is continued, clarify how a student’s special education IEP will be implemented during this period. 5. Implement the recommendation in the June 2010 report on the district’s special education programs to review district policy for certificates of completion. If needed, develop a new policy or amend the current policy so that students can receive a certificate of completion when they complete a modified course of study and are assessed using the California alternative performance assessment (CAPA). a. Develop the modified course of study. b. Determine staffing and students c. Amend IEPs as needed. 6. Review the policy and practice of enrolling students into the district’s alternative high school. Pupil Achievement 197 a. Ensure that a student is not required to exit special education in order to enroll in the alternative high school b. Develop a process and procedure for special education students to be served in the alternative high school 7. Establish more consistent districtwide policies for alternative education enrollment as well as procedures for qualified students to return to the comprehensive high school programs after being successful in alternative education. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 198 Pupil Achievement 3.10 Instructional Strategies Legal Standard The LEA has adopted systematic procedures for identification, screening, referral, assessment, planning, implementation, review, and triennial assessment of students with special needs. (EC 56301) Sources and Documentation 1. Local educational agency (LEA) plan for July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2013, revised January 19, 2009. 2. Interviews with teachers, site administrators and district staff 3. LEA plan, revised March 19, 2010 4. Board policies Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district did not have a systematic process for identification, screening, referral and assessment of students with special needs. Annual and triennial assessments of students served in programs operated by the Monterey County Office of Education were conducted regularly. Transitional IEPs were held for 8th grade students entering as freshmen and for students transferring from another school. The assessment and referral process for all other students was inconsistent. The district was considering transferring certain special education programs from county office operation back to the district. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district is transferring special education programs and services from county office operation to district operation effective at the start of the 2010-11 school year. However, special education students were mainstreamed without sufficient preparation, consultation, resources or training for general education teachers. Site administrators were not certain of their role in implementing special education; IEP attendance and program monitoring was not consistent. The district has not developed a process for screening, referring or assessing students for special education. Findings 1. Despite returning special education programs to district operation, the district has outdated board policies regarding the items in this standard. The district and county office planned the transition of programs during the review period. Facilities, equipment, curriculum and instructional materials and support service needs for students enrolled in the transferring programs were determined. The district held all necessary IEP meetings to transition students from county office-operated programs to the district-operated programs. Pupil Achievement 199 2. The district arranged for the designated instruction and service (DIS) needed for all transitioned students; however, at the time of field work some services had not yet been delivered to some students. District contracts with the county office were being reviewed and the district was in the process of contracting with another provider for some services. 3. Meetings between the resource specialist teacher and the general education teacher to review IEPs of mainstreamed students did not take place before the beginning of the school year and in most cases had not taken place at the time of field work six weeks into the school year. 4. Principals are not certain of their role in implementing special education program requirements. Attendance at IEPs, aiding with the transition from county to district operated programs, and monitoring the placement of students in the regular education classroom is not conducted consistently by all site administrators. It is unclear who is responsible for determining the best placement for students when they are mainstreamed. In some cases multiple students with IEPs were placed in the same class with no additional support provided to the general education teacher. 5. The district has not developed a process for the screening, referral and assessment of students who are currently served in the general education program. 6. The district holds a transitional IEP meeting when a student moves into the district or enters the high school from a feeder elementary school district. 7. IEP meetings are still not fully attended by general education staff or administrators when required. 8. The district does not regularly review special education teacher caseload and IEPs to determine which students can be served through a 504 plan. Regular review of caseloads would provide district administrators with the opportunity to balance workload to best meet students’ needs. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Update all board policies related to planning and implementation of special education programs and services, including the identification, screening, referral, assessment, review, and triennial assessment of students with special needs. 2. Consult with special education local plan area (SELPA) program specialists for guidance when developing policies and procedures to deliver resource specialist programs (RSP) and newly transferred special education programs. 3. Continue to develop, refine and implement a districtwide system to review students referred for possible special education placement. This system should be administered and monitored at the district level. 200 Pupil Achievement 4. Establish a clear administrative chain of command that provides accountability, communication and follow-through for special education programs, classes, and students with active IEPs. 5. Provide staff development that emphasizes instructional strategies and techniques for teachers who are teaching mainstreamed special education students. 6. Continue to train and educate all staff about the importance of and the requirements regarding participation in the IEP process. 7. Implement the recommendation in FCMAT’s June 2010 special education study to review each special education teacher’s caseloads to determine which students could be on a 504 plan rather than an IEP. a. Review the district’s policy and practice for 504 plans so that students who do not have medical needs but who require accommodations can receive those under a 504 plan. b. Begin scheduling IEPs to exit from special education those students whose needs can be accommodated through a 504 plan. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 201 3.12 Instructional Strategies Legal Standard Programs for special education students meet the least restrictive environment provision of the law and the quality criteria and goals set forth by the California Department of Education and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (EC 56000, EC 56040.1, 20 USC Sec. 1400 et. seq.) Sources and Documentation 1. Mission/vision statement on King City Joint Union High School District website 2. Goals for King City Joint Union High School District, undated, provided by the district 3. Local educational agency (LEA) plan for July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2013, revised January 19, 2009. 4. Interviews with teachers, site administrators and district staff 5. 2009-10 master schedules for King City and Greenfield high schools 6. LEA plan, revised March 19, 2010 7. Board policies 8. SELPA Area Plan Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The service delivery model was different at each comprehensive high school. Students had minimal opportunities to be mainstreamed in regular education classes. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district moved operation of the special education program from the Monterrey County Office of Education to the district, The district consulted with the county office and planned the transition during the reporting period, and students with IEPs were mainstreamed into regular education classes at the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year. Findings 1. As reported FCMAT’s June 2010 report on the district’s special education program, general education teachers and site administrators rarely attend IEP meetings. When accommodations or modifications are included in the IEP, the general education teachers has little or no input into those decisions. This is not in compliance with state or federal regulations. 202 Pupil Achievement 2. The district mainstreamed students with active IEPs at the beginning of the school year. It is not clear if this change was addressed in the individual IEP or if it was a fundamental districtwide change in the approach to special education. Teachers in both special education and traditional mainstreamed classes were unaware of this significant change before the opening of school and had no time to prepare for it. Resource specialist program (RSP) staff did not meet with general education teachers prior to the placement of students with IEPs in general education classrooms. No strategies or accommodations were shared with general education teachers prior to placement. 3. Students were placed in mainstream classes by counselors rather than through an IEP meeting to determine the best placement. In some cases multiple students with significant needs were placed in the same classroom, Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Review and revise all board policies related to the legal requirements for a least restrictive environment. 2. Hold general education teachers and site administrators accountable for attendance, input and involvement in the IEP process. 3. Provide support to teachers and administrators so that special education students benefit from mainstreaming. Provide training for teachers in strategies that get the best results for students with disabilities. Monitor the support special education teachers provide to regular classroom teachers when students are mainstreamed. Work with the two school sites to determine which process is the most effective and what gaps remain in implementing mainstreaming. 4. Implement the recommendation in the June 2010 special education study to arrange presentations for all general education teachers and administrators to review the following: • The requirement that at least one general education teacher attend each IEP meetings, not just provide input. • The requirement that general education teachers provide accommodations and modifi- cations as indicated on a student’s IEP. • Methods to effectively provide those accommodations and modifications in the gen- eral education class. 5. Ensure priority scheduling for special education students at both high schools by doing the following: • Do not assign students to be a teacher’s assistant or to a study skills period unless it is appropriate. Do not make such assignments simply because there are no other op- tions. Class assignments should be the responsibility of the IEP case manager, not the counselors. Pupil Achievement 203 • Increase the opportunity for special education students to take elective courses. • Ensure that special education students are in general education/least restrictive envi- ronment whenever possible. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 204 Pupil Achievement 3.13 Instructional Strategies Professional Standard Students are engaged in learning, and they are able to demonstrate and apply their knowledge and skills Sources and Documentation 1. Classroom observations 2. Interviews with students and staff Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Students and parents stated that most lessons were delivered by lecture and worksheets, with little engagement or discussion. Students believed most teachers had low expectations for their learning and achievement. Students had few opportunities to learn of post-secondary education and career options. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Little progress has been made in this standard. The teaching practices observed during classroom visits did not include best practices. Except in a few cases, students were engaged in silent reading, worksheets, or taking notes from an overhead projection screen during lectures. Students have more opportunities to learn of post-secondary education and career options, but more work is needed in this area. Findings 1. Students continue to state that most lessons primarily involved lectures and/or worksheets, with little engagement or discussion, though research shows the latter develops higher order critical thinking skills. 2. Special education textbooks and materials at the two schools do not appear to be aligned with mainstreamed classes and curricula. 3. Curriculum standards are posted in a number of lessons and classes, but there is little or nothing that explains to students why the standard is important. 4. There is minimal evidence that the professional expertise available in the local region and communities is being used on either campus to help students develop long-range goals, explore career options or obtain mentoring opportunities. 5. The district offered a career day, and more colleges were invited to the campuses during this review period. Pupil Achievement 205 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Design a districtwide staff development program based on an analysis of student achievement data. Staff development should include improved instructional techniques and teaching strategies to increase student engagement. 2. Conduct a districtwide survey of students and parents to solicit feedback on classes, teaching techniques, class offerings, and the overall effectiveness of current curricula and instruction. 3. Visit other school sites or districts with similar demographics that have demonstrated success in engaging students to perform at a high level. 4. Provide opportunities for students to engage in career research. Provide career day opportunities and form partnerships with county industry and businesses to create more educational opportunities for students. 5. Conduct a curricular audit and determine areas in which textbooks do not align with state standards. Continue to ensure that future textbooks are adopted districtwide, not by school site. Assign a curriculum committee to research and select textbooks for districtwide adoption. 6. Review the core curriculum textbooks available to the special education teachers to ensure that they have appropriate access to the general education curriculum and the publisher’s adapted curriculum. Purchase adapted curricula as needed for both special education and general education teachers. 7. Partner with University of California, California State University, Hartnell Community College and other community colleges, universities and institutes of higher learning to inform parents and students of post-secondary educational opportunities and to encourage students to pursue them. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 206 Pupil Achievement 3.15 Instructional Strategies Professional Standard The LEA optimizes opportunities for all students, including underperforming students, students with disabilities, and English language learners, to access appropriate instruction and standards-based curriculum. (DAIT) Sources and Documentation 1. New master schedules for both school sites 2. 2010 student achievement data 3. LEA Plan, dated March 2010 4. Classroom observations Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 There was no districtwide system of intervention to ensure the appropriate identification of students with special needs and establish placement and exit criteria for support programs and courses. The master schedules included some support classes for English learner (EL) students and students with disabilities. In 2009, 12.1% of the district’s students scored at the proficient or advanced level in mathematics, compared to 35.8% countywide and 45.8% statewide. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Program and scheduling changes provide an opportunity for the appropriate placement of EL and special education students, though increased achievement will depend on the use of appropriate instructional strategies. Some training has been completed, and all teachers are CLAD certified; however, there was no observable difference in instruction among the ELD, SDAIE, and regular education classes. Substantial support needs to be provided to regular education teachers who now have increased numbers of special education students in their classes so that these students will have access to the core content at their instructional level. In 2010, 38.1% of the district’s students scored at the proficient or advanced level in mathematics, compared to 56.4% statewide. Findings 1. See the findings under Standard 3.1. 2. The district has developed a master schedule at each school site that includes support for EL students during the school day. The district is also providing additional time for students to receive support through strategic and intensive interventions. Pupil Achievement 207 3. All teachers are CLAD certified and therefore should have some basic knowledge regarding instructional strategies for English learner students. 4. As indicated previously in this report (Standard 3.1, finding 3; and Standard 3.12, finding 2) the district is mainstreaming special education classes but has not adequately prepared, trained or supported general education teachers or special education teachers and specialists for this change. 5. The mainstreaming effort is being phased in at one high school but was implemented all at once at the other high school. 6. There was no observable difference between the level of instruction in an ELD class, a SDAIE class and regular grade-level classes. Teachers were using the same strategies without differentiation for students’ differing language levels and needs. Students had minimal opportunities to speak. 7. The Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) program is not being implemented as intended to provide the maximum benefit for students. AVID strategies that benefit all students are not being shared schoolwide. The success of AVID is based on adherence to the research proven strategies and structure of the program. An expansion of the program and school wide use of the strategies would also address the need to improve student achievement for all students. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that staff responsible for the AVID program attend the appropriate training and implement the program as it was designed. Work with the county office of education to obtain assistance with AVID. 2. Provide support to teachers and administrators so that special education students benefit from mainstreaming. Provide training for teachers in strategies that get the best results for students with disabilities. Monitor the support special education teachers provide to regular classroom teachers when students are mainstreamed. Work with the two school sites to determine which process is the most effective and what gaps remain in implementing mainstreaming. 3. Research and visit a school that is successfully closing the achievement gap for high school special education students, such as Lakeside High School in the Lake Elsinore School District. 4. Monitor the use of appropriate instructional strategies in all classrooms to ensure that English learners have access to the core content areas at their grade level. Identify teachers who are using these strategies and getting results, and provide time for them to model and coach others who need support. 208 Pupil Achievement 5. Visit a district that has a large EL student population and is making significant progress, such as the Delano Joint Union High School District, to observe the kinds of support that can be provided for EL students and their teachers. 6. Ensure that students in ELD and SDAIE classes are receiving appropriate instruction for their language levels. The teachers in these classes should use appropriate strategies to improve the student’s English language arts skills and their access to core content. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 209 3.16 Instructional Strategies Professional Standard The LEA makes ongoing use of a variety of assessment systems to appropriately place students at grade level, and in intervention and other special support programs. (DAIT) Sources and Documentation 1. LEA Plan, dated March 2010 2. Interviews with credentialed teachers, administrators and district staff 3. Sample summative assessment 4. Sample formative assessment 5. Sample benchmark assessment Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district did not have policies, programs or practices that require and support regular collection and analysis of common formative and summative assessments to establish instructional priorities, influence and shape instruction, place and exit students from support programs, and monitor student progress. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district still relies heavily on state assessment data to establish instructional priorities, though common assessments are being developed at each school site with some multisite collaboration by departments. There has been little direction from the district regarding the purpose and use of the SChoolPlan data management system, such as how to access and interpret data. At the time of the review no common assessments or summative assessments had been loaded into SChoolPlan. Findings 1. The district relies heavily on state assessment data to establish instructional priorities; shape classroom instruction; place students in and exit them from intervention programs; and monitor student progress in core and intervention programs. Multiple measures (state and local) are used in some programs but not in a consistent and cohesive manner districtwide. 2. Common assessments are being developed at each school site, and in some cases departments from both sites have chosen to work collaboratively on benchmark assessments in their content area. 210 Pupil Achievement 3. Student achievement data is not made available to teachers and administrators in a timely way. Six weeks after the start of the school year no site or classroom analysis of achievement data had been completed. The data is available through SChoolPlan and the district expects that teachers and administrators are accessing and analyzing the state data; however, in the absence of a districtwide coordinated effort and with little monitoring, this is unlikely to occur systematically. 4. The SChoolPlan data management system is intended to provide teachers and administrators with timely and useful data to use in planning, student placement, and progress monitoring. However, there has been no clear direction from the district regarding use of the system. Staff are confused and unsure of when SChoolPlan will be fully operational. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. See recommendations provided under Standard 2.4. 2. Revisit the identification of power standards to ensure that they include the essential standards every student needs to meet and that they are not limited to those on the CSTs and CAHSEE. 3. Complete the districtwide development of common assessments that align with the essential/power standards for each of the four core content areas. 4. Load common assessments and outcome data into SChoolPlan in a timely manner to ensure staff access. 5. Review and revise pacing calendars to ensure that they align with the essential standards and common assessments. 6. Monitor the implementation and use of pacing calendars and common assessments, and ensure that results are analyzed during scheduled collaboration time. 7. Provide clear communication to teachers and administrators regarding the purpose and use of the SChoolPlan system. Set a time line for the steps to fully implement the system, including a completion date by which the system will have state and local assessment data available for teachers and administrators to use to improve student achievement. 8. Use multiple sources of assessment data to ensure the appropriate placement of students in intervention classes. Pupil Achievement 211 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 212 Pupil Achievement 3.17 Instructional Strategies Professional Standard Programs for English-language learners comply with state and federal regulations and meet the quality criteria set forth by the California Department of Education. Sources and Documentation 1. New master schedule 2. LEA Plan, dated March 2010 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district did not have policies, procedures or practices that were aligned with state and federal regulations to ensure that English learner (EL) students had access to and received instruction in the core curriculum and a districtwide approved English language development (ELD) curriculum. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Many of the compliance issues have been addressed, and a structure is in place that will allow the district to provide appropriate services for EL students. However both support for teachers and the quality of instruction are still lacking. Findings 1. The district has developed a master schedule, provided training and purchased instructional materials that are in compliance with state and federal regulations regarding programs for EL students. 2. The district has one classified California English Langage Development Test (CELDT) coordinator/trainer who, because the district has a large number of EL students, spends most of their time administering the CELDT, placing students and communicating with parents. Because this is a classified position, no time is spent assisting or mentoring teachers in developing and maintaining a quality instructional program for EL students. 3. There was little or no evidence of differentiated instruction in ELD and SDAIE classrooms; instruction for EL students in these classes was not different from that provided in regular education classes. Pupil Achievement 213 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. As the budget permits, consider hiring a district EL specialist to help the district focus on this student population and ensure that EL support and instruction is monitored by an expert. As recommended previously in the February 2010 comprehensive review report, do the following: • Employ or assign an EL specialist to assist in the assessment, placement, monitoring and exiting of EL students. This employee’s duties should include working with par- ents and families of EL students regarding their children’s education and serving as a coach and mentor to assist regular classroom teachers. Continue to implement the following four recommendations provided in the February 2010 initial comprehensive review: 2. Develop and implement policies, procedures and common practices that ensure that EL students are identified and placed in programs and classes that align with their level of English proficiency as determined by the CELDT. 3. Ensure that EL students have access to the core standards-aligned curriculum and receive daily ELD instruction from qualified teachers. This should include specific classroom support for ELs such as academic language, SDAIE, primary language support, differentiation, direct instruction, and appropriate grouping. 4. Ensure that the student achievement monitoring system discussed in Standard 3.16 includes the longitudinal data needed to assess individual EL students’ progress, make appropriate student placements in courses, and make accurate exit decisions. 5. Ensure that site administrators’ monitoring of EL students’ instruction includes evidence of the following: • Student engagement • Strategies to support EL students across content areas and classrooms • Monitoring of student progress • Academic language • Opportunities to routinely use expressive language 214 Pupil Achievement Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 215 3.18 Instructional Strategies Professional Standard The LEA employs specialists for improving student learning, including content experts and specialists with skills to assist students with specific instructional needs. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district and site administrators 2. Personnel and staffing documents Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district did not employ content experts or specialists such as ELD specialists or math coaches to help teachers improve practices. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district’s financial condition makes it difficult to hire content experts or specialists; it has not identified or employed any such staff. The district relies on department chairpersons to support teachers and programs, but these individuals have not received training or release time. Collaboration time is provided but is not used to improve instruction and student learning. Findings 1. The district has not identified or employed content experts or specialists to help teachers make the instructional improvements and changes needed to improve student results. The district’s fiscal condition makes it difficult to hire new employees. 2. The district is relying on department chairs to provide teacher and program support. Department members elect department chairs for a two-year term as outlined in the certificated contract. The department chairs receive a stipend but have not received training in coaching and/or mentoring or any additional release time to do this work. 3. The district provides weekly collaboration time, which is intended to help teachers work together to improve their teaching and students’ learning. However, collaboration time has not been used for this purpose. Administrators are not regularly providing direction and monitoring to ensure the collaboration time is used appropriately. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. See the recommendations under Standard 3.17. 216 Pupil Achievement 2. Hire an EL expert if an adequate funding source can be identified. This position should be allowed to focus exclusively on EL instruction, coaching and staff training. 3. Provide coaching and mentoring training for all department chairs, and schedule release time for them to work with the teachers in their departments. Inquire about the Coaches Network supported by the Monterey County Office of Education to determine if it would be helpful in training and supporting department chairs. 4. Use collaboration time to improve teaching and learning, and monitor collaboration to ensure that it is being used for this purpose. 5. Request assistance from the Monterey County Office of Education as needed in the areas of content and program expertise. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 217 3.22 Instructional Strategies Professional Standard The LEA offers a multiyear, comprehensive high school program of integrated academic and technical study that is organized around a broad theme, interest area, or industry sector. (EC 52372.5, SBE 51226) Sources and Documentation 1. Master Schedule 2010-11 2. Interviews with teachers, site administrators, district staff and students 3. Board policies 4. Greenfield High School Single Plan for Student Achievement, dated October 30, 2008 5. King City High School Single Plan for Student Achievement, dated May 14, 2008 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district did not offer a comprehensive multiyear program of integrated academic and technical study organized around a broad theme, interest area or industry sector. There was no districtwide vision that identified course offerings and modes of support that should be available to students. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district still does not offer a comprehensive multiyear program of integrated academic and technical study organized around a broad theme, interest area or industry sector, and there is no evidence of a district vision for such a program. In November 2009, the district’s ROP entered into an agreement to allow its students to enroll concurrently in Hartnell Community College’s agriculture classes. Findings 1. The district does not offer a comprehensive multiyear program of integrated academic and technical study that is organized around a broad theme, interest area or industry sector. 2. There district has not expanded its course offerings in vocational education or around a broad theme. The district has focused on academic intervention course offerings and A-G requirements during this reporting period. As the state budget improves and the district’s fiscal crisis abates, the district will be able to increase efforts this area. 3. The district’s agricultural course offerings are limited and may not meet the needs of the heavily agricultural community that it serves. 218 Pupil Achievement Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Promote and increase its agricultural department and program offerings to meet the needs of the heavily agricultural community it serves. Seek community partnerships and grant funding to expand this program area. 2. When funding permits, establish sequential course offerings that allow students to pursue an identified vocational or academic interest. 3. Consider conducting a survey of industrial opportunities in Monterey County and/or nearby counties when developing vocational or technical programs organized around a broad theme. Seek to establish partnerships with industry and business to expand this program area. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 219 4.3 Assessment and Accountability Professional Standard The LEA has developed summative and frequent common formative assessments that inform and direct instructional practices as part of an ongoing process of continuous improvement. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with teachers, site administrators and district staff 2. Sample summative assessment 3. Sample formative assessment 4. Sample benchmark assessment Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Staff were developing common standards-based benchmark assessments by site rather than districtwide by department. Some departments had begun using common assessments at their school. The focus was on developing the common assessments, not on how to use the results to establish and communicate instructional priorities and strategies for improvement. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The focus continues to be more on developing common benchmark assessments than on using assessment results to shape, influence and direct instructional practices as part of an ongoing process of continuous improvement. Development is inconsistent across departments and districtwide. Findings 1. Staff members at both comprehensive high schools are working collaboratively within their departments at their site to establish common standards-based benchmark assessments and pacing guides. The focus is primarily on developing site-based common assessments and pacing guides, not using the results to establish and communicate instructional priorities and strategies for improvement. 2. Administrators and teachers indicated that some progress had been made in using common assessments since the prior FCMAT review. No common assessments were loaded into SChoolPlan. 3. Staff expressed some interest in collaboration between the two comprehensive high schools, but the goal remains to develop site-based common assessments. 220 Pupil Achievement Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide staff with training and ongoing coaching in developing and using assessments to influence and shape instruction, with a particular focus on teachers who need extra help to accomplish this. 2. Use assessment results to identify students who need additional support, and provide this support. 3. Continue efforts to develop benchmark assessments at each school, and work to adopt districtwide common benchmark assessments. Benchmark assessments should be administered three times per year, and all data should be loaded into SChoolPlan. Use Benchmark assessments to assess pacing calendars and instruction districtwide. Benchmark assessments are a clear indicator of how students will perform on state testing and can be used to adjust pacing or teaching to meet students’ needs. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 221 4.4 Assessment and Accountability Professional Standard The LEA provides an accurate and timely school-level assessment and data system as needed by teachers and administrators for instructional decision-making and monitoring. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with teachers, site administrators and district staff 2. Sample summative assessment 3. Sample formative assessment 4. Sample benchmark assessment Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Teachers and administrators had access to SChoolPlan software, and the state assessment student data had been uploaded. No other common benchmarks or formative or summative data was uploaded to SChoolPlan. Staff members were not certain about their role in this process or about how the results from common benchmarks would be used. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has made some progress developing and administering common benchmark assessments. The number of teachers who report having access to SChoolPlan has increased since the previous review, but little progress has been made in using data for instructional decisions and monitoring. Findings 1. Most teachers interviewed indicated that the district has provided access to SChoolPlan, but also indicated that they are not using data to shape and influence their instruction. Some teachers stated that they did not know their SChoolPlan password or how to access the system. In addition, teachers indicated that they need additional training regarding how to use assessment results as well as ongoing help in effectively using data. Teachers reported slightly different information about when data would be in SChoolPlan and available for their analysis and about the long-term plan for this system. 2. Teachers continue to work collaboratively to develop benchmark assessments. Some departments have administered these assessments and others have scheduled them. 222 Pupil Achievement Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide focused professional development and ongoing coaching to help teachers learn to analyze data to identify any needed changes in their instruction. The professional development provided must go beyond theory; it should provide teachers with a clear understanding of what they should do to use data to shape their teaching. Professional development should be coordinated with coaching so that teachers receive a consistent, focused message about how to use assessment results and how SChoolPlan can help them access and analyze data. 2. Although development of common assessments should continue, the district needs to move beyond the nearly exclusive focus on developing benchmarks so that teachers have time to learn how to use assessment results to improve their instruction. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 223 4.5 Assessment and Accountability Professional Standard School staff assesses all students to determine students’ needs, and whether students require close monitoring, differentiated instruction, additional targeted assessment, specific research based intervention, or acceleration. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with teachers, site administrators, district staff and students 2. Single school plan 3. LEA Plan, dated January 19, 2009 4. LEA Plan, revised March 19, 2010 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district was not conducting systematic districtwide assessment of all students’ academic progress and needs. Placement was based on staff assessment, which could include assessment data. Students who failed the CAHSEE were provided with instructional support. Intervention practices varied and were guided by individual teachers. English language arts longitudinal results indicated that students with disabilities and economically disadvantaged students improved at a slower rate than all students and English language learners. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Minimal improvements have been made in identifying and providing services for students who require close monitoring, differentiated instruction, additional targeted assessment, specific research-based intervention, or acceleration. Findings 1. Staff interviewed indicated that CST scores, CELDT scores and teacher input are used to determine students’ scheduled classes. In addition, students who fail the CAHSEE are placed in classes designed to help them pass the CAHSEE. 2. Staff indicated that teachers have not yet begun analyzing data and are not using data to determine if interventions are needed. Teachers are also not identifying and tracking students who require close monitoring, differentiated instruction, additional targeted assessment, specific research-based intervention, or acceleration. 224 Pupil Achievement Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Implement the recommendations included in FCMAT’s January 2010 review letter and those provided under Standard 1.8 of this report. 2. Provide professional development and ongoing coaching support to teachers, then hold them accountable for analyzing data, modifying classroom practices and providing interventions for struggling students based on data. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 225 4.8 Assessment and Accountability Professional Standard Principals and teachers in underperforming schools and/or in schools under mandated improvement programs are provided special training and support by the LEA. Improvement plans are monitored. Sources and Documentation 1. LEA Plan, March 2010 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district did not develop an improvement plan for Greenfield High School in year four of program improvement. The district did not have a professional development plan for administrators and teaching staff. Training was initiated by staff, was not monitored, and was not aligned with teacher evaluations or an assessment of student outcomes. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district conducted appropriate professional development during the 2009-10 school year and during the summer of 2010, but it was not part of a comprehensive plan based on a needs assessment. Teachers and administrators have varying opinions about which type of professional development is needed. Findings 1. Teacher and administrators have varying opinions regarding which type of professional development is needed and are waiting for site budget allocations to decide which professional development should occur. 2. The professional development that took place in 2009-10 and during the summer was appropriate and addressed some of the district’s needs; however, it was not part of a comprehensive districtwide plan based on a districtwide needs assessment. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Designate one person to be in charge of working with teachers and administrators to conduct a districtwide needs assessment and complete a districtwide professional development plan. The plan should be based on the results of the needs assessment and should include timelines, priorities and a budget. Continue to work toward fully implementing the following recommendations provided in the February 2010 first comprehensive review report. 226 Pupil Achievement 2. Develop a districtwide professional development plan that addresses the goals and objectives spelled out in the LEA plan and the SPSAs. 3. Ensure that district and site budgets support the professional development activities, starting with those identified as the highest priority. 4. Ensure that district and site administrators take responsibility for monitoring the implementation of professional development to ensure that it meets the plan’s goals and the students’ needs. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 227 4.10 Assessment and Accountability Professional Standard The LEA and school site administration monitor fidelity of program implementation in the delivery of content and instructional strategies. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with certificated, administrative staff 2. Collective Bargaining agreement Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Curriculum materials were not aligned districtwide. Curriculum materials and programs were not consistently researched-based. There was little evidence of administrative monitoring of classroom instruction to ensure fidelity of program implementation. The district had not established expectations for ongoing implementation and monitoring of instructional practices. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has a teacher evaluation process but no protocols for classroom visits, training for site administrators regarding informal visits/walk-throughs, or clear set of expectations that is communicated to teachers prior to informal classroom visits. As a result, there is no consistent monitoring focused on fidelity of program implementation or instructional strategies. Findings 1. The district has negotiated a new teacher evaluation process based on the California Standards for Teaching Professionals. 2. The district has not established protocols for classroom visitations/walk-throughs or training for principals and other site administrators. 3. The district has no clear set of expectations that is shared with teachers prior to classroom visits. (For example, a clear expectation might state, “Every time the principal or other site administrator walks through a classroom they will check to see if the objective/ standard for the lesson is posted and students understand what they are supposed to be learning. Teachers will be told in advance that this will be the focus.”) 4. Site administrators are not consistently monitoring classrooms with a focus on the instructional program. 228 Pupil Achievement Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide site administrators with guidance and support in defining their roles and how they structure their time. An administrator’s plan for each day needs to include time to monitor the quality of classroom instruction for every student. Walk-throughs should always have a clear program and/or instructional focus, and teachers should be informed of the focus. Because both high schools are relatively small, consistent and frequent monitoring should be possible. Continue to work toward full implementation of the following recommendations included in the February 2010 first comprehensive review report: 2. Develop clear expectations for implementing and monitoring district-approved standards- based programs and instructional materials, including those for English language development (ELD) and special education. 3. Ensure that pacing guides are aligned with instructional materials, the California framework and the CST and CAHSEE blueprints, and ensure that all staff discuss and know them so that the agreed-upon essential standards are taught systematically districtwide. 4. Ensure that clear expectations are in place for implementing and monitoring instructional effectiveness, and that all staff discuss and know them. 5. Provide staff with opportunities and time to increase their knowledge and expertise to meet students’ needs. 6. Implement a districtwide classroom visitation schedule that is followed by district and site administrators, and ensure that administrators’ calendars give priority to these visits. 7. Each classroom visit should have a clear program and/or instructional focus that is communicated to teachers. 8. Provide teachers with individual and/or collective feedback following the classroom visits to help improve practices. Pupil Achievement 229 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: 230 Pupil Achievement 4.12 Assessment and Accountability Professional Standard Written policies and procedures are in place to ensure that special education processes are conducted pursuant to federal and state laws and that staff is provided appropriate, ongoing training to ensure proper implementation. Sources and Documentation 1. Board policies 2. Interviews with teachers, administrators and district staff 3. SELPA Local Plan 4. LEA Plan dated March 2010 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district was contracting with the Monterey County Office of Education for most services other than RSP. Services delivered by MCOE were meeting students’ needs and complying with all state and federal laws. During the first review the district was in the process of transferring the programs from MCOE to district operation. Board policies related to special education were outdated. Referral, assessment, and IEP procedures were outdated or nonexistent, and processes were not communicated to staff. Professional development was not a priority. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 At the start of the 2010-11 school year, the district began operating two classes for severely handicapped students that were formerly operated by the county office. Board policies still need review and revision. The district adopted a more inclusive special education delivery model; however, little training was provided to general education staff to prepare them to serve mainstreamed students. IEP processes are still not fully defined and implemented. Some DIS services were not being provided at the time of fieldwork; however, the district was in the process of contracting with outside service providers. Findings 1. Board policies are outdated and are not consistently followed. 2. Written policies and procedures regarding the education of students with special needs were not available for FCMAT’s review. 3. As reported in the June 2010 special education study, numerous files for special education students are still incomplete; missing items include psychological reports, meeting notices, notices of referral, and progress on goal forms. Pupil Achievement 231 4. District and school site administrators and personnel do not uniformly understand and apply policies and procedures. 5. As indicated previously in this report, the district is mainstreaming special education classes but has not adequately prepared, trained or supported general education teachers for this change. 6. Some general education teachers opposed inclusion of special education students in their classroom, and this required administrative intervention to meet student needs. 7. The district coordinator has little experience in special education and the federal and state laws regarding delivery of special education programs and services. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to review and revise board policies and administration regulations. Use the California School Boards Association (CSBA) language as a guide. Communicate newly revised policies directly to staff responsible for implementing programs and services. 2. Provide the director of special education with professional development and training to ensure that the district is in compliance with state and federal requirements 3. As recommended in the June 2010 special education study, organize and ensure that all special education master files are complete, housed at the district office, and accessible and traceable when removed from the district office. a. Enable access to all working files to ensure that all documents are made available. b. Hire classified staff members who are familiar with file organization, such as some of the paraeducators at Greenfield High School, to organize the files. c. Train other staff in file organization and maintenance. d. Develop a protocol regarding how all current forms and reports will be sent to the district office and who will be responsible for filing the incoming information. e. Develop a protocol that states who will review each incoming IEP for accuracy and completeness; how the sending special education staff will be notified of any corrections needed; and how these will be tracked. The SELPA has a form for reviewing IEPs that the district may want to adopt. 4. Ensure that district policies are current and available on the district’s website. 5. Provide support to teachers and administrators so that special education students benefit from mainstreaming. Provide training for teachers in strategies that get the best results 232 Pupil Achievement for students with disabilities. Monitor the support special education teachers provide to regular classroom teachers when students are mainstreamed. Work with the two school sites to determine which process is the most effective and what gaps remain in implementing mainstreaming. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 233 5.1 Professional Development Professional Standard The LEA provides a continuing program of professional development to keep instructional staff, administrators, and board members updated on current issues and research pertaining to curriculum, instructional strategies, and student assessment. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with teachers, support staff, board members and site and district administrators 2. LEA plan revised January 19. 2009 3. Single plan for student achievement (SPSA) 4. Board Policy 4131, Staff Development, dated December 14, 2005 5. LEA Plan revised March 19, 2010 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 There was no districtwide plan or planning process to assess the professional development needs of instructional staff, administration or board members. The district participated in training offered by the county office, such as AB430, SB472 and Expository Reading and Writing Course (ERWC). District teachers or administrators initiated participation in the training. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has not yet developed an articulated program of professional development for staff and administrators that will result in systemic improvement. Progress has been made training board members regarding policies, but the district lacks a coherent approach to building a common understanding among staff, administrators and board members regarding how curricula, instructional strategies and student assessment need to change. Findings 1. There continues to be no evidence of a coherent, coordinated districtwide plan or planning process for professional development for instructional staff, administrators or board members that will result in a consistent approach to improvement. Staff stated that some district staff have participated in various efforts, but indicated that the district lacks a coordinated, districtwide approach to modifying the curriculum and instructional strategies to increase student achievement. Staff indicated that student state test scores had increased this year at King City High School because the students were told their class placements and ability to leave campus at lunch would be affected by their individual CST results. The district is considering implementing such a practice at Greenfield High School next school year. 234 Pupil Achievement 2. The LEA plan indicates that the professional development will be research-based and will be supported by grade level and/or department collaboration. Further, the plan indicates that site administrators will be responsible for helping teachers analyze assessment results to plan improvements. Staff indicated that department chairs will also have a role in supporting effective use of collaboration time. Teachers indicated that they need additional professional development regarding using data to help improve instruction. They were also uncertain about how they were to use collaboration time to analyze data and indicated that the directions they received from administrators was not always clear enough to support their work. 3. Site administrators indicated they need additional training and support to help teachers effectively use collaboration time to plan improvements to meet students’ needs. Administrators indicated that there is no plan for training department chairs in the effective use of collaboration time or coaching others on research-based practices designed to improve student achievement. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Implement the recommendations under Standard 1.8 of this report, including participating in the Professional Learning Communities at Work Institute or a similar professional development offering to help the district develop common understanding of how to better meet the needs of all students and how to implement and sustain the needed improvements. 2. Identify staff members who are interested and have the skills and knowledge to become teacher leaders in each subject area. These teacher leaders do not have to be department chairs; they should be teachers who are already demonstrating success with student achievement and who have shown an interest in research-based methods and using data to shape and influence instruction. 3. After the district has built a core team with a shared understanding of the steps needed to improve teaching and learning, the district should work to update the LEA plan with more details about specific professional development for instructional staff, administrators and board members to help the district implement the necessary changes. Standard Not Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 235 5.3 Professional Development Professional Standard The LEA provides opportunities and ongoing support for teachers to collaborate on the analysis and improvement of curriculum, instruction, and use of assessment data. Sources and documentation 1. LEA plan revised January 19. 2009 2. Single plan for student achievement (SPSA) 3. Interviews with teachers, school site council members and district and site administrators 4. LEA Plan revised March 19, 2010 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had no districtwide opportunities for teachers to collaborate. Some staff members were provided release time to develop common benchmark assessments and to prepare for WASC accreditation. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Weekly teacher collaboration time has been restored this school year; however, teachers indicated that the time was being spent on developing benchmark assessments or preparing for WASC review rather than on data analysis and improvement of the instruction based on data. Teachers indicated they needed additional training in the use of assessment data. Findings 1. Although collaboration time is included in the weekly schedule this year, it is not clear if the district will be successful in using this time to help improve teaching and learning. Teachers indicated that they felt collaboration time had not been used effectively this year. They were not certain how the district expected them to use the time. They knew the district wanted them to use data to help make improvements but indicated that they had not received sufficient training to know how to do this work. Teachers also reported using a significant amount of the time to develop benchmark assessments. 2. The administrators interviewed indicated they were setting direction for the use of collaboration time, but there appeared to be a gap between the district’s goals for use of the time and how teachers used the time. The teacher collaboration observed during the review was not an effective use of time because the direction the teachers received was not clear and the teachers did not appear to have a defined process for overcoming this obstacle during collaboration time. Teachers indicated that they often do not understand exactly what the administrators expected them to do during collaboration time. Site 236 Pupil Achievement administrators indicated that there is a need for continued work to effectively support collaboration time. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide professional development and ongoing coaching regarding the use of assessment data to improve teaching and learning. Have coaches available to help teachers during the collaboration time, and hold teachers accountable for using this time to plan and monitor improvements in instruction and the effective use of data. 2. Ensure that the professional development includes engaging a district team in training such as Professional Learning Communities at Work Institute to help the district build a common understanding of how to meet all students’ needs and how to implement and sustain the needed improvements. 3. Ensure that administrators understand how to provide clear direction and support for collaboration time, including the coaching needed to effectively review student work; analyze common assessment results; identify strengths and areas that need improvement; and change instructional strategies to better meet students’ needs. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 237 5.5 Professional Development Professional Standard The LEA plan includes budgeted coherent professional development activities that reflect research-based strategies for improved student achievement and a focus on standards-based content knowledge. Sources and Documentation 1. LEA plan revised January 19. 2009 2. Single plan for student achievement (SPSA) 3. Interviews with site and district administrators and teachers 4. Board Policy 4131 (a), dated December 14, 2005 5. LEA Plan revised March 19, 2010 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The LEA plan included a general budget for professional development activities but was not specific or based on identified student needs and research-based strategies. The LEA plan included professional development activities but no monitoring plan or time line for completion. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has revised the LEA plan and it now includes a general description of the approach to and budget for professional development. The plan gives school site administrators responsibility for providing ongoing support and coaching. Teachers and site administrators interviewed indicated that there was no overarching, coordinated approach to professional development and assisting teachers in learning how to use assessment data to plan and implement improvements. Findings 1. The LEA plan indicates that the professional development provided will be research- based and will be supported by grade level and/or department collaboration. The plan also indicates that site administrators will be responsible for helping teachers analyze assessment results to plan improvements. The LEA plan includes a description of the funding source and the amount of funding allocated for professional development. Teachers indicated that they needed additional professional development regarding the use of data to help make improvements and regarding instructional strategies to meet the needs of struggling students; however, teachers were uncertain whether this training would be provided or when it might occur. They also indicated they were uncertain about how they were to use collaboration time to analyze data, and that the directions they received from administrators were not always clear enough to support their work. 238 Pupil Achievement School site administrators indicated that professional development had been provided for new instructional materials and programs this year, including Read 180. Administrators also indicated that some additional professional development would be provided this year based on individual interests and needs; they indicated that teacher interest, not an articulated plan designed to help develop a common approach to districtwide improvement, was the most important factor in the selection of professional development. Administrators also indicated that they need additional training and support to help teachers use collaboration time effectively to plan improvements to meet students’ needs. Teachers and administrators stated that they were not certain how the district could effectively plan and implement changes that would result in a more coherent approach to improvement. 2. Some teachers, administrators and board members indicated that they lacked an understanding of how practices in the King City Joint Union High School District differed from those in other districts. Some questioned whether it was possible to obtain better results given the district’s student population. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Participate in the Professional Learning Communities at Work Institute or a similar type of professional development to help the district develop common understanding of how to better meet the needs of all students and how to implement and sustain the needed improvements. 2. Once the district has a broader view of how it might structure its approach to achieve different results, revise the LEA plan to include more specific information about the professional development that will be provided to support improvements. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 239 6.1 Data Management/Student Information Systems Legal Standard The LEA assigns and maintains Statewide Student Identifiers and maintains all data to be reported to the California Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) and the Online Public Update for Schools (OPUS) necessary to comply with No Child Left Behind reporting requirements. (EC 60900(e) Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with student information manager 2. Reports from OPUS Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Staff assigned and maintained statewide student identifiers and certified the data with CALPADS. The district completed the 2009-10 OPUS submission on time. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The CALPADS Fall 1 data was submitted and certified during the 2009-10 school year, and OPUS data was also submitted as required. Staff are working to prepare for the required data submissions this year. Findings 1. Student enrollment, demographic, and program participation data was submitted to CALPADS during the 2009-10 school year. Data reconciliation and submission activities required a significant amount of staff time, especially given the challenges with the CALPADS software last year. Staff reported progress in improving data quality and in adoption of standard course codes. The district is continuing efforts to audit data and ensure consistency in data coding. 2. Staff indicated that the district is preparing for submission of the CALPADS Fall 2 data (student course enrollment, staff demographics and staff assignments) later this school year. Recommendations for Recovery 1. Continue current efforts to collect, maintain and submit high quality CALPADS and OPUS data, including data audits and efforts to ensure that those coding information in the student information system understand and uniformly use the correct codes. 2. Submit Fall 2 data, determine any issues with the data, and work with school site staff and/or the human resources department to resolve any identified problems. 240 Pupil Achievement Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 6 March 2011 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 241 Bibliography of Recommended Resources Whatever It Takes: How Professional Learning Communities Respond When Kids Don’t Learn, by Richard DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker and Gayle Karhanek; Solution Tree, Bloomington, Indiana, 2004. Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement, by Robert J. Marzano, Debra J. Pickering and Jane E. Pollock; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virginia, 2001. Ahead of the Curve: The Power of Assessment to Transform Teaching and Learning, Douglas Reeves, Ed.; Solution Tree, Bloomington, Indiana, 2007. On Common Ground: The Power of Professional Learning Communities, Richard DuFour, Robert Eaker and Rebecca DuFour, Ed.; Solution Tree, Bloomington, Indiana, 2005. Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work, by Richard DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker and Thomas Many; Solution Tree, Bloomington, Indiana, 2006. The Dance of Change: The Challenge to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations, by Peter Senge, Art Kleiner, Charlotte Roberts, Richard Ross, George Roth and Bryan Smith; Currency Doubleday, New York, New York, 1999. Results: The Key to Continuous School Improvement, by Mike Schmoker; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virgina, 1999. The Results Fieldbook: Practical Strategies from Dramatically Improved Schools, by Mike Schmoker; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virgina, 2001. Accountability for Learning: How Teachers and School Leaders Can Take Charge, by Douglas B. Reeves; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virgina, 2004. 242 Pupil Achievement Leading Change In Your School: How to Conquer Myths, Build Commitment, and Get Results, by Douglas B. Reeves; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virgina, 2009. Beyond The Numbers: Making Data work for Teachers & School Leaders, by Stephen H. White; Advanced Learning Press, Englewood, Colorado, 2005. Pupil Achievement 243 244 Pupil Achievement Table of Pupil Achievement Ratings Pupil Achievement 245 246 Pupil Achievement February March Pupil Achievement Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating LEGAL STANDARD – PLANNING PROCESSES Categorical and compensatory program funds supplement and do not 1.1 0 1 supplant services and materials to be provided by the LEA. (20 USC 6321) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – PLANNING PROCESSES The LEA’s vision, mission, values, and priorities focus on the 1.3 1 1 achievement and needs of all students with the goals of closing the achievement gap and helping all students meet their full potential. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – PLANNING PROCESSES The LEA’s policies, culture and practices reflect a commitment to 1.4 1 2 implementing systemic reform, innovative leadership, and high expectations to improve student achievement and learning. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – PLANNING PROCESSES The LEA has fiscal policies and a fiscal resource allocation plan that 1.5 are aligned with measurable student achievement outcomes and 0 1 instructional goals including, but not limited to, the Essential Program Components. (Revised DAIT) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – PLANNING PROCESSES The LEA has policies to fully implement the State Board of Education- adopted Essential Program Components for Instructional Success. 1.6 These include implementation of instructional materials, intervention 1 2 programs, aligned assessments, appropriate use of pacing and instructional time, and alignment of categorical programs and instructional support. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – PLANNING PROCESSES The LEA provides and supports the use of information systems 1.8 and technology to manage student data, and provides professional 2 2 development to site staff on effectively analyzing and applying data to improve student learning and achievement. (DAIT) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – PLANNING PROCESSES The LEA holds teachers, site administrators, and LEA personnel 1.9 0 1 accountable for student achievement through evaluations and professional development. LEGAL STANDARD – CURRICULUM The LEA provides and fully implements SBE-adopted and standards- based (or aligned for secondary) instructional textbooks and materials 2.1 1 2 for all students, including intervention in reading/language arts and mathematics, and support for students failing to demonstrate proficiency in history, social studies, and science. (EC 60119, DAIT) Pupil Achievement 247 February March Pupil Achievement Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – CURRICULUM The LEA has planned, adopted and implemented an academic 2.3 program based on California content standards, frameworks, and 1 1 SBE-adopted/aligned materials, and articulated it to curriculum, instruction, and assessments in the LEA plan. (DAIT) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – CURRICULUM The LEA has developed and implemented common assessments 2.4 2 2 to assess strengths and weaknesses of the instructional program to guide curriculum development. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – CURRICULUM The LEA has adopted a plan for integrating technology into 2.5 1 1 curriculum and instruction at all grade levels to help students meet or exceed state standards and local goals. LEGAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The LEA provides equal access to educational opportunities to all students regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic standing, and 3.1 1 2 other factors. The LEA’s policies, practices, and staff demonstrate a commitment to equally serving the needs and interests of all students, parents, and family members. (EC 51007) LEGAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The LEA provides students with the necessary courses to meet the 3.6 high school graduation requirements. (EC 51225.3) The LEA provides 2 3 access and support for all students to complete UC and CSU required courses (A-G requirement). LEGAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The LEA provides an alternative means for students to complete the 3.7 2 3 prescribed course of study required for high school graduation. (EC 51225.3) LEGAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The LEA has adopted systematic procedures for identification, 3.10 2 2 screening, referral, assessment, planning, implementation, review, and triennial assessment of students with special needs. (EC 56301) LEGAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES Programs for special education students meet the least restrictive environment provision of the law and the quality criteria and goals set 3.12 3 3 forth by the California Department of Education and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (EC 56000, EC 56040.1, 20 USC Sec. 1400 et. seq.) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 3.13 Students are engaged in learning, and they are able to demonstrate 2 2 and apply their knowledge and skills. 248 Pupil Achievement February March Pupil Achievement Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The LEA optimizes opportunities for all students, including 3.15 underperforming students, students with disabilities, and English 1 2 language learners, to access appropriate instruction and standards- based curriculum. (DAIT) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The LEA makes ongoing use of a variety of assessment systems to 3.16 2 2 appropriately place students at grade level, and in intervention and other special support programs. (DAIT) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES Programs for English-language learners comply with state and federal 3.17 1 2 regulations and meet the quality criteria set forth by the California Department of Education. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The LEA employs specialists for improving student learning, including 3.18 0 1 content experts and specialists with skills to assist students with specific instructional needs. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The LEA offers a multiyear, comprehensive high school program of 3.22 integrated academic and technical study that is organized around 1 2 a broad theme, interest area, or industry sector. (EC 52372.5, SBE 51226) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY 4.3 The LEA has developed summative and frequent common formative 2 3 assessments that inform and direct instructional practices as part of an ongoing process of continuous improvement. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY 4.4 The LEA provides an accurate and timely school-level assessment 2 2 and data system as needed by teachers and administrators for instructional decision-making and monitoring. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY School staff assesses all students to determine students’ needs, and 4.5 1 1 whether students require close monitoring, differentiated instruction, additional targeted assessment, specific research based intervention, or acceleration. Pupil Achievement 249 February March Pupil Achievement Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY 4.8 Principals and teachers in underperforming schools and/or in schools 1 1 under mandated improvement programs are provided special training and support by the LEA. Improvement plans are monitored. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY 4.10 0 1 The LEA and school site administration monitor fidelity of program implementation in the delivery of content and instructional strategies. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY Written policies and procedures are in place to ensure that special 4.12 2 2 education processes are conducted pursuant to federal and state laws and that staff is provided appropriate, ongoing training to ensure proper implementation. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The LEA provides a continuing program of professional development 5.1 to keep instructional staff, administrators, and board members 0 0 updated on current issues and research pertaining to curriculum, instructional strategies, and student assessment. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The LEA provides opportunities and ongoing support for teachers 5.3 1 1 to collaborate on the analysis and improvement of curriculum, instruction, and use of assessment data. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The LEA plan includes budgeted coherent professional development 5.5 2 2 activities that reflect research-based strategies for improved student achievement and a focus on standards-based content knowledge. LEGAL STANDARD – DATA MANAGEMENT/ STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS The LEA assigns and maintains Statewide Student Identifiers and 6.1 maintains all data to be reported to the California Pupil Achievement 6 7 Data System (CALPADS) and the Online Public Update for Schools (OPUS) necessary to comply with No Child Left Behind reporting requirements. (EC 60900(e) Collective Average Rating 1.37 1.87 The collective average ratings for both February 2010 and March 2011 are based on the subset of priority standards used in this second comprehensive review. 250 Pupil Achievement Financial Management Financial Management 251 252 Financial Management 1.1 Internal Control Environment Professional Standard All board members and management personnel set the tone and establish the environment, exhibiting high integrity and ethical values in carrying out their responsibilities and directing the work of others. Appropriate measures are implemented to discourage and detect fraud. (State Audit Standard (SAS) 55, SAS 78, SAS 82: Treadway Commission) Sources and Documentation: 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with interim chief business official 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with district administrators 5. Interviews with site staff Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Board members and management had policies outlining general expectations for operating ethically and responsibly, but there was no evidence that these policies had been communicated to staff or that there was active promotion of ethical and responsible behavior. The state administrator had begun the process of revising board policies. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has provided board members with training through sessions with representatives from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and has had board members start the CSBA’s Masters in Governance training program. Online ethics training was also provided. The district is also implementing higher ethical standards by having administrators discuss what defines ethical behavior and make changes to positions and procedures when questionable activities are suspected or found. However, much work is still needed to eliminate the sense of entitlement that exists among some employees. Findings 1. Interviews with various district staff members indicated that the district is trying to change its ethical culture. Instances of questionable activities are less visible, and consequences are being applied when unethical behavior is found. For example, district administrators observed questionable practices in the area of associated student body (ASB) funds and immediately changed procedures and positions responsible for those funds. The state administrator is setting a good example as a leader in this area by promptly responding to behaviors as they arise, updating board policies and administrative regulations to coincide with needed change, and conveying his Financial Management 253 expectations to district office administrators and cabinet members. Board members have received governance training from the CSBA and are starting work on the CSBA’s Masters in Governance program. However, this is a cultural change that will take time and considerable effort to complete. Many staff members indicated that there is a pervasive feeling of entitlement among many of the district’s employees. Some related that the plan is to outwardly comply with the new ethical culture but retain a long-term goal of waiting for the state administrator to leave so that behaviors and organization can revert to past practices. Achieving the needed changes to ethical behavior will require time, a consistent message and visible consequences. 2. Board minutes indicate that the board has reviewed Board Bylaw (BB) 9270 regarding conflict of interest, with a first reading on August 11, 2010 and a second reading on September 8, 2010. In addition, BB 9005.3, Principles of Ethics, was adopted on January 13, 2010. However, the district has not done the following: • Provided formal communication, training and/or in-service to all em- ployees regarding the district’s ethical standards and the consequences of an individual’s failure to follow them. • Ensured that each employee has read and signed the code of ethics and placed that signed document in each employee’s personnel file. 3. Some of the most common means of detecting fraud are employee reporting and anonymous tips. Typically, these methods are most effective when employees have access to a suggestion box or a tip line which allow individuals to either identify themselves or remain anonymous. The mere existence of such mechanisms and the attendant risk of discovery will deter some employees from acting in an unethical or illegal manner. The district has a hotline for reporting questionable activities; however, most employees and board members do not know about it. Access to the hotline is gained by dialing the main district telephone number and pressing 7. However, in addition to the lack of employee knowledge of this system, the district has no written procedure that addresses what to do when information is received, such as determining the level of investigation warranted, deciding who should perform an investigation if needed, and reporting the results of those inquiries. 4. Fraud and the misuse of physical or cash assets occurs when three factors converge: pressure or motive, opportunity, and rationalization or lack of integrity. This is known as the “fraud triangle.” When two of the three factors are present, the probability that fraud will occur increases. When all three factors are present, it is almost certain that fraud will occur. An extremely common pressure or motive is the need for money. This factor is present at King City High School District due to the current economy and reduced compensation. The third factor, rationalization or lack of integrity, has reportedly been prevalent. Staff members indicated that many employees have a sense of entitlement when it comes to their behavior and their perception of what is due to them. An attitude of entitlement is a typical example of the rationalization or lack of integrity factor in the fraud triangle. The remaining fraud triangle factor is opportunity, which varies throughout the district 254 Financial Management depending on the duties assigned to an employee. The district’s 2007-08 and 2008-09 audited financial statements identified various potential opportunities and presented them in the form of audit findings, some of which were provided in 2007-08 and repeated in 2008-09 because the district did not adequately address them. Although the district continues to move toward ethical behavior and avoidance of fraud, it needs to ensure that proper internal controls are in place for each function. 5. The state administrator has begun an extensive process to revise existing board policies and adopt new board policies. His efforts to complete this project have been hampered by the numerous issues that arise each day and the normal cycle of policy change required by amendments and changes in the law. Policy revision, including the development of administrative regulations, will continue to require additional time to complete and keep current. 6. To meet this standard, it is important that the district be able to uncover these problematic activities, provide a framework for establishing policies that are meaningful, and implement consequences for individuals who violate those policies and procedures. The district maintains a hotline for reporting questionable activities; however, it is not well publicized to most employees or board members and, as indicated in finding 3, written procedures for acting on information received are lacking. 7. In the district’s audited financial statements for the years ending June 30, 2007, June 30, 2008 and June 30, 2009, the auditor’s opinion included a paragraph regarding going concern as well as an audit finding in each of these years expressing the auditor’s apprehension about the district’s ability to meet its financial obligations. These audit reports also included numerous audit findings related to deficiencies in processes and procedures, with some of these findings continuing from year to year without apparent resolution. Financial Management 255 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Implement a formal code of ethics. 2. Provide training regularly to all employees regarding the district’s expectations and standards for ethical behavior and for upholding the board’s policies and regulations as well as the consequences of deviating from these standards. 3. Ensure that each employee has read and signed the code of ethics and that the signed document is placed in each employee’s personnel file. 4. Inform employees, students, community members and board members of the district’s hotline, and encourage its use to report any questionable activity. Establish procedures for retrieving the information reported; a protocol for determining the level of investigation warranted; a means of determining who should perform an investigation if one is needed; and procedures for reporting the results of those inquiries. 5. Revise existing board policies and adopt new board policies to reflect the district’s goals regarding ethical behavior and consequences of noncompliance. 6. Inform employees, students, community members and board members about the district’s hotline. Encourage use of the hotline to report any questionable activity. Establish procedures regarding retrieval of the information reported, a protocol for determining the level of investigation warranted, and a means to determine who should perform an investigation if needed. Develop procedures for reporting the results of any such inquiries. 7. Form an active audit committee to provide the district with another level of oversight to help ensure proper operations and adequate follow-up to audit findings Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 256 Financial Management 1.3 Internal Control Environment Professional Standard The organizational structure clearly identifies key areas of authority and responsibility. Reporting lines in each area are clearly identified and logical. (SAS-55, SAS-78) Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with interim chief business official 3. Interview with interim fiscal services manager 4. Interview with information technology department staff 5. Interview with human resources department staff 6. Interviews with site personnel 7. Organizational chart, dated August 24, 2010 8. Audited financial statements for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2007, June 30, 2008 and June 30, 2009 9. Position control reports for 2010-11 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The state administrator had developed a draft organizational chart identifying all management positions, and clearly identifying reporting lines. However, several administrative and support functions were understaffed. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district completed its organizational chart and provided a copy dated August 24, 2010; however, it has not been shared with all staff members. Staff and administrators report that the majority of employees seem to understand the chain of command as well as their duties. Instances of employees bypassing their supervisors and reporting issues directly to top management are becoming less frequent. Findings 1. The state administrator presented an organizational chart dated August 24, 2010 that identifies all management positions, their reporting structure, areas of authority and responsibilities. Reporting and supporting lines are clearly identified in the organizational structure. Financial Management 257 Key components of effective internal controls include a definitive reporting structure and procedures to ensure that no one person is responsible for transactions from beginning to end. However, because the district continues to find it extremely difficult to fill open positions in the business services department, two employees (the interim chief business official and interim fiscal services manager) are responsible for all business department duties. This has resulted in a violation of internal control procedures. This issue was also included as a finding in the district’s 2008-2009 and 2007-2008 audited financial statements (findings 2009-3 and 2008-3, respectively). This situation is exacerbated by the fact that the department has seen significant turnover. This could leave the district in the untenable position of having lost its institutional knowledge of financial matters without the opportunity to transfer that knowledge and provide training to new employees. 2. The district has restructured its business services department to include the positions of chief business official (CBO), fiscal services manager and two fiscal services technicians. The CBO and fiscal services manager are 12-month positions, working 260 days per year while the two technicians are listed as 11-month positions, working 238.33 days per year. The work in the business services department is such that it requires personnel during all months of the year. Following FCMAT’s fieldwork, the district decided to change the two fiscal technician positions to two 12-month per year budget and accounting coordinator positions and increase the compensation to attract qualified candidates; one of these positions was filled. 3. District staff members indicated that there had been some irregularities regarding ASB activities. In response to those concerns, the state administrator removed ASB functions from the site level and transferred them to the district office. However, because processes and procedures were not in place at the time of the transfer there has been a great deal of confusion as to how to proceed with ASB/club transactions. With only two employees in the business department, this has added to the burden of performing day-to-day business functions. Internal control principles are also compromised because these two employees are processing the transactions and entering them into the accounting records. In addition, site staff members indicated that the district office will not process their transactions because they do not know what cash balances exist, but district office staff members indicated that the cash balances are known and transactions are being processed. This situation has created the perception that students are bearing the burden of this change. Written communication of the new procedures would help reduce anxieties and clarify expectations for all parties. 4. Staff members throughout the district reported a sense of feeling overwhelmed with the day-to-day tasks required for their departments and sites. Some attributed this to a lack of personnel as a result of staffing cuts; others attributed it to employees being on extended leave. Staff reported instances in which personnel were added to reduce work overloads but subsequently the staff went on extended leave despite additional support. Several employees expressed concern regarding their continued ability to handle the workload and the associated level of stress. Some departments have a high percentage 258 Financial Management of staff members on workers compensation or extended leave, causing the district to hire substitutes and increasing the workload of the remaining staff. When staff feel overwhelmed or perceive that they are overworked, it may have a negative effect on internal controls. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Increase its efforts to immediately fill the open and interim positions in the business services department. 2. Provide newly hired business department staff with intensive training to ensure the continuity of institutional knowledge of finances. This training should be provided by the current interim staff if possible, but the district may have to call upon the Monterey County Office of Education or other professionals for assistance if the interim employees are no longer available. 3. Immediately prepare policies and procedures for processing ASB transactions at the district office, and provide training to the sites. 4. As funding permits, consider re-establishing a part-time ASB clerk position at the comprehensive high schools, possibly splitting one full-time position between the two sites. If this is done, provide training to the clerk and to the advisors and administrators responsible for ASB funds. 5. Consider hiring temporary help to assist with excess workloads created because personnel are absent for extended leaves. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 259 2.1 Inter- and Intradepartmental Communications Professional Standard The business and operational departments communicate regularly with internal staff and all user departments on their responsibilities for accounting procedures and internal controls. Communications are written when they affect many staff or user groups, are issues of importance, and/or reflect a change in procedures. Procedure manuals are developed. The business and operational departments are responsive to user department needs. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with interim chief business official 3. Interviews with district and site staff 4. Correspondence from business office to school sites and departments 5. Annual audit report dated June 30, 2009 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 There was no documentation showing the level of communication between staff and departments, and no desk manuals were provided for review. Staff members indicated that most communication was informal and not written. Breakdowns in communication were reported as common. Reports on the responsiveness of the business and operational departments varied. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Site and department staff members indicate that communication with the business department has improved and information is provided in writing or verbally. However, site administrators and department managers have received minimal formal training related to business functions. In addition, audit findings need to be shared with staff each year and procedures implemented to correct each finding. The district does not have desk manuals for business office positions. Findings 1. Communication between the business department and the school sites and district departments has improved. Site and department staff members made many positive comments about the business department’s responsiveness and willingness to help and provide requested budget information. However, site administrators and department managers have been provided with minimal formal training in business topics such as the budget. Several site administrators are new to their positions and need additional verbal and written training regarding budget development and proper business procedures. Numerous staff members requested additional training regarding account coding and the Financial Management System (FMS), the district’s financial software system. 260 Financial Management 2. District staff indicated that cabinet meetings are conducted each week. Cabinet members include district and department managers. In addition, the administrative council, which includes district and department managers, site principals and assistant principals, meets two times per month. Staff indicated that some changes in business process and procedures are discussed at these meetings and other changes are communicated via email. Written communications regarding business and operational department processes and procedures addressed the following topics: • Purchase orders • Purchase requisition cut off • Request for reimbursement • Vehicle/key sign-out and mileage log • Online purchase requisitions • District purchasing procedures • Certification of work performed – categorical programs 2009-10 The state administrator also includes a letter with employees’ monthly paychecks that informs employees of some of the district’s significant issues and board actions. 3. The district’s independent audit report for fiscal year 2008-09 included 12 audit findings. In addition, there were nine findings from the 2007-08 audit report for which the recommendations had not been implemented. Interviews indicated that audit findings are not shared with staff members. Audit findings need to be shared with staff each year, processes and procedures implemented to correct each finding, and staff held accountable to ensure that procedures are followed so that the audit finding is not repeated in future years. The 2009-10 audit was scheduled to begin in November 2010 following FCMAT’s fieldwork. 4. School sites have online access to the district’s financial system and can review account line budgets. If a budget transfer is needed, site and department personnel call or e-mail the business office to request one. Implementing an electronic budget transfer form and training staff in its use would help provide uniformity and better internal controls. 5. The business department lacks desk manuals with step-by-step procedures for job duties. Desk manuals are important to ensure proper internal controls, transfer of institutional knowledge and provide a better understanding of the responsibilities of each position. This is particularly relevant in the district’s case because two business office employees are serving on an interim basis only. Financial Management 261 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide additional verbal and written training to site and department staff in topics related to budget development, proper business procedures, account coding and the use of FMS. 2. Continue to implement formal written communications among departments, particularly regarding procedures and internal controls. 3. Share annual audit findings with site and department staff each year following completion of the audit. Implement processes and procedures to correct each finding, and hold staff accountable to ensure that procedures are followed. 4. Develop and implement a budget transfer form, and make it available electronically to site and department managers. 5. Develop a desk manual for each position and ensure that each employee includes step-by- step procedures for all assigned duties in their desk manual. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 262 Financial Management 2.3 Inter- and Intradepartmental Communications Professional Standard The board is engaged in understanding the fiscal status of the LEA, for the current and two subsequent fiscal years. The board prioritizes LEA fiscal issues, and expects reports to align the LEA’s financial performance with its goals and objectives. Agenda items associated with business and fiscal issues are discussed at board meetings, with questions asked until understanding is reached prior to any action. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim chief business official 2. Interviews with board members 3. Board meeting agendas 4. Adoption budget, 2010-11 5. First, second and third interim reports, 2009-10 6. Unaudited actuals report, 2009-10 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Board members understood the district’s dire financial status but did not have an adequate understanding of the budget. Board members indicated that staff did not acknowledge the district’s financial difficulties until 2006, and since then the board had done little to establish expectations regarding a response. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Staff have provided purchase orders and/or warrant registers at regular monthly board meetings as well as periodic budget reports and year-to-date cash flow information. The interim chief business official provided a board training session regarding the budget on June 3, 2010. These steps have reportedly helped board members to gain a better understanding of the budget. The district will also need to adopt policies and regulations pertaining to business functions, including budget development, and provide additional budget training to board members. Findings 1. Board meeting consent agendas included listings of the purchase orders and/or warrants. An FMS budget report and an FMS year-to-date cash flow report are included on the board agenda periodically. In addition, at each reporting period the interim chief business official provides the board with a budget presentation that includes a budget narrative. However, year-to-year budget trends are not being reported to the board at each reporting period. Financial Management 263 2. On June 3, 2010, the interim chief business official provided a board training session regarding the budget. Interviews indicated that board members have gained a better conceptual understanding of the budget and are eager to receive more training regarding the budget and district finances. 3. The district has developed and/or updated some board policies and administrative regulations regarding business and noninstructional operations, including those that address expenditures, purchasing and expending authority, bids, contracts, and disruptions. However, policies and regulations regarding the budget still need to be reviewed and updated. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to ensure that the board takes a more active role in understanding the district’s financial position. 2. At each reporting period, include charts and graphs depicting year-to-year trends in the following areas: • Budget year expenditures • Enrollment history and projections • Average daily attendance (ADA) history • Net ending balances for both the unrestricted and restricted general fund • Net change in the ending balance/deficit spending for both the unrestrict- ed and restricted general fund • General fund contributions to special education • Any other programs or funds that require a contribution from the general fund 3. Review and adopt or update board policies and regulations regarding the budget and prescribe the content and format of the supplementary information staff present at each reporting period. 4. Schedule additional board training sessions regarding the district’s budget to improve board members’ understanding of the district’s budget and the concepts of public education finance. 264 Financial Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 265 3.1 Staff Professional Development Professional Standard The LEA has developed and uses a professional development plan for training business staff. The plan includes the input of business office supervisors and managers, and identifies appropriate training programs. Each staff member and management employee has a plan designed to meet their individual professional development needs. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim chief business official 2. Interview with interim fiscal services manager 3. Collective bargaining agreement between the district and CSEA, August 2010 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 There was no evidence of a professional development plan for business staff, or a formal staff development plan. Budget reductions were a factor in this. The sample evaluation form in the classified staff bargaining agreement did not provide for documentation of staff development. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has not developed a professional development plan for business department staff because the department staff consists of an interim chief business official, an interim fiscal services manager, and two fiscal services technicians but is in the process of changing some of these positions. The district will need to develop a formal professional development plan as soon as changes to the department’s staffing are completed. Findings 1. The business office currently consists of only two employees: the interim chief business official and the interim fiscal services manager. Both of these individuals are retired and have extensive experience in school business. However, because of CalPERS restrictions regarding the number of hours that retirees may work, these employees will not be able to continue with the district in their current capacity beyond December 2010 and January 2011, respectively. The district has been unable to recruit qualified candidates to fill these two positions permanently. In addition, the organizational chart dated August 24, 2010 indicated that there were two open fiscal services technician positions. However, the district was unable to recruit qualified candidates to fill these two positions. Following FCMAT’s field work, the district conducted interviews and changed the two the fiscal services technician positions to create two budget and accounting coordinator positions with increased compensation. One of these positions was filled. 266 Financial Management 2. The district does not have a formal staff development plan for the business department positions. The district is faced with the need to hire an entire new business department staff in the months ahead. The district will need to immediately assess the experience and expertise of each new staff member as they are hired and implement a professional development plan for each individual. The plan should include workshops, in-service events and cross-training opportunities. It will also need to include the time and financial resources required from employees and the district, as well as expected outcomes for each activity. The district should use a standard form to document the plan, and review the plan at least annually. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Intensify its efforts to fill the positions of chief business official, fiscal services manager with permanent staff, and to complete other department staffing changes. 2. Immediately assess the experience and expertise of each new business department staff member and implement a professional development plan for each individual. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 267 3.2 Staff Professional Development Professional Standard The LEA develops and uses a professional development plan for the in-service training of school site/department staff by business staff on relevant business procedures and internal controls. The plan includes a process to seek input from the business office and the school sites/ departments and is updated annually. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim chief business official 2. Interview with interim fiscal services manager 3. Interviews with site staff Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 There was no evidence that the business office had a professional development plan to train site or department staff, though staff did provide support as time allowed and upon request, though response was reportedly sometimes slow. Budget and staffing reductions contributed to this situation. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Site and department staff members indicated that communication with the business office has improved and sites and departments have received information regarding business procedures; however, the district has not developed a professional development plan for training site and department staff members about business topics. Staff indicated a need and a desire for additional training. Findings 1. The business department has provided school site and department staff with a significant amount of correspondence regarding business procedures (see standard 2.1) as well as a procedures manual and training for the FMS online requisition process. However, numerous school site and department staff members indicated that they need and desire additional training regarding business procedures, account coding, categorical funds and FMS capabilities, including how to run reports. 2. The interim fiscal services manager has met with the school principals regarding the school site budgets, but no formal training has been provided to site and department staff members responsible for the budget. The business office also needs to provide school site and department staff with annual training that includes information regarding new processes, procedures and forms as well as a refresher for ongoing procedures that have not been followed as required. The district does not have a formal professional development plan for business office 268 Financial Management staff to use to support and train school site and department staff members. Staff indicated that communication has improved and business office staff members are very helpful in answering questions and providing support when school site and department staff submit requests for information regarding the budget or other business office functions. School site and department staff realize that the business office is understaffed. 3. When creating the professional development plan for school site and department staff, the business office will need to ensure that clerical staff and management have an opportunity to provide input regarding the plan, including its goals, objectives and professional development activities. The plan should identify business-related training needs, cross- training opportunities and the time and financial commitments that will be required of the business office, school sites and departments. Expected outcomes for each activity will also need to be included. The district should use a standard form to document the plan, and should review the plan at least annually. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide additional training regarding budget functions, account coding, categorical funds, and FMS capabilities to individuals responsible for school site and department budgets. 2. Provide site and department staff with annual training that includes information regarding business-related processes, procedures and forms. 3. Implement a professional development plan for school sites and departments that addresses business topics and functions. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 269 5.1 Budget Development Process Professional Standard The board focuses on expenditure standards and formulas that meet the goals and maintain the LEA’s financial solvency for the current and two subsequent fiscal years. The board avoids specific line-item focus, but directs staff to design an entire expenditure plan focusing on student and LEA needs. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim chief business official 2. Interviews with board members 3. Adopted 2010-11 budget report to the board 4. Adopted, first, second and third interim 2009-10 budget reports to the board 5. Unaudited actual 2009-10 financial report to the board 6. Revenue and expenditure reports provided to board 7. Monthly cash flow reports provided to board 8. June 3, 2010 board budget workshop materials 9. Monterey County School Boards Association Calendar of Events, 2010-11 school year Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The board had a general understanding of the district’s fiscal condition but not an understanding of the budget sufficient to allow for meaningful discussion during staff presentations. Budget reports did not provide information to help the board focus on the students’ and district’s needs, and the information provided did not encompass the current and two subsequent fiscal years. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The board has received and continues to receive a great deal of training in the area of budget development; however, to fully implement this standard the board will need additional training regarding linking the budget to student achievement goals. Findings 1. The district has taken measures to help increase the board’s understanding of the budget and knowledge of the district’s cash standing. These measures include the following: 270 Financial Management a. A monthly budget report to the board. This document is generated from the Financial Management System (FMS) the district’s financial software, and shows the approved budget; working budget; amounts expended during the month and year to date; encumbrances; and the unencumbered balance. b. A monthly cash flow report to the board. This document is generated from FMS and shows cash inflows and outflows by major object code for each month to date; however, it does not show the projected amounts to year end, which would provide the board and the community with the district’s expectations and allow them to see the full impact of budget decisions. c. A board budget workshop provided by the interim chief business official on June 3, 2010. d. A four-day workshop provided through the California School Boards Association (CSBA). e. Enrollment of four of the five board members in the CSBA’s Masters in Governance program. 2. Board members have acknowledged that these steps are helping to increase their knowledge of school finance; however, they also expressed their desire to continue to broaden their learning in this area through follow-up board workshops. Staff of the Monterey County Office of Education (county office) provided FCMAT with a flyer that had recently been distributed to all districts in the county announcing upcoming training opportunities in such areas as raising student achievement, best practices for effective governance, budgeting, developing/monitoring budgets, and ethics training. These trainings are being offered at minimal cost at the county office from October 25, 2010 to March 2, 2011. 3. Through the measures listed above, the board is demonstrating a better understanding of the district’s budget sufficient to allow for a meaningful discussion during staff members’ public presentations. 4. Improvement has been made in the board’s general understanding of the budget and in providing the board with information beyond the standardized account code structure (SACS) forms to help the board focus on the students’ and the district’s needs. A review of the 2009-10 first interim report indicated that only the SACS forms were provided to the board. An executive summary was added to the 2009-10 second interim report with an introduction, variance analysis, and a comparison of ending fund balances with and without the state loan. The 2009-10 unaudited actuals report included a two-page introduction and discussion that focused on the ending balances for the fiscal year. 5. Additional information such as the executive summary, introduction and discussion, variance analysis, charts and graphs are all ways to help board members and the community understand school finance and the district’s budget. These tools can also be used to provide year-to-year trends in key areas such as net ending balances; changes to Financial Management 271 revenues and expenditures; funds or programs that require a contribution from the general fund; and student enrollment and average daily attendance (ADA). However, consistency in the information provided is essential to prevent confusion. Board members indicated some confusion regarding how developments between reporting periods affected the district’s budget. Including additional budget analysis information should help provide clear answers to the board’s questions. 6. The tools discussed above are fundamental in helping the board understand revenue and expenditure standards and the formulas necessary to maintain the district’s solvency while also focusing on students’ and the district’s needs. 7. However, the board has not yet fully connected their understanding of finance with student achievement and with their directive to maintain the district’s solvency. To assist them in this regard, staff members from additional district departments, such as human resources and student services, will need to provide board workshops or presentations in their areas of responsibility. This would provide board members with the information required to link the district’s financial goals with its goals for student achievement and the need for complete fiscal recovery. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue board members’ participation in training sessions regarding specific aspects of public school finance that will support them in carrying out their responsibilities as stewards of public funds and help improve student performance. 2. Encourage the board member who has not yet done so to enroll in training from the CSBA’s Masters in Governance program, specifically the modules pertaining to school finance from a board member’s perspective. 3. Provide the board with monthly cash flow reports containing projections to year end. 4. Provide the board with additional information at each reporting cycle to augment SACS forms and provide the financial information in a format that is easier to understand. 5. Continue to provide supplemental trainings from district staff members to ensure that the board can effectively apply the concepts learned to local issues and circumstances that focus on students’ and the district’s needs. 272 Financial Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 273 5.2 Budget Development Process Professional Standard The budget development process includes input from staff, administrators, board and community as well as a budget advisory committee. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim chief business official 2. Interviews with school site administrators 3. Interviews with department directors 4. Interviews with board members 5. Audited financial statements for the year ending June 30, 2009 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The business office staff developed the budget with little input from other staff, administrators, or the board. Staff indicated that the district used a budget advisory committee process to develop the 2008-09 and 2009-10 budgets, but the committee provided little input. No documentation of committee meetings was provided. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has made plans to include site and department administrators in the creation of the 2011-12 budget; however, there continues to be no community or board involvement in the budget process, and no budget advisory committee has been established. Findings 1. Staff and board members reported that the budget is developed at the district office level. The 2010-11 budget was developed by the state administrator and interim chief business official with no involvement by site or department staff. District office staff reported that site and department managers will participate in the development of the 2011-12 budget. This new level of involvement will be a first-time experience for many managers and administrators and will require that the business office provide some in-depth training and develop procedures and forms for staff to feel comfortable with the task of budget development. 2. Historically, staff had not sought the board’s input during budget development but had presented the board with allocations of resources for approval at various times during budget development process. While the addition of site and department input is planned for the 2011-12 budget development, the district has not begun to incorporate community and board members into the budget development process. 274 Financial Management 3. The district’s audited financial statements for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009 include audit finding 2009-1, which indicated that the district had formed a budget committee. District office staff indicated that although there was a memorandum to budget advisory committee members announcing the reconvening of the committee in January 2009, nothing further has transpired and the state administrator’s task of updating board policies has not yet reached the section regarding adoption of a budget advisory committee. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide budget training to all administrators who are to be added to the 2011-12 budget development process. Training should include the following: • Budget worksheets that show the total amount available per resource; staffing currently allocated to the resource with listings of the employee names, hours worked, stipends paid; timesheet positions normally at- tached to the resource; the indirect costs to be charged to the program; and the remaining unallocated amount for sites and departments to bud- get. • Information regarding account coding, including how to read the code and how those codes translate into expenditure categories by object. • Detailed information regarding how each funding source is to be used. The School Services of California’s (SSC’s) CAT Wizard could be an ef- fective tool to provide this information. • Salary and benefit calculation spreadsheets that will allow site principals and department heads to gain hands-on experience with how a position is budgeted and how the budget is affected by statutory and health and welfare benefits. This concept can prove to be one of the largest hurdles for understanding budgeting. Many managers understand the idea of paying a salary but forget that there are benefits that are attached to the salary, including State Teachers Retirement (STRS) or Public Employees Retirement (PERS), social security, Medicare, workers’ compensation insurance and unemployment insurance. In many instances, a district’s business office uses a spreadsheet that can be provided to assist in this calculation. • Information regarding the district’s goals and priorities that are to be con- sidered in budget development. • Information regarding indirect costs, including what they are, how they are calculated, and the necessity for them to be paid from each resource as legally allowed. These trainings should move the district toward a more transparent and inclusionary budget development process. However, site administrators and department heads should Financial Management 275 be reminded that with the opportunity to become a part of the budget process comes the responsibility of adhering to the plan that they develop. 2. Develop a plan to incorporate board and community input into budget development. 3. Ensure that the board adopts policies and regulations that establish a budget advisory committee as a formal component of the district’s budget development. The policies should address the committee’s function, role, responsibilities, governance, membership structure and reporting protocols. 4. Convene a budget advisory committee in conjunction with development of the district’s 2011-12 budget. The committee should include representatives from the board, district administration, school administration, departments, bargaining units, parents, students, the non-parent community and the state administrator. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 276 Financial Management 5.3 Budget Development Process Professional Standard The LEA has clear policies and processes to analyze resources and allocations to ensure that they align with strategic planning objectives and that the budget reflects the LEA’s priorities. The budget office has a technical process to build the preliminary budget that includes revenue and expenditure projections, the identification of carryovers and accruals, and any plans for expenditure reductions. A budget calendar contains statutory due dates and major budget development milestones. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim chief business official 2. Interview with interim fiscal services manager 3. Adopted 2010-11 budget report to the board 4. Unaudited actual 2009-10 financial report to the board 5. Budget calendar 6. AB 1200 public disclosure of collective bargaining agreement for the certificated employee bargaining unit, dated July 28, 2010 7. AB 1200 public disclosure of collective bargaining agreement for the classified employee bargaining unit, dated August 31, 2010 8. Budget Report Worksheet for fiscal year 2010-11 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 There was no evidence that the board had maintained policies, processes, priorities or strategic planning objectives for budget development. The district did not use a budget calendar. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The task of revising board policies and drafting planning objectives for use in budget development continues to be a challenge. Although the district’s efforts to reduce expenditures have produced an estimated $3.5 million in savings, the general fund still has a projected negative ending balance in 2012-13; there is a need for increased revenues or further reductions to expenditures. The district has a budget calendar in place but it will need further revision. Findings 1. The district has begun training the board in how to read a budget and review budget reports for trends. The district plans on involving the board in the budget development Financial Management 277 process in the future. However, the district provided no evidence of board policies, processes or strategic planning objectives for use during budget development. There is also no evidence that the board has developed or used any list of priorities for budget resource allocations and expenditure reductions. FCMAT’s interviews with board members revealed that they are not involved in budget development; however, board members did believe that the recovery plan was changing the district’s budgeting culture to “make things about the kids.” 2. The interim fiscal services manager, in cooperation with the interim chief business official (CBO), is responsible for developing the technical process to build the preliminary budget. The interim fiscal services manager indicated that she works closely with the CBO to develop the revenue and expenditure projections. A review of the 2010-11 adoption budget revealed that carryover was not included in the revenue projections when the budget was created. Not including carryover is a best practice at the time of budget adoption because the budget is developed in May and June and the district is able to spend funds until June 30. Carryover can only be definitively assessed once the books are closed and the unaudited actuals are presented to the board. At this point the carryover should be included in the budget. This typically coincides with the preparation of the first interim report. 3. The district included expenditure reductions in its 2010-11 adoption budget to offset federal funding reductions, to recognize a reduction in special education costs associated with taking back programs from the SELPA, and to account for other one-time expenditures. The budget summary indicates an expenditure reduction of $1.2 million. In July 2010 the district settled negotiations with its certificated employee bargaining unit that included approximately $1.7 million in savings. In August 2010 the district also reached a settlement with its classified employee bargaining unit that includes a savings of approximately $576,000. However, even with the projected savings of $3.5 million, the district continues to project a negative general fund balance for fiscal year 2012-13. 4. Form ICR, included in the district’s 2009-10 unaudited actuals, now tracks the application of the district’s indirect cost rate to programs. This form indicates that the district’s approved 2009-10 indirect cost rate was 3.20%. The indirect rates used in programs varied from 2.0% to 3.21%. The allowable rates vary between programs, some of which have a set rate. For example, the rate for Title III is 2% and the rate for Economic Impact Aid is 3%. Other programs allow for the indirect costs at the district’s individual rate, while some, such as vocational education, have a cap of either the district rate or 5%, whichever is greater. The district’s approved indirect cost rate for the 2010-11 fiscal year is 6.95%. Charging each program the appropriate indirect cost rate helps the unrestricted side of the budget and helps to show the total cost of each program. A review of the district’s 2010-11 budget worksheet revealed that the budget for some categorical programs does not include indirect costs, while others include rates lower than those allowed by law. 5. The district’s budget calendar includes some of the critical tasks, the staff member assigned to complete the task and the month in which the task will take place. The calendar did not identify which budget cycle it was designed for, did not include all 278 Financial Management critical tasks, and did not define the dates so that specific deadlines were recognizable. For example, March 15 is the deadline for sending preliminary layoff notices to certificated staff as well as the deadline for presenting the second interim report to the board, and December 15 is the deadline for presenting the first interim report to the board. The budget calendar should include all of the applicable tasks and the date for completion. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the board develops policies and regulations that provide staff with guidance regarding budget development, strategic planning objectives, and priorities for resource allocations and expenditure reductions. This should include developing and approving a list of priorities for budget reductions so that the administration understands these priorities and how to implement them during budget development. 2. Continue to prohibit the inclusion of carryover assumptions or estimates during budget development without prior approval from the state administrator and the board. 3. Use and charge the appropriate indirect cost rate for each program. 4. Continue to review the budget to identify revenue increases or additional expenditure reductions to eliminate the negative ending fund balance projected for fiscal year 2012-13. 5. Revise the budget calendar to include specific statutory deadlines for all required budget development tasks so that each staff member is aware of deadlines and meets them. The budget calendar should include critical tasks, indicate which staff member will complete them, and provide deadlines for completion. Deadlines are particularly important for tasks that have a statutory deadline, such as making the proposed budget available for public inspection or presenting the budget to the board. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 279 5.4 Budget Development Process Professional Standard The LEA has policies to facilitate development of a budget that is understandable, meaningful, reflective of the LEA’s priorities, and balanced in terms of revenues and expenditures. The LEA utilizes formulas for allocating funds to school sites and departments. This may include staffing ratios, supply allocations, etc. Standardized budget worksheets are used to communicate budget requests, budget allocations, formulas applied and guidelines. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim chief business official 2. Interview with interim fiscal services manager 3. Interviews with board members 4. Adopted 2010-11 budget report to the board 5. Unaudited actual 2008-09 financial report to the board 6. Unaudited actual 2009-10 financial report to the board 7. Position control reports for 2010-11 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district provided no board policies or procedures regarding budget development. The district did not use formulas to allocate funds or positions to school sites and departments and did not seek input from principals and managers via budget worksheets or other means. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Board policies and procedures have yet to be developed. Although district staff members indicated that they are using allocation formulas for programs, none were provided to FCMAT. Staff members appear to be using industry-standard techniques to estimate revenues, but additional care needs to be taken in those calculations. In addition, restricted revenues are not always used to the fullest extent possible before unrestricted resources are used. The county office expressed concerns regarding deficit spending and required reserve levels. Under SB 130, the district is not required to build or maintain required reserve levels until fiscal solvency is restored. Findings 1. The district was unable to provide board policies or procedures that address budget development, though board members revealed a desire to include more user-friendly materials such as charts and graphs in budget documents. 280 Financial Management 2. The interim fiscal services manager responsible for budget development reported that she works closely with and takes direction from the interim chief business official when developing the district’s budget. Interviews indicated that budgets are now being tied to the Consolidated Application and site allocations are based on enrollment, ADA, or free and reduced price meal counts, whichever is more applicable for the funding source. The district provided its worksheets from the School Services of California (SSC) revenue limit software (RevLim) as well as its site discretionary allocation spreadsheet. No other worksheets were provided that indicated funding allocation formulas. 3. The SSC RevLim worksheets contained the following anomalies: • Schedule BTS (Beginning Teacher Salary Programs): Based on a comparison with the data posted by CDE, the 2007-08 P-2 ROC/P ADA was overstated by 9.25 ADA for both BTS#1 and BTS#2. For BTS#2the line 1 2010- 11 amount per ADA was understated by $0.77. The combination of these changes produced a total of $44,168 for this program, an increase of $1,377 over the amount included in the 2010-11 adopted budget. • The district’s estimate of unemployment insurance costs was $72,989 but the posi- tion control spreadsheets provided included a total of $72,233, which is a difference of $756. When divided by the unemployment insurance cost of 0.72%, this difference results in $105,000 in salaries that would need to be added to position control to reach the $72,989 budgeted amount budgeted for unemployment. • The district’s estimate of PERS reduction expense was $64,008 (excluding the buyout factor) while the total on the position control spreadsheets was $55,107. 4. District staff also provided a copy of the budget worksheet for 2010-11. Applying the SSC dartboard in operation when the budget was created revealed some deviations, including the following: • The Targeted Instructional Improvement block grant is budgeted at $35,287, but information posted by CDE at the time of budget development indicates a total ap- portionment of $40,122 for 2009-10. When reduced by the projected -0.38% cost of living adjustment (COLA), the budgeted amount would be $39,969. • The Art & Music block grant was budgeted at $19,299, but the information posted by CDE at the time of budget development indicates a total apportionment of $33,214 for 2009-10. When reduced by the projected -0.38% COLA, the budget amount would be $33,087. 5. A comparison of the 2008-09 and 2009-10 Forms CAT revealed the following: • Some ending balances in the 2008-09 Form CAT were not the same as the beginning balances in the 2009-10 Form CAT, which can cause confusion over which are the correct numbers. • Most resources had been completely used or their 2008-09 balances transferred to the unrestricted side of the general fund through the flexibility transfers allowed under SBX3 4; however, the carryover amounts or fund balances for the following programs increased from 2008-09 to 2009-10: Financial Management 281 • Title I, Basic Aid increased by $135,222 • Title I, ARRA increased by $14,076 • Title III increased by $14,290 • Title II – Part A increased by $34,032 • Lottery – Prop 20 increased by $15,199 • Economic Impact Aid increased by $101,251 • Restricted Local Funding increased by $77,414 6. District staff are using industry-standard techniques and processes to develop estimates of revenues. When testing revenue estimates, staff should use SSC’s Dynamic Budget Guide and the most recent information posted by the CDE to test their calculations of categorical program revenue estimates. Staff need to continue using SSC’s RevLim software for revenue limit estimates. However, careful attention needs be paid to using categorical funding before unrestricted funding is used, within the guidelines of the restricted resource. 7. The district’s human resources department staff indicated that staffing formulas are used inconsistently for teaching staff and not at all for classified staff. No input regarding staffing was sought from principals or department managers during budget development. The interim fiscal services manager works with and receives direction only from the chief business official when developing the budget. However, staff indicated that development of the 2011-12 budget will include site and department involvement (see Standard 5.2). 8. The county office’s September 16, 2010 budget review letter included the following comments and recommendations: a. The district still needs to focus on the deficit spending and meeting required reserves in 2012-13. Reserves were projected to be negative 6.56% for 2010-11, negative 16.45% for 2011-12 and negative 45.34% for 2012-13. However, these numbers did not reflect the impact of collective bargaining settlements and were anticipated to improve significantly once the settlements had been incorporated into the budget. b. The district’s budget reflected declining enrollment and should continue to carefully monitor its attendance and enrollment and adjust financial projections accordingly for the current and subsequent fiscal years if further material reductions occur or are expected to occur. c. The county office expressed caution in the use of a 2.1% COLA for 2011-12 and a 2.4% COLA for 2012-13 because there is no assurance that a statutory COLA will be funded. The county office recommended that the district develop contingency plans in the event COLAs are not fully funded. d. The district used the correct base revenue limit COLA and deficit factor, 282 Financial Management e. The ADA was based on the prior year P2 ADA, which was appropriate. f. Overall, the budget and expenditures were reasonable and complete. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the board develops policies that guide staff in developing a budget that is understandable, meaningful, that reflects the district’s priorities and that balances revenues and expenditures. Board policy should also attempt to develop a link between the board’s goals and budget allocations, budget reduction priorities, and requirements to maintain a balanced budget. 2. Develop and use formulas to allocate staffing and funds to school sites and departments. 3. Develop estimates of revenues using industry-standard methods and tools such as SSC’s dartboard, Dynamic Budget Guide and/or RevLim software. 4. Carefully analyze categorical funding to ensure that restricted funds are used whenever possible to avoid increasing restricted fund balances and carryover amounts without a specific plan for their use. 5. Continue with its plans to include sites and departments in budget development for fiscal year 2011-12. 6. Develop and communicate allocations to schools and departments using spreadsheets with allocation formulas that are based criteria consistent with the funding source. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 283 6.1 Budget Adoption, Reporting, and Audits Legal Standard The LEA adopts its annual budget within the statutory timelines established by EC 42103, which requires that on or before July 1, the board shall hold a public hearing on the budget to be adopted for the subsequent fiscal year. Not later than five days after that adoption or by July 1, whichever occurs first, the board shall file that budget with the county superintendent of schools. (EC 42127(a)) Sources and Documentation Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, January 2011 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with interim chief business official 3. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education associate superintendent for business services and district advisory services 4. Adopted 2010-11 budget report to the board 5. Monterey County Office of Education budget review letter, adopted budget, 2010-11 6. Board meeting minutes Summary of First Comprehensive Review, January 2010 The district’s board adopted the fiscal year 2009-10 budget within the statutory timelines. The county office ultimately recommended disapproval of the budget because it did not reflect the financial recovery efforts of the state administrator. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, January 2011 District staff and the staff at the Monterey County Office of Education (county office) stated that the 2010-11 budget was not only submitted on time but was the earliest submission in recent memory. Findings 1. The board held a public hearing and adopted the district’s 2010-11 budget on June 23, 2010, within the statutory timelines established by California Education Code (EC) section 42103. The county office staff approved the budget on September 16, 2010. County office staff indicated that their office received the 2010-11 budget before the July 1 statutory deadline required by EC 42127 and stated that this was the earliest submission in recent memory. 284 Financial Management 2. Senate Bill 4 of the 2009-10 Third Extraordinary Session (SBX3 4) included several changes to law and provided local educational agencies (LEAs) with unprecedented budgeting flexibility. As a condition for receipt of Tier III flexibility funding under SBX3 4, an LEA, must take testimony from the public and discuss and approve or disapprove the proposed use of funding at a regularly scheduled public hearing. The bill allows the annual governing board budget adoption to satisfy this public hearing requirement. A review of the board meeting minutes for April 21, 2010, indicated that the district held a public hearing regarding use of Tier III flexibility funding. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to submit its adopted budget to the county office on or before the deadlines established by EC 42127. 2. Consider having the public hearing required by SBX3 4 regarding receipt of flexibility funding in conjunction with the annual public hearing for budget adoption to ensure that it is not overlooked and that SBX3 4 Tier III funding is not placed at risk. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 285 6.2 Budget Adoption, Reporting, and Audits Legal Standard Revisions to expenditures based on the state budget are considered and adopted by the board. Not later than 45 days after the governor signs the annual Budget Act, the LEA shall make available for public review any revisions in revenues and expenditures that it has made to its budget to reflect funding available by that Budget Act. (EC 42127(2) and 42127(i)(4)) Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim fiscal services manager Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Because the State of California’s budget adoption process for fiscal year 2009-10 was unique, the 45-day revision requirement did not apply. However, the superintendent of public instruction ultimately disapproved the district’s budget at the recommendation of the county office. The district’s board and the county superintendent requested a waiver of the legal requirement that a budget review committee be formed to develop a budget for the district and use of the FCMAT- developed financial recovery plan instead. Approval of the request was expected. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The State of California’s budget for fiscal year 2010-11 is the latest budget in the history of the state; the governor signed the Budget Act on October 8, 2010. Therefore, revisions to budgets as a result of the 2010-11 Budget Act need to be made available to the public on or before November 22, 2010. The deadline for making changes to the district’s 2010-11 budget had not yet passed at the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork. Findings 1. The 2010-11 California state budget was the latest budget signed by the governor in the history of California. The governor signed the budget on October 8, 2010 and districts have until November 22, 2010 to make revisions to revenues and expenditures to indicate funding availability provided by the 2010-11 Budget Act. District staff report that draft revisions have been made to revenue and expenditures as a result of the Budget Act, and these revisions are awaiting the interim chief business official’s review before being released for public review. Recommendation for Recovery The district should: 1. Revise and make available to the public its revenues and expenditures to indicate funding made available by the relevant year’s Budget Act. 286 Financial Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 287 6.3 Budget Adoption, Reporting, and Audits Legal Standard The LEA completes and files its interim budget reports within the statutory deadlines established by EC 42130, et. seq. All reports are in a format or on forms prescribed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction and are based on standards and criteria for fiscal stability. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim chief business official 2. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education associate superintendent for business services and district advisory services personnel 3. First, second and third interim 2009-10 budget reports to the board 4. Monterey County Office of Education budget review letters regarding first, second and third interim 2009-10 budget reports 5. Board meeting minutes Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district submitted fiscal year 2008-09 interim budget reports, though the first interim budget review letter from the county office included a negative certification and commented on the district’s large structural budget deficits. The district was developing its first interim report for 2009-10. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has met the board meeting deadlines established in Education Code section (EC) 42130 as well as the deadline for delivery of the third interim report established by EC 42131. However, the county office expressed concerns in its review letters for each interim report. Findings 1. The county office’s review letter for the 2009-10 first interim budget report was issued March 3, 2010 and did not indicate the date the report was received from the district. The minutes of the district’s December 9, 2009 board meeting indicate approval of the first interim report; however, the state administrator dated his signature on the report December 17, 2009. Education Code 42130 requires that this report describe the district’s financial and budgetary status for the period ending October 31 and be approved by the district’s governing board within 45 days after that date (December 15). A meeting date of December 9, 2009 for approval of the first interim report complies with EC 42130. 2. The first interim budget review letter from the county office indicated that the district’s budget included a negative certification and the county office agreed with this assessment. 288 Financial Management The letter also commented on the large structural budget deficits even with the inclusion of the state loan. 3. The county office’s review letter for the 2009-10 second interim budget report was issued April 20, 2010 and did not indicate the date the report was received from the district. Minutes from the district’s March 10, 2010 board meeting include approval of the second interim report, and the state administrator dated his signature on the report March 10, 2010. Education Code 42130 requires that this report describe the district’s the financial and budgetary status for the period ending January 31 and be approved by the district’s governing board within 45 days after that date (March 15). A meeting date of March 10, 2010 for approval of the second interim report conforms to the requirements of EC 42130. 4. The second interim budget review letter indicated that the district’s budget included a qualified certification and that the county office concurred with that assessment. The letter also made note of the district’s $6,042,000 operating deficit for fiscal year 2011-12 as well as the county office’s need for a copy of the district’s updated actuarial study dated no later than June 30, 2010 for compliance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement Number 45. 5. The county office’s review letter for the 2009-10 third interim budget report was issued June 30, 2010 and did not indicate the date the report was received from the district. Minutes of the district’s May 12, 2010 board meeting include presentation of the third interim report; however, the report did not show a date for the state administrator’s signature. Education Code 42131 requires that this report include projections of the district’s fund and cash balances through June 30 for the period ending April 30 and be delivered to the county superintendent of schools no later than June 1. 6. The county office’s third interim budget review letter noted that the district was projecting a positive cash and negative fund balance position at June 30, 2010. The main concerns listed in the letter were as follows: • The district had not settled salary or benefit negotiations for fiscal year 2009-10. • The district had been deficit spending from the unrestricted general fund for five of the last eight years. • The district needed to ensure that one-time revenues are used only for one-time expenditures. • The district projected spending the entire $13,000,000 state loan by June 30, 2012. 7. The county office further cautioned the district that the state budget for 2010-11 had not yet been enacted and that it was prudent to assume that the governor’s May Revision was a best case scenario, with the possibility that education funding would be further reduced during the state budget process. The county office also expressed concerns regarding the Financial Management 289 district’s projected level of deficit spending, which would require the district to develop additional budget reductions to ensure future fiscal solvency. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that all budget reports are filed with the Monterey County Office of Education on time and that they include a plan to meet all financial criteria and standards for the district’s budget as established by the state. This should include a plan to eliminate the district’s structural budget deficit while maintaining reserves at required levels. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: 290 Financial Management 7.2 Budget Monitoring Professional Standard The LEA implements budget monitoring controls, such as periodic budget reports, to alert department and site managers of the potential for over-expenditure of budgeted amounts. Revenue and expenditures are forecast and verified monthly. The LEA ensures that appropriate expenditures are charged against programs within the spending limitations authorized by the board. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim chief business official 2. Interview with business office staff 3. Interviews with site administrators and staff 4. Samples of monthly budget reports presented to the board 5. Samples of site budget reports 6. Adopted 2010-11 budget report to the board Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 A fiscal expert was responsible for monitoring account balances, and business office staff determined if budget funds were available and performed transfers if needed. Sites and department staff had access to the Financial Management System to monitor their account balances, but most indicated they were not proficient in its use. Staff presented budget updates to the board monthly. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has made progress in this area; however, additional training for sites and departments would help decrease the workload of the interim fiscal services manager. Users of the FMS online purchase requisition system indicated that they would like to receive additional training on the system and in account coding, and users of the FMS budget and reporting functions would like additional FMS training . Site staff indicated that they would like to obtain additional training regarding categorical funding, particularly available funding and the expenditures appropriate to each resource. While the training will initially be a drain on the business office, it should result in fewer phone calls and e-mails. Findings 1. The FMS system’s purchase requisition function recognizes encumbrances at the requisition level. Consequently, if there is not a sufficient amount in the budget line item, the order cannot progress past the user’s attempt to produce a requisition. Financial Management 291 Staff reported that at implementation of the online system, they were given a short tutorial regarding how to log in to the system and a hardcopy of the instruction manual. There was no in-service on the system, just the expectation that staff members would have the time and ability to teach themselves how to use the system. While staff indicated that they were comfortable with budget control being at the requisition level, they felt that they needed more training in the operation of the online feature and more detailed information on account coding so that they could understand how the numbers in the account code translate into what can be purchased within that line item. Currently, questions are directed to the interim fiscal services manager or the technology department. Additional training would reduce the number of calls to these departments, allowing them to focus on other tasks. This would ultimately provide smoother operations districtwide. 2. Staff indicated that a similar situation exists when they use FMS to produce budget reports. Staff consistently stated that they know they have access to the system and are told that they can view accounts and print reports; however, they do not know how to perform these functions. If assistance is needed with these tasks, staff call the interim fiscal services manager or send an e-mail and they receive the assistance needed. However, this places an additional burden on an already overworked business department. Additional training should reduce the amount of time all parties spend on these issues and give users a greater feeling of control and participation in the budget monitoring process. 3. The online purchase requisition system will not allow a purchase that exceeds the line item budget, thereby relieving the business office staff of the task of monitoring account line balances to place orders. However, the interim fiscal services manager is the only individual who prepares and enters all budget transfers into FMS and gathers the documentation regarding transfers. In most school districts, budget transfers are initiated by the site or department before being carried out in the business office. 4. Staff members continue to present the board with a monthly budget update that identifies available balances for revenues and expenditures by major object code. Staff members also present interim budget reports to the board as required by the education code; these reports include projections of the budget amounts needed to meet the district’s financial obligations. 5. Site staff indicated that they need more assistance regarding categorical funding. Staff at one school site felt that they understood how to spend categorical funding, while staff at another site were unsure but felt that if the expenditure was not appropriate the business office would call to inform them that the purchase could not be completed with that funding source. The business office does act as the final approval for categorical spending; however, sites should be aware of the limitations of each categorical funding source as well as how funding sources can interact with one another. This information would be helpful to the principal and secretary at each site and would facilitate school site council discussions regarding funding. 292 Financial Management Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide staff with additional training in the FMS online purchase requisition system and account coding. 2. Provide staff with additional training in FMS to allow them to view accounts and run reports. 3. Provide staff with instruction regarding how to request budget transfers and how to compile the backup documentation needed to support the budget transfer. After this instruction is provided, hold site and department staff accountable for monitoring their budgets using FMS. 4. Provide site staff with additional information regarding categorical funding, including the resources available and what expenditures are appropriate for each resource. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 293 7.3 Budget Monitoring Professional Standard The LEA uses an effective position control system that tracks personnel allocations and expenditures. The position control system establishes checks and balances between personnel decisions and budgeted appropriations. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim chief business official 2. Interview with business office staff 3. Interviews with department directors, supervisors and managers 4. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education associate superintendent for business services and district advisory services 5. Position control reports for 2010-11 6. Adopted 2010-11 budget report to the board 7. AB 1200 public disclosure of collective bargaining agreement, certificated unit dated July 28, 2010 8. AB 1200 public disclosure of collective bargaining agreement, classified unit dated August 31, 2010 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district was not using the Financial Management System’s (FMS) position control module; staff used a spreadsheet instead, though it contained a number of errors and did not reconcile with the budget. It was not clear what amount of communication was occurring between the business and human resources departments. Hiring sometimes occurred without district staff members’ input or involvement. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 While the FMS has a module for position control, the county office acknowledged that it is not especially user-friendly. Further, the advantage of investing the staff time and energy needed to use the FMS position control module is uncertain because the county office is searching for a new financial software system that will include a more user-friendly position control component. Findings 1. Because of the difficulties of the system, the district does not use the FMS position control module except to maintain employee demographics. The county office 294 Financial Management acknowledges that the ability to readily use this module is an issue and understands why the district has not adopted its use. As an alternative to using the software, district business office staff prepare an Excel spreadsheet that contains all of the positions in the district, attach the coding for each position, and use this document to calculate the salary and benefit costs during budget development and interim reporting periods. Staff update the spreadsheet periodically throughout the year to show personnel/position changes; however, a review of the spreadsheets indicated the following: • The administrative position control spreadsheet was missing complete account codes. • The classified staff position control spreadsheet included a revision date of May 23, 2010, indicating that at least five months passed between updates. This excludes revi- sions needed to show the hiring of cafeteria personnel. • None of the spreadsheets included amounts for the following: • Health and welfare payments made to retirees • Substitutes • Extra duty pay • Stipends such as those paid for coaching • Vacation payouts • Estimated column changes (although this is not currently applicable to the district, a line item should be included so that it is not forgotten when it again becomes effective). 2. A reliable position control system establishes positions by site or department and helps prevent over- or under-budgeting by including all district-approved positions. In addition, a reliable position control system prevents a district from omitting from the budget routine annual expenses such as substitutes, extra duty pay, stipends, vacation payouts and estimated column changes. 3. To be effective, a single position control system needs to be used and integrated with other financial modules such as budget and payroll. In addition, position control functions need to be separated to ensure proper internal controls. The controls should ensure that only board-authorized positions are entered into the system, that human resources hires only employees for authorized positions, and that the payroll department pays only employees hired for authorized positions. The proper separation of duties is a key factor in creating strong internal controls and a reliable position control system. 4. The following table provides a suggested distribution of labor between the business and human resources departments to help provide the necessary internal control structure for position control. Financial Management 295 Task Responsibility Approve or authorize position Governing board Input approved position into position control, with estimated salary/ Business department budget. Each position is given a unique number. Enter demographic data into the main demographic screen, including: Employee name Employee address Social Security number Human resources de- Credential partment Classification Salary schedule placement Annual review of employee assignments Update employee benefits. Business or human Review and update employee work calendars. resources department Annually review and update salary schedules. Business department Account codes Budget development Budget projections Business department Multiyear projections Salary projections For some districts, rolling over position control data from the current fiscal year to the budget year provides a simple starting point for developing the budget; other districts choose to build this component anew each year. Whichever method is chosen, it should be completed early in the budget development process. Position control files for the budget year should then be updated to eliminate positions, add new approved positions, make changes in statutory and health and welfare benefit rates, and any other adjustments that will affect salaries and benefits for the budget year. A fully functioning position control system helps districts maintain accurate budget projections, employee demographic data and salary and benefit information. The system should be used to update the budget at each reporting period. 5. A review of the district’s 2010-11 adoption budget indicates that salaries and benefits represent 106.3% of the district’s general fund revenues (excluding the $4.5 million draw on the state loan). The district has negotiated reductions in salaries and benefits with its collective bargaining units following budget adoption, but the most recent AB 1200 disclosure for the classified employee bargaining unit includes the budget updated through August 31, 2010, which reveals that the district will continue to have a negative fund balance in fiscal year 2012-13. 6. Site and department administrators making unilateral personnel decisions can have significant impact on both position control and the district’s budget. Both this practice and the use of informal communications for the hiring process have been eliminated with the appointment of the state administrator and the district’s implementation and use of 296 Financial Management the Position Requisition and Personnel Action Form. The use of the position requisition generates a conversation among administrators regarding the necessity of the position and budgetary issues linked to additions or changes in positions. 7. In addition to requiring paperwork that provides for an audit trail in individual employee payroll files, staff members have implemented several procedures to reduce the risks of individuals who do not exist or who do not work for the district (known as ghost” employees) being added to the payroll, including the following: • An employee’s demographics must be entered into the position control information before payroll can be processed. • Site master schedules are compared to payroll lists. • A reconciliation of payroll is performed tying the current month’s payroll to the prior month. • Position control is compared to actual payroll each month. 8. Implementation of these procedures has resulted in payroll errors being more readily detected and funds being returned to the district, as in the case of an $11,000 overpayment to an administrator. 9. Board meeting agendas and minutes indicate that a monthly personnel report is presented for approval. In addition, staff revealed that direction has been given that hiring decisions are not to be made until approved by the state administrator. However, staff reported that in a few instances approval of coaching positions was not always timely. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the position control module includes all contracted positions as well as routine annual expenses such as substitutes, extra duty pay, stipends, vacation payouts and estimated column changes. 2. Update position control as changes are made to ensure that all revisions are captured. 3. Consider conducting a salary study to ensure that the salaries and benefits offered by the district are comparable to those offered by districts of similar size and type in the nearby geographic region. 4. Continue to require personnel requisitions and personnel action forms for all hiring and position change decisions. 5. Continue reinforcement of the directive requiring the state administrator’s approval before hiring. Financial Management 297 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 298 Financial Management 8.1 Accounting Professional Standard The LEA forecasts its cash receipts and disbursements and verifies those projections monthly to adequately manage its cash. The LEA reconciles its cash to bank statements and reports from the county treasurer monthly. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim chief business official 2. Interviews with Monterey County Office of Education’s associate superintendent for business services and district services staff 3. District cash flow projections 4. Independent audit report, June 30, 2009 5. Revolving cash fund bank statements and reconciliations, August and September 2010 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Staff were preparing cash flow projections as needed but no longer monthly. The county office was reconciling the county cash account on behalf of the district; district staff did not review the reconciliation. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Board members have been provided with a cash flow statement containing the actual year-to-date balances each month. However, monthly cash flow statements that include the actual year-to-date and projected information are needed. The county office performs cash reconciliations on behalf of the district but does not provide the district with this information. The district is exceeding the authorized balance in its revolving cash fund and should consider establishing a separate clearing account to avoid this. Findings 1. District staff indicated that the board is provided with a cash flow statement with the actual year-to-date balances each month. A statement that includes the actual and projected months’ data is prepared at each interim reporting period. Because of the district’s fiscal status, it is critical that the board and the public understand the district’s financial situation and whether or not there is cash available to meet the district’s obligations. Monthly cash flow statements that include the actual year-to-date and projected months’ information for the current and subsequent fiscal year would help facilitate this understanding. Financial Management 299 2. In June 2009, the state legislature approved a $13 million emergency loan for the district. The district drew $5 million from the loan in fiscal year 2009-10. The district’s most recent general fund cash flow projection, dated September 26, 2010, indicates that the district will draw another $3.5 million from the state loan in fiscal year 2010-11. This projection includes the following conditions for 2010-11: • July 1, 2010 beginning cash balance of $800,259. • June 30, 2010 ending cash balance of $251,121; as noted above, this bal- ance includes an additional draw of $3.5 million from the state loan. 3. Staff indicated that the district has been exempted from the state’s cash deferrals to school districts. Staff further indicated that the district will need to draw $2.5 million from the state loan in 2011-12 and the remaining $2 million in 2012-13. 4. The county office reconciles the cash in the county treasury to the general ledger on behalf of the district. However, the county office does not provide the reconciliation information to the district; therefore, district staff members are not able to review and verify the reconciliations. 5. According to Education Code section 42800, the board may establish a revolving cash fund (RCF). Such a fund is used to issue payment for services or supplies that are urgent and cannot wait for the normal accounts payable process, or to alleviate payroll errors. The district has established an RCF in the amount of $6,000 that is operated through a separate bank checking account. The district also uses the RCF as a clearing account whereby funds from collection of items such as retiree benefits and associated student body (ASB) are deposited and then cleared by writing a check to the county treasury. The interim chief business official is responsible for reconciling this account each month. 6. The June 30, 2009 annual independent audit report included finding 2009-5, which indicated the RCF account had not been reconciled monthly. The audit also indicated that this had been a prior year audit finding. The August and September 2010 bank statements and reconciliations provided by the district indicate that the district has begun reconciling the RCF monthly. However, the ending balances for each month, $16,515.75 and $71,585.22, respectively, show that the district has more than the authorized $6,000 in this account. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Monitor its cash and prepare monthly cash flow statements and projections for the current and subsequent fiscal years. 2. Implement a fiscal recovery plan to minimize future cash flow deficiencies. 3. Continue to work closely with CDE staff and Infrastructure Bank officials regarding the timing of future draws from the state loan to meet cash flow needs. 300 Financial Management 4. Review reconciliations of cash in the county treasury prepared by the Monterey County Office of Education to fully understand the reconciling entries and any adjustments. 5. Continue to reconcile the revolving cash fund monthly. 6. Consider opening a separate clearing account for cash and checks that are received by the bank and subsequently deposited in the county treasury. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 301 8.2 Accounting Professional Standard The LEA’s payroll procedures comply with the requirements established by the county office of education, unless the LEA is fiscally independent. (EC 42646) Per standard accounting practice, the LEA implements procedures to ensure timely and accurate payroll processing. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim chief business official 2. Interview with interim fiscal services manager 3. Interviews with site staff 4. Interviews with Monterey County Office of Education’s associate superintendent for business services and district services staff 5. District payroll/human resources forms Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Payrolls were usually processed on time as required by the county office, but problems were frequent, communication and training was lacking, and corrections and coding errors were not uncommon. The payroll technician had been recently directed not to make changes to payroll without written approval from the human resources technician. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district implemented new payroll procedures and forms, resulting in fewer errors. The interim fiscal services manager is responsible for processing payroll, but it is essential that the employee the district hires and assigns to process payroll in the future be provided with training in this area. To provide internal controls, the employee responsible for processing payroll should not have access to the pay warrants received from the county office. Findings 1. The district processes two payrolls each month: an end-of-month payroll for salaried positions and a supplemental payroll for hourly employees, stipends and other forms of compensation. The county office also allows manual payroll runs each month so that districts can correct any payroll errors or process items that weren’t submitted on time. 2. Because the district was unable to fill its fiscal services technician positions, the interim fiscal services manager is responsible for processing each payroll and preparing the payroll prelist. The interim chief business official then reviews and signs the payroll prelist before it is submitted to the Monterey County Office of Education, which produces the checks and sends them to the district office for distribution. 302 Financial Management 3. The district implemented the monthly end-of-month(EOM) payroll reconciliation form that is used to balance the month-end payroll and help ensure that mistakes are recognized before payroll is finalized. The district has also implemented a position requisition form and a personnel action form to ensure that any new positions are approved by the state administrator before being filled and that all personnel changes are approved by the human resources department and forwarded to payroll staff. In interviews, staff indicated that the personnel action form has not been used consistently. 4. A human resources staff member prepares a monthly personnel report for the board and posts it online. Information from interviews indicates that the business office is able to access and use this report to help monitor payroll changes. The staff member responsible for processing payroll needs to review this report regularly to ensure that all items that affect payroll have been submitted to the business office. 5. Interviews indicated that there have not been complaints from employees regarding payroll errors in the last three months. However, some corrections were needed for the September 2010 payroll because of the significant changes to health and welfare benefits as a result of the recently adopted collective bargaining agreements. In interviews, staff indicated that district staff members are able to go the interim chief business official and the interim fiscal services manager if they have payroll questions. 6. During this review period, all payrolls except the August 10, 2010 payroll were processed on time as required by the county office. However, county office staff indicated that numerous payrolls have included several errors in the reporting of CalSTRS and CalPERS information. The county office provides two payroll training sessions per year, including training for CalSTRS and CalPERS. It is essential that the employee the district hires and assigns to process payroll attend these trainings and that the district request additional one-on-one training from the county office for payroll as necessary. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the employee responsible for processing payroll does not have access to the pay warrants received from the county office. 2. Ensure that the personnel action form is used consistently for every change made to each employee’s pay and assignment status. 3. Ensure that the staff member responsible for processing payroll reviews the monthly personnel report submitted to the board. 4. Provide the employee hired to process payroll with supervision and training to ensure that they have the most current information on all matters relevant to this position. Financial Management 303 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 304 Financial Management 9.2 Attendance Accounting Professional Standard School sites maintain an accurate record of daily enrollment and attendance that is reconciled monthly. School sites maintain statewide student identifiers and reconcile data required for state and federal reporting. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with districtwide student information manager, school site attendance clerks and secretaries 2. Aeries query report 3. Aeries audit report of variances 4. Charter school independent study spreadsheet 5. Monthly attendance reports 6. August 15, 2010 attendance workshop: Improvement and Alignment, Staff and School Use of Aeries Program and District-Approved Forms 7. August 20, 2010 attendance workshop: Aeries New Attendance Codes 8. September 23, 2010 workshop: Aeries Enrollment, Withdrawal and CALPADS Training Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had no board policy regarding daily attendance. A district office staff member generated daily attendance reports, and the district required weekly attendance reports at the schools, but staff had little training and no user manual on attendance procedures. The district office reconciled reports at first and second interim before submitting them to the state, and staff indicated data was being submitted to CALPADS but provided no documentation of this. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Attendance staff members at the district office and school sites have been with the district for several years and are knowledgeable in the district’s Aeries student attendance system. As recommended in the previous comprehensive review, the district conducted trainings to ensure that proper attendance procedures were followed consistently. The district opened an Independent Study Charter School during the past year and tracks this attendance using Excel spreadsheets but should use the Aeries system. Financial Management 305 Findings 1. Attendance reporting is the basis for the district’s primary source of revenue; like the majority of California school districts, the district’s revenues are based on its average daily attendance (ADA). Because of this, it is imperative that the district have training, policies and procedures in place for staff to accurately capture and record ADA to maximize funding. 2. The district has not developed board policies or administrative regulations regarding attendance processes or procedures. Both comprehensive high school sites report monthly attendance to the district’s student information manager. Although the attendance clerks at the school sites have documentation regarding operation of the Aeries attendance system, the student information manager recognizes that the attendance clerks need a desk manual with a complete set of instructions for all attendance procedures. 3. The student information manager generates monthly attendance reports in the Aeries attendance system to identify variances or unusual trends that may indicate errors. The queries generate an audit report in the attendance cycle that compares data in the master course scheduling system. Discrepancies from this audit procedure are investigated and resolved. Other audit procedures include comparing student names in the Aeries system with current information in the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System’s (CALPADS) register of students when students either enter the district’s system or exit to another district. 4. School sites have been encouraged to run daily attendance reports to verify accuracy, and the Aeries system can identify the schools that initiate daily reports. A review of the system documents indicates that Greenfield High School generates daily reports; however, both system reports and interviews with staff indicate that King City High School fails to generate daily reports. 5. The district office requires weekly attendance reports from the schools to verify the accuracy of the data and that the staff responsible for taking attendance have signed and certified the reports. 6. Both comprehensive high schools have sufficient supporting documentation to verify absences and have procedures in place to notify parents of truant students. The district uses an autodialer system to notify parents and guardians that students have been absent or have missed classes. The autodialer operates after the school day. The district could consider operating the auto dialer after second period to help prompt students to attend the rest of that day. This would help ensure that students receive instruction and would generate funding for the district based on increased attendance. 7. The district conducted mandatory attendance training for school site staff on August 15, 2010 and again on August 20, 2010. Topics for the first workshop included attendance categories, identification of proper reporting forms and timelines. The second workshop addressed new attendance codes; truancy letters approved by the district office; the school calendar; weekly teacher reports; and monthly and annual attendance summary reports for regular school, continuation school, independent study and summer school. All 306 Financial Management attendance personnel also attended a September 23, 2010 Aeries system technical training on enrollment, withdrawal and CALPADS procedures. 8. The district has the user manual provided by the attendance system software company but has not developed desk manuals for districtwide and school site attendance procedures. 9. The district office reconciles reports for the required first and second reporting period and annually, and submits this information online to the appropriate state agency. 10. The district has submitted data to CALPADS. This state reporting is done at the district office level by the student information manager. There has been no cross-training with other district staff in this area. The district needs to ensure adequate cross-training. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Adopt board policies and administrative regulations regarding attendance accounting procedures. 2. Develop written procedures based on board policy. The district should also develop attendance procedures desk manuals that adhere to board policy and administrative regulations and that can be used in training employees. 3. Require all school sites to generate and validate daily attendance reports. 4. Consider operating the autodialer after second period in an attempt to get absent students to school for the remainder of that day. 5. Provide annual mandatory attendance training for attendance clerks, school secretaries and principals. 6. Hold principals accountable for the accuracy of the ADA reports submitted to the district office. 7. Ensure that there is adequate cross-training for CALPADS reporting. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 307 9.3 Attendance Accounting Professional Standard Policies and regulations exist for independent study, charter school, home study, inter-/intra- LEA agreements, LEAs of choice, and ROC/P and adult education, and address fiscal impact. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with districtwide student information manager, school site attendance clerks and secretaries 2. Board policies and administrative regulations provided by staff 3. Charter school independent study spreadsheet Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had board policies for most items in this standard but had not reviewed them in many years. After losing all independent study revenue for 2007-08 because of a lack of recordkeeping, staff received training in documentation requirements, and the district had corrected all but one of the audit findings. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, January 2011 The district has revised most of its board policies related to this standard. The district lost approximately 50% of its funding for independent study in fiscal year 2009-10 because of a failure to follow recording procedures. The district records attendance for a recently opened independent study charter school on Excel spreadsheets, but this will not be sufficient for reporting. The district should use its Aeries attendance system for all attendance reporting. Findings 1. The district has board policies for all items listed in this standard except for district of choice, regional occupational centers or programs (ROC/P) and adult education; however, the district has not revised some of these policies in many years. Existing policies related to attendance include the following: • Board Policy 0420.4, Charter Schools, adopted March 26, 1997 • Board Policy 5116.1, Intradistrict Open Enrollment, adopted December 9, 2009 • Board Policy 5117, Interdistrict Attendance, adopted January 13, 2010 • Board Policy 6158, Independent Study, revised July 16, 2008 • Board Policy 6176(a), Weekend/Saturday Classes, adopted January 9, 2010 308 Financial Management • Board Policy 6183, Home and Hospital Instruction, adopted January 14, 1990 2. Although the district has board policy and administrative regulations regarding independent study, audit findings and apportionment issues persist in this area. Independent study is a very restrictive program and is therefore an area in which school agencies typically receive numerous audit findings. 3. The business office noted that the district lost approximately 50%, or 40 ADA, in independent study during 2009-10 because of continuing incorrect procedures. This was a loss of approximately $240,000 in revenue, which is substantial. 4. The district created the South Monterey County Charter Independent Study School during the past year. The initial plan was to record the attendance in the Aeries system; however, attendance is being recorded on a spreadsheet. As a result, the district office cannot verify that proper attendance procedures have been followed. Students in independent study or who are enrolled in the South Monterey County Charter need to be enrolled through the Aeries attendance system for proper attendance tracking and reconciliation. 5. The district is not performing periodic internal audits to test the validity of attendance reported for apportionment purposes. Based on the findings from these audits, annual training needs to be provided to employees who are responsible for the independent study program. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Adopt board policies and administrative regulations regarding attendance accounting for district of choice, ROC/P and adult education programs. 2. Review board policies and administrative regulations regarding independent study procedures, and hold administrators accountable for enforcement of these policies. 3. Ensure that staff members responsible for independent study follow all the required elements to gain proper credit for independent study ADA. 4. Enroll independent study students and students attending the South Monterey County Charter using the Aeries attendance system for proper tracking and reconciliation. 5. Perform periodic internal audit procedures to test the validity of attendance reported for apportionment purposes. 6. Based on the external audit findings, provide annual attendance training regarding independent study. Financial Management 309 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: 310 Financial Management 9.4 Attendance Accounting Professional Standard Students are enrolled and entered into the attendance system in an efficient, accurate and timely manner. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district and school site staff 2. Charter school independent study spreadsheet 3. Monthly attendance reports 4. August 15, 2010 Attendance Workshop: Improvement and Alignment, Staff and School Use of Aeries Program and District Approved Forms 5. August 20, 2010 Attendance Workshop: Aeries New Attendance Codes 6. September 23, 2010 Workshop: Aeries Enrollment, Withdrawal & CALPADS Training Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Site personnel were entering student data and running audit reports on the Aeries system daily but not producing a report of absences as a percentage of total enrollment. Staff had not received training on the system since its adoption in 2006-07. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district requires school sites to provide weekly attendance reports for verification and has provided several mandatory and voluntary training sessions regarding proper attendance procedures. The district has also updated internal forms and provided guidance on uniform codes to use in the Aeries system. A new parent portal allows parents and guardians to review student attendance and other information. Findings 1. The district office requires the school sites to provide weekly attendance reports. The reports are used to verify that the data is accurate and that staff responsible for taking attendance have signed and certified the reports. 2. Mandatory attendance training for school site staff occurred on August 15, 2010. The workshop covered several topics, including the following: • Attendance, tardies and truancy • Referrals Financial Management 311 • Student behavior • Communications with parents 3. District staff identified noncompliance in the use of nonapproved or outdated forms; inconsistencies and inaccuracies when completing forms; time lines; and other areas. School sites were given guidance regarding how to resolve these issues. 4. On August 20, 2010 another mandatory training covered the following topics: • New attendance codes • District-approved truancy letters • ADA calendar for 2010-2011 • Teacher weekly reports • “No show” tags • Monthly attendance summary and final reports for regular school, con- tinuation school, independent study and summer school 5. Although school sites have been encouraged to run daily attendance reports to verify accuracy, King City High School is not in compliance with this requirement. 6. As previously mentioned (see Standard 9.3, Finding 2), the district lost approximately $240,000 because of improper independent study attendance reporting. It is critical for any district to have accurate attendance information to claim all revenue to which it is entitled. The district’s financial crisis makes this function particularly important. 7. The new South Monterey County Independent Study Charter School attendance is recorded on Excel spreadsheets and does not contain all of the information needed to support ADA claimed for apportionment. Using the Aeries system would resolve this issue. 8. The district office uses the Aeries system to produce a report of absences and tardies. These records are listed by student for truancy reporting. In addition, the district has implemented a new parent portal that authorizes the student’s parent or guardian to review attendance records as well as a student’s grades and completion of assignments. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that all school sites enter student data into the Aries student information system and run audit reports daily to highlight conflicts or concurrent enrollment exceptions. 2. Ensure that students in independent study or enrolled in the South Monterey County Independent Study Charter School are enrolled using the Aeries attendance system for proper tracking and reconciliation. 312 Financial Management 3. Ensure that the district office performs periodic internal audit procedures to test the validity of attendance reported for apportionment purposes. 4. Continue providing annual attendance training. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 313 9.6 Attendance Accounting Professional Standard The LEA utilizes standardized and mandatory programs to improve the attendance rate of pupils. Absences are aggressively followed up by LEA staff. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with truancy specialist and school site personnel 2. Monterey County Truancy Mediation Program Letters a. First Declaration of Truancy b. Second Declaration of Truancy c. Declaration of Habitual Truancy – Referral to the District Attorney 3. Aeries list of students receiving First Declaration of Truancy Letter 4. Student log of monthly truancy 5. Review of the Parent Portal Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district lacked sufficient procedures to increase student attendance, and incorrect attendance accounting may have resulted in lost ADA revenue. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Student attendance staff provided documentation to support many interventions that they use to encourage student attendance. Designated staff members have worked effectively with the Monterey County District Attorney’s Office to enforce compliance for truant students, and in some cases, their parents. Findings 1. The district has implemented procedures to improve student attendance. The truancy specialist has been a district employee for more than twenty years in various positions. During his tenure, he has developed excellent communication with school site personnel as well as with many members within the community. The district has a student information manager that oversees the site attendance clerks’ work and provides annual training. Both school site attendance clerks have worked in their position for many years and are knowledgeable regarding attendance procedures. 314 Financial Management 2. Numerous procedures are in place to reduce truancy, including telephone calls to parents or guardians, letters, a parent portal on the district’s website, and home visits. School site administrators report that these interventions have been very effective as evidenced by a higher-than-average attendance rate for each school site in the first month of the 2010-11 school year. 3. If a student is absent for more than three days and no communication is received from the parent or guardian, the attendance clerk telephones the parent or guardian to determine the circumstances of the absences. Unsuccessful attempts to reach the parent or guardian are referred to the truancy specialist, who follows up with a telephone call and in some cases a home visit. 4. The district has worked effectively with the Monterey County District Attorney’s Office to develop a program that can involve the loss of driving privileges for the student and criminal prosecution that may result in incarceration of the parent or guardian. The program, called Monterey County Truancy Mediation, involves the following three monthly letters based on the district’s truancy policy: a. First Declaration of Truancy This is issued after three absences or three tardies of more than 30 minutes on three days without a valid excuse. b. Second Declaration of Truancy This is issued after three absences or three tardies of more than 30 minutes on three days without a valid excuse following the previous notice. c. Declaration of Habitual Truancy and Referral to the District Attorney These are issued after three absences or three tardies of more than 30 minutes on three days without a valid excuse following two previous notifications. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue working with students, parents and the district attorney’s office to enforce the district’s attendance policies. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 315 9.7 Attendance Accounting Professional Standard School site personnel receive periodic and timely training on the LEA’s attendance procedures, system procedures and changes in laws and regulations. Sources and Documentation 1. August 15, 2010 attendance workshop: Improvement and Alignment, Staff and School Use of Aeries Program and District Approved Forms 2. August 20, 2010 attendance workshop: Aeries New Attendance Codes 3. September 23, 2010 workshop: Aeries Enrollment, Withdrawal & CALPADS Training 4. Interviews with district and school site staff Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had no policies, regulations or schedule regarding training in attendance operations, and had provided no training since the attendance system’s implementation in 2006-07. Cross training was also absent. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district provided numerous training sessions on attendance matters. Attendance staff members were required to attend trainings and indicated that this was a valuable experience. Findings 1. The district does not have written procedures and schedules regarding training in student attendance system operations and procedures. 2. The district provided the following three trainings regarding attendance and related procedures: • Mandatory attendance training for school site staff occurred on August 15, 2010. Workshop topics included attendance/tardy/truancy, referrals, student behavior, and communications with parents. District staff identified several issues, including the use of nonapproved or outdated forms; inconsistencies and inaccuracies when completing forms; time lines to follow; and other non-compliance concerns. School sites were given guidance to help resolve these problematic issues. • On August 20, 2010 another mandatory training covered new attendance codes, district-approved truancy letters, the 2010-11 school and ADA calendar, teacher weekly reports, “no show” tags, and monthly attendance summary and final reports for regular school, continuation school, independent study and summer school. • Detailed training in technical procedures for Aeries enrollment, withdrawals and 316 Financial Management CALPADS was provided on September 23, 2010. 3. School clerical and secretarial staff members are in need of annual training in attendance procedures and the use of the Aeries system; there is a need for cross-training in attendance procedures to ensure coverage when an employee is absent. 4. School attendance staff members have limited written procedures for the Aeries attendance system. Desk manuals would help resolve this issue. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop written policies, procedures and a desk manual containing complete instructions for the Aeries attendance system. 2. Provide mandatory training sessions for all attendance personnel, including school and secretarial staff, at the beginning of each school year. 3. Provide all school office personnel with cross-training in attendance procedures to help ensure coverage when an employee is absent. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 317 10.4 Accounting, Purchasing, and Warehousing Professional Standard The LEA timely and accurately records all financial activity for all programs. GAAP accounting work is properly supervised and reviewed to ensure that transactions are recorded timely and accurately, and allow the preparation of periodic financial statements. The accounting system has an appropriate level of controls to prevent and detect errors and irregularities. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim chief business official 2. Interview with interim fiscal services manager 3. Board meeting minutes 4. Audited financial statements for years ending June 30, 2007, June 30, 2008 and June 30, 2009 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Staff reported continual struggles to meet financial reporting deadlines, and journal entries were routinely prepared to correct coding errors, though new procedures had recently been implemented to address this issue. The 2007-08 audit report included adjustments to four funds, some of which district staff posted incorrectly. A hard stop feature for purchase orders, and payroll encumbrance, were both in place. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 With limited staff, the district has done its best to provide proper supervision of activities, timely and accurate financial records, and controls to prevent and detect errors and irregularities. Audit adjustments have decreased and financial reporting deadlines have been met. After the district fills vacant business services department positions, it will be able to better separate duties. Findings 1. The business office was restructured to include a chief business official (CBO), a fiscal services manager and two fiscal services technicians. The positions of CBO and fiscal services manager are currently filled with interim personnel, and the technician positions were vacant at the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork. All positions were being advertised; however, it has proven difficult to find qualified individuals with school district experience to fill these positions. With only two people to process all of the required accounting transactions, it is always difficult and sometimes impossible to provide the separation of duties needed to ensure a good internal control environment. However, like many small entities with limited personnel, the district has arranged duties so that controls are in place to prevent and detect irregularities. These include the following: 318 Financial Management • Dual signatures are required to process transactions. • Journal and budget entries require back-up and second party review. • Payroll procedures are designed to prevent and detect ghost employees and over- or under-payments (see Standard 7.4 above). • Daily attendance reports are duplicated and provided to the CBO and state administrator to ensure that attendance is reported each day. • State attendance reports are reviewed prior to submission. • Cash receipts are duplicate counted. • Receipt of goods or services is ensured prior to payment. • The Financial Management System (FMS) prohibits the posting of un- balanced journal entries. • Use of a hard stop feature in FMS prevents purchase orders from being issued if the budgeted balance is insufficient. • Letters have been sent to all district vendors informing them that unless they possess a valid purchase order with either the state administrator’s or the interim CBO’s signature, the district will not be responsible for the goods ordered. 2. Hiring the district’s interim CBO and interim fiscal services manager has enabled the district to meet its periodic financial statement deadlines. However, both positions were slated to become vacant in December 2010 to January 2011. Although the district is seeking qualified candidates, having new personnel in these positions may slow or reverse the improvement achieved in this area. 3. Staff reported that journal entries continue to be an issue and are generated primarily by movement of employees within the district. It is common for employees to move within a district during a given year. The district has developed a personnel action form to help track these changes. 4. The audited financial statements for the year ending June 30, 2009 included one adjustment to the general fund, which was an improvement over the five adjustments to four funds in the prior year’s report. The single adjustment in the June 30, 2009 report concerns the accounts receivable treatment of unappropriated state categoricals arising from the passage of ABX4 3. ABX4 3 identified 51 programs and required the amounts associated with these programs that were “unallocated, unexpended, or not liquidated as of June 30, 2009” to revert to the state’s general fund. An appropriation was made in the following July’s budget package to provide a backfill of the $1.5 billion in cuts; however, the state was not required to post these amounts in its records as an accounts payable item for 2008-09 and, under Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement Number 33, if the state does not identify an item as accounts payable, the district cannot consider the funding as accounts receivable. The guidance for this accounting treatment was not provided to districts until November 2009, long after the September 15 deadline to close the books and acquire board approval of the unaudited actuals report. Financial Management 319 5. The district provided FCMAT with copies of its audited financial statements for fiscal years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. Education Code section 41020(h) requires the following: • Not later than December 15, a report of each local educational agency audit for the preceding fiscal year shall be filed with the county superintendent of schools of the county in which the local educational agency is located, the department, and the Con- troller. 6. A review of these audited financial statements indicates that the last day of the auditor’s fieldwork for fiscal years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 were December 26, 2007, March 24, 2009 and December 28, 2009, respectively, each of which is later than the December 15 submission deadline. The last day of fieldwork marks the point in time when the auditor completes their testing and review of the client’s books. It does not indicate the date that the financial statements were issued, though typically that issue date is one to two months after the last date of fieldwork. These fieldwork dates also violated the provisions of Education Code section 41020.3, which states, “By January 31 of each year, the governing body of each local education agency shall review, at a public meeting, the annual audit of the local education agency for the prior year…” 7. Further inquiry regarding this issue revealed that the delays were likely caused by additional work on issues discovered during the audit (such as attendance) and in some cases resulted in the district being required to return money to the state. Auditors hired by the state controller are scheduled to arrive at the district on November 8, 2010 to conduct the annual audit for fiscal year 2009-10. 8. The FMS lacks the ability to readily encumber payroll. Under FMS’s present configuration, encumbering payroll would require completing and entering a purchase order for each employee, with the appropriate lines of code for salary and each of the various statutory benefits. At the end of each payroll cycle, the amount processed would then need to be manually disencumbered. Because probability of error from such a manual system outweighs its benefits, the district is not able to implement this internal control and budget monitoring mechanism. 320 Financial Management Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to review and revise procedures and processes to increase separation of duties as business office personnel are added. 2. After filling the vacant positions in the business services department, review and revise procedures to increase separation of duties and oversight to the extent made possible by the addition of employees. 3. Continue to monitor and meet periodic financial reporting deadlines. 4. Continue to require use of the personnel action form to track and monitor movement of employees throughout the year. 5. Monitor the posting of accounts receivable items in compliance with GASB 33. 6. Monitor the auditors’ completion of the fiscal year 2009-10 annual audit to encourage compliance with Education Code sections 41020 and 41020.3. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 321 10.5 Accounting, Purchasing, and Warehousing Professional Standard The LEA has adequate purchasing and warehousing procedures to ensure that: (1) only properly authorized purchases are made, (2) authorized purchases are made consistent with LEA policies and management direction, (3) inventories are safeguarded, and (4) purchases and inventories are timely and accurately recorded. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim chief business official 2. Interview with interim fiscal services manager 3. Interview with certificated and classified management 4. Interview with business office staff 5. Interview with warehouse and site staff 6. Audited financial statements for year ending June 30, 2009 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Purchase orders were required but the process was not automated. Staff were not completing fixed asset accounting during purchasing except in the case of technology and related equipment. The accounts payable technician was processing invoices and distributing warrants to the payees. Staff did not provide evidence of an inventory system. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, January 2011 The district has implemented an online requisition system but needs to provide staff with additional training. However, equipment inventory issues overshadow this accomplishment. Because an inventory has not been completed in the last seven years, the district hired a vendor to perform this task and was paying the vendor but did not send the vendor the information needed to complete the task. Findings 1. Education Code 35168 requires the governing board to establish and maintain an inventory of all items of equipment with a current market value of more than $500. Staff members do not complete fixed asset accounting procedures during the purchasing process, except in the case of technology and related equipment. Such procedures would include attaching a unique numbered asset tag to the equipment and recording pertinent information in the district’s fixed asset inventory system, as well as conducting a fixed asset inventory at year end to validate the asset record. 322 Financial Management 2. When state or federal funds have been used in the purchase, that district is required to include additional information in the its inventory records, including the funding source, titleholder, and percent of federal participation (34 CFR 80.32 and 5 CCR 3946). In addition, at least once every two years, a physical inventory of equipment must be conducted and the results reconciled with the property records (34 CFR 80.32). 3. The district’s audited financial statements for the year ending June 30, 2009 included audit finding 2009-2, which indicates that the district has a contract with an outside firm to update its equipment inventory. However, no one has been sending the necessary documents to the vendor. An inventory from 2003 exists but needs to be updated from that time to present. District staff confirmed that the district did have a multiyear contract with an outside vendor for these services and that the most recent payment applied to that contract was $3,080 on January 28, 2010. 4. Staff reported that purchase order processing time has improved and now takes a few days or less rather than two to three weeks as before. However, those who are required to use the online requisition system feel that they lack the proper training. Many district staff reported that they were given a short tutorial regarding how to log into the system and then told to use the manual from that point forward. Others reported the need for an in-service regarding how to properly code requisitions, because the system encumbers at the requisition level. Without the proper coding, staff members have no way of knowing where the site and department budgets reside and thus cannot instruct the system to generate a requisition. These issues are being resolved by telephone calls and e-mails to the interim fiscal services manager; however proper instruction would reduce the amount of staff time needed for this process. 5. Goods continue to be shipped to the district’s warehouse if their destination is King City High School, district departments or if they are large items. Goods are received and then delivered to the originator with the packing slip attached so that the originator can determine if they received what is listed on the packing slip. Purchases initiated at Greenfield High School are typically delivered to and received at that campus. After the originator has verified that the package and the packing slip match, they are supposed to sign the packing slip and return it to the district office. Receipt of packing slips has improved but staff continue to report incidences of employees receiving items at their homes instead of at district sites. 6. The district has implemented the Financial Management System’s (FMS) online purchase requisitions feature. Staff report that purchase orders are required for all purchases; however, the process has been altered to accommodate the new online capabilities. The process is as follows: • The originating site or department completes an online purchase requisition, a su- pervisor authorizes it, and it is forwarded to the business office for processing. The system now encumbers at the requisition level. If a budget transfer is necessary, the site or department contacts the interim fiscal services manager to authorize, prepare and process the transfer. • The interim fiscal services manager reviews the account coding. Financial Management 323 • The interim chief business official (CBO) authorizes a completed requisition for processing. The associate superintendent of educational services or the educational services director also approves any purchase requisition charged to a categorically funded program. • The interim fiscal services manager prints the purchase orders and submits them to the interim CBO and state administrator for signature. • The approved purchase order is then delivered to the originator. • When an approved invoice is received, either the interim CBO or the interim fiscal services manager processes it for payment and prepares the batch. Accounts payable warrant batches are prepared once a week. The warrant list is reviewed by the busi- ness office employee who did not prepare the batch. Once approved, the batch is sent to the Monterey County Office of Education for processing. Warrants are then re- turned to either the interim CBO or the interim fiscal services manager for distribution to the payees. The current system can allow the same person who prepared the batch to have custody of the warrants once they have been issued by the county office. The limited number of business office staff creates a less than optimal internal control en- vironment; however, during FCMAT’s fieldwork the district filled one vacant business office position and will begin to revise its internal control processes. The separation of duties will increase further when the remaining business services department posi- tions are filled. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Immediately conduct, or hire a vendor to conduct, a physical inventory of all items of equipment with a current market value of more than $500. 2. After the physical inventory is completed, assign a single staff member the responsibility of fixed asset accounting for all purchases. 3. Investigate whether payments made to the district’s vendor previously hired to conduct inventory procedures can be recovered because services have not been performed. 4. Provide all employees who use the online requisition system with a detailed in-service that focuses on how to use the module and the proper coding of requisitions. 5. Provide a detailed in-service to any person found to have received district property at any location other than a district site. 6. Revise automated purchasing procedures as business office personnel are added to limit the number of tasks assigned to the fiscal services manager and improve internal controls. 7. Provide school site and department staff with training that will enable them to prepare and submit budget transfer requests. 324 Financial Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 325 11.1 Student Body Funds Legal Standard The board adopts board policies, regulations and procedures to establish parameters on how student body organizations will be established and how they will be operated, audited and managed. These policies and regulations are clearly developed and written to ensure compliance regarding how student body organizations deposit, invest, spend, and raise funds. (EC 48930- 48938) Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district and school site personnel 2. Annual financial reports prepared by independent auditors for the periods ending June 30, 2008 and June 30, 2009 3. Board policies and regulations Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had no board policies or procedures regarding establishing and overseeing student organizations. The district had no procedures or staff training regarding student body funds, and the prior year audit reports included many findings related to student body accounting. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has not established any board policies, regulations or procedures that govern the student body activities at school sites. Without guidance, both comprehensive high schools operate without a structure that ensures that education code, government code and taxation codes are followed. Findings 1. The district has no board policies or written procedures regarding the establishment and oversight of student organizations. Board policies and administrative regulations are needed to provide direction for proper administrative oversight and how student body accounting functions are to be managed. 2. Effective board policies and administrative regulations related to student body organizations that address proper business procedures, internal controls, generally accepted accounting principles, and the latest requirements from the state are needed. Such policies also clearly segregate responsibilities of district staff and the associated student body (ASB) to ensure adequate oversight and maintenance of student body funds. 3. The district lacks detailed written procedures for school sites that clearly describe the roles and responsibilities of personnel involved with ASB, including individuals 326 Financial Management responsible for administering and supervising ASB organizations at the school site and district level. Recommendations for Recovery The district should 1. Adopt board policies and administrative regulations to govern student body organizations in accord with best practices and legal requirements. 2. Develop, distribute, and oversee accounting procedures for student body funds. Develop detailed written procedures for school sites that clearly describe the roles and responsibilities of personnel involved with ASB, and provide information for individuals at the school sites and district who administer and supervise ASB organizations. This information should address at least the following topics: • Laws and regulations that govern operations, fund-raising activities, food sales and filing of sales and use taxes. • Formation of clubs and requirements for keeping meeting minutes that detail financial matters, authorization for expenditures and fund-raising approvals. • Accounting and financial management, including general business prac- tices for maintaining ASB records, internal controls, contracts, bank rec- onciliations, financial reports and other bookkeeping functions. • Cash management and cash control for collections and disbursements. • Allowable fees that can be charged. • Budget development and budget monitoring. 3. Develop policies and procedures regarding how to establish clubs, how they will be operated and appropriate procedures to ensure effective internal controls. 4. Develop procedures for the district office regarding the oversight, management and auditing of student organizations that need to occur to protect the district in this area. 5. Clearly segregate the responsibilities of district staff and the ASB to ensure that proper internal controls are maintained and that the district maintains adequate oversight of student body funds. Financial Management 327 Standard Not Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: 328 Financial Management 11.3 Student Body Funds Legal Standard The LEA provides annual training and ongoing guidance to site and LEA personnel on the policies and procedures governing Associated Student Body accounts. Internal controls are part of the training and guidance, ensuring that any findings in the internal audits or independent annual audits are discussed and addressed so they do not recur. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district and school site staff 2. Annual Financial Report prepared by independent auditors for the periods ending June 30 2008 and June 30, 2009 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had no training schedule for district personnel. Minimal training was provided to clerical staff at the beginning of ASB duties, but no ongoing training was provided. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has not established any board policies, regulations or procedures regarding student body activities. The district has centralized ASB bookkeeping duties at the district office without developing a detailed plan to ensure internal controls or regulatory compliance. As a result, both school sites are out of compliance in many areas. Several school site personnel expressed concern about a lack of training and the impact of additional ASB duties. Findings 1. To reduce expenditures for fiscal year 2010-11, the district reduced staffing. This included elimination of the ASB clerk positions at both comprehensive high schools and centralization of many of ASB-related bookkeeping duties and responsibilities at the district office while maintaining the current level of ASB activities at the school sites. This resulted in a savings to the general fund unrestricted budget but left ASB operations at each school site in disarray because of a lack of planning. 2. Moving from a decentralized to a centralized ASB accounting structure requires significant planning to ensure that the internal control structure is maintained and that the district is in compliance with the California Education Code, California Administrative Code, California Penal Code, Code of Federal Regulations, Revenue and Taxation Code and the California State Board of Equalization. 3. The district does not have written guidelines or instructions that identify which staff members are accountable for various aspects of ASB cash collections for student activities and fund raisers; making custodial and security arrangements for athletic events; processing purchase requisitions with proper account codes; or bookkeeping Financial Management 329 and reconciliation functions. As a result, each school site has designated many of these functions to school site employees who have no training in ASB accounting. Greenfield High School has established its own internal controls for cash handling, but no such controls are in place at King City High School. Both school sites are out of compliance with ASB regulations and prompt serious concerns regarding internal control management. 4. Although some of the bookkeeping duties were centralized, several site personnel expressed concerns about the lack of training and the impact of additional duties on their main job duties and responsibilities caused by the elimination of the ASB clerks. Staff report that the additional workload has created instances in which employees’ main assigned duties are completed after hours or on weekends without compensation to accommodate immediate ASB-related matters. Site administrators are concerned about the lack of focus on student achievement and success because of the number of hours they are required to spend on ASB issues. 5. If the district decides to maintain the current centralized ASB bookkeeping structure, it will need to either ensure that school site personnel receive proper training and direction regarding ASB regulations and procedures or eliminate the ASB program completely. Hiring a part-time ASB clerk at each school site, or a full-time ASB clerk split between the two high schools, could help alleviate these issues. Recommendations for Recovery The district should 1. Immediately provide written guidelines and instructions that identify the staff members accountable for each duty related to ASB. 2. Immediately develop, distribute, and oversee accounting procedures for student body funds. 3. Develop procedures for the district office regarding the oversight, management and audits that need to occur to protect the district in the area of ASB funds. 4. Clearly segregate the ASB-related responsibilities of district staff from those of site staff to ensure adequate oversight and maintenance of student body funds. 5. Consider hiring a part-time ASB clerk at each site or a full-time clerk with duties split between the two sites. 330 Financial Management Standard Not Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 331 12.1 Multiyear Financial Projections Legal Standard The LEA provides a multiyear financial projection for at least the general fund at a minimum, consistent with the policy of the county office. Projections are done for the general fund at the time of budget adoption and all interim reports. Projected fund balance reserves are disclosed and assumptions used in developing multiyear projections that are based on the most accurate information available. The assumptions for revenues and expenditures are reasonable and supported by documentation. (EC 42131) Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim chief business official 2. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education’s associate superintendent for business services and district services staff 3. Adopted budget report, 2010-11 4. First, second and third interim reports, 2009-10 5. Monterey County Office of Education budget review letters regarding 2009-10 interim reports and 2010-11 adopted budget report Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Multiyear financial projections (MYFPs) submitted to the county office with the 2009-10 revised budget report did not include a plan to resolve the district’s structural deficit or restore its required reserves. The district’s budget was ultimately disapproved. The county office was working with the district to waive the budget committee process and use the fiscal recovery plan developed by FCMAT. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 A review of the first, second and third interim reports for fiscal year 2009-10 and the 2010-11 adopted budget indicates that the district provides MYFPs for the general fund at each reporting period. However, the MYFP prepared after the settlements with the certificated and classified employee bargaining units shows a negative ending balance in the general fund in fiscal year 2012-13. While the MYFP is an improvement from the last review period, significant work remains to address the structural deficit. Findings 1. A review of the district’s 2009-10 first, second and third interim reports and the 2010-11 adopted budget indicates that the district provides multiyear financial projections (MYFPs) for the general fund at each reporting period. 332 Financial Management 2. The district’s most recent MYFP was completed in September 2010 following the negotiated settlements with the certificated and classified employee bargaining units. The MYFP included the following projected amounts for the unrestricted general fund. 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Increase/(Decrease) in Fund Balance 799,618 (178,191) (1,013,852) Ending Fund Balance 314,827 136,636 (877,216) Shortfall (263,366) (415,207) (1,431,073) 3. These projected amounts are a considerable improvement over the previous review, but the district still has a significant amount of work to do to ensure that there is structural balance between anticipated revenue and expenditures and to restore the 3% reserve for economic uncertainties. The above projections include draws of $3.5 million, $2.5 million and $2 million in 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, respectively, from the emergency loan. The projection also includes an annual debt service payment of approximately $1.24 million for the state loan beginning in 2010-11. The state loan has a repayment period of 20 years. 4. The assumptions included in the district’s September 2010 MYFP following the negotiated settlement agreements with each bargaining unit include the cost of living adjustments (COLAs) provided in the governor’s 2010 May Revision. Although that was the most current information available at the time, the state’s 2010-11 budget, adopted in October 2010, includes smaller COLAs of 1.70% for 2011-12 and 1.90% for 2012-13. However, because of the current federal and state economic situation, the state’s ability to fund these COLAs is not ensured. Therefore, when completing future multiyear projections, the district will need to develop alternate scenarios and use a 0% COLA for 2011-12. 5. A review of the assumptions used in the district’s MYFP also revealed the following: • Title I ARRA revenue is budgeted through 2012-13. • Special education revenue shows an increase of 19% from 2009-10 to 2010-11. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue taking steps to eliminate its structural budget deficit. 2. Create an alternate MYFP using a 0% COLA for 2011-12. Financial Management 333 3. Eliminate the one-time Title I ARRA revenue from the MYFP for 2011-12 and 2012-13, and investigate the projected increase in the special education revenue for 2009-10 and the two subsequent years. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 334 Financial Management 12.2 Multiyear Financial Projections Legal Standard The board ensures that any guideline developed for collective bargaining fiscally aligns with the LEA’s multiyear instructional and fiscal goals. Multiyear financial projections are prepared for use in decision-making, especially whenever a significant multiyear expenditure commitment is contemplated, including salary or employee benefit enhancements negotiated through the collective bargaining process. (EC 42142) Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim chief business official 2. Interviews with Monterey County Office of Education’s associate superintendent of business services and district services staff 3. Multiyear financial projections, 2010-11 adopted budget 4. Public disclosure of collective bargaining agreement with certificated employees, dated July 2010, and with classified employees, August 2010 5. Letter from the Monterey County Office of Education dated July 27, 2010 regarding the tentative agreement with the certificated employee bargaining unit 6. Letter from the Monterey County Office of Education dated August 31, 2010 regarding the tentative agreement with the classified employee bargaining unit Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The board approved a tentative agreement with the certificated employee bargaining unit in February 2009, but it did not include an MYFP indicating how it would reduce the structural deficit. The county office ultimately rescinded the agreement because it would have left the district with a negative fund balance in the current and two subsequent years. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district negotiated collective bargaining agreements with both its certificated and classified employee bargaining units. Public disclosure documents for these settlements indicate a savings of approximately $2.27 million in 2010-11 and included multiyear financial projections (MYFPs) for the unrestricted general fund. The district should include the restricted and combined general fund and other affected funds in MYFPs for future settlements. Findings 1. The state administrator approved an agreement with the district’s certificated employee bargaining unit on July 28, 2010. The public disclosure documents indicated that the agreement is for the period July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013 and will produce Financial Management 335 a savings of $1,697,051 in fiscal year 2010-11. The disclosure documents included MYFPs showing the effect of the agreement on the unrestricted general fund in the two subsequent fiscal years. However, the MYFP did not include projections for the restricted and combined general fund or other affected funds. In addition, the MYFP included headings for the 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 fiscal years. Because this agreement is effective beginning July 1, 2010, the MYFP should include headings of 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. In a letter dated July 27, 2010, the Monterey County Superintendent of Schools commented on the tentative agreement and congratulated the district for making ongoing reductions in expenses to help it progress toward fiscal recovery. 3. The state administrator approved an agreement with the district’s classified employee bargaining unit on August 31, 2010. Public disclosure documents indicated that the agreement is for the period July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013 and will produce a savings of $576,131 in fiscal year 2010-11. The disclosure documents included MYFPs showing the effect of the agreement on the unrestricted general fund in the two subsequent fiscal years. However, the MYFP did not include projections for the restricted and combined general fund or other affected funds. 4. In a letter dated August 31, 2010, the Monterey County Superintendent of Schools commented on the tentative agreement and congratulated the district for making ongoing reductions in expenses to help it progress toward fiscal recovery. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Include MYFPs for the restricted and combined general fund as well as other affected funds with all tentative agreements with its employee bargaining units. 2. Ensure that the multiyear financial projections prepared for tentative agreement with the employee bargaining units include the correct fiscal year headings. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 336 Financial Management 14.1 Impact of Collective Bargaining Legal Standard Public disclosure requirements are met, including the costs associated with a tentative collective bargaining agreement before it becomes binding on the LEA or county office of education. (GC 3547.5 (b)). Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim chief business official 2. Interviews with Monterey County Office of Education’s associate superintendent of business services and district services staff 3. Interviews with board members 4. Public disclosure of collective bargaining agreement: Certificated July 2010, Classified August 2010 5. Letter from the Monterey County Office of Education dated July 27, 2010 regarding the tentative agreement with the certificated bargaining unit 6. Letter from the Monterey County Office of Education dated August 31, 2010 regarding the tentative agreement with the classified bargaining unit 7. Board meeting agendas Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had met public disclosure requirements during its most recent collective bargaining agreement process with the certificated bargaining unit. The district provided no other documents regarding collective bargaining disclosure. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district settled negotiations with its certificated and classified employee bargaining units and prepared the public disclosure of collective bargaining agreement documents for each tentative agreement. The public disclosure documents indicate a savings of approximately $2.27 million for fiscal year 2010-11. The district included MYFPs for the general fund but not for the restricted and combined general fund and other affected funds. .Findings 1. The district prepared the public disclosure of collective bargaining agreement documents for its most recent tentative agreement with the certificated employee bargaining unit and dated the certification documents July 12, 2010. The documents indicated that Financial Management 337 the agreement was approved by the state administrator on July 28, 2010 and includes significant cost saving measures such as the following: • Reduction of salaries by 9% • Elimination of steps 31-35 on the salary schedule • Elimination of district-paid tax sheltered annuityElimination of step in- creases for 2011-12 and 2012-13 • Reductions to the extra duty salary schedule • Implementation of a $10,000 annual cap on district contributions for medical insurance and single-party district contributions for dental and vision insurance • Increase of class size by two students • Increase in number of work days from 180 to 183 per school year • Decrease in sick leave and bereavement leave days • Elimination of CLAD stipend for certificated staff • Elimination of district-paid premium for $60,000 life insurance policies. 2. The agreement with certificated employees is effective from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013 and includes a cost savings of $1,697,051 for the fiscal year 2010-11. Although the public disclosure document includes an MYFP for the unrestricted general fund, it does not include an MYFP for the restricted and combined general fund or the district’s other affected funds. 3. In a letter dated July 27, 2010, the Monterey County Superintendent of Schools commented on the tentative agreement. In addition, the district’s July 28, 2010 special board meeting agenda listed the “Approval of the 2010/2013 Negotiated Agreement Between KCJUHSD and the King City High School Teachers Association” as an action item. 4. The district prepared the public disclosure of collective bargaining agreement documents for its most recent tentative agreement with the classified employee bargaining unit and dated the certification documents August 31, 2010. The documents indicated that the agreement was approved by the state administrator on August 31, 2010 and includes significant cost saving measures such as the following: • Reduction of salaries by 2% • Decrease in the number of steps on the salary schedule from 32 to five, and y-rated (froze) compensation for employees who exceeded the steps on the new salary schedule • Reduction of the work year for some positions • Elimination of the district-paid tax sheltered annuity, district-paid state 338 Financial Management disability insurance and district’s payment of the employee portion of the CalPERS contribution. • Reduction of vacation accrual • Elimination of one paid holiday • Implementation of a $10,000 annual cap on district contributions for medical insurance and single-party district contributions for dental and vision insurance. 5. The agreement is effective from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013 and includes a cost savings of $576,131 for fiscal year 2010-11. Although the public disclosure document includes a MYFP for the unrestricted general fund, it does not include a MYFP for the restricted and combined general fund or the district’s other affected funds. 6. In a letter dated August 31, 2010, the Monterey County Superintendent of Schools commented on the tentative agreement. In addition, the district’s August 31, 2010 special board meeting agenda listed the “Approval of the 2010/2013 Negotiated Agreement Between KCJUHSD and the California State Employees Association Chapter 529” as an action item. 7. Management Advisory 92-01 from the California Department of Education recommends that the public disclosure of collective bargaining agreements be made available to the public before the day of the public meeting in which the agreement is scheduled for review and approval, and that the disclosure be signed by the superintendent before it is submitted to the board. The public disclosure documents related to the tentative agreement with the classified employee bargaining unit indicate that the state administrator dated the public disclosure the same day the agreement was approved. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Include multiyear financial projections for the restricted and combined general fund as well as other affected funds with all tentative agreements with its employee bargaining units. 2. Ensure that the public disclosure for collective bargaining agreements is made available to the public before the day of the board meeting in which it is scheduled for review and approval, and that the superintendent or state administrator and CBO sign and date the forms at the time of public disclosure. Financial Management 339 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 340 Financial Management 14.2 Impact of Collective Bargaining Legal Standard Bargaining proposals and negotiated settlements are “sunshined” in accordance with the law to allow public input and understanding of employee cost implications and, most importantly, the effects on the LEA’s students. (Government Code 3547, 3547.5) Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with interim chief business official 2. Interviews with board members 3. Interviews with the Monterey County Office of Education’s associate superintendent of business services and district services staff 4. Board agendas Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district met the public disclosure requirements during its most recent tentative collective bargaining agreement with certificated staff. It was not possible to determine the parties’ consideration of the effect on students. The agreement included significant increases in class size, decreased class offerings, and no resolution regarding underfunded student support services. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district met the public disclosure requirements of Government Code Section 3547 regarding its collective bargaining proposals. The district will need to ensure that the minutes indicate that the initial proposal has been adopted and that negotiations do not begin prior to sunshining the proposal. Findings 1. Board meeting agendas for January 13 and February 10, 2010 indicate that the district met the public disclosure “sunshine” requirements of Government Code Section 3547 regarding informing the public of the most recent collective bargaining proposal with its certificated employee bargaining unit. However, agendas indicating that the district had adopted its initial proposal were not provided. 2. Board meeting agendas for February 10 and March 10, 2010 indicate that the district met the public disclosure “sunshine” requirements of Government Code Section 3547 regarding informing the public of the most recent collective bargaining proposal with its classified employee bargaining unit. However, agendas indicating that the district had adopted its initial proposal were not provided. Financial Management 341 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the district’s initial bargaining proposal is adopted and that negotiations do not take place prior to sunshining the proposal. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 342 Financial Management 14.3 Impact of Collective Bargaining Professional Standard The LEA has developed parameters and guidelines for collective bargaining that ensure that the collective bargaining agreement does not impede the efficiency of LEA operations. Management analyzes the collective bargaining agreements to identify any characteristics that impede effective delivery of LEA services. The LEA identifies those issues for consideration by the board. The board, in developing its guidelines for collective bargaining, considers the impact on LEA operations of current collective bargaining language, and proposes amendments to LEA language as appropriate to ensure effective and efficient service delivery. Board parameters are provided in a confidential environment, reflective of the obligations of a closed executive board session. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with state administrator 2. Interview with interim chief business official 3. Interview with board members 4. Public disclosure of collective bargaining agreement: Certificated July 2010, Classified August 2010 5. Board agendas Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 There was no evidence regarding parameters the board may have identified for the latest tentative bargaining agreement, though the board voted to approve it, and members of the district’s management who negotiated the agreement challenged the county office regarding the effect the agreement would have on the district. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The state administrator has provided updates to the board throughout the collective bargaining process, and the most recent collective bargaining settlements include a substantial cost savings and indicate progress toward fiscal recovery. Findings 1. Information from interviews and review of board meeting agendas indicated that the state administrator provides the board with updates regarding the collective bargaining process and specific proposals in closed session. In addition, the public disclosure of collective bargaining agreements indicates that the district is making significant progress to implement a budget that is structurally balanced and that moves the district toward fiscal recovery. Financial Management 343 2. The state administrator thoroughly analyzed every article of both collective bargaining agreements, determined high priority areas of concern, and discussed the plan with the board. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to consider and evaluate the effects that any tentative collective bargaining agreement may have on educational opportunities for students, the quality of support services and the district’s fiscal solvency. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: 344 Financial Management 15.2 Management Information Systems Professional Standard Management information systems support users with information that is relevant, timely, and accurate. Assessments are performed to ensure that users are involved in defining needs, developing specifications, and selecting appropriate systems. LEA standards are imposed to ensure the maintainability, compatibility, and supportability of the various systems. The LEA ensures that all systems are SACS-compliant, and are compatible with county systems with which they must interface. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. Interview with information services director 3. August 20, 2010 Aeries New Attendance Codes Training 4. August 23-24, 2010 Aeries Training – CALPADS Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Varying student information system codes made uniformity of data difficult to achieve and affected accuracy. The district had not purchased an interface that would allow data sharing between departments and the state. The district was using SACS-compliant financial software provided by the county office. Information technology staffing reductions had decreased service and support. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has provided trainings on use of the student attendance system, including extensive training in proper coding. The district has not made any changes to integrate the various systems that report information for finance, student attendance, teacher credentialing and position control. Although it is not ideal, the district has developed several routines for downloading data that produce the information required for state reporting. Findings 1. Reporting student data correctly for state reporting and student attendance requires staff to understand and use a uniform coding system. Variances and errors can result in inaccurate information on items such as student truancy and could have adverse financial effects. To address this issue, the district provided several trainings on use of the student attendance system. Extensive training was given regarding proper coding for student absences, tardies, truancy and CALPADS reporting requirements. These trainings will help the district eliminate variances and errors when reporting required student data. Financial Management 345 2. The district has combined the main course catalogs for the two high school campuses, effective the current school year. This corrects the potential for discrepancies in course and graduation requirements. 3. The lack of integration among the district’s human resources system, the district’s student information system and the state’s student information system causes duplication of effort and creates a potential for errors when duplicating information in multiple systems. This is not an effective use of staff time. The district should investigate the availability of an interface among the three separate systems now in use. 4. The information services director downloads student information system data into an Excel spreadsheet, which is then uploaded through the attendance system to provide information for CALPADS reporting. This is an acceptable workaround; however, it requires duplicate work by staff and involves manually transferring data from one system to another, which creates the potential for errors. 5. The district uses financial management software provided by the Monterey County Office of Education that complies with the standardized account code structure (SACS) for uniform statewide financial reporting. 6. The district’s technology department staffing structure consists of the director, one full- time technician and one part-time technician. The part-time technician is on extended medical leave. This continues to cause an unacceptable decrease in the level of service and support districtwide. The district needs to provide adequate staffing and should consider hiring a temporary technician. Recommendations for Recovery The district should 1. Investigate the possibility of purchasing a system interface application to connect the three separate systems now in use. 2. Ensure that all employees who use the district’s student information system have received and continue to receive training in its use. 3. Consider hiring a temporary technology department technician to meet technology department workload demands. 346 Financial Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 347 15.3 Management Information Systems Professional Standard Automated systems are used to improve accuracy, timeliness, and efficiency of financial and reporting systems. Needs assessments are performed to determine what systems are candidates for automation, whether standard hardware and software systems are available to meet the need, and whether or not the LEA would benefit. Automated financial systems provide accurate, timely, relevant information and conform to all accounting standards. The systems are designed to serve all of the various users inside and outside the LEA. Employees receive appropriate training and supervision in system operation. Appropriate internal controls are instituted and reviewed periodically. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. Interview with information services director Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district was maintaining credentialing data in a Microsoft Access database rather than the Monterey County Office of Education’s system because of difficulties with that system. The district planned to migrate human resources and position control data to a county office system but had not completed this and was maintaining minimal human resource data in the county office application; most human resources and position control data was in a Microsoft Access database. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district continues to use Microsoft Access and Excel spreadsheets to maintain information on teacher credentialing, employee demographics and position control data for budgeting. The county office is in the process of replacing its financial software system. Until the county office has a new system in place, the district will need to develop internal control procedures to validate data when it is transferred between operating systems. Findings 1. The district continues to use a Microsoft Access database to maintain teacher credential data and demographic information regarding district employees. The district also maintains some required information in the county office system in order to process payroll. The county office recognizes that its current operating system for position control is not adequate to serve the needs of the Monterey county school districts and is preparing a request for proposal to upgrade the entire financial software system. This process will be lengthy and the district will need to continue using and maintaining the Access database in the interim but would benefit from implementing additional controls to verify data entered into multiple operating systems and thus reduce the possibility of error. 348 Financial Management 2. The business office maintains position control data in an Excel spreadsheet for staff placement information needed for budgeting. Although this is not the preferred method for managing position control data that is used to prepare the budget, it is acceptable until the district can migrate to the new county office system. 3. The district’s process for reporting required student and staff information to the state involves three operating systems: Access, Aeries and CALPADS. Information from Access is exported to the Aeries system and then from that system to the state CALPADS reporting module. 4. The district lacks written verification or internal control procedures to validate that the data exported from one system to another is accurate. Annual training for employees who perform data downloads and uploads is also lacking. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that written procedures are in place to validate the accuracy of the data that is transferred between systems. 2. Provide annual training to employees who are required to download and upload critical data elements from one system to another, including proper validation procedures. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 349 15.7 Management Information Systems Professional Standard Hardware and software purchases conform to existing technology standards. Standards for network equipment, servers, computers, copiers, printers, fax machines, and all other technology assets are defined and enforced to increase standardization and decrease support costs. Requisitions that contain hardware or software items are forwarded to the technology department for approval before being converted to purchase orders. Requisitions for nonstandard technology items are approved by the information management and technology department(s) unless the user is informed that LEA support for nonstandard items will not be available. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. Interview with information services director Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district lacked a technology committee to guide technology initiatives. A district staff member was spending significant time on E-Rate-related tasks. There was reported inequity in computer equipment between the two high schools, and plans to use remaining Microsoft K-12 settlement funding to update some computers at Greenfield High School were on hold because of the district’s financial condition. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has not yet contracted with a consultant for E-rate tasks. The district is verifying free and reduced-price meal applications in an attempt to include all eligible students, which should have a positive effect on E-rate funding. Both essential computer support services and state- of-the-art equipment are needed to support the network infrastructure, computers and student information systems. This should be a priority for the district. Findings 1. The information services director spends a significant amount of time performing tasks related to E-Rate documentation, application, and funding requirements. The process of applying for discounts is complex, and users must be thoroughly familiar with technology and the numerous strict application filing deadlines. School districts increasingly contract with a consultant to maximize their discounts and minimize the delays associated with inquiries from representatives of the organization overseeing this federal discount program. Consultants typically charge either a flat rate per year or a small percentage of the discount the district receives, with a “not to exceed” maximum amount established in advance. Consultants can also seek other external funding sources that are available through competitive grants to support technology. 350 Financial Management 2. The district receives an E-rate rebate of approximately 50% on telecommunication and internet services, which saves about $80,000 annually. FCMAT estimates that expert consultant services could increase the rebate by 30% for a net revenue increase of more than $30,000 per year. Hiring an E-Rate consultant would both increase revenues and allow the staff time that is now spent preparing E-rate applications to instead be spent serving the district’s technology needs. 3. The district may be understating the number of students who qualify for free or reduced- price meals because of the way applications for this program are processed. Free and reduced meal counts have a significant impact on E-rate funding eligibility and a direct correlation to the amount of funding that the district receives for telecommunications, internet, network infrastructure equipment and replacement computer equipment. 4. A team of district staff members and food service consultants are verifying free and reduced-price meal applications. This should increase the number of students eligible for free and reduced-price meals, which will have a direct impact on E-rate funding. 5. The information services director reviews hardware purchases. Until the district stabilizes its financial position, purchases for technology are extremely limited. The district has approved the purchase of the Linux operating system to replace the Novell server operating system in the summer of 2011. Linux has a wide variety of features, including a remote helpdesk, computer repair services over the internet and other outsourced information technology services. 6. Both critical and essential technology services and state-of-the-art equipment are needed to support the network infrastructure, computers and student information systems. This must remain the priority for the district. To support this priority, the district will need to strongly consider contracting with a consultant to increase E-rate revenues. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Contract with an experienced consultant to ensure that the district meets critical deadlines and maximizes E-rate and other external funding. 2. Make it a priority to provide essential services to support the network infrastructure, computers and student information systems. Financial Management 351 Standard Not Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: 352 Financial Management 15.8 Management Information Systems Professional Standard An updated inventory includes item specification for use in rotating out obsolete equipment. Computers and peripheral hardware are replaced based on a schedule. Hardware specifications are evaluated yearly. Corroborating data from work order or help desk system logs is used when this data is available to determine what equipment is most costly to own based on support issues. The total cost of ownership is considered in purchasing decisions. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district lacked an equipment replacement schedule, and E-Rate funding eligibility was likely reduced because of the possibility the district was understating the number of students at Greenfield High School who qualified for free or reduced-price meals. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has continued to operate with limited staff, who are expected to provide service to both comprehensive high schools, an independent study charter school, one continuation school and the district office. As a result, the district has not made progress in this area Findings 1. The district’s technology department has only two staff members: a technology services director and one full-time employee, because the part-time technician is on extended leave. These staff members are responsible for maintaining and supporting the following technology and services: • Network service • Network • Security • Communications • Support applications • Student information system • Administrative support • Web services • Account rights • State reporting Financial Management 353 • Technology support services • Desktop support • Helpdesk • Inventory Control • Technology coordination • Professional development • Technology planning • Content filtering • Grant writing and support 2. As a result, many technology maintenance, support and service functions are not sufficiently provided or are not provided at all, including inventory and a districtwide equipment replacement schedule. An equipment replacement schedule would help the district’s management team make reasonable budget appropriations for equipment replacement on a rotating schedule. 3. The district will need to establish short- and long-term goals that integrate each of the above technology department functions with an overarching goal to integrate existing applications into the curriculum and ultimately improve technology in the classroom. 4. The technology department has many constituents throughout the district, including curriculum services and departments at the district office, that depend on the ability to use computers, internet and network services to do their jobs. A properly functioning technology department will appear seamless to users of these fundamental services. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the technology department is well supported and staffed. 5. Establishing a functioning technology committee would help the district develop its technology capacity and capabilities. This committee’s initial mission would be to help the district define goals that meet the technology needs of students, faculty and staff. The committee could help assess the technology support staffing levels and the inventory of computers, peripheral devices and the network infrastructure to establish a priority list of needs and a replacement schedule for obsolete equipment. E-Rate funding could serve as the initial revenue stream to support the purchase of new equipment. The district could also research competitive grants to support technology needs. 6. To accomplish this task, the district should establish a technology committee composed of a cross-section of educators, support personnel and community partners in education. 354 Financial Management Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Perform a periodic inventory of all technology equipment, including network infrastructure equipment, computers, servers, telephones, and fax machines to develop a districtwide replacement schedule. 2. Ensure that the technology department is well supported and staffed. 3. Establish short- and long-term goals that integrate the essential technology functions described above. 4. Establish a technology committee comprised of a cross-section of educators, support personnel and community partners in education. 5. Research competitive grants to support technology needs. Standard Not Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 355 16.1 Maintenance and Operations Fiscal Controls Legal Standard Capital equipment and furniture is tagged as LEA-owned property and inventoried at least annually. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 There was no evidence that the district was updating its equipment inventory list, and newly purchased equipment was not being tagged. The district also had no formal procedures for disposing of surplus property. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Asset tags are now affixed to computers, but other assets are not tagged and a fixed asset inventory has not been completed in several years. Findings 1. Staff indicated that an asset tag is affixed to computers as they are received. However, other assets are not tagged and a fixed asset inventory has not been completed in several years. There is no evidence that the district updates its equipment inventory annually (see Standard 10.5). 2. On January 13, 2010, Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3270 were adopted regarding the sale and disposal of books, equipment and supplies. However, no evidence was provided that the district has used these procedures for disposing of surplus property. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Immediately conduct a physical inventory of all equipment items with a current market value of more than $500. 2. Assign a single staff member the responsibility of fixed asset accounting for all purchases after the physical inventory has been completed. 356 Financial Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 357 17.1 Food Service Fiscal Controls Professional Standard To accurately record transactions and ensure the accuracy of financial statements for the cafeteria fund in accordance with GAAP, the LEA has purchasing and warehousing procedures to ensure that these requirements are met. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. Adopted budget report, 2010-11 3. Cafeteria fund budget comparison report, July 1 to October 6, 2010 4. Memorandums from interim chief business official Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district was contracting with the King City Union School District (KCUSD), a local K-8 district, for food service operations and management. The district had no cafeteria fund but paid the KCUSD from its general fund. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has regressed significantly in this area. The district began operating its own food service program. The district hired a food and nutritional services manager and nine food service workers, and it contracted with a private food service vendor. However, the district did not submit an application for funding to the California Department of Education’s Nutrition Services Division. As a result, the district will lose several months of funding for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program, requiring a substantial additional contribution from the unrestricted general fund. Findings 1. The district contracted with KCUSD for food service operations until July 1, 2010, when the district began operating its own National School Lunch and Breakfast Program. The district hired a food and nutritional services manager and nine food services employees. The district contracted with Preferred Meals Systems, Inc., a private food service vendor, to provide pre-portioned and prepackaged student meals. 2. However, the district did not complete its application for funding to the CDE’s Nutrition Services Division. Until this application is completed and processed, the district will not be entitled to federal or state meal reimbursements under the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program. The current budget reflects $850,000 in anticipated revenue for the 2010-11 fiscal year. This estimate should be reduced by $85,000 for each month that the district’s application is pending. 358 Financial Management 3. This represents a significant loss for the district and will require an additional contribution from the district’s unrestricted general fund to cover the deficit, over and above the $112,750 currently projected. The district recognizes the seriousness of this issue and is working with a team of consultants to rectify the issues involved. A separate subsequent report addressing this issue will be provided to the district after the consultants complete their analysis and conclude their work. 4. Considerable planning is required to implement a new food service program. Effective planning and preparations for such a change include the following elements: • Preparing and submitting an application for funding with the California Department of Education’s Nutrition Services Division. • Redirecting the issuance of commodity foods • Establishing a meal accountability system to properly record meal counts, production records, compliance with nutritional standards and many other regulatory requirements • Establishing equipment needs for food preparation, including warmers and refrigeration and freezer units • Hiring food service kitchen staff and managers who are knowledgeable in food service management and operations • Planning menus and menu cycling • Contracting for purchases, including perishable foods, dry goods and small wares 5. FCMAT identified several elements from the above list that are missing in the district’s case, including the application for funding discussed above. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Place a priority on processing the application for funding with the CDE’s Nutrition Services Division. 2. Ensure that the commodity food entitlement is redirected from the elementary district to the high school district. 3. Review and implement each of the elements outlined above to ensure a successful food service program. Financial Management 359 Standard Not Implemented February 2010 Rating: 5 March 2011 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: 360 Financial Management 20.1 Special Education Professional Standard The LEA actively takes measures to contain the cost of special education services while providing an appropriate level of quality instructional and pupil services to special education students. The LEA meets the criteria for the maintenance of effort requirement. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff and interim chief business official 2. Special education budget reports, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 3. Unaudited actuals report, 2009-10 4. Adopted budget, 2010-11 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 A review of general fund contributions revealed expenditure coding inconsistencies and a 71% increase in actual expenditures in fiscal year 2007-08. Staff members did not describe any significant efforts to increase special education program revenues and lower expenditures. The district was reviewing invoices for county office-provided services and validating revenues apportioned by the SELPA. Billing errors were sometimes identified after the fact. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district began operating two classes for severely handicapped students that were formerly operated by the county office. Staff anticipated and the projected budget includes significant savings as a result, but supporting documentation substantiating the budgeted for the savings was not provided. The district is meeting its maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements, and projects that both total expenditures for special education and the general fund contribution are projected to decrease for fiscal year 2010-11, but the transfer of revenue limit funds for special education students has been inconsistent. The district has engaged an outside services provider to complete the documents necessary to receive reimbursement for Medi-Cal administrative activities (MAA). Findings 1. A review of the special education budget for the current and two previous fiscal years indicates the following: General Total Fund Expenditures 2008-09 unaudited actuals $ 773,359 $2,561,075 2009-10 unaudited actuals $1,547,693 $3,134,748 Financial Management 361 2010-11 projected budget $1,219,258 $2,574,630 The 2009-10 unaudited actuals includes $418,747 and the 2010-11 budget includes $62,260 in one-time federal revenue from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. However the transfer of revenue limit funds to special education has been inconsistent. Beginning in 2009-10, the budget indicates that revenue limit funds for special education students were not transferred to the special education resource (6500). Thus the contribution from the general fund cannot be compared from year to year. 2. The district’s 2010-11 projected budget includes an increase of approximately 25% in apportionment from the county office. However, information was not provided that provides an explanation for the increased revenue. 3. The district began operating two classes for severely handicapped students that formerly were operated by the county office. Although staff indicated that a significant savings was anticipated as a result of this change, documents substantiating the projected level of savings were not provided. However, the 2010-11 projected budget includes an expenditure reduction of approximately 45%, or $400,000, in excess costs. 4. A review of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 special education MOE reports, SEMA and SEMB, respectively, indicate that the district met its MOE requirement in 2009-10 and is projecting to meet the MOE requirement in 2010-11. 5. The district is not charging the state-approved indirect cost rate to the special education resources. Indirect costs need to be calculated and charged to all restricted programs as allowable to accurately show total program costs. 6. Special education staff indicated that beginning in fiscal year 2010-11 the district has contracted with an outside services provider to complete the forms necessary to receive reimbursement for Medi-Cal administrative activities (MAA). However, the provider has not yet begun applying for reimbursement for Medi-Cal LEA services. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Review all special education programs to optimize staffing allocations and workloads. 2. Continue to review contracted special education services provided by outside agencies to determine if the district can provide these services at a lower cost. 3. Ensure that revenue limit funds for special education students are transferred from the general fund to special education. 4. Review the 2010-11 projected budget for special education apportionment from the county office and ensure that the revenue is projected accurately. 362 Financial Management 5. Evaluate the anticipated savings for the two special education classes taken back from the county office and ensure that the expenditures are projected accurately. 6. Review each bill from the county office to ensure that the district is being charged accurately for students remaining in county programs. 7. Calculate and charge the allowable indirect costs to all restricted programs to accurately show total program costs. 8. Engage an outside services provider to complete the documents necessary to receive reimbursement for Medi-Cal LEA services. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 363 21.1 Transportation Professional Standard The LEA actively takes measures to control the cost of transportation services and limit the contribution from the general fund while providing safe and reliable transportation to the students. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. Transportation budget reports, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Although the district had determined that it was more economical to manage its own transportation department, financial reports showed general fund contributions to transportation over the past three years. The board had approved most of the recommendations staff had recently presented to consolidate routes and reduce costs. The district was also reviewing special education transportation charges from the county office because of the possibility of billing errors. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 State funding for home-to-school transportation has decreased approximately 25% since 2008-09, but the district’s transportation expenditures have increased and contributions from the general fund have more than doubled. The district began operating two classes formerly operated by the county office for severely handicapped special education students, including the transportation for these students. However, no studies were completed regarding the cost of this transportation service. Findings 1. A review of the district’s transportation budget for the current and two previous fiscal years indicates the following: General Fund Total Contribution Expenditures 2008-09 unaudited actuals $145,688 $507,761 2009-10 unaudited actuals $353,244 $645,201 2010-11 projected budget $313,082 $593,082 2. The budget reports indicate that state funding for home-to-school transportation has decreased by approximately 25% since 2008-09. This reduction and a reduction in the 364 Financial Management direct costs charged to other district programs for transportation services have resulted in an increased contribution from the general fund. 3. The district began operating two classes formerly operated by the county office for severely handicapped special education students, as well as transportation for these students. However, interviews indicated that no studies were completed regarding the costs of providing transportation for these students. In addition, the district is combining its costs for transporting special education students with its costs for regular home-to- school transportation. The California School Accounting Manual states that costs for special education transportation should be recorded separately in resource 7240. 4. The district is not charging the state-approved indirect cost rate to the transportation program. Indirect costs should be calculated and charged to all restricted programs as allowable to accurately show total program costs. 5. Following FCMAT’s fieldwork, the district engaged in a separate study that included a comprehensive review of the district’s transportation services. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to assess current bus routes for maximum efficiency and in an effort to reduce transportation expenditures. 2. Evaluate the anticipated costs for transportation of special education students in the classes formerly operated by the county office, and ensure that expenditures are projected accurately. 3. Review each bill from the county office to ensure that the district is being charged appropriately for students in county office-operated programs. 4. Require the maintenance, operations, transportation and facilities director to review all proposed transportation services before they are included in special education students’ individualized education plans (IEPs) to ensure maximum efficiency. 5. Show costs for special education transportation in resource 7240. 6. Calculate and charge the allowable indirect costs to all restricted programs to accurately show total program costs. Financial Management 365 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 366 Financial Management 22.1 Risk Management – Other Post-Employment Benefits Legal Standard LEAs that provide health and welfare benefits for employees upon their retirement, and those benefits will continue past the age of 65, shall provide the board an annual report of actual accrued but unfunded costs of those benefits. An actuarial report should be performed every three years. (EC 41240) Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with staff 2. Actuarial Study of Retiree Health Liabilities, as of October 1, 2009 3. CalSTRS early retirement schedules, December 7, 2009 4. Tentative agreement, June 29, 2010 5. Certificated contract prior to tentative agreement, June 29, 2009 6. MCSIG medical plans(s) 2010-11 7. Memorandum to CSEA members dated September 7, 2010 – Recent Changes to Medical Benefits Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district was paying all or part of medical benefit premiums for both certificated and classified staff retirees who had 10 or more years of district service; this coverage terminates at age 65. An actuarial study from 2006 estimated the district’s annual required contribution at $333,446 and its annual pay-as-you-go costs at $204,310. The district chose the pay-as-you-go option. An updated actuarial study and a plan to manage costs were needed. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has made significant reductions in the amount of health care premiums it pays on behalf of employees and their dependents. The district also ceased payment of State Disability Insurance premiums and the employee portion of Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) contributions. These measures will provide ongoing savings. The district is in compliance with GASB requirements to update the actuarial calculations for post employment benefits. Findings 1. The district participates in the Monterey County Schools Insurance Group (MCSIG). Prior to fiscal year 2010-11, the district was contributing 100% of the medical insurance premiums for full-time employees, at an annual cost of $24,632 for family coverage. The Financial Management 367 district pays employees’ premiums for dental and vision insurance, though not premiums for spouses or dependents. 2. Beginning July 1, 2010, the district began contributing a maximum of $10,000 annually per employee for medical insurance premiums. Employees may select coverage from one of three plans. For full-time employees, there are no out-of-pocket costs associated with employee-only coverage for any of the plans. If an employee selects additional coverage for employee-plus-one or family coverage, contributions are required from the employee. Part-time employees who work at least four hours per day receive a pro-rata share of the $10,000 district contribution based on the number of hours worked per day or the full- time equivalent (FTE). 3. Employees were given an opportunity to change their plan selection by notifying the district office on or before September 10, 2010 for a September 1 effective date and were scheduled to have another opportunity during the regular open enrollment period starting November 1, 2010. The effective date for the change is January 1, 2011. 4. The actuarial study of post-employment benefit costs dated March 5, 2010 for the period ended October 1, 2009 estimated the district’s annual required contribution (ARC) at $322,713 and its annual pay-as-you-go costs at $148,550. The ARC includes both normal costs and the unfunded actuarial accrued liability. The district has elected to fund the pay-as-you-go obligation portion only at this time because of its financial condition. The actuarial assumptions indicated that the pay-as-you-go was expected to increase to $169,865 for the period ending October 1, 2010. The district will need to ensure that its multiyear projections include the updated actuarial information. 5. The district has participated in the California State Teachers’ Retirement System’s (STRS) Golden Handshake program. As of June 30, 2009, outstanding obligations were $510,076, including interest. These obligations are being paid from the district’s general fund on a pay-as-you-go basis and are scheduled to be paid in full in fiscal year 2014-15. 6. The district no longer pays for State Disability Insurance or the employees’ share of Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) contributions. Beginning in fiscal year 2010-11, employees are paying 1.1% of their gross earnings for disability insurance and 7% of their gross salary for the employee share of the PERS contribution. Recommendation for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to obtain periodic actuarial studies as required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). 2. Continue to review employee benefits during contract negotiations as a part of the total compensation package. 368 Financial Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 4 March 2011 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 369 22.2 Risk Management – Other Programs Professional Standard The LEA has a comprehensive risk-management program that monitors the various aspects of risk management including workers’ compensation, property and liability insurance, and maintains the financial well being of the LEA. In response to GASB requirements, the LEA has completed recent actuarial reports for workers’ compensation and property and liability. The actuarial assumptions properly track to the LEA’s budget assumptions and include the benefits being provided under existing plans. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. Actuarial Study of Retiree Health Liabilities, as of October 1, 2009 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district was a member of a joint powers authority (JPA) that offers workers’ compensation, property and liability insurance; however, the district was not using the risk management services offered by the JPA. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district is initiating online training programs for employees through Keenan & Associates. These programs will be able to validate mandatory training sessions for employees and offer additional voluntary training modules. Findings 1. The district continues its membership in two JPAs, one for liability and property coverage and one for workers’ compensation, both provide actuarial studies each year that identify risk exposure and program rate recommendations to a confidence level authorized by the JPA. The JPAs also provide each member district with risk management services including, but not limited to, safety inspections, hazardous materials inventories and individual loss analyses. 2. The district is developing a plan and templates for workers’ compensation that identify areas of exposure and a plan of action. After the entire plan has been approved, the district will offer employees both mandatory and voluntary online training modules. These modules are developed by Keenan & Associates and include the following topics: • Blood-borne pathogens • Chemical hazards • Safety data • Chemical storage and handling 370 Financial Management 3. Employees will be sent an e-mail that includes a link to training modules. The online modules will also produce a record by employee for district monitoring and reporting. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue developing online training programs for training. 2. Work closely with the workers’ compensation and property/ liability insurance program JPAs to ensure that it implements preventive measures to minimize property and liability losses. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 371 372 Financial Management Table of Financial Management Ratings Financial Management 373 374 Financial Management February March Financial Management Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – INTERNAL CONTROL ENVIRONMENT All governing board members and management personnel set the tone and establish the environment, exhibiting high integrity and 1.1 1 2 ethical values in carrying out their responsibilities and directing the work of others. Appropriate measures are implemented to discourage and detect fraud. (State Audit Standard (SAS) 55, SAS 78, SAS 82: Treadway Commission) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – INTERNAL CONTROL ENVIRONMENT 1.3 The organizational structure clearly identifies key areas of authority 3 4 and responsibility. Reporting lines in each area are clearly identified and logical. (SAS-55, SAS-78) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – INTER- AND INTRADEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS The business and operational departments communicate regularly with internal staff and all user departments on their responsibilities 2.1 for accounting procedures and internal controls. Communications 0 3 are written when they affect many staff or user groups, are issues of importance, and/or reflect a change in procedures. Procedures manuals are developed. The business and operational departments are responsive to user department needs. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – INTER- AND INTRADEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS The Governing Board is engaged in understanding the fiscal status of the LEA, for the current and two subsequent fiscal years. The 2.3 board prioritizes LEA fiscal issues, and expects reports to align the 1 4 LEA’s financial performance with its goals and objectives. Agenda items associated with business and fiscal issues are discussed at board meetings, with questions asked until understanding is reached prior to any action. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – STAFF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The LEA has developed and uses a professional development plan for training business staff. The plan includes the input of business 3.1 1 1 office supervisors and managers, and identifies appropriate training programs. Each staff member and management employee has a plan designed to meet their individual professional development needs. Financial Management 375 February March Financial Management Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – STAFF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The LEA develops and uses a professional development plan for 3.2 the in-service training of school site/department staff by business 0 1 staff on relevant business procedures and internal controls. The plan includes a process to seek input from the business office and the school sites/departments and is updated annually. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The Governing Board focuses on expenditure standards and formulas that meet the goals and maintain the LEA’s financial 5.1 2 4 solvency for the current and two subsequent fiscal years. The Governing Board avoids specific line-item focus, but directs staff to design an entire expenditure plan focusing on student and LEA needs. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 5.2 The budget development process includes input from staff, 3 3 administrators, board and community as well as a budget advisory committee. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The LEA has clear policies and processes to analyze resources and allocations to ensure that they align with strategic planning objectives and that the budget reflects the LEA’s priorities. The 5.3 2 3 budget office has a technical process to build the preliminary budget that includes revenue and expenditure projections, the identification of carryovers and accruals, and any plans for expenditure reductions. A budget calendar contains statutory due dates and major budget development milestones. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The LEA has policies to facilitate development of a budget that is understandable, meaningful, reflective of the LEA’s priorities, and 5.4 balanced in terms of revenues and expenditures. The LEA utilizes 1 1 formulas for allocating funds to school sites and departments. This may include staffing ratios, supply allocations, etc. Standardized budget worksheets are used to communicate budget requests, budget allocations, formulas applied and guidelines. 376 Financial Management February March Financial Management Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating LEGAL STANDARD – BUDGET ADOPTION, REPORTING, AND AUDITS The LEA adopts its annual budget within the statutory timelines established by EC 42103, which requires that on or before July 1, 6.1 the governing board shall hold a public hearing on the budget to be 2 5 adopted for the subsequent fiscal year. Not later than five days after that adoption or by July 1, whichever occurs first, the Governing Board shall file that budget with the county superintendent of schools. (EC 42127(a)) LEGAL STANDARD – BUDGET ADOPTION, REPORTING, AND AUDITS Revisions to expenditures based on the state budget are considered and adopted by the governing board. Not later than 6.2 2 6 45 days after the governor signs the annual Budget Act, the LEA shall make available for public review any revisions in revenues and expenditures that it has made to its budget to reflect funding available by that Budget Act. (EC 42127(2) and 42127(i)(4)) LEGAL STANDARD – BUDGET ADOPTION, REPORTING, AND AUDITS The LEA completes and files its interim budget reports within the 6.3 statutory deadlines established by EC 42130, et. seq. All reports 3 6 are in a format or on forms prescribed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction and are based on standards and criteria for fiscal stability. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BUDGET MONITORING The LEA implements budget monitoring controls, such as periodic budget reports, to alert department and site managers of the 7.2 potential for overexpenditure of budgeted amounts. Revenue and 2 3 expenditures are forecast and verified monthly. The LEA ensures that appropriate expenditures are charged against programs within the spending limitations authorized by the Governing Board. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BUDGET MONITORING The LEA uses an effective position control system that tracks 7.3 personnel allocations and expenditures. The position control system 1 4 establishes checks and balances between personnel decisions and budgeted appropriations. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ACCOUNTING The LEA forecasts its cash receipts and disbursements and verifies 8.1 those projections monthly to adequately manage its cash. The LEA 1 2 reconciles its cash to bank statements and reports from the county treasurer monthly. Financial Management 377 February March Financial Management Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ACCOUNTING The LEA’s payroll procedures comply with the requirements established by the county office of education, unless the LEA is 8.2 2 4 fiscally independent. (EC 42646) Per standard accounting practice, the LEA implements procedures to ensure timely and accurate payroll processing. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ATTENDANCE ACCOUNTING School sites maintain an accurate record of daily enrollment 9.2 and attendance that is reconciled monthly. School sites maintain 3 4 statewide student identifiers and reconcile data required for state and federal reporting. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ATTENDANCE ACCOUNTING Policies and regulations exist for independent study, charter, home 9.3 1 1 study, inter-/intra-LEA agreements, LEAs of choice, and ROC/P and adult education, and address fiscal impact. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ATTENDANCE ACCOUNTING 9.4 Students are enrolled and entered into the attendance system in an 3 4 efficient, accurate and timely manner. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ATTENDANCE ACCOUNTING The LEA utilizes standardized and mandatory programs to improve 9.6 1 6 the attendance rate of pupils. Absences are aggressively followed up by LEA staff. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ATTENDANCE ACCOUNTING School site personnel receive periodic and timely training on the 9.7 1 5 LEA’s attendance procedures, system procedures and changes in laws and regulations. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ACCOUNTING, PURCHASING, AND WAREHOUSING The LEA timely and accurately records all financial activity for all programs. GAAP accounting work is properly supervised 10.4 2 2 and reviewed to ensure that transactions are recorded timely and accurately, and allow the preparation of periodic financial statements. The accounting system has an appropriate level of controls to prevent and detect errors and irregularities. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ACCOUNTING, PURCHASING, AND WAREHOUSING The LEA has adequate purchasing and warehousing procedures to 10.5 ensure that: (1) only properly authorized purchases are made, (2) 1 1 authorized purchases are made consistent with LEA policies and management direction, (3) inventories are safeguarded, and (4) purchases and inventories are timely and accurately recorded. 378 Financial Management February March Financial Management Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating LEGAL STANDARD – STUDENT BODY FUNDS The Governing Board adopts board policies, regulations and procedures to establish parameters on how student body organizations will be established, and how they will be operated, 11.1 0 0 audited and managed. These policies and regulations are clearly developed and written to ensure compliance regarding how student body organizations deposit, invest, spend, and raise funds. (EC 48930-48938) LEGAL STANDARD – STUDENT BODY FUNDS The LEA provides annual training and ongoing guidance to site and LEA personnel on the policies and procedures governing 11.3 Associated Student Body accounts. Internal controls are part of 0 0 the training and guidance, ensuring that any findings in the internal audits or independent annual audits are discussed and addressed so they do not recur. LEGAL STANDARD – MULTIYEAR FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS The LEA provides a multiyear financial projection for at least the general fund at a minimum, consistent with the policy of the county office. Projections are done for the general fund at the time of budget adoption and all interim reports. Projected 12.1 1 3 fund balance reserves are disclosed and assumptions used in developing multiyear projections that are based on the most accurate information available. The assumptions for revenues and expenditures are reasonable and supported by documentation. (EC 42131) LEGAL STANDARD – MULTIYEAR FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS The Governing Board ensures that any guideline developed for collective bargaining fiscally aligns with the LEA’s multiyear instructional and fiscal goals. Multiyear financial projections are 12.2 1 4 prepared for use in decision-making, especially whenever a significant multiyear expenditure commitment is contemplated, including salary or employee benefit enhancements negotiated through the collective bargaining process. (EC 42142) LEGAL STANDARD – IMPACT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Public disclosure requirements are met, including the costs 14.1 associated with a tentative collective bargaining agreement before 1 4 it becomes binding on the LEA or county office of education. (GC 3547.5 (b)). LEGAL STANDARD – IMPACT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Bargaining proposals and negotiated settlements are “sunshined” in 14.2 accordance with the law to allow public input and understanding of 1 4 employee cost implications and, most importantly, the effects on the LEA’s students. (Government Code 3547, 3547.5) Financial Management 379 February March Financial Management Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – IMPACT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING The LEA has developed parameters and guidelines for collective bargaining that ensure that the collective bargaining agreement does not impede the efficiency of LEA operations. Management analyzes the collective bargaining agreements to identify any characteristics that impede effective delivery of LEA services. The 14.3 LEA identifies those issues for consideration by the Governing 2 6 Board. The Governing Board, in developing its guidelines for collective bargaining, considers the impact on LEA operations of current collective bargaining language, and proposes amendments to LEA language as appropriate to ensure effective and efficient service delivery. Governing Board parameters are provided in a confidential environment, reflective of the obligations of a closed executive board session. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS Management information systems support users with information that is relevant, timely, and accurate. Assessments are performed to ensure that users are involved in defining needs, developing 15.2 3 4 specifications, and selecting appropriate systems. LEA standards are imposed to ensure the maintainability, compatibility, and supportability of the various systems. The LEA ensures that all systems are SACS-compliant, and are compatible with county systems with which they must interface. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS Automated systems are used to improve accuracy, timeliness, and efficiency of financial and reporting systems. Needs assessments are performed to determine what systems are candidates for automation, whether standard hardware and software systems 15.3 are available to meet the need, and whether or not the LEA would 0 1 benefit. Automated financial systems provide accurate, timely, relevant information and conform to all accounting standards. The systems are designed to serve all of the various users inside and outside the LEA. Employees receive appropriate training and supervision in system operation. Appropriate internal controls are instituted and reviewed periodically. 380 Financial Management February March Financial Management Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS Hardware and software purchases conform to existing technology standards. Standards for network equipment, servers, computers, copiers, printers, fax machines, and all other technology assets are defined and enforced to increase standardization and decrease 15.7 0 0 support costs. Requisitions that contain hardware or software items are forwarded to the technology department for approval before being converted to purchase orders. Requisitions for nonstandard technology items are approved by the information management and technology department(s) unless the user is informed that LEA support for nonstandard items will not be available. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS An updated inventory includes item specification for use in rotating out obsolete equipment. Computers and peripheral hardware 15.8 are replaced based on a schedule. Hardware specifications are 0 0 evaluated yearly. Corroborating data from work order or help desk system logs is used when this data is available to determine what equipment is most costly to own based on support issues. The total cost of ownership is considered in purchasing decisions. LEGAL STANDARD – MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS FISCAL CONTROLS 16.1 0 1 Capital equipment and furniture is tagged as LEA-owned property and inventoried at least annually. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – FOOD SERVICE FISCAL CONTROLS To accurately record transactions and ensure the accuracy of 17.1 5 0 financial statements for the cafeteria fund in accordance with GAAP, the LEA has purchasing and warehousing procedures to ensure that these requirements are met. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – SPECIAL EDUCATION The LEA actively takes measures to contain the cost of special 20.1 education services while providing an appropriate level of quality 1 3 instructional and pupil services to special education students. The LEA meets the criteria for the maintenance of effort requirement. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – TRANSPORTATION The LEA actively takes measures to control the cost of 21.1 3 3 transportation services and limit the contribution from the general fund while providing safe and reliable transportation to the students. Financial Management 381 February March Financial Management Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating LEGAL STANDARD – RISK MANAGEMENT – OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS LEAs that provide health and welfare benefits for employees upon 22.1 their retirement, and those benefits will continue past the age of 4 5 65, shall provide the board an annual report of actual accrued but unfunded costs of those benefits. An actuarial report should be performed every three years. (EC 41240) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – RISK MANAGEMENT – OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS The LEA has a comprehensive risk-management program that monitors the various aspects of risk management including workers’ compensation, property and liability insurance, and maintains the 22.2 2 3 financial well being of the LEA. In response to GASB requirements, the LEA has completed recent actuarial reports for workers’ compensation and property and liability. The actuarial assumptions properly track to the LEA’s budget assumptions and include the benefits being provided under existing plans. Collective Average Rating 1.54 2.95 The collective average ratings for both February 2010 and March 2011 are based on the subset of priority standards used in this second comprehensive review. 382 Financial Management Facilities Management 1.1 School Safety Legal Standard The LEA has adopted policies and regulations and implemented written plans describing procedures to be followed in case of emergency, in accordance with required regulations. All school administrators are conversant with these policies and procedures. (EC 32001-32290, 35295-35297, 46390-46392, 49505; GC 3100, 8607; CCR Title 5, Section 550, Section 560; Title 8, Section 3220; Title 19, Section 2400) Sources and Documentation 1. Emergency operations plan 2. School site crisis plans 3. Building evacuation plans 4. Emergency exit signage 5. First aid kits 6. Interviews with administrators 7. Intrusion alarm system 8. Board policies and administrative regulations 9. Disaster training records 10. Safety training records 11. Key control system forms Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district’s emergency preparedness plan had been last updated in 2007, but there was no evidence of training for staff and students in emergency preparedness or first aid. Some board policies regarding emergency issues were outdated. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has not updated its emergency preparedness plan, but has implemented an improved and regular emergency preparedness training program. Findings 1. The district has not updated its emergency preparedness plan. Facilities Management 385 2. The district has provided emergency preparedness training for its staff and students. It has also conducted regular emergency drills at King City High School, and records indicate that there has been regular emergency preparedness and safety training for the maintenance staff. 3. The district has adopted updated board policy and administrative regulation 3515 and 3515.2 as part of its update to the comprehensive safety plan 4. The district has made first aid kits available in all classrooms. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Update its emergency preparedness plan. The district should form a committee composed of all site administrators, teaching staff representatives from all sites, representation from the local police and fire departments, and parents to review, update and revise the plan as necessary. 2. Continue to update board policies and administrative regulations pertaining to its comprehensive safety plan. The policy and administrative regulation should at least update Board Policy 0450 regarding school safety and identify time lines for updating and implementing individual school safety plans. They should also identify the membership of the school site safety committee, if the district chooses to utilize one. 3. Have each principal submit a map of areas designated for student evacuation and ensure that the maintenance department clearly numbers or identifies those areas for the district’s safety and disaster plans. 4. Regularly conduct regular emergency preparedness drills at all school sites. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 386 Facilities Management 1.3 School Safety Legal Standard The LEA has developed a comprehensive safety plan that includes adequate measures to protect people and property. (EC 32020, 32211, 32228-32228.5, 35294.10-35294.15) Sources and Documentation 1. Board policies 2. Interview with the classified management 3. Interviews with school administrators 4. Site visits and observations 5. Comprehensive safety plan 6. Board policies and administrative regulations 7. Disaster training records 8. Safety training records 9. Key control system forms Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district was revising its comprehensive safety plan. Board policies regarding the safety plan had been last updated in April 2005. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has not developed a comprehensive safety plan, and no committee exists to assist with this process. The district has made some progress on improving safety measures, but others remain unaddressed. Findings 1. The district’s emergency preparedness plan was last amended in 2007 and the district has not updated it. 2. The district has no committee to assist with updating its comprehensive safety plan. 3. Board policies 0450 and 3516 pertaining to the district’s comprehensive safety plan were last updated in April 2005. Facilities Management 387 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Review and revise its board policy 3516 pertaining to an Emergency Preparedness Plan. 2. Following the update of board policy 3516 the district should update its Emergency Preparedness Plan pursuant to the guidelines they have adopted in the new board policy. Form a committee comprised of all site administrators, teaching staff representatives from all sites, representation from the local police and fire departments, and parents to review and revise it as necessary. 3. Review and update board policy and administrative regulation 0450 regarding the comprehensive safety plan. 4. The school site plans required under policy 0450 should be updated annually by school sites before March 1, or as specified in the board policy. 5. Develop a districtwide safety plan that includes school site plans. 6. Form a school safety committee and define its membership and its roles and responsibilities in developing and supporting the school site plans. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 4 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 388 Facilities Management 1.8 School Safety Legal Standard School premises are sanitary, neat, clean and free from conditions that would create a fire or life hazard. (CCR Title 5, Section 630) Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with staff 2. Perimeter fencing 3. Board Policy 3514.1 4. Staff duty schedules 5. Site visits 6. Interviews with principals 7. September 2010 Williams Facilities Inspection Tool (FIT) report Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district lacks sufficient staff to clean sites adequately each day. Cleaning staff did not maintain cleaning logs and the district was not maintaining training records. Some equipment in a storage area was not properly organized and stored. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Both school campuses’ interior areas are generally clean; however, areas of both campuses had excessive debris and deteriorated conditions that constitute a health and safety hazard and should be addressed as soon as possible. Findings 1. The northernmost portion of the King City High School campus has an unkempt area of weeds and plants adjacent to the parking area. The visitors’ side of the football stadium is in a dilapidated condition, including broken down fencing with overgrown weeds and debris. There are broken concrete benches near the gymnasium, which are a hazard. The field area to the west of the main campus is also in very poor condition, with many rutted dirt areas that create a tripping hazard. The baseball fields are unkempt and there is debris and broken furniture in the surrounding areas and dugouts, as well as deteriorating storage facilities. The batting cages appear abandoned and are overgrown with weeds and other debris. Facilities Management 389 2. The fenced in agricultural storage area west of the main Greenfield High School campus has a large amount of debris and overgrowth. There is also a significant amount of trash behind the modular classrooms along the southern portion of the main campus. The baseball fields have not been properly maintained, and an overgrowth of weeds in the dugout areas makes them unusable. There is abandoned football practice equipment in various locations west of the football stadium. The visitors’ side of the stadium is not well maintained and had many weeds growing in the area. The northwest corner of the property contains abandoned and unsecured construction materials which are potentially hazardous to students. The landscaping at the stadium has been improved recently. 3. The intrusion alarm at Greenfield High School is not working properly, and there were burglaries during the summer of 2010. 4. Gate hinges at Greenfield High School have been repaired, and visitor logs and identification badges are being used at both schools. 5. The security cameras at each of the two schools do not provide clear images. 6. The fence along the northern perimeter of the play field at Greenfield High School is owned by the adjacent property owners for their private homes. The fence is broken in several places, allowing unsecured access by students and the public. 7. No repairs have been made to the fence openings at King City High School. 8. The district has re-keyed both high schools and has implemented a comprehensive key control system for staff pursuant to new Administrative Regulation 3515 (b). 9. The industrial arts shop area at Greenfield High School is a comprehensive mechanic’s shop but has been abandoned and has become an unorganized storage area for district materials; the equipment stored there is not organized and stored properly. 10. The district still lacks sufficient staff to adequately clean and maintain the school sites each day. The custodial staff does not perform a detailed cleaning of each classroom every night. 11. The cleaning staff still do not maintain cleaning logs. The small size of the custodial staff limits the district’s ability to do this. 12. Almost all maintenance, operations and custodial staff members are also certified bus drivers. Most staff members are assigned to a bus route and then work in a maintenance, utility (grounds), or custodian capacity. These split positions may not effectively address the district’s needs. The district reviewed the department’s staffing needs in November 2010. The district needs to give priority to implementing the recommendations from that review. 390 Facilities Management 13. There are periphery areas, fence lines and fields at each school that are a health and safety hazard to students and staff because of an accumulation of debris and overgrowth. These areas need immediate attention and cleanup. 14. Equipment and tools formerly located and used by the industrial arts program at King City High School have been removed from the facility. These may have been purchased with categorical funds. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that site administrators walk each campus and inspect the conditions of the areas mentioned in the findings above. Administrators should then immediately submit work orders for the repair of areas determined to have the highest priority for student safety, such as the repair of broken benches and the removal of excessive litter and trash. If there is inadequate staffing to make immediate repairs, the district should consider hiring outside vendors to repair items and remove debris, in accord with the classified employee contract and the education code. 2. Review staffing and scheduling for custodians and maintenance personnel and add position(s) if necessary to more adequately maintain clean and safe conditions at all campuses. 3. Ensure that the director of MOT develops a comprehensive list of more labor-intensive projects for each campus. The list should include items mentioned in this report and should prioritize and schedule their completion. Weed abatement at the baseball fields, for example, should be addressed before the start of the baseball season. The district and the board must evaluate and determine the importance of using the district’s financial resources to create well-maintained playing fields and athletic facilities as part of its overall improvement. 4. Construct a chain link fence along the northern perimeter of the play field at Greenfield High School to secure the area from public access through the broken privately owned fences adjacent to the property. This will eliminate the need to rely on private property owners to repair access points. 5. Repair the perimeter fence at King City High School. 6. Repair or replace parking lot lighting at Greenfield High School. Seek liability insurance funding if possible. 7. Repair or replace the security cameras at both high schools so that the images are clear and useful. 8. Repair or replace the intrusion alarm at Greenfield High School. Facilities Management 391 9. Decide how to best use the industrial arts facility at Greenfield High School. The district should not store any further materials in the facility and should clean up, organize and inventory the materials currently stored there. 10. Locate missing or removed tools and restore them to the King City High School industrial arts program facility. Maintain an inventory of equipment and tools for this facility. 11. Ensure that the director of MOT establishes a quarterly schedule of inspections at each campus to review the progress on identified projects and provides feedback to maintenance and utility staff regarding the conditions at each campus. The director should also prepare and submit reports to the state administrator. 12. Use the classified employee evaluation process effectively to improve maintenance staff performance. 13. Implement and maintain cleaning logs for all custodial personnel. Increase implementation of this procedure as staffing levels increase. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 392 Facilities Management 1.9 School Safety Legal Standard The LEA complies with Injury and Illness Prevention Program requirements. (CCR Title 8, Section 3203) Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Interviews with school site administrative staff 3. Board Policy 4157 4. Interview with temporary maintenance department clerk 5. MOTF department records Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had no injury and illness prevention plan or implementation. The board policy regarding this was last updated in 1991. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 FCMAT was not able to locate any injury and illness prevention program (IIPP) documents other than board polices recently enacted. Findings 1. FCMAT found no injury and illness prevention plan (IIPP) or implementation. 2. Board policies and administrative regulations 4157, 4257 and 4357, adopted in March 2010, address IIPP. 3. Recordkeeping had improved, and records were better organized than during the previous review. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop an IIPP that is in accordance with Senate Bill 198 and the district’s recently passed board polices, and that addresses the following: • Employer information • Responsible persons Facilities Management 393 • Communication • Hazard evaluation & control • Injury investigation • Training • Labor management safety committee • Record keeping 2. Emphasize to all staff the importance of the IIPP document. Site administrators should know the content, location, purpose and use of the IIPP document. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 394 Facilities Management 1.15 School Safety Legal Standard The LEA maintains updated Material Safety Data Sheets for all required products. (LC 6360- 6363; CCR Title 8, Section 5194) Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Bargaining agreement with California State Employees Association 3. Board Policy 3514.1 4. Employee training documents 5. Copies of Material Safety Data Sheets 6. Property and Liability Inspection Report by Keenan and Associates, February 2010 7. Hazardous Materials Survey Report by Keenan and Associates, March 2010 8. Board policies 4157, 4257 and 4357 9. Business response plan (for hazardous materials), November 2008 10. Site visits and observations Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district was maintaining copies of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) at high school science labs; most were located in custodial equipment areas. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has updated its MSDS and maintains copies in more locations. It has also updated board policies to recognize workplace hazards and training needs, disposed of many chemicals, commissioned an inspection and survey to identify safety issues, and raised employee awareness regarding hazardous materials. Findings 1. The district is maintaining copies of MSDS in science laboratories, custodial and maintenance equipment areas, and in the MOT department office. 2. MSDS have been updated to include new materials used by the district. Facilities Management 395 3. The procedure for filing and maintaining MSDS forms has not been formalized and is not monitored. 4. The district commissioned a Property and Liability Inspection and a Hazardous Materials Survey to further identify safety issues. 5. The district conducted a disposal of many chemicals that were out of date or no longer in use. 6. Hazardous chemicals storage cabinets have been cleaned and organized. 7. Board policy has been updated to recognize workplace hazards and the need for training. However, board policies and administrative regulations do not detail processes and procedures for maintaining hazardous materials including storage requirements and maintenance of MSDS. 8. Employee awareness of safety concerns regarding handling of hazardous materials is evident. 9. Hazardous materials are stored in secured locations. 10. The district’s inventory of Hazardous Materials includes materials that are no longer in use and will not be needed in the foreseeable future. These are such an extreme hazard concern that special removal must be arranged. 11. The district lacks procedures to ensure a regular inventory of hazardous materials and disposal of unnecessary hazardous materials. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Remove hazardous materials that are an extreme hazard concern. 2. Establish, document, and train employees regarding detailed procedures for handling unknown materials and/or known hazardous materials. 3. Establish procedures to ensure that all staff receive in-service training regarding hazardous substances in their work area at the time of their assignment, and training regarding any new substances introduced to their work area. 4. Maintain MSDS and ensure that they are available and organized for quick reference in areas where hazardous materials are present. 5. Update board policies and administrative regulations relating to hazardous materials. Updates should address acceptable hazardous materials, storage requirements, maintenance of MSDS, and disposal procedures. 396 Facilities Management 6. Establish a system to regularly update and monitor hazardous materials storage areas to ensure that they contain current MSDS for reference and that outdated or unused chemicals are disposed of. 7. Ensure that vendors routinely provide MSDS as required by law for any new materials or chemicals purchased. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 397 1.16 School Safety Professional Standard The LEA has a documented process for issuing and retrieving master and sub-master keys. All administrators follow a standard organization wide process for issuing keys to and retrieving keys from employees. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Interviews with school staff 3. Interviews with MOTF department staff 4. Site visits and observations 5. Board policies and administrative regulations 6. Key authorization form E3515, Key issuance procedure Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Board policies were being followed when issuing and receiving keys, but the district had no complete inventory of existing keys and lacked procedures for issuing, tracking and retrieving keys. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district replaced and rekeyed locks at both high schools and implemented a more stringent key control system and procedures. However, adherence to the newly implemented key control policy may be jeopardized by a lack of oversight. Findings 1. The district has replaced and re-keyed locks at both high schools and has implemented a key control system and procedures with more stringent controls. 2. The board approved Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3515 on September 8, 2010. . 3. The key administration process was conducted by a temporary nonmanagement employee during the past year.. However, the district has now hired a permanent classified nonmanagement MOTF technician and given this individual the responsibility of preparing and distributing keys. 398 Facilities Management 4. Adherence to the newly implemented key control policy could be jeopardized by a lack of sustainable management oversight and authority. 5. Previously, the MOTF director had authority to issue keys for all employees. The district purchased a new key system and trained the new MOTF technician’s to prepare and distribute keys, which this employee does in a timely manner. The district’s key approval and delivery process was not refined. Site administrators and maintenance staff indicated that when they requested keys controlled by the district the keys were sometimes readily available and other times it took a long time or there was no response. A continued lack of consistent procedures and access to keys may create the risk that other school administrators will circumvent district key control procedures. However, this situation has improved since the hire of a new MOTF technician. Recommendations for Recovery The district should 1. Ensure that key administration oversight authority is assigned to a district-level position. This individual must have the authority to enforce district policy and procedures. This individual should also have the ability to question and restrict key issuances. 2. Consider assigning the duties of key control, inventory, and rekeying to a permanent and responsible employee who is knowledgeable regarding district process and procedures. This would facilitate key issuance and help discourage others from circumventing the process. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 399 1.18 School Safety Professional Standard Outside lighting is properly placed and is monitored periodically to ensure that it functions and is adequate to ensure safety during evening activities for students, staff and the public. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Site visits and observations before, during and after school, including after dark 3. Interviews with administrative staff 4. Board policies and administrative regulations 5. Exterior lighting 6. Interviews with MOTF department staff 7. Facility Inspection Tool (FIT), August/September 2010 8. Work order records Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Both high schools had deficiencies in exterior lighting, and the district had no board policies or administrative regulations regarding this standard. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 King City High School has insufficient lighting in the campus interior and walkways. Greenfield High School has sufficient outside lighting in the campus building areas but the field parking lot lights are not working. No corrective action to improve outside lighting is indicated in district’s facility plans or budgets, and there is no board policy regarding this standard. Findings 1. Board policies relating to the importance of campus security, employee safety, and a safe work environment have been updated. 2. The district has no board policy or administrative regulations regarding the sufficiency of exterior lighting. 3. Outside building-mounted lighting in the campus building areas at Greenfield High School is sufficient. The Greenfield High School parking lot has sufficient light 400 Facilities Management structures; however, the lights are not maintained in working order and the district has not repaired or improved this lighting. 4. King City High School has insufficient outside lighting structures in the campus interior and walkways throughout the site. Several lights are not working. 5. Deficient exterior lighting was not listed as a concern on the district’s August/ September 2010 Facility Inspection Tool (FIT) or on work order records. 6. The district’s facility plans and budgets include no actions to repair or improve outside lighting. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Repair lights in areas that are used on both high school campuses. 2. Evaluate areas with insufficient lighting structures and determine whether to install lighting or secure the area from use after dark. 3. Develop a routine lighting maintenance and evaluation plan. This plan should be coordinated with facilities use calendars to ensure that the appropriate areas are maintained prior to use. 4. Include exterior lighting in its facilities plan. This should include lighting repair, deferred maintenance, modernization and new construction planning. 5. Adopt a board policy and administrative regulations that will guide the planning for exterior lighting. Ideally, this policy should include security, safety, energy efficiency, environmental and esthetic considerations. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 401 1.20 School Safety Professional Standard The LEA maintains a comprehensive employee safety program. Employees are made aware of the LEA’s safety program, and the LEA provides in-service training to employees on the program’s requirements. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Site visits and observations 3. Interviews with administrative staff 4. Board policies 3514 and 4157 5. Article XIV of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with classified staff 6. Interviews with MOTF department staff 7. First aid training documents 8. Safety training records 9. Business response plan, November 2008 10. New employee orientation agenda, August 2010 11. Property and liability inspection report by Keenan and Associates, February 2010 12. Board policy and administrative regulations 4157, 4257 and 4357 13. Safety training records for Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and injury and illness prevention plan (IIPP) Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 FCMAT found no evidence that the district had a comprehensive employee safety program or policies, though the bargaining agreement with classified staff delineated required training. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 There is no indication that the district has developed a comprehensive employee safety program, and training remains inconsistent and incomplete. However, there are some indicators of improved safety awareness. The district lacks a districtwide training program for maintenance, operations and transportation staff, and is out of compliance in a number of areas related to health and safety. Sufficiently training employees in the responsibilities of their position helps ensure they will be successful. Findings 1. The district does not have a comprehensive employee safety program. 2. FCMAT was not provided with any records, files or plan that outline or support a comprehensive employee safety program. 3. There are indicators of improved safety awareness, including the following: • The district adopted board policies and administrative regulations 4157, 4257, and 4357 in March 2010, expressing a commitment to maximizing employee safety and recognizing a belief that safety is every employee’s responsibility. The regulations provide for an Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) and a safety and health committee. • The collective bargaining agreement with classified employees delineates required training for classified staff. Contract amendments made in March 2010 and signed by classified employee representatives indicate an awareness of contractually agreed safety training. • New employee orientation included items regarding bloodborne pathogens and safety issues. • Employees interviewed were aware that the district has an emergency preparedness plan. • Training rosters dated June 2010 indentify training for heat injury prevention and back safety. 4. Although there is some improvement in emergency preparedness training as discussed under Standard 1.1, district records indicate that comprehensive employee safety training is inconsistent and incomplete. 5. Employees have little knowledge of an employee safety program. 6. The district has not provided OSHA and IIPP safety trainings Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Clearly designate administrative responsibilities for developing and implementing a district safety program to bring all district procedures, departments, and sites into compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. 2. Develop a comprehensive safety plan that includes the district’s process to communicate the plan to staff and provide in- service training to employees. Facilities Management 403 Training should include the following topics as applicable to each employee’s position: • Hazard Communication Plan • Asbestos • Lead • Antimicrobials • Blood-borne pathogens • Materials Safety Data Sheets • Illness and Injury Prevention Program • Fire extinguisher • Integrated pest management • Forklift training/scissor-lift training (if applicable) • Respiratory protection • Hand and power tool safety • Ladder safety • Back safety • Electrical safety • Driver safety 3. Continue to work with the Monterey County Schools Workers’ Compensation JPA to obtain OSHA and IIPP safety training. 4. Document all training provided and employee attendance. 5. Develop and support the IIPP and district safety and health committee. 6. Maintain and keep current all safety-related files and records, including records of safety training provided to staff. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: 404 Facilities Management 2.2 Facility Planning Legal Standard The LEA seeks and obtains waivers from the State Allocation Board for continued use of any nonconforming facilities. (EC 17284-17284.5) Sources and Documentation 1. Site inspection 2. Interview with classified management 3. Board policies 4. Interview with state administrator 5. Interview with temporary MOTF department clerk Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had several nonconforming buildings at all sites but was unable to produce and had not pursued waivers. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has not determined which buildings are nonconforming, nor has it determined whether or not it has obtained waivers. The district has not inventoried its sites as recommended in the previous review. Findings 1. The district has not inventoried sites or records to determine which buildings are nonconforming and need waivers, and has not obtained waivers from the State Allocation Board for nonconforming buildings 2. The district abandoned the building that previously housed its administrative offices because it did not meet code and was past usable condition. The district constructed a new building adjacent to the old district office building during the summer of 2010. The district is developing plans to remove the old building, which has been secured. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Inventory all buildings at each site and determine each building’s conformance. The district should consult an inspector qualified by the Division of the State Architect (DSA) or a licensed architect to assist with this task. Facilities Management 405 2. Organize all records to determine if it has waivers for nonconforming buildings. 3. Apply for waivers from the State Allocation Board for all buildings identified as nonconforming if it plans on continuing use of the buildings. 4. Develop a plan to remove or demolish the old district administration building. The board must identify the building as surplus before it can be destroyed or removed. The district should arrange for sale or disposal of the building in accordance with the provisions of Education Code sections 17463.7 and 17464. 5. Develop a plan to replace any nonconforming buildings for which the district has not been granted necessary waivers. Standard Not Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: 406 Facilities Management 2.3 Facility Planning Legal Standard The LEA has established and uses a selection process to choose licensed architectural/ engineering services. (GC 4525-4526) Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Interview with state administrator Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The board policy regarding selecting licensed architectural/engineering services was outdated, and the district lacked written policies or procedures for this standard. The district did not use a selection process for its most recent modernization project; it used the same architect as it had for the first phase of the project. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has not taken any steps toward establishing and using a selection process for the use of licensed architectural or engineering services, and has not updated its board policy. Findings 1. Board policy has not been updated. 2. The district has not taken any steps toward establishing and using a selection process for the use of licensed architectural or engineering services. 3. The district used the lease-leaseback process for its most recent construction project, which included architectural or engineering services as part of the construction contract. 4. The district is continuing to use its previous architect for planned modernization projects to be carried out in the near future. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Update its board policy and procedures for selecting architects, engineers and other building consultants to include current education code and state facilities program requirements. Facilities Management 407 2. Use the updated board policy and procedures to develop a request for proposals (RFP) for any future construction projects. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: 408 Facilities Management 2.6 Facility Planning Professional Standard The LEA has a long-range school facilities master plan that has been updated in the last two years and includes an annual capital planning budget. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Interview with state administrator Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district did not have a long-range school facilities master plan or capital planning budget. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has hired TSS Consultants to develop a school facilities master plan. The district expects the plan to be completed before the end of fiscal year 2010-11. Findings 1. The district has hired TSS Consultants, a school facilities consulting firm, to develop a comprehensive school facilities master plan. 2. The plan will include a capital planning budget and is expected to be complete before the end of fiscal year 2010-11. 3. Senate Bill (SB) 130 restricts the district’s eligibility for state financial hardship facility funding. Specifically, the bill states that it would “prohibit the district from being eligible for financial hardship assistance under the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998.” In addition, SB 130 Chapter 20 (b) states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, from June 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014, inclusive that King City Joint Union High School District is not eligible for financial hardship assistance pursuant to Article 8.” It is unclear whether the prohibition from eligibility is for a term of five years or the entire term of the state loan. 4. The district’s facilities need significant repairs, and some identified projects may be considered health and safety hazards. Compounded with the district’s current fiscal status, a prohibition of eligibility for financial hardship funding during the period of the state loan will severely limit the district’s ability to address current and future health and safety concerns. Facilities Management 409 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to work with its consulting firm to develop a long-range facilities master plan that projects enrollment trends, housing development patterns and education programs desired by the community. Development of a career technical education program should be considered when creating this plan. 2. Have the school facilities consulting firm complete the documentation to establish new construction and modernization funding eligibility with the Office of Public School Construction. 3. Create capital outlay and development budgets based on the long-range facilities master plan. The long-term facilities funding plan should estimate the costs of modernizing existing facilities and constructing new facilities as well as identify a funding source to accomplish both needs. Continue to work with a school facilities consulting firm to develop the facilities master plan, including developing the funding mechanisms. 4. As part of its five-year plan, perform needs assessments on roofing and paving systems. 5. Work with the appropriate authorities to seek a revision to SB130 to reduce or eliminate the prohibition from eligibility for state financial hardship facility funding. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 410 Facilities Management 2.8 Facility Planning Professional Standard The LEA has a facility planning committee. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Interview with state administrator 3. District website Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district did not have a facilities planning committee. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has not developed or implemented a facilities planning committee. Findings 1. The district has made no progress in the development or implementation of a facilities planning committee. Because enrollment is not increasing, this may not be an immediate planning concern; however, modernization projects and existing facilities repair should be addressed by an effective facilities planning committee. This provides an opportunity to engage the community and staff in district operations. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop a facilities planning committee based on recommendations in the California Department of Education’s Facilities Planning and Construction Guide. The committee should include board members, the superintendent (or state administrator), the CBO, site administrators, the director of maintenance, teachers and community members. 2. Identify areas for modernization at both high schools to ensure equity in facilities. 3. Meet and confer with the committee regularly to assist with the development of the long-range facilities master plan, identify needed facility repairs, prioritize projects and monitor progress. Facilities Management 411 Standard Not Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: 412 Facilities Management 3.1 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Legal Standard The LEA maintains a plan for maintaining and modernizing its facilities. (EC 17366) Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Five-year deferred maintenance plan 3. Board Policy 7000 4. District documents 5. Interview with state administrator Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had a five-year deferred maintenance plan but no facilities master plan and was reactive rather than proactive in providing needed improvements. Significant health and safety needs were not met, and the district office building presented a health and safety liability. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has not updated its five-year deferred maintenance plan since 2004-05, but has hired a consulting firm, which is completing a facilities master plan. It has constructed a new administrative building and obtained approval from the Office of Public School Construction to proceed with a modernization project. Findings 1. The district has not updated its five-year deferred maintenance plan since fiscal year 2004-05. This is not required by law until fiscal year 2012-13 because of categorical spending flexibility provided by Senate Bill X3 4; however, it remains a recommended practice. 2. The district has obtained approval from the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) to proceed with the use of prior modernization project savings to complete a modernization project approved by the Division of the State Architect (DSA). The project should be completed in fiscal year 2010-11 and includes needed improvements to King City High School, such as a new roof for the gymnasium, and improvements to the girls’ bathroom and locker room facility. 3. The district has completed construction of a new building for its district office. The previous building was in extremely poor condition and had documented mold and health and safety issues. Facilities Management 413 4. The district has not developed a comprehensive project list for modernization or improvement to its facilities; however, it has contracted with an outside agency to develop a facilities master plan. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Complete the modernization projects at King City High School when state funding is secured. Review plans carefully with the project architect to ensure that the scope of the project will be completed within the planned budget. Have the architect prepare an updated cost estimate before beginning the project, and make adjustments to the scope if necessary. Have an independent construction consultant or contractor review the plans for potential cost savings. 2. Identify and develop a comprehensive list of modernization and improvement projects for each school site. This should occur following the development of a facilities committee as outlined in Standard 2.8. After developing this list, district administrators should determine the cost of each of the projects and prioritize them for completion as funding becomes available. 3. Develop a five-year deferred maintenance plan that identifies items in need of repair such as roofing, paving, lighting, and others. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 414 Facilities Management 3.3 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Legal Standard All relocatable buildings in use meet statutory requirements. (EC 17292) Sources and Documentation 1. Site inspection 2. Interview with classified management 3. Board policy 4. District records 5. Interview with state administrator 6. Interviews with principals Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had relocatable buildings at all sites that did not meet statutory requirements. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district still has relocatable buildings at each site that appear to have been built without an architect or state approval. The district has not located any records of documents indicating that these structures meet statutory requirements. Findings 1. The district still has relocatable buildings at each site that appear to have been constructed by circumventing the regular state approval process or consultation with an architect. No architectural plans or documents exist to provide evidence of inspection and approval by DSA. 2. The district has not located any records or documents that indicate that the buildings and structures at each school site meet the requirements of the Division of the State Architect (DSA) and the Field Act. 3. A storage facility at the west end of the football stadium at Greenfield High School was placed there by an outside organization. 4. Some structures at King City High School, such as the tunnel from the campus into the stadium field, were also built by outside booster groups and may not have proper state and local authorization and approval. The district has not located any records to indicate that the buildings were constructed appropriately and meet statutory requirements. Facilities Management 415 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Inventory all buildings at each site and determine each building’s compliance status. A DSA-qualified inspector or a licensed architect should be consulted for this purpose. 2. Organize its records to determine if it has documentation to substantiate that its relocatable buildings meet statutory requirements. 3. If records for relocatable structures and improvements are not found, seek clarification regarding the history of the structures and discontinue using them until it can determine if they can suitability meet statutory requirements. 4. Retain an architectural/engineering firm to help prepare the plans and documents needed to pursue and obtain DSA approval for any non-approved facilities that the district plans to continue occupying. 5. Develop a plan to replace any relocatable buildings that do not meet statutory requirements. 6. Prepare 1-A diagrams that indicate building history, square footage and Division of the State Architect (DSA) numbers. Standard Not Implemented February 2020 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: 416 Facilities Management 3.9 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Professional Standard The LEA manages and annually reviews its five-year deferred maintenance plan and verifies that expenditures made during the year are included in the plan. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Five-year deferred maintenance plan 3. Interview with state administrator 4. Interview with temporary MOTF department clerk 5. MOTF department records Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had not updated its five-year deferred maintenance plan prior to the 2009-10 school year but verified that expenditures were being made according to the plan. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district did not update its five-year deferred maintenance plan; however, expenditures were made from the deferred maintenance fund in the past year in accord with the existing plan. Findings 1. The district did not update its five-year deferred maintenance plan during the 2009-10 school year. 2. The district made expenditures from its deferred maintenance fund during fiscal year 2009-10 and has verified that the expenditures were made according to the most recently adopted deferred maintenance plan. 3. Under current legislation, deferred maintenance funds are no longer deposited into a restricted resource code for accounting purposes. Thus if the district chooses to provide funding to the deferred maintenance fund, all revenue to be transferred into the deferred maintenance fund must be transferred from resource code 0000. Facilities Management 417 Recommendation for Recovery The district should: 1. Update its five-year deferred maintenance plan during the current year to include current maintenance needs. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 5 March 2011 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: 418 Facilities Management 3.10 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Professional Standard The LEA’s staff is knowledgeable about procedures in the Office of Public School Construction and the Division of the State Architect. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Interview with state administrator 3. Job description for assistant superintendent 4. Interview with temporary MOTF department clerk Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district’s chief business official at the time of fieldwork was knowledgeable about Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) and Division of the State Architect (DSA) procedures but resigned at the end of 2009. No other staff were knowledgeable in this area. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district does not have staff with adequate knowledge of OPSC and DSA procedures and is not positioned to fill an administrative position with these responsibilities. However, the district has contracted for a study to identify the need for additional maintenance and facilities support staff. Findings 1. The district does not have staff with adequate knowledge of OPSC and DSA procedures, and it is not in a financial position to be able to fill an administrative staff position with an individual capable of carrying out these responsibilities 2. The state administrator has sought to provide the director of maintenance, operations, transportation and facilities with training opportunities during the past year but the director has declined to participate in some of the offerings, though the director did attend training at the Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH) Conference in April 2010. 3. The district plans to hire outside consultants to provide assistance with any significant construction projects until it has adequate staff in place. 4. The district has contracted for an organizational study to identify the need for additional maintenance and facilities department support staff. Facilities Management 419 Recommendation for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to provide training opportunities to the director of maintenance, operations, transportation and facilities, and to any new business administrator who may be hired and who has responsibilities in the area of facilities. Standard Partially Implemented February 2020 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 420 Facilities Management 4.1 Construction of Projects Professional Standard The LEA maintains a staffing structure that is adequate to ensure the effective management of its construction projects. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Interview with state administrator 3. Interview with temporary MOTF department clerk Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had no construction projects and, because of its small size, did not maintain a facilities construction and modernization staff. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district’s facilities staffing has not changed; it still lacks staff with adequate knowledge to ensure effective management of its construction projects, though it has hired a temporary clerk to assist with clerical duties and advertised a permanent position to continue this support. Findings 1. With the exception of the MOTF technician position, the district’s facilities staffing has not changed. 2. The district does not have staff with adequate knowledge to ensure the effective management of its construction projects. Adequate training of staff could take several years. However, because the district is small, it may be more effective to hire consultants as needed to manage construction projects. When filling the CBO position, it will be beneficial for the district to seek a candidate with experience and knowledge of OPSC and DSA procedures. 3. The district is conducting an organizational study and has been using a temporary hourly clerk to assist with clerical work in the maintenance, operations transportation and facilities (MOTF) department. This has helped organize the department’s records. 4. The district has posted a permanent MOTF technician position to continue to support the department’s clerical duties. 5. A lack of comprehensive knowledge and expertise remains within the district’s administration with regard to managing large scale construction projects. Because the district has succeeded in obtaining approval to use project savings to complete the Facilities Management 421 modernization of King City High School, it will need to identify not only who will manage the project, but also the position responsible for completing all necessary paperwork and the position that will act as the primary liaison with the general contractor or construction manager. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Identify the primary individual responsible for all project-related decisions before beginning any new construction or modernization project. The district should also identify the position that will be responsible for submitting reports to the Office of Public School Construction, the position that will maintain all project records, and the position that will monitor the budget and all project costs. These individuals will need to meet weekly to review the project’s progress and status. 2. If the district is unable to implement recommendation #1, consider contracting for outside professional project management before beginning any comprehensive construction project. 3. Identify an administrator or administrators who will liaison with the project or construction management firm. 4. Fill the permanent clerical staff position in the MOTF department. 5. Consider additional temporary staffing in the administrative services department if it undertakes a comprehensive construction or modernization project. 6. As funding permits, review and implement recommendations provided in the November 2010 MOTF study, including organizational and structural changes and additions to staffing. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: 422 Facilities Management 4.2 Construction of Projects Professional Standard The LEA maintains appropriate project records and drawings. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Review of district records 3. Interview with temporary MOTF department clerk Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district’s system for maintaining project records and drawings was inconsistent and disorganized. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has begun to effectively organize its construction and maintenance records with the help of a temporary clerical staff position. Findings 1. The district hired a temporary MOTF department clerk during the past year and has given this employee the responsibility of maintaining records. As a result, the construction and maintenance records appear to be more organized and easier to locate. 2. The district could not locate some of the records requested by FCMAT team, including 1A drawings. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue efforts to adequately maintain its newly organized records system and ensure that it is designed for continued effectiveness through any future staff changes. 2. Establish a records management system that ensures that records are maintained, specifies records retention requirements and provides a system of organization. 3. Clearly identify a permanent employee who will be responsible for maintaining records, and provide the training necessary for this task. 4. Locate and maintain 1A drawings. Facilities Management 423 5. Develop and implement a system for tracking plan check-outs and returns to ensure accountability and maintain the record system. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 424 Facilities Management 6.4 Facilities Maintenance and Operations Professional Standard To safeguard items from loss, the LEA keeps adequate maintenance records and reports, including a complete inventory of supplies, materials, tools and equipment. All employees who are required to perform custodial, maintenance or grounds work on LEA sites are provided with adequate supplies, equipment and training to perform maintenance tasks in a timely and professional manner. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Board policies 3. Interviews with staff 4. Site inspections 5. Purchasing procedures 6. ProTeam cleaning procedures Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Recordkeeping for the items indicated in this standard was very poor and the district could not provide records requested by FCMAT. District maintenance employees lacked adequate equipment, though site custodial staff had sufficient supplies and equipment. Cleanliness of facilities was inconsistent, primarily due to understaffing. The district was also understaffed in maintenance and groundskeeping. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district is attempting to keep records and make adequate supplies available by monitoring purchasing and work orders. A team cleaning approach was implemented and includes a checklist for restrooms and training regarding backpack vacuuming. Findings 1. Interviews and inspection of the MOTF office indicate that the district is attempting to keep records and make adequate supplies available by monitoring purchasing and work orders. 2. The district has implemented a team cleaning approach that includes a team cleaning checklist for restrooms and training regarding backpack vacuuming. Facilities Management 425 3. Site custodial and maintenance personnel stated that they had sufficient supplies to perform the duties expected of them. However, equipment was not sufficient and was not well maintained, properly stored, or inventoried. 4. At the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork, the district was researching the need for additional staff and had contracted for a study to review the MOTF department’s organizational structure and staffing needs. 5. The district is in the process of approving a MOTF technician position. Duties and responsibilities of this position include maintaining MOTF files, district inventory tracking, maintaining the work order system, and initiating corrective actions to improve customer relations. 6. In interviews, employees indicated that proper coordination of duties and oversight of staff was the most effective means of improving maintenance and custodial services. 7. Most of the positions in the MOTF department have split job descriptions such as utility/bus driver, utility/bus driver/campus supervisor, maintenance/bus driver, school safety coordinator/utility/bus driver, lead custodian/bus driver, custodial technician, maintenance/bus driver, mechanic/bus driver. Splitting job assignments creates inefficiencies, and split assignment positions are more difficult to monitor and hold accountable, especially when each assignment reports to a different manager. 8. Tool chests in the Greenfield High School shop did not have hand tools, which indicates that theft may have occurred. The principal indicated that he had no knowledge of break-ins or theft from the building, and FCMAT was unable to determine the extent of the missing items because no inventory records were available. 9. Some tools were missing from the King City High School industrial arts shop, and a complete inventory was not available. 10. The King City Elementary School District and the King City Joint Union High School District share a bus barn and a warehouse. This relationship has been effective for years, but because of the recent division of operations it would be prudent to assess the practice of sharing equipment (lifts and tools) and warehouse space. The districts will need to determine which equipment and materials were purchased by each district and tag them appropriately. In addition, the district should seek to develop a written agreement regarding sharing the warehouse and bus barn facility. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Complete an inventory of supplies, equipment, and tools and the location where they are to be stored. Develop and implement an inventory control system to track supplies and equipment. 426 Facilities Management 2. Develop detailed schedules, plans and procedures for custodial, grounds and maintenance staff to follow, and share these schedules with both site and district administrators to help improve oversight and accountability. 3. Evaluate staffing needs and funding availability, and hire additional staff accordingly. Consider optimal staffing configurations and reduce split assignments whenever practicable. 4. Observe and conduct performance evaluations for each maintenance, custodial and grounds employee. Provide training and corrective actions as needed. 5. Promote and use the work order system as the preferred method of communicating and scheduling non-routine maintenance, custodial, and grounds work needs. Train staff as necessary. 6. Develop cleaning standards and provide training regarding proper procedures and the use of the equipment, tools and materials staff need to perform cleaning duties safely, efficiently and effectively. 7. Develop groundskeeping standards and provide training regarding proper procedures and the use of the equipment, tools and materials staff need to perform groundskeeping duties safely, efficiently and effectively. 8. Develop district maintenance standards and provide training regarding proper procedures and the use of the equipment, tools and materials staff need to perform maintenance duties safely, efficiently and effectively. 9. Develop a MOTF policies and procedures manual that includes but is not limited to the following topics: • Use of District Vehicles • Use of District Tools and Equipment • Safety Training • Key Control • New Employee Orientation • Employee Conduct • Employee Discipline • Employee Evaluation • Dress Code/Uniforms Facilities Management 427 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 428 Facilities Management 6.5 Facilities Maintenance and Operations Professional Standard Procedures are in place for evaluating the quality of the work performed by maintenance and operations staff, and evaluations are completed regularly. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Interview with human resources department staff 3. Personnel files 4. Collective bargaining agreement 5. Interviews with staff 6. Classified employee evaluation rosters 7. Sample classified employee evaluations 8. Job descriptions 9. Organizational chart 10. Board policies Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had no evidence of annual employee evaluations, and the MOT director had not been trained or given the resources to evaluate employees regularly. The classified bargaining agreement stated that employees shall be evaluated at least annually. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Board Policy 4218, adopted in October 2009, supports accountability for classified personnel. The district has evaluation rosters for classified staff that indicate all evaluations of maintenance and operations staff are current. Findings 1. Board Policy 4218, adopted in October 2009, supports accountability for classified personnel. 2. Classified staff evaluation rosters provided by district personnel include the last evaluation completed for maintenance and operations staff and the due date of the Facilities Management 429 next annual evaluation. According to this document, all evaluations were current for maintenance and operations staff. 3. Interviews and professional development documents indicate that the director of MOTF has not received training regarding evaluating employees or the disciplinary process. 4. In interviews, MOTF and site administrators expressed confusion regarding the department’s organizational structure, responsibilities for employee oversight, and evaluation authority. 5. The district recently developed a new evaluation form and process for classified employees and, at the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork, administrators had received orientation regarding the new process. However,the director of MOTF was on leave during the orientation and had not been trained. 6. In interviews, staff and administrators agreed that there is a lack of employee accountability and oversight, primarily because of a lack of procedures, knowledge of responsibilities, and organization. 7. The district does not have performance standards for the MOTF department and its staff. Without standards, it is difficult for supervisors to monitor employees and difficult for employees to know if they are meeting expectations. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop an organizational chart for the MOTF department to communicate clear lines of authority and reporting. 2. Provide training regarding the new classified staff evaluations to all supervisors who will evaluate classified employees. 3. Develop an evaluation schedule that clearly identifies who will be evaluated, who will conduct the evaluation, and the date by which the evaluation is to be completed. 4. Provide training to ensure that all managers and evaluators are conversant with legal issues and collective bargaining agreement provisions related to evaluations, and preferred methods of oversight and evaluation. 5. Develop a system to regularly review and update job descriptions to ensure that they meet the district’s needs and accurately indicate the duties to be performed. 6. See Standard 6.4, Recommendation 7. 7. See Standard 6.4, Recommendation 8. 8. See Standard 6.4, Recommendation 9. 430 Facilities Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 431 6.6 Facilities Maintenance and Operations Professional Standard The LEA has identified major areas of custodial and maintenance responsibility and specific jobs to be performed. Written job descriptions for custodial and maintenance positions delineate the major areas of responsibility for each position. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Interviews with administrative staff 3. Interviews with MOTF department staff 4. Site visits and observations 5. Job descriptions 6. Organizational chart Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Maintenance staff job descriptions were outdated, and all maintenance staff members but one were working in split bus driver/maintenance worker positions. There was no organizational chart for the MOT department. The district provided some training but had no adopted cleaning standards for MOT employees. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 Job descriptions for MOTF staff remain outdated, and most MOTF staff continue to work under split job descriptions and duties. No organizational chart was provided for the MOTF department, and the district lacks standards for MOTF department and staff performance. FCMAT found both comprehensive high school sites generally clean in the interior areas; however, both sites received a rating of “Fair” on the most recent Facilities Inspection Tool (FIT) reports. FCMAT found disorganization, disarray and disrepair in a number of areas on the sites, evidencing a lack of staff accountability. Findings 1. FCMAT visited both of the district’s comprehensive high school sites and found them generally clean in the interior campus areas. However, both school sites received a rating of “Fair” on their Williams FIT reports, indicating that more than 10% of the areas evaluated were in poor condition and were in need of repairs and/or additional maintenance. 432 Facilities Management 2. FCMAT found evidence of a lack of staff accountability in many areas. Maintenance equipment was left in disarray and unmaintained. The maintenance work area was too cluttered and disorganized to locate equipment or find a surface to work on small equipment repair. Desks and chairs were found on the ball fields; furnishings and equipment were left out and uncovered in maintenance yards; and student benches and tables were in disrepair. 3. No organizational chart was provided for the MOTF department. This chart should identify each MOTF staff member and include job titles, the position to which each position reports, lines of responsibility, and chain of authority. 4. Job descriptions for MOTF staff are out of date and need to be reviewed and revised. Following is a list of the department’s job descriptions and the date last revised. Job Title Date Shipping and receiving clerk July 1997 Transportation clerk Feb 2002 Custodial technician Jan 1994 Utility/Bus driver Jan 1994 Mechanic assistant Jan 1981 Lead Custodian Not dated Maintenance worker/Bus driver July 1995 Grounds Keeper Jan 1994 Head Mechanic May 1980 Bus Driver Jan 1994 5. Most MOTF staff have split job titles and descriptions. Transitioning from one job to another is unproductive because time is lost storing tools and equipment and traveling from one job location to another, and because it requires staff members to maintain a broader and less specialized skill set. In addition, it is difficult to oversee such positions because transition times are often adjusted due to specific work needs, and it is complicated to find substitute staff when employees are absent. 6. The district does not have performance standards for the MOTF department or staff. Without standards, it is difficult for a supervisor to monitor work and for an employee to know if a completed task meets expectations. Facilities Management 433 7. As noted on the October 2010 Williams Inspection by the Monterey County Office of Education, both campuses have an overgrowth of weeds and abatement issues. Multiple health and safety concerns were noted. See findings under standard 1.8. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop and communicate an organizational chart with clear lines of authority and reporting. 2. Maintain and update employee schedules to provide current and accurate information regarding job reporting times and transition times. Communicate this schedule to all appropriate administrators. 3. Review, evaluate and update job descriptions to ensure that they accurately reflect the district’s needs and the duties to be performed. 4. Develop a system to regularly review and update job descriptions as needed to meet the district’s needs and reflect the duties to be performed. Job descriptions should include newly developed standards for cleanliness and organization of work stations, sites, and vehicles. 5. Train grounds staff in integrated pest management and weed abatement. Establish a program to routinely address weeds and pests. 6. See Standard 6.4, Recommendation 7. 7. See Standard 6.4, Recommendation 8. 8. See Standard 6.4, Recommendation 9. 9. Consider transitioning to a single job title staffing model to improve staff time on task, allow staff to develop specialized skill sets, and increase accountability. 10. Clean and organize work areas and develop standards of cleanliness and organization for work stations. Identify the positions responsible for maintaining the condition of work sites and stations. Include organization and cleanliness of work sites and stations (including district vehicles) in the evaluation criteria. 434 Facilities Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 435 6.7 Facilities Maintenance and Operations Professional Standard The LEA has an effective written preventive maintenance plan that is scheduled and followed by the maintenance staff and that includes verification of work completed. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Site visits and observations 3. Interviews with administrative staff 4. Interviews with MOTF department staff 5. Five-year deferred maintenance plan 6. Work order system records. 7. Williams Facility Inspection Tool (FIT) reports 8. District budget report for fiscal year 2009-10 Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 There was no evidence of a written preventive maintenance plan. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has not developed a preventive maintenance plan. The district received a rating of “Fair” on its recent FIT report, and FCMAT found the grounds in poor condition with indications of long-term neglect. Findings 1. FCMAT was not provided with and did not find any evidence of a written preventive maintenance plan. 2. Both comprehensive high school sites received a rating of “Fair” on recent Williams FIT reports, indicating that 10% to 20% of the areas evaluated were in poor repair and that some deficiencies were critical and/or widespread. 3. FCMAT found grounds in poor condition, with indications that the neglect has occurred over several months, including weeds growing over bleachers and batting cages, untrimmed trees and bushes, debris and weeds along fence lines, and refuse scattered throughout the sites. 436 Facilities Management 4. The district’s deferred maintenance plan is not current and not specific. 5. Interviews, work order system records, and budget reports evidence a reactive rather than a proactive approach to meeting maintenance needs. 6. Approximately 90% of the district’s routine repair and maintenance budget is spent on employee salaries and benefits. 7. The district does not have maintenance standards. 8. A scheduled preventive maintenance program includes regular inspection and maintenance efforts performed before facilities deteriorate or equipment breaks down as opposed to a remedial maintenance program in which efforts to restore facilities and equipment occur after a breakdown has occurred. Typically, inspections are conducted by the director of MOTF and the site administrator. The probable and desired outcomes of a scheduled preventive maintenance program include: • Increased life of school buildings and district equipment • Improved operating efficiency of equipment, with fewer breakdowns • Lower operating costs, resulting in less impact on the general fund • Improved safety • Improved customer satisfaction; less school disruption and downtime due to remedial maintenance activities 9. Scheduled preventive maintenance is an investment that ultimately results in reduced costs. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop maintenance standards for facilities and grounds. These standards should be reflected in board policy and should be more specific in a MOTF department document. 2. Communicate expectations regarding facilities and grounds maintenance to all MOTF staff. 3. Develop a comprehensive written preventive maintenance plan to meet the newly established standards for facilities and grounds. Essential elements of an effective preventive maintenance plan include the following: • A department policy regarding preventive maintenance that includes funding sources • A database of all facilities and equipment that require periodic preventive care and Facilities Management 437 maintenance • A chart showing scheduled preventive maintenance • A computer database of priorities for preventive maintenance items • A computer database that is organized by site and that identifies all equipment and buildings, including name, location, description, age, part number, date of purchase, I.D. number and similar information • A database that includes, in chronological order, the dates when service or replace- ment of equipment should occur • A financial plan, funding sources and budget codes necessary to track expenditures on school preventive maintenance • A calendar for projects that may need to be contracted out (this may be tied to the five-year deferred maintenance plan) • A program that will update the district’s facilities and equipment inventory each year and indicate the changes that have occurred during the current year as a result of maintenance performed, addition of new equipment or facilities, demolition of facili- ties, sale of equipment, or any other changes • A long-range (five-year) financial plan that indicates the possible impact of the sched- uled preventive maintenance program • A budget for the scheduled maintenance program that is separate from the routine maintenance program. 4. Clearly identify and schedule routine maintenance tasks in staff work routines. 5. Include in the electronic work order system a way to identify and schedule nonroutine preventive maintenance work. 6. Train grounds staff in integrated pest management and weed abatement, and establish a program to routinely address these items. 7. Schedule regular facility and grounds walks with various stakeholders to identify issues and concerns, communicate needs and work in progress, and set priorities. The director of MOTF should play a key role in these walks by scheduling time with district and site level administrators to identify priorities, then working with site staff to verify that work is completed to standard. 8. Develop a system to regularly review and update the preventive maintenance plan. 438 Facilities Management Standard Not Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 439 6.8 Facilities Maintenance and Operations Professional Standard The LEA has planned and implemented a maintenance program that includes an inventory of all facilities and equipment that will require maintenance and replacement. Data should include estimated life expectancies, replacement time lines and the financial resources needed to maintain the facilities. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Site visits and observations 3. Interviews with administrative staff 4. Interviews with MOTF department staff 5. Williams FIT reports 6. Board policies Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 There were no documents to indicate that the district was meeting this standard. The maintenance department did not have a vehicle replacement schedule. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has not developed an inventory of its equipment, vehicles, and facilities, and the district does not maintain a facilities inspection and maintenance program as required by Board Policy 3517. In January 2010, the district adopted Board policy 3270, which authorizes a process for declaring equipment and supplies obsolete and disposing of them. Findings 1. The district does not maintain an inventory of facilities and equipment that require maintenance and replacement. 2. The district does not maintain a facilities inspection and maintenance program as required by Board Policy 3517. 3. The bus inventory appears current; however, the district does not maintain a bus replacement schedule. 4. In January 2010, the district adopted Board policy 3270, which authorizes a process for declaring equipment and supplies obsolete and disposing of them. 440 Facilities Management 5. High school fleet inventory records indicate that the last vehicle purchase was in September 2007 and the last vehicle inventory update was in December 2008, at which time a motor pool car was designated as surplus. No records were provided to identify a maintenance program, life expectancies or replacement schedules. 6. School buses are dirty and dusty inside and out, except for two of buses that appeared to be cleaner. The engines and undercarriages of buses do not appear to be steam cleaned or pressure washed regularly, making it more difficult for mechanics to detect potential problems. 7. Small tools and some equipment previously used by the career technical program and located in the industrial arts buildings at King City and Greenfield have been removed to another location, but there is no inventory to accurately track their location. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop and implement an inventory management program that identifies all equipment, vehicles and buildings, and that includes the current age, value, location and replacement value of each. The district should work with its property insurance carrier to complete this. 2. Develop a facilities and equipment maintenance, repair, and replacement plan, and involve the district business office to ensure that the plan is incorporated into the district’s budget. 3. Update the maintenance, repair, and replacement plan annually to reflect new acquisitions and disposals; the status and condition of existing facilities and equipment; budget restraints; and priorities. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 441 7.2 Instructional Program Issues Legal Standard The LEA has developed and maintains a plan to ensure the equality and equity of all of its school site facilities. (EC 35293) Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Interview with state administrator 3. Site visits and observations 4. Board policies 5. Interviews with parents, students and staff 6. Capacity analysis by Total School Solutions 7. District technology plan Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had not developed a plan to ensure equality and equity of all its school site facilities. There were inequities in facilities and equipment, particularly between the two comprehensive high schools, and the system for selecting which improvements to make was somewhat arbitrary. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has not developed and maintained a plan to ensure the equality and equity of all its school site facilities, and inequities continue to exist. Findings 1. The district has not developed and maintained a plan to ensure the equality and equity of all its school site facilities. 2. The district’s two comprehensive high school facilities and grounds are different, with inequities and inequalities that will continue if the district does not address them. The King City High School campus is older, with permanent facilities, an elaborate theatre building, a football stadium, stick-built support facilities, a traditional gymnasium, and baseball diamonds with dugouts and announcer structures. Greenfield High School is newer but is modeled after a junior high school in size, layout, and appearance. Almost half of the Greenfield campus has relocatable buildings. 442 Facilities Management The multipurpose room serves as the cafeteria and stage for any performances, and the football stadium has an announcer’s facility built using a SeaTrain shipping container, and portable restrooms for guests. The Greenfield High School gymnasium is also the size of a junior high school’s, and its baseball diamonds have no permanent support structures such as dugouts, restrooms, announcer booths or snack bars. 3. All classrooms at King City High School are permanent structures. No relocatable classrooms are in use. 4. Greenfield High School has 20 permanent classrooms and 16 relocatable classrooms in use. 5. The district has no facility planning system to evaluate and address the inequality and inequity between campuses. 6. The two high schools receive equivalent and adequate technology support, but equity in the equipment provided is lacking. King City High School has 375 computers and Greenfield High School has 362 computers. However, 244 of Greenfield High School’s computers are more than four years old, whereas only 30 of King City High School’s computers are more than four years old. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop clear facilities standards to be implemented districtwide. These standards should include facilities required to accommodate the proposed student population, the delivery of instruction, and the foreseen uses of the facilities. 2. Develop a committee composed of a variety of stakeholders to identify facility needs, including inequalities and inequities between the two high school campuses. 3. Within the committee, implement a process to select and recommend facility improvements equitably based on the district’s priorities and the community’s needs. 4. Incorporate equity into short- and long-term facility plans. The plans should identify projects and funds to correct facility and grounds inequalities and inequities. 5. Strive for equity between sites when replacing aging computers in accord with the technology plan. Facilities Management 443 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: 444 Facilities Management 8.2 Community Use of Facilities Professional Standard The LEA has a plan to promote community involvement in schools. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Interview with state administrator 3. Interviews with school site administrators 4. Board policies Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had no plan to promote community involvement in schools. The facilities use form was available only in English, though members of the community use district facilities extensively. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district has no written plan to promote community involvement in schools, but has passed board policies that identify facilities and grounds as a community resource and encourage good relationships with other agencies and community members. Findings 1. The district has no written and identifiable plan to promote and communicate community involvement in schools. 2. In November 2009, the district passed Board Policy 1330, which identifies facilities and grounds as a community resource and supports Education Code Section 38133 to aid, encourage, and assist groups desiring to use school facilities for approved activities. 3. Board policies 1400 and 1700, adopted in March 2010, encourage good working relationships with other governmental agencies and private industries. 4. Board Policy 1240 encourages volunteer assistance from the community and states that the superintendent or designee shall develop a plan that includes strategies for reaching underrepresented groups of community members. 5. Use of the district’s theatre building is controlled in partnership with the Southern Monterey County Culture and Performing Arts (SoMoCo) drama group, which uses the district’s facilities regularly. Facilities Management 445 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Promote additional community use of its facilities by communicating the availability of facilities to the community and community groups. Use means of communication that are conducive to reaching the majority of the community. 2. Maintain school facilities and grounds in good repair to increase their desirability for use. 3. Maintain ease of access to facilities by using a simple facilities use and approval process, an updated calendaring of events, and reasonable fees for use. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 446 Facilities Management 9.1 Communication Professional Standard The LEA fully apprises students, staff and community of the condition of its facilities and its plans to remedy any substandard conditions. The LEA provides access to its facilities staff, standards and plans. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Interview with state administrator 3. District website 4. Interviews with local media 5. Interviews with MOTF department staff 6. Site visit and observations 7. Board policy 8. Williams FIT reports 9. Work order system Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The only communication the district had with students, staff and the community regarding the condition of facilities was the annual Williams Act report to the board. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district communicates the condition of its facilities primarily through the Williams Facilities Inspection Tool (FIT), which is conducted and reported annually to the school board. Students, staff, and the community are not informed of the conditions of the district’s facilities or its plans to remedy substandard conditions. Findings 1. The district communicates the condition of its facilities primarily through the Williams FIT, which is conducted and reported annually to the school board. 2. Students, staff, and community are not informed regarding the conditions of the district’s facilities or plans to remedy substandard conditions. Facilities Management 447 3. The work order system could serve as a means to communicate specific deficiencies and plans to address them; however, the system is not maintained and updated. 4. The district has not developed standards for facilities and grounds, is not fully aware of substandard conditions, and lacks plans to remedy such conditions. However the district is contracting with an outside provider to develop a facilities master plan. 5. The district does not have a communication tool in place to communicate the conditions of facilities and grounds or plans to remedy such conditions. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Establish standards for maintaining facilities and grounds. 2. Establish regular avenues of communication, through regular board agendas and reports that include the discussion of facilities standards, status, needs and plans. 3. Form a facilities and grounds planning committee that includes various district and community stakeholders to review needs, develop recommendations, and facilitate communication districtwide and to the community. 4. Maintain a work order system that provides all staff with the ability to communicate maintenance needs and receive feedback regarding an item’s status and the time line for repair. 5. Establish and use additional avenues of communication including district and staff meetings, district and school site bulletins, and district and school websites to regularly inform interested parties of facility issues and planned remedies. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: 448 Facilities Management 13.2 Maintenance and Operations Fiscal Controls Professional Standard The Maintenance and Operations departments follow standard LEA purchasing protocols. Open purchase orders may be used if controlled by limiting the employees authorized to make the purchase and the amount. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with classified management 2. Site visits and observations 3. Interviews with administrative staff 4. Purchase orders and invoices 5. Interviews with MOTF department staff Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The MOT department did not have standard protocols for procuring equipment and materials. The maintenance department regularly used open purchase orders, all of which were submitted and approved on the board’s consent agenda. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The department has not established standard protocols for procuring equipment and materials. The department does not maintain an inventory of stock materials, and there is also no inventory control of department tools or materials. The district’s maintenance workers spend much of their time obtaining parts and materials for their work projects, which is an inefficient use of employee work time. Findings 1. Maintenance staff and mechanics sometimes travel to Salinas to obtain parts that could be shipped the same day. 2. The MOT department has not established standard practices or procedures for procuring tools, equipment and materials. 3. The maintenance department regularly uses open purchase orders for parts and materials, in conjunction with work order requests or operational requirements. 4. All open purchase orders are submitted and approved on the consent agenda at regularly scheduled board meetings. Facilities Management 449 5. The district reviewed open purchase orders and either closed them, reduced the authorized amount, or limited the authorized staff on purchase orders. 6. All material and supplies that are designated for King City High School, the district office or the transportation facility are delivered to the warehouse at King City High School. Most materials and supplies ordered for Greenfield High School are delivered to Greenfield. 7. The district made progress in organizing the MOT department’s purchasing record files. 8. The district shares the warehouse with King City Elementary School District. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Consider issuing procurement cards for purchases of less than $1,000 or some other set purchase limit. Procurement cards can be limited to certain vendors and/or types of supplies and materials. This helps streamline procurement procedures and eliminate paperwork and approval time. Written processes and procedures should be established and provided to employees prior to issuing procurement cards. 2. Tie each purchase to the job or project and indicate the purchase on the work order. 3. Ensure that purchases and work orders are reviewed by the department technician and by the director. 4. Develop an equipment/materials procurement manual that contains district policies and procedures for equipment and supply purchases. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 450 Facilities Management Table of Facilities Management Ratings Facilities Management 451 452 Facilities Management February March Facilities Management Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating LEGAL STANDARD – SCHOOL SAFETY The LEA has adopted policies and regulations and implemented written plans describing procedures to be followed in case of emergency, in 1.1 accordance with required regulations. All school administrators are 2 4 conversant with these policies and procedures. (EC 32001-32290, 35295-35297, 46390-46392, 49505; GC 3100, 8607; CCR Title 5, Section 550, Section 560; Title 8, Section 3220; Title 19, Section 2400) LEGAL STANDARD – SCHOOL SAFETY The LEA has developed a comprehensive safety plan that includes 1.3 4 4 adequate measures to protect people and property. (EC 32020, 32211, 32228-32228.5, 35294.10-35294.15) LEGAL STANDARD – SCHOOL SAFETY 1.8 School premises are sanitary, neat, clean and free from conditions that 3 4 would create a fire or life hazard. (CCR Title 5, Section 630) LEGAL STANDARD – SCHOOL SAFETY 1.9 The LEA complies with Injury and Illness Prevention Program 0 3 requirements. (CCR Title 8, Section 3203) LEGAL STANDARD – SCHOOL SAFETY 1.15 The LEA maintains updated Material Safety Data Sheets for all 1 4 required products. (LC 6360-6363; CCR Title 8, Section 5194) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – SCHOOL SAFETY The LEA has a documented process for issuing and retrieving 1.16 master and sub-master keys. All administrators follow a standard 2 5 organizationwide process for issuing keys to and retrieving keys from employees. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – SCHOOL SAFETY Outside lighting is properly placed and is monitored periodically 1.18 1 1 to ensure that it functions and is adequate to ensure safety during evening activities for students, staff and the public. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – SCHOOL SAFETY The LEA maintains a comprehensive employee safety program. 1.20 Employees are made aware of the LEA’s safety program, and the 0 1 LEA provides in-service training to employees on the program’s requirements. LEGAL STANDARD – FACILITY PLANNING 2.2 The LEA seeks and obtains waivers from the State Allocation Board for 0 0 continued use of any nonconforming facilities. (EC 17284-17284.5) LEGAL STANDARD – FACILITY PLANNING 2.3 The LEA has established and uses a selection process to choose 1 1 licensed architectural/engineering services. (GC 4525-4526) Facilities Management 453 February March Facilities Management Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – FACILITY PLANNING The LEA has a long-range school facilities master plan that that has 2.6 0 3 been updated in the last two years and includes an annual capital planning budget. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – FACILITY PLANNING 2.8 0 0 The LEA has a facility planning committee. LEGAL STANDARD – FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MODERNIZATION 3.1 1 2 The LEA maintains a plan for maintaining and modernizing its facilities. (EC 17366) LEGAL STANDARD – FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MODERNIZATION 3.3 0 0 All relocatable buildings in use meet statutory requirements. (EC 17292) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MODERNIZATION 3.9 The LEA manages and annually reviews its five-year deferred 5 5 maintenance plan and verifies that expenditures made during the year are included in the plan. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MODERNIZATION 3.10 0 3 The LEA’s staff are knowledgeable about procedures in the Office of Public School Construction and the Division of the State Architect. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECTS 4.1 The LEA maintains a staffing structure that is adequate to ensure the 0 1 effective management of its construction projects. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECTS 4.2 2 3 The LEA maintains appropriate project records and drawings. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS To safeguard items from loss, the LEA keeps adequate maintenance records and reports, including a complete inventory of supplies, 6.4 1 2 materials, tools and equipment. All employees who are required to perform custodial, maintenance or grounds work on LEA sites are provided with adequate supplies, equipment and training to perform maintenance tasks in a timely and professional manner. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS 6.5 Procedures are in place for evaluating the quality of the work performed 0 1 by maintenance and operations staff, and evaluations are completed regularly. 454 Facilities Management February March Facilities Management Standards 2010 2011 Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS The LEA has identified major areas of custodial and maintenance 6.6 2 2 responsibility and specific jobs to be performed. Written job descriptions for custodial and maintenance positions delineate the major areas of responsibility for each position PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS 6.7 The LEA has an effective written preventive maintenance plan that is 0 0 scheduled and followed by the maintenance staff and that includes verification of work completed. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS The LEA has planned and implemented a maintenance program that 6.8 includes an inventory of all facilities and equipment that will require 0 1 maintenance and replacement. Data should include estimated life expectancies, replacement time lines and the financial resources needed to maintain the facilities. LEGAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ISSUES 7.2 The LEA has developed and maintains a plan to ensure the equality 0 1 and equity of all of its school site facilities. (EC 35293) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – COMMUNITY USE OF FACILITIES 8.2 2 4 The LEA has a plan to promote community involvement in schools. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – COMMUNICATION The LEA fully apprises students, staff and community of the condition 9.1 0 1 of its facilities and its plans to remedy any substandard conditions. The LEA provides access to its facilities staff, standards and plans. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS FISCAL CONTROLS The Maintenance and Operations departments follow standard LEA 13.2 1 2 purchasing protocols. Open purchase orders may be used if controlled by limiting the employees authorized to make the purchase and the amount. Collective Average Rating 1.04 2.15 The collective average ratings for both February 2010 and March 2011 are based on the subset of priority standards used in this second comprehensive review. Facilities Management 455