Comprehensive Review

South Monterey County Joint Union High School District Comprehensive Review and Recovery Plan Progress Report March 2012 South Monterey County Joint Union High School District Comprehensive Review and Recovery Plan Progress Report March 2012 Introduction and Executive Summary Introduction The newly named South Monterey County Joint Union High School District (formerly the King City Joint Union High School District) serves students in grades 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. In 2009-10 the district served 2,075 students; this was approximately 5% fewer than the 2008-09 enrollment of 2,185 students. The district served 2% fewer, or 2028, students in 2010-11, continuing the decreasing trend in student enrollment. Ninety percent of students in the district are Hispanic or Latino, 7% are white, and 3% are designated as other ethnicities. Much of the student population is disadvantaged: 31.6 % of students are English learners, and 60% 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 $7,359.15 for 2010-2011. 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 the district with a $13 million emergency state loan or line of credit. The legislation authorized the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) to complete comprehensive assessments of the district and develop recovery plans in five operational areas (listed below) and 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. The purpose of this report is to provide the district with the current results of an ongoing systemic and comprehensive assessment of the district’s progress, including 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 concerning the district’s progress in implementing the recommendations of the recovery plans and building its internal capacity to effectively manage the five operational areas in order to eventually exit state receivership and return to local board governance. Introduction and Executive Summary 1 Background 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 the superintendent and CBO were combined into one position to reduce costs. Also at one time, the district’s administrative and business services were shared with the King City Union School District (grades kindergarten through eight), leaving one person to fill four key administrative positions for two districts. This organizational structure unfortunately exacerbated the lack of effective decision-making and did not provide the leadership necessary 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 ruling 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. 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. 2 Introduction and Executive Summary 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.” State Receivership 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 was 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 authorized 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 adminis- trator 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. 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. Introduction and Executive Summary 3 The Return to Local Governance Senate Bill 130 details the requirements for the district’s return to local governance. The authority of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the state administrator shall continue until all of the following occur: (a) The state administrator determines, and so notifies the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the county superintendent of schools, that future compliance by the school district with the recovery plans is probable. (b) The Superintendent of Public Instruction may return power to the governing board for any of the five operational areas, if performance under the recovery plan for that area has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. (c) The Superintendent of Public Instruction has approved all of the recovery plans and FCMAT completes the improvement plans and has completed a minimum of two reports identifying the school district’s progress in implementing the improvement plans. (d) The state administrator certifies that all necessary collective bargaining agreements have been negotiated and ratified, and that the agreements are consistent with the terms of the recovery plans. (e) The school district has completed all reports required by the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the state administrator. (f) The state administrator certifies that the members of the school board and district personnel, as appropriate, have successfully completed the training specified in subdivision (b) of Section 7 of the bill. (g) The Superintendent of Public Instruction determines that future compliance by the school district with the recovery plans is probable. 4 Introduction and Executive Summary Comprehensive Review Process In preparation for the first comprehensive review in 2010, 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 the assessment process. 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 February 2010 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 144 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; 41 financial management standards; and 27 facility management standards. In the annual review process FCMAT assesses the district’s progress in the 144 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. 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, staff and the community in a partnership to improve student learning. Each annual 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, 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. 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 and each succeeding 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. FCMAT acknowledges and extends its thanks to the state administrator, the district’s staff and the community for their assistance and cooperation during this ongoing review process. Introduction and Executive Summary 5 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 plans 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 South Monterey County 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 South Monterey County 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 South Monterey County 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) 3. A plan to address the standard is fully developed, and the standard is in the beginning phase of implementation. (Scaled score of 3) 6 Introduction and Executive Summary 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. 1. All elements of the standard are fully and substantially implemented and are sustainable. (Scaled score of 8) 2. All elements of the standard are fully and substantially implemented and have been sustained for a full school year. (Scaled score of 9) 3. 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. 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 Introduction and Executive Summary 7 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. 8 Introduction and Executive Summary Recovery Plan Implementation The initial February 2010 report assessed the district using 307 professional and legal standards in five areas of school district operations. The scaled scores for all of the standards in each operational area provided an accurate measure of the district’s status regarding recovery at that time. Each standard was measured for completeness and a relative scaled score from zero (not met) to 10 (fully met) was applied. An average of the scores for each operational area was determined. The averages of those scaled scores became the baseline of data against which the district’s progress could be measured over time. For the subsequent annual progress reviews, a smaller subset of these standards was selected by FCMAT in consultation with the California Department of Education (CDE) and the appointed state administrator. One hundred forty-four priority standards were selected as having the most probability of assisting the district with recovery if addressed successfully. The selected standards are identifi ed in the tables of standards in later sections of this report, and are the focus of each annual review. The South Monterey County Joint Union High School District is not required to reach a scaled score of 10 in the priority standards, but the district is expected to make steady progress that can be sustained. It is reasonable to expect that the district can reach an average rating of at least a six in each of the five operational areas, with no individual standard rated at less than a four. In collaboration with the California Department of Education, FCMAT established the following criteria to measure the district’s progress. When the average score of the subset of standards in an operational area reaches a level of six, and it is considered to be substantial and sustainable, and no individual standard in the subset is below a four, FCMAT will inform the state superintendent of public instruction (SPI) that this particular condition has been met and recommend that this operational area could be returned to the South Monterey County Joint Union High School District governing board. The final authority to return governance to the district board lies with the SPI. The ultimate return of legal rights, duties and powers is based on the SPI’s concurrence with the assessment of his administrator designee and FCMAT that the district’s future compliance with the improvement plans and the multiyear financial recovery plan is probable. The above-referenced subset of priority standards is the focus of the ongoing annual progress reviews conducted in the district. Although all 307 professional and legal standards used in the comprehensive assessment process are important to any district’s success, focusing on this identified subset of 144 priority standards will enable the district to focus its efforts and more quickly achieve a return to local governance. FCMAT, with the collaboration of the California Department of Education and the state admin- istrator, identified the following subset of 144 priority standards in the five operational areas that are to be reviewed during each annual progress review. 18 standards in Community Relations and Governance 26 standards in Personnel Management 32 standards in Pupil Achievement 41 standards in Financial Management Introduction and Executive Summary 9 27 standards in Facilities Management A progress narrative for each of these standards is provided in later sections of this report. These standards are also identified in the table of standards displayed at the end of each operational area section. FCMAT will assess the district’s progress annually in each of the five operational areas and determine whether each operational area, subject to the criteria, could be returned to the governing board of the school district on an incremental basis. The ultimate decision for the return of legal rights, duties and powers to the governing board will be based on the SPI’s concurrence with the assessment of his administrator designee and FCMAT that the district’s future compliance with the improvement plans and the multiyear financial recovery plan is probable. The average of the subset of standards in each operational area is indicated below. The ratings from the initial February 2010 Comprehensive Assessment and Recovery Plan provided a baseline of data against which the district’s progress can be mea sured over each period of review. February 2010: Community Relations/Governance: average rating 0.89, with 17 standards under a 4. Personnel Management: average rating 0.92, with 26 standards under a 4. Pupil Achievement: average rating 1.38, with 31 standards under a 4. Financial Management: average rating 1.54, with 39 standards under a 4. Facilities Management: average rating 1.04, with 25 standards under a 4. March 2011: Community Relations/Governance: average rating 2.83, with 13 standards under a 4. Personnel Management: average rating 2.69, with 16 standards under a 4. Pupil Achievement: average rating 1.87, with 31 standards under a 4. Financial Management: average rating 2.93, with 23 standards under a 4. Facilities Management: average rating 2.15, with 20 standards under a 4. March 2012: Community Relations/Governance: average rating 5.11, with 1 standard under a 4. Personnel Management: average rating 4.27, with 7 standards under a 4. Pupil Achievement: average rating 2.87, with 25 standards under a 4. Financial Management: average rating 3.39, with 21 standards under a 4. Facilities Management: average rating 4.85, with 6 standards under a 4. 10 Introduction and Executive Summary Table of Summary of Scores Operational Area February 2010 March 2011 March 2012 Average Standards Average Standards Average Standards Score under 4 Score under 4 Score under 4 Community Relations/Governance 0.89 17 2.83 13 5.11 1 Personnel Management 0.92 26 2.69 16 4.27 7 Pupil Achievement 1.38 31 1.87 31 2.87 25 Financial Management 1.54 39 2.93 23 3.39 21 Facilities Management 1.04 25 2.15 20 4.85 6 Introduction and Executive Summary 11 Study Team The study team was composed of the following members: For FCMAT: Roberta Mayor, FCMAT Chief Management Analyst (Retired), FCMAT Consultant John Lotze, FCMAT Technical Writer For Community Relations and Governance: Bill Gillaspie, Ed.D., FCMAT Deputy Administrative Officer Robert Rice, Ed.D., Retired Superintendent, FCMAT Consultant For Personnel Management: Suzanne Speck, School Services of California, FCMAT Consultant For Pupil Achievement: Patricia Alexander, Administrator (Retired), Kern County Superintendent of Schools, FCMAT Consultant Nancy Sullivan, Deputy Operations Officer, California School Information Systems (CSIS), FCMAT Consultant Greig Welch, Assistant Superintendent, Paso Robles School District, FCMAT Consultant For Financial Management: Diane Branham, FCMAT Fiscal Intervention Specialist Debi Deal, FCMAT Fiscal Intervention Specialist Julie Auvil, FCMAT Fiscal Intervention Specialist For Facilities Management: John Von Flue, FCMAT Fiscal Intervention Specialist Dean Bubar, Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services, Los Banos Unified School District, FCMAT Consultant 12 Introduction and Executive Summary Executive Summary FCMAT’s current assessment of the South Monterey County Joint Union High School District (formerly the King City Joint Union High School District) indicates that the district continues to make progress in every operational area, though 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 significant resources to recovery in those areas. The comprehensive review process measures progress on 144 selected priority standards annually. It is evident that the district initially 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. These systems are in various phases of development and implementation; however, they are not consistently communicated to the staff prior to implementation. It is commendable that the district continues to make progress despite continuing state budget concerns. The district has addressed a number of outstanding concerns such as significant audit findings, program improvement status, coordinated program management findings, and Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) accreditation of its comprehensive high schools, its continuation high school and its newly opened independent study charter school. 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 facilities management, reorganizing positions and improving the safety and appearance of its sites. Employee morale remains low in some departments but continues to improve. The board, community and staff recognize that positive change has and will continue to occur. However, certain members of the district remain skeptical, expressing the view that changes were not sustainable and that once the state administrator departs, the district would return to its 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 being implemented and 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. 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 706, an increase of 67 points from 2009. Although progress should be recognized and rewarded, the district’s API is 36 points below the state average of 742 for high schools and 94 points below the state goal of 800. The districtwide API is 677 for English learners and 529 for students with disabilities, indicating an achievement gap among learners. Introduction and Executive Summary 13 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. 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. Themes repeated throughout this report include the need to continue developing effective operational systems, building infrastructure and tools, building internal staff capacity, and communicating and training staff throughout systems change implementation so that all responsible and affected staff understand their roles and become committed to the systems change. Overarching Issues Although the district has made significant progress in reducing its expenditures, it continues to deficit spend, requiring annual draws against the state loan. The balance of the $13 million state loan will be exhausted in 2012-13. Significant additional expenditure reductions are urgently required. Employee collective bargaining contracts are closed through 2012-13; however, both contracts allow for negotiations of salaries and benefits if the parties mutually agree to do so. As a result of significant changes affecting employee compensation, district reorganization and reductions in positions and staff, staff morale is low and misinformation is widespread. The district needs to focus more on clearly communicating the changes that were and continue to be needed, and the rationale for these changes. Attention needs to be given to how students are affected by curricular decisions such as reducing the seven-period day to a six-period day. Restoring the district’s financial stability is paramount. The district will be losing its chief business official (CBO), who is qualified, and is in its second round of soliciting qualified candidates to fill the position. Increasing internal leadership capacity is necessary for the district’s return to self-governance and continuing recovery. As the board members complete more of their Masters in Governance training, the state administrator should involve them to a greater extent in decisions, in conjunction with other district leaders. 14 Introduction and Executive Summary Summaries of Findings and Recommendations in Each of the 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 September 2010 through October 2011. The assessment team began work in the district in late August 2011 and concluded in October 2011. The formal report is presented to the district in March 2012. The district addressed some preliminary findings reported during the on-site assessment process. 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 5.11, 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 was 2.83. The March 2012 average scaled score is 5.11, demonstrating continuing improvement over time. Communications The previous two comprehensive reports 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 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 instead 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. The district has developed 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 include a system of communication protocols and procedures for ongoing and timely two-way communication between the district office and all staff. Introduction and Executive Summary 15 The district has established 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. FCMAT found that the district also needed to schedule and hold regular meetings with the media, employee organization representatives and administrative staff. Subsequent to the fieldwork for this review, the district began scheduling these types of meetings. The district revised its board vision statement to provide a framework to develop goals for student achievement. The district should 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 making 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 frequent communication from the district. The district has taken a proactive and systematic approach to reviewing and revising board policies. Board policies regarding community relations were revised but not yet fully implemented. Board members understand 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 the board’s 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 in addressing 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 benefit the district as well as facilitate communication between the community and the district. Subsequent to FCMAT’s fieldwork for this review, the district began conducting regular forums with staff, parents and others, and engaging local media. Community Collaboratives, LEA Advisory Committees and School Site Councils During this reporting period the district has 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 and were operational at the time of this review. The school site councils continued to experience difficulties obtaining working budgets regularly and on time; however, they did receive formal training regarding operational guidelines or on their roles and responsibilities. The district office has provided the school site councils with estimated budgets for categorical programs and ongoing training regarding their roles and responsibilities. 16 Introduction and Executive Summary 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. Board members are now involved in policy development, and they review and have copies of the new board policies. The policy development and review process includes review of policies at a public board meeting as well as a plan for broadly 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. Board Roles/Boardsmanship 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 its members have participated in training to develop their capacity to perform their duties. 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 role of the board under state administration. As the district implements the recovery plan, it must continue to establish clear policies and protocols for district 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 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 2011-12 and has published and distributed this information throughout the district and to local media and the community. Board meeting agendas are posted on time and meet 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 Introduction and Executive Summary 17 prepared, board members contact the state administrator with any questions they may have regarding the material prior to the meeting. Prior to the appointment of the state administrator, the board did not consistently adhere to Board Bylaw 9323, Meeting Conduct, revised and adopted September 9, 2009. Board meetings are now orderly and provide an opportunity for public input and for the board to conduct its business. 18 Introduction and Executive Summary 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, and orientation and training program for all district employees. Additionally, personnel management plays a vital role in the district’s fiscal recovery. With 79.38% of its unrestricted general fund expenses going toward employee compensation, it will be difficult for the district to regain fiscal solvency. 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 4.27. All 26 standards were partially implemented, with a rating of one through seven. The human resources department has made measurable progress since 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 was 2.69, demonstrating significant improvement. The March 2012 average scaled score increased to 4.27, indicating continued improvement and increased operational efficiencies in the department. One of the most noteworthy improvements was in the area of Induction and Professional Development. The human resources department has implemented Keenan Safe Schools, an online training module that provides employees with training in child abuse reporting, bloodborne pathogens, drug- and alcohol-free workplace, sexual harassment, diversity and nondiscrimination, and other topics, based on job classification requirements. The Keenan Safe Schools’ training program can notify employees electronically and track their participation and completion of required trainings. The Keenan Safe Schools’ program may not replace all required trainings; 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. The human resources department is to be commended for their progress in this area and their commitment to expanding trainings in the future. In addition, the human resources department 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. The district developed a new certificated employee handbook that was distributed to all new certificated employees during orientation. The department should continue to provide orientation as part of new employee induction. The district also developed a new hire checklist to ensure that all legally required documents are provided before the first day of employment. Checklists are filed in the employee’s personnel file. The district has made measurable progress in the area of operational procedures, specifically the assignment of personnel based on staffing formulas. Certificated overstaffing has been reduced significantly. The Greenfield High School and King City High School master schedules indicate an average enrollment of approximately 31 students per class section each period, with few class sections having fewer than 17 students enrolled. Progress in this area is the result of negotiated changes to the certificated collective bargaining agreement which eliminated a student-to-certificated staff ratio of 32-to-1 and created per-period and daily contact maximums, early enrollment projections, early development of the master schedule, and a conservative Introduction and Executive Summary 19 staffing approach. The human resources department developed enrollment projections for the 2011-12 school year in collaboration with the business services and curriculum and instruction departments. Instructional program changes were considered when developing the master schedule and when identifying staffing needs. The district’s layoff, reassignment and recruitment decisions were based on identified needs. To minimize unnecessary personnel expenses, the district staffed schools based on conservative enrollment projections. In some cases, substitutes were used at the beginning of the school year until enrollment was assured, resulting in minimal teacher assignment changes at the beginning of the 2011-12 school year. Communications: Internal/External In June 2010, the district hired an assistant superintendent of educational services/human resources, who has been identified as the chief personnel officer and is now responsible for supervising and directing the human resources department. This shifts the responsibility for the department from the state administrator to the assistant superintendent of educational services/ human resources. However, this change does not represent an increase in department staffing. The human resources department consists of the human resources manager and a part-time 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. Department communications are more frequent and consistent, and technology is increasingly used to communicate with employees. The electronic notification of required trainings as a part of the Keenan Safe Schools’ program is one example of their progress in this area. Current staffing levels continue to limit the department’s ability to develop and implement 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. Written procedures and desk manuals are critical to sustaining needed improvements, but their thoughtful articulation and creation are likely to be secondary to day-to-day operations. The district should consider conducting 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 department has significantly improved hiring procedures by ensuring that position vacancies were posted based on enrollment projections and the staffing needs of each high school. In addition, the hiring procedure ensured that applicants and candidates selected for hire were appropriately credentialed prior to positions being offered. However, hiring and assignment procedures have not been put in writing or included in a department procedures manual. The human resources department developed a draft recruitment plan for 2011-12 that identified the department’s vision, mission, guiding principles, key functions, and recruitment objectives. The plan also identified the district’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) related to recruitment efforts. Recruitment plan objectives are well thought out and aggressive. However, the plan fails to include an action plan that identifies key recruitment tasks, personnel 20 Introduction and Executive Summary responsible for each task, and implementation dates. In addition, the plan does not mention classified management and nonmanagement staff. The department continues to make progress in the area of recruitment, but a written comprehensive plan is still needed. Evaluation/Due Process Assistance The district has made considerable progress in the area of certificated evaluations. Site administrators were provided with a list of all employees who were due to be evaluated in the 2010-11 school year. Evaluation forms, procedures and timelines were provided electronically. Ten certificated evaluations were randomly selected for review during FCMAT’s fieldwork. The new district forms, which are aligned with the newly negotiated bargaining agreement article regarding evaluations, were completed in each case. Dates of evaluation conferences and formal and informal observations were documented. Observation forms included detailed narratives of lessons that were linked to the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) and indicated what the evaluator saw the teacher doing and what they saw students doing. Only one of the district’s certificated employees received an unsatisfactory evaluation in 2010-11. There was no documentation to suggest that a formal improvement plan was developed or that improvement goals were explicitly stated in the final summary evaluation. Most certificated employees who were evaluated were rated as exceeding performance standards. This is inconsistent with verbal reports of administrative staff suggesting that the evaluation system does not provide for close calibration between ratings, the CSTPs, and the district’s performance standards. Additional work needs to be done to ensure that the evaluation system is rigorous, that performance expectations and ratings are calibrated, and that site administrators receive the training and support needed to ensure the system is implemented with fidelity. A district-adopted improvement planning process also needs to be developed to ensure that struggling employees are provided with clear direction and meaningful support. Site and department administrators were provided with a list of all classified employees to be evaluated in the 2010-11 school year, but not all required evaluations were completed. Completing evaluations in accordance with the provisions of the collective bargaining agreements is an essential administrative responsibility and should be included as one criterion in the evaluation of certificated and classified managers. The development of a standardized evaluation process for management employees, including evaluation criteria, procedures, and forms, continues to be an area of need. 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 used by the Monterey County Office of Education, which has not yet signed a contract with a vendor for a new financial system. The district’s human resources and business services departments continue to rely on multiple and separate manual systems to capture and monitor required data such as credentialing, seniority and demographics. Although the current system requires minimal support, the personnel and business systems are not integrated and data cannot be shared, resulting in duplication of work and other operational inefficiencies. Once a new financial system is selected by the county office, the district should ensure that it is fully implemented. This will require considerable training and support. Given existing staffing Introduction and Executive Summary 21 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 district’s vacation and compensatory time off liability has been minimally reduced. Some time was paid out at the end of the 2010-11 school year, but large balances remain and the district has not developed a plan to eliminate the current liability. The district has eliminated the use of overtime and compensatory time off without prior approval from the human resources department. A multiyear plan to eliminate the existing vacation and compensatory time off liability is recommended. The district has not developed a procedure for monitoring vacation accruals, and departments have not developed annual vacation schedules. The district is not requiring employees to submit vacation requests or face having their vacations scheduled by their supervisor based on their department’s operational needs. The human resources department had not increased staffing; however, it did use consultants and/ or retirees on a project basis to facilitate implementation of the recovery plan. Developing desk manuals and written operational procedures continues to be secondary to day-to-day operations. The department’s ability to manage day-to-day operations is largely dependent upon employee relationships rather than formal processes or written procedures or protocols. Without written operational procedures, staffing changes in the department could hinder the district’s recovery. Employer/Employee Relations The district settled a number of outstanding articles with the classified employee bargaining unit in December 2010 and with the certificated employee bargaining unit in January 2011. Employee groups agreed to a number of concessions, resulting in significant savings. Unfortunately, the district and the employee groups will need to identify additional reductions in the near future. The district is expected to draw down the entire state loan by 2013-14 because of continued deficit spending. Because employee compensation accounts for 79.38% of the district’s unrestricted general fund expenditures, it will be difficult to regain fiscal solvency without additional reductions. Employee collective bargaining contracts are closed through 2012-13; however, both contracts allow for negotiations of salaries and benefits if the parties mutually agree to do so. Because the district and employee groups need to implement additional reductions before the start of the 2013-14 school year to avoid the need for an additional emergency appropriation, they should allow sufficient time for the negotiations process to work. To ensure sufficient time, the district will need to make public (or “sunshine”) successor agreements during the 2011-12 school year. Specifically, the district should present its initial proposals to the board by March 2012, conduct public hearings by April 2012, and commence negotiations prior to the start of the 2012-13 school year. The hope is that the district and employee groups will be able to successfully negotiate additional reductions early and avoid the need for mediation and fact- finding. 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. In the future the board will need to be more engaged in establishing the district’s bargaining goals. 22 Introduction and Executive Summary State and Federal Compliance The district acknowledges that it still lacks job descriptions for some positions. The district indicated during the last reporting period that it had established a process to develop job descriptions for new positions, but the process was not put in writing. Consequently, when the district created the position of student/community services coordinator, the approved job description failed to identify essential duties and did not include physical and mental demands, which are required legal elements. The district needs to ensure that existing and new job descriptions are legally compliant. The lack of legally compliant job descriptions can result in unnecessary legal expenses related to worker’s compensation settlements and requests for accommodations from eligible employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district needs to develop and put in writing a process for revising existing job descriptions. In addition, the district should develop an interactive process related to requests for accommodation. The interactive process should identify the steps in the process and the roles and responsibilities of supervisors and human resources staff. The district should identify an interactive process coordinator and ensure that this individual understands their role related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district’s interactive process should be put in writing, and site and district administrators should receive adequate training. Because of limited staff, the district may need to hire an outside consultant to implement these recommendations. Introduction and Executive Summary 23 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 are those that will have the greatest impact on improving student achievement. The mean rating for the subset of priority standards in Pupil Achievement was 1.38 in February 2010 and 1.87 in March 2011. The mean rating on the standards in this March 2012 review is 2.87. All 32 standards are partially implemented, with a rating of one through seven. Progress is being made on pupil achievement standards, as indicated by the increases in mean rating. The 2011 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 706, an increase of 67 points from 2009. This progress should be recognized; however, the district’s API remains 36 points below the statewide average of 742 for high schools, and 94 points below the state goal of 800. The 2011 districtwide API for English learners was 677, an increase from the 2010 API of 657. The 2011 districtwide API for students with disabilities was 529, an increase from the 2010 API of 462. • The CAHSEE results show a greater gap, and in some cases a widening of the gap, in achievement for these groups. The 10th grade CAHSEE results for the 2010-11 school year indicate a districtwide passing rate of 75% in math and 71% in English language arts (ELA). However, the disaggregated data show that the passing rate for English learners was 49% in math and 34% in ELA, while students with disabilities had a passing rate of 32% in math and 28% 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. • In 2009-10 only 56 graduates completed all courses required for CSU and UC en- trance. This is a 15.4% completion rate compared to the county rate of 26.3% and the state rate of 35.6%. Seven King City High School students and 49 Greenfield high school students met the CSU and UC entrance requirements. Systems The district has made progress developing various elements of a system that will provide an instructional program that meets all students’ needs. Board policies and administrative regulations have been revised and updated to describe an instructional plan for the district. Collaboration time has been allocated for teachers to work together regularly to improve teaching and learning. The LEA Plan has been amended to address the Essential Program Components (EPC) required by the state. Common benchmark assessments are being developed to monitor student progress more frequently. Although not consistently implemented, there is a plan for professional development. Other indications of progress are noted throughout the report. The next step is to bring all of these elements together into one system of plans and guiding documents that have an unrelenting focus on student learning. The district’s mission statement 24 Introduction and Executive Summary needs to be reviewed before starting this work; the district needs a simple one-sentence statement of purpose that answers the question, “Why are we here?” succinctly enough that everyone in the district, including students and parents, can repeat it. A clear statement of purpose, or mission, will help keep everyone focused on student learning. The district should use the collective knowledge of its teachers and administrators to build the system. When challenges arise in the implementation of the system, those who helped build it will become the best problem solvers. Learning for All Students The district does not yet have systems in place to ensure that every student not only has the opportunity to learn, but will learn. The Pupil Achievement team observed a commitment to student learning and success by many individual teachers and administrators, but did not observe a districtwide system of monitoring student progress that is flexible enough to ensure early and appropriate intervention for students who are struggling, whatever the reason. The interventions currently provided are long-term in nature and do not address the need to respond early and systematically when students first show signs of failure. For example, a system of early intervention would make a significant difference in the case of students who enter the alternative education program, almost all of whom are many credits short of what is needed for graduation, and in the case of the majority of English learners, who score at the below basic and far below basic levels on the CSTs each year. The district needs to reexamine the credit requirements for graduation and how moving from a seven-period to a six-period day is affecting students. These two factors, combined with the limited opportunities for students to recover credits during the regular school day and year or through a district-supported extended day or year, are reducing students’ options and chance to graduate on schedule. The district’s graduation rates and its numbers of students eligible for CSU and UC admission demonstrate the urgency of the need to find solutions. The district is exploring online options. It will need to carefully consider the number of qualified teachers of record available to oversee these online courses and the number of students that can be served in this way. The district will also need to carefully assess the effectiveness of its recent reconfiguration of counseling responsibilities. It is the common belief among students interviewed that because counseling positions were eliminated, counseling services are no longer available. This understanding comes from the confusion about the change of title and the additional responsibilities assigned to the student/community services coordinator. The low academic performance of the majority of English learners and special education students must be addressed with urgency. The majority of these students are performing at the basic, below basic or far below basic levels. Because the district has many English learners, every teacher needs to be prepared to support English learners with 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. Accountability The district has developed and implemented a teacher evaluation system that is supported by teachers and administrators. This system is aligned with the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, which closely align with the skills and knowledge required to deliver the Introduction and Executive Summary 25 Essential Program Components required by the state under Program Improvement. The district is monitoring teacher evaluations to ensure that they are completed on schedule. Because professional development requires a substantial investment of time and resources, it is important that it focus on student learning and be fully implemented and monitored. For professional development to have a significant effect on student learning, 90% implementation is needed; anything less than 90% has little effect on student outcomes. Site administrators should monitor classrooms frequently to ensure that full implementation of learned strategies is taking place. The focus of monitoring or classroom observations should be given to teachers each week and feedback provided. For example, if teachers have recently attended a specially designated academic instruction in English (SDAIE) training, they should be informed of which specific strategy they learned will be monitored during classroom observations. Site administrators should provide teachers with collective feedback on the progress they are making in implementing that strategy. Monitoring also allows administrators to identify any additional support and training that teachers may need to ensure successful implementation of learned instructional strategies. The district needs to ensure that site administrators have received adequate training in the purpose and effective use of classroom observations and walk-throughs. The district has provided sufficient time for teachers to collaborate. Allowing this time provides an effective tool for improving student outcomes, but only if it is focused on learning for both teachers and students. There is currently little understanding or agreement regarding the use of this collaboration time. Where collaboration time is used for its intended purpose, teachers are realizing the benefits; where it is being used for other activities, teachers view it as a poor use of their time. The district needs to take responsibility for clearly outlining the appropriate use of this time to ensure better outcomes for students. 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 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 students’ needs. Site and district administrators should participate in and monitor the use of collaboration time to maximize effectiveness. District administrators issue many directives with the expectation that people will carry them out. However, when people know that it is unlikely that they will be held accountable, results vary and implementation never reaches the 90% level needed for success. When those issuing the directive do not provide monitoring, or monitor sporadically, people often decide that what they were asked or directed to do must not be important. People also need constructive feedback if they are to improve or continue implementation of a directive. Without feedback, people often return to what they were doing before they were asked to make a change. Directives without follow through, support, and recognition will achieve only minimal results and will be of little benefit to student learning. Leadership There is demonstrable growth among site administrators in understanding their role as the instructional leaders at their schools, and they are demonstrating greater knowledge regarding 26 Introduction and Executive Summary instruction and student learning, and more skill at working effectively with staff to make needed changes. It is imperative that district administrators continue to work closely with site administrators to ensure that they continue to receive support and training to continue their growth toward becoming highly effective leaders. 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. Because the district is small and is experiencing fiscal challenges, it is important to use the full expertise of all staff members in providing leadership. The development of teams of problem solvers and teacher leaders would be an effective and efficient way to address many of the recommendations outlined in this report. Relying on the expertise and time of a handful of site and district administrators will limit progress in making the changes needed to improve students’ opportunities. For example, the district could convene a work group of teachers, support staff, parents and students to address the need for more open communication with parents; enlist a group of teachers and administrators to write protocols for the use of collaboration time; and engage a committee of teachers, support staff and administrators to help develop a comprehensive professional development plan. Teams, committees, and work groups can all be effective in solving problems, sharing the workload, and building a collaborative environment. However, to produce results they must be given meaningful tasks, be empowered to make decisions, and be supported by the district. There are districts and schools across the state that are similar to the South Monterey County Joint Union High School District in demographics that are making great strides in improving achievement for all of their students. Although different in size or geographical location, they all share a commitment to doing whatever it takes to ensure that all of their students learn. Introduction and Executive Summary 27 Financial Management The financial management section of the comprehensive report assessed the district based on 41 FCMAT standards in 18 categories. The district received an average rating of 3.39 with one standard not implemented; 38 standards partially implemented, with a rating of one through seven; and two 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 was 2.93, and the March 2012 score was 3.39, indicating improvement. Because of the district’s fiscal insolvency, the state Legislature approved a $13 million emergency loan for the South Monterey County Joint Union High School District (formerly King City Joint Union High School District) in June 2009. The loan for the district was funded through a bond sale by the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank). Of the $13 million, the district drew down $5 million in fiscal year 2009-10 and $4 million in 2010-11. The district’s most recent general fund cash flow projection, dated August 10, 2011, indicates that the district will draw another $2 million in fiscal year 2011-12, and staff anticipate drawing the remaining $2 million in 2012-13. The state loan has a repayment period of 20 years and includes an annual debt service payment, including principal and interest, 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 2011-12. Although there are no specific standards regarding 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 its unrestricted general fund is considered unfunded because it requires the use of resources typically dedicated to the current costs of educating students, such as salaries, supplies and services. Although many districts are able to fund some long-term debt out of their unrestricted general fund, a debt service payment of 10% of the unrestricted general fund revenue will be extremely difficult to sustain. Unlike other state loans, the district was not held harmless from the costs of financing and increased interest rates associated with the bond sale, therefore it bears an increased burden in the financing and repayment of the loan. As reported by the California Department of Education (CDE), the district’s loan carries an interest rate of 5.44%, which is significantly higher than that of other districts receiving state intervention. For reference, the CDE lists the terms of previous state loans on its website at http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fi/ir/stateemergloans.asp. The district does have the option to defease (that is, secure with other collateral) or prepay the bonds, but to do so, the district would need to have enough cash to set aside in an escrow account the amount required to pay debt service on the bonds 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. Although the district’s loan carries no prepayment penalty per se, the district would be responsible for the costs of defeasance in order to prepay, which could be significant and may diminish the 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 a restructuring of the loan, or an amendment to SB 130. 28 Introduction and Executive Summary Budget and Multiyear Financial Projections Fiscal years 2008-09 through 2011-12 have been unprecedented budget years for California’s local educational agencies (LEAs). The state’s fiscal crisis has already resulted in deep budget cuts to LEAs, including a revenue limit deficit of 19.754%, significant reductions in categorical program funding, and increased cash deferrals. Funding for fiscal year 2012-13 is also uncertain given the ongoing state budget deficit. Based on current state and federal forecasts for a slow economic recovery, the district will need to continue to make and implement difficult budget decisions to regain its fiscal solvency. During the prior review period, the district settled negotiations with its certificated and classified employee bargaining units for July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013, for the majority of the contract articles that have a monetary effect. The remainder of the articles were negotiated and settled during this review period. However, as indicated in the Financial Management section of this report, some of these items were not presented at a public board meeting prior to ratification. 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 employee 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 the 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 an annual stipend of $1,225 to a tax- deferred annuity for certificated staff, a similar payment for administrators and classified staff, 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 Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) contributions, reduced the classified employee salary schedule by 2%, and froze salaries for two years. Although the negotiated agreements provided a significant annual budget savings of approximately $2.27 million and show progress toward fiscal recovery, the district’s 2011-12 unrestricted general fund budget and multiyear financial projections (MYFPs) include deficit spending in fiscal years 2011-12 and 2013-14 and project a negative ending balance in 2013-14. Although the projected unrestricted ending balances are an improvement over the previous review period, the district still has a significant amount of work to do to ensure that its budget is structurally balanced. Business Department The district has continued to make progress in providing accurate, timely budget information to the county office of education. County office staff also indicated that payroll reporting has improved. However, the district’s business department consists of only two employees: the chief business official and a fiscal services manager. Although the district’s organizational chart, dated Introduction and Executive Summary 29 August 8, 2011, includes two fiscal services manager positions, because of budget constraints, the district has not filled one of the positions. The department has experienced significant turnover, has been restructured twice in the last two years, and is conducting an executive search to replace the chief business official (CBO), who plans to leave the district before the end of the 2011-12 school year. It is imperative that the district find qualified individuals to fill the CBO and vacant fiscal services manager positions so that progress made thus far can be maintained, essential financial and cash flow analyses can be completed, necessary internal controls can be implemented and improved, and training regarding the budget and fiscal processes and procedures can be provided to the governing board members and site and department staff. Internal Control Environment The district has made significant progress in updating its board policies, and a code of ethics has been adopted. While significant changes must be made to balance the district’s budget, communication with employees regarding the need for specific changes should be increased. The CBO is the only district employee who has the training and experience needed to process payroll. The CBO is responsible for processing payroll, signing the preliminary payroll list, and has access to the pay warrants once they are received from the county office. This arrangement does not provide for proper internal controls, and the district should immediately train and assign another employee to process payroll so that duties may be properly separated. During this review period, the district completed an inventory of its equipment in compliance with statutory requirements. However, procedures should be implemented to ensure that items delivered directly to sites have asset tags attached and are included on the fixed asset inventory. Communication and Organizational Capacity Site and department staff members indicate that a good working relationship has been established with the business department and that the department provides information in a timely manner. However, more training regarding business procedures and budget functions should be provided to applicable site and department staff members. Staff indicated that cabinet meetings are conducted weekly and include the state administrator, CBO, assistant superintendent, department managers and the executive assistant to the superintendent. In addition, the administrative council, which includes the state administrator, CBO, assistant superintendent, site principals, assistant principals and student services coordinators, meets two times per month. Executive cabinet meetings need to be formalized to ensure that there is a documented process by which decisions made by the state administrator can be communicated to staff members responsible for their implementation. Subsequent to fieldwork, the district implemented executive cabinet meetings. The district has developed and/or updated several board policies and administrative regulations but has not routinely provided drafts of these policies and regulations to all applicable district administrators and managers for review and comment before they are included on the board agenda. Ensuring that the administrators and/or managers responsible for implementation review these documents before adoption would help increase communication. 30 Introduction and Executive Summary The July and August 2010 settlements covered the majority of the articles in the July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013 collective bargaining agreements with certificated and classified employees. Student Attendance The district continues to retain experienced and knowledgeable district office attendance reporting and truancy staff. However, as a result of reorganization of school site clerical staffing, some employees at the school sites are not experienced in student attendance functions. Mandatory attendance training for school site personnel did not occur at the beginning of the school year. Instead, the student information manager has offered one-on-one training upon request. Because average daily attendance generates the majority of the district’s general fund revenue, it is crucial that the district provide adequate training and guidance for employees who are responsible for attendance reporting. Mandatory annual training needs to be provided before the start of school to clarify procedures and ensure that any new laws and/or regulations regarding student attendance are communicated in a timely manner. Additional training should also be available when requested. The district continues to record student attendance for independent study and for the South Monterey County Charter School on Excel spreadsheets. This method creates many opportunities for error. In addition, spreadsheets are not capturing all of the information necessary for reporting purposes. The student information manager is evaluating this process and plans to move independent study attendance recording to the Aeries student information system. The district should give this project high priority. Associated Student Body During the prior review period, the district centralized many of the associated student body (ASB) operations at the district office. During this review period, the district adopted Board Policy 3452, Student Activity Funds, which provides a description and overview of fundraising and the management of student funds. However, the district has not yet developed administrative regulations and written procedures that provide direction for oversight and clearly define the roles and responsibilities of personnel involved in managing ASB activities. Many functions have been assigned to various school site employees who have no training in ASB accounting. Thus each school site has created its own set of procedures for tickets and cash handling, which are not in compliance with ASB regulations and which raise serious concerns regarding internal control management. Following FCMAT’s fieldwork, ASB training was provided to staff on September 14, 2011. Management Information Systems Technology is used throughout the district and is vital for student data reporting, student assessments, student attendance, notifications to parents and central office applications. All departments and school sites depend heavily on computers and network services to do their jobs. The district’s technology plan indicates that a majority of the district’s computers are more than four years old. The district continues to contract with a consultant to complete E-Rate applications to maximize available discounts and has increased efforts to maximize the count of students who are eligible for free and reduced-price meals, which has a significant impact on E-rate funding. However, the district lacks a plan and an identified funding source to replace obsolete technology equipment and should make these a priority. Introduction and Executive Summary 31 Food Services During this review period, the district completed the first year of operating its own food service program and experienced a significant loss that required a general fund contribution of $346,380. However, effective January 1, 2011, half way through the fiscal year, the district’s application with the California Department of Education, Nutrition Services Division was approved, and state and federal reimbursements commenced with the January 2011 claim. Therefore, a smaller contribution from the general fund of approximately $116,000 is projected for 2012-13. During the prior review period, the district had 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 lost 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 worked with a team of consultants to rectify the issues involved, and a separate subsequent report was issued following the analysis and conclusion of the consultants’ work. 32 Introduction and Executive Summary Facilities Management The facilities management section of the comprehensive report assessed the district based on 27 FCMAT standards in nine categories. The mean rating for the facilities standards is 4.81, with 25 standards rated as partially implemented with a score of 1 through 7, and two standards fully implemented with a score of 8 through 10. The February 2010 average scaled score for the standards was 1.04 and the March 2011 average scaled score was 2.15. The March 2012 average scaled score is 4.85. The ratings indicate continued improvement and implementation of the standards. To assess the priority standards, FCMAT inspected all school and district facilities and grounds, interviewed district and site staff, and reviewed district documents and board policies. Leadership and staffing The state administrator continues to lead the district, with the district’s board functioning in an advisory capacity. The district has continued to provide all of its departments with training and clerical support to improve efficiency and effectiveness. The district employs one full-time director of maintenance, operations, transportation and facilities (MOTF), who is responsible for managing and overseeing custodial and grounds staff, all facilities maintenance, and the home-to-school transportation program, including bus repair and maintenance. This position and its scope of responsibility are consistent with those in other high school districts of similar size and structure. The director is responsible for developing and implementing all of the district’s regulatory and legal compliance programs as they relate to facilities and to staff and student safety. These programs have improved since FCMAT’s last comprehensive assessment. The second comprehensive review in March 2011 reported that the MOTF department was understaffed and cited several health and safety issues. The district commissioned a review of the MOTF department in early 2011 to further identify issues and make recommendations for improvement. That study of the MOTF department supported the findings in the FCMAT comprehensive review and also made recommendations regarding staffing and organization. The district has begun to address many of the recommendations made in that report, which aligns with the FCMAT facilities standards in the comprehensive review. The district has increased MOTF staffing by adding a technician position to assist the director. The district has also reorganized the job duties and job descriptions of custodians and groundskeepers, resulting in increased efficiencies and additional staff hours at each of the sites. The district is addressing and making good progress toward implementing several categories of facilities standards. The addition of a permanent staff technician position has significantly increased the MOTF department’s efficiency and systematization. The department has also developed and implemented standards for acceptable facilities cleanliness, improved staff scheduling, and started a performance accountability process. The MOTF department needs to develop a proactive approach to addressing facilities and grounds management. The district must continue to support the department director by helping him obtain the training and resources needed to bring the MOTF department into compliance with all regulations, and to provide adequate service to the district. The district could be held Introduction and Executive Summary 33 legally and financially responsible for health and safety issues and for areas in which the department is out of compliance. Maintenance, Custodial and Groundskeeping The grounds at each site show signs of improvement. Several conditions identified at the playing fields at each campus during previous inspections have been addressed at least in part, while other areas still need attention. During FCMAT’s visit, a newly hired groundskeeper was clearing areas of overgrowth at King City High School. Both the comprehensive high school sites received a rating of “Good” on their recent Williams Facility Inspection Tool (FIT) reports, indicating that less than 10% of the areas evaluated were in poor repair. This is an improvement from the prior year’s rating of “Fair,” which indicated that more than 10% of the inspected areas were in need of repair. As reported in the March 2011 review, the district continues to use an automated work order system called Help Desk that tracks work requests and their status. FCMAT found that the system is still not used to its full potential. The district still has no formal procedure to prioritize and assign work requests; to follow-up on the timeliness, quality, and satisfaction of completed work; or to monitor productivity. The MOTF department has established standards for custodial work but still needs to establish standards for maintenance and groundskeeping. The director has developed and implemented schedules for the MOTF staff, but the lack of standards in maintenance and groundskeeping hinders the ability to be proactive and to hold staff accountable. For example, the maintenance schedule for site staff shows work generated by the help desk system, but no time is allocated for preventive maintenance or to address needs identified by other sources. The district still 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 thorough preventive maintenance plan would include purchase or replacement prices, anticipated life expectancies, replacement schedules, and budget information needed to implement the program. In the absence of 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. The district has taken the first step in asset management by commissioning an inventory of its equipment, vehicles and facilities. However, the asset management program should also include a routine inspection, repair, maintenance and replacement plan. School Safety The district has updated policies regarding emergencies and disaster preparedness and has adopted an injury and illness prevention program. The district has sent representatives to some preparedness training, and school sites show evidence of safety drill planning. Key controls have improved campus security. Hazardous materials handling has improved: unnecessary hazardous materials have been removed from campuses, and safety measures have been implemented for storing and handling existing materials. Custodial standards have been developed and include a raised awareness and remediation of safety hazards. 34 Introduction and Executive Summary However, FCMAT found no current written district policies or procedures regarding training, safety issues or department protocols. The district does not have a comprehensive safety plan or a designated safety officer who is responsible for developing a comprehensive safety plan. Such a plan should be developed and should include consistent, standardized initial and ongoing training for all maintenance and operations staff. In addition, the director should conduct a regular monthly safety meeting for all MOTF department staff to improve communication and education, and to resolve issues as they arise. Training employees in both the responsibilities and hazards of their respective positions helps ensure that they will work efficiently and safely. The district needs to develop a thorough, standard training program to bring the department into compliance with federal, state and local regulations. To mitigate its liability, the district must ensure that its employees have a safe working environment, have the proper tools and training to promote safety, and have accountability measures in place to ensure that prescribed safety methods are followed. Policies and Procedures The district has made progress in developing written policies, procedures and standards that outline expectations for campus safety and the condition of its sites. The district has updated and revised board policies and administrative regulations regarding emergency preparedness, campus safety, key control and architectural selection. However, issues remain because of a lack of implementation of the plans outlined in the board policies. New job descriptions and schedules have been adopted and implemented for custodial and grounds positions, but The MOTF department does not have a policies and procedures manual. Inconsistent procedures, expectations and accountability have created systemwide weaknesses in the department and in the district. In addition, lack of adherence to and support for adopted processes undermines their importance. A manual should be developed to help 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. Fiscal Issues The district’s financial difficulties have led it to postpone many maintenance and facilities projects, the replacement of equipment, and the modification of staffing levels. For the district to recover in the area of facilities, it is essential that MOTF department staffing be maintained at levels adequate to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations and standards. Because of a lack of funds, the district has not updated its deferred maintenance plan or completed any projects in its latest five-year deferred maintenance plan. Management of assets and supplies has improved. The district hired a consultant to establish a fixed asset inventory system. They have completed the process and a new database is in place. The department has begun developing a comprehensive inventory of vehicles and equipment. The inventory is being maintained by the new MOTF technician. The asset inventory database does not yet include the information needed to develop an asset management plan, such as maintenance, repair and replacement schedules. However, the district and department have improved their handling of inventory control, including the purchase of supplies and the use of district equipment. Introduction and Executive Summary 35 Facilities The district’s primary issue with its facilities remains its inability to properly maintain them. The location, general appearance, and function of the district’s campuses need to be conducive to learning. The facilities are not overcrowded; capacity exists for additional students. However, the district still has several nonconforming buildings that do not meet the requirements of the Field Act. The district has begun identifying which buildings are nonconforming and which buildings need to have waivers to allow their use. As part of this process the district has also hired an architectural firm to assist in the inventory evaluation of its sites as recommended in the previous comprehensive review. At each site the district still has relocatable buildings for which it has not located any records or documents indicating compliance with statutory requirements, and which thus appear to have been built without an architect or state approval. The district completed a modernization project at King City High School in the summer of 2011 and plans to complete another in summer 2012. Improvements in 2011 included a new roof for the gymnasium and improvements to the girls’ bathroom and locker room. The funding for the recent project came as the result of the district’s successful efforts to use cost savings from a previous state project at the school. The project was a lease-leaseback project, and the district hired professional construction management for it. Senate Bill (SB) 130 restricts the district’s eligibility to receive 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 hired TSS Consultants, a school facilities consulting firm, to develop a comprehensive school facilities master plan. The plan was completed in January 2011 and includes a facilities needs assessment that identifies facilities needs costing approximately $14.1 million over the period of the plan. Despite the completion of a recent modernization project, the district’s facilities remain in need of 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 Key to Recommendation address current and future health and safety concerns. Priority Indicator Graphics Funding for needed maintenance projects also remains an issue. Each recommendation in this report is accompanied by one of the following graphics to indicate the priority that should be given to its implementation. • First Priority: • Second Priority: • Third Priority: 36 Introduction and Executive Summary Community Relations and Governance 37 38 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the editor and reporter of the King City Rustler newspaper 3. Interview with the assistant superintendent for educational services and human resources 4. Board Policies 1100 through 1700 regarding communication with the public 5. Interviews with board members 6. Interviews with school principals and vice principals 7. Interview with the president of CSEA Local Chapter 529 8. Samples of press releases and newspaper articles 9. Board agendas and weekly updates from state administrator 10. Binder of newspaper articles 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 had not developed a comprehensive plan for internal and external communications, it had made some progress on elements of a plan, including new board policies, a new website and improved communication. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has developed a comprehensive plan that contains the essential elements of successful communication strategies necessary for effective internal and external communication. The board and some staff are aware of the communication plan. Community Relations and Governance 39 Findings 1. There is a draft comprehensive plan for internal and external communications, including media relations. The draft plan is dated October 7, 2011. The plan includes goals, targeted activities, actions, timelines and designated responsibilities. 2. Sample communications plans for school districts were not available from the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) or the California School Boards Association (CSBA). However, the district was able to obtain and use sample communications plans from other school districts to develop the district’s communications plan. 3. The district’s name has been changed from King City Joint Union High School District to South Monterey County Joint Union High School District. The purpose of the name change was to be more geographically inclusive of Greenfield High School and the elementary feeder districts. The name change also serves to lessen any stigma associated with the district being in state receivership. Public hearings were held prior to the name change. 4. The state administrator meets with the local newspaper editor following each monthly board meeting. 5. An update from the state administrator appeared in the King City Rustler newspaper on October 12, 2011 regarding the state loan and the FCMAT annual comprehensive reviews, including the components of the review and the rating process. 6. A binder of newspaper articles collected over the past year included articles on the recovery plan, layoffs, community forums, accreditation, test scores, high school improvements, budget challenges, principal speeches, the Future Farmers of America (FFA) program, graduation, and community donations. 7. The local newspaper editor expressed a desire for more contact with and information from the district. The newspaper would like to get more district-level information between board meetings as well as more information from school sites regarding school events and programs. 8. Board polices 1100 through 1700, regarding communication with the public, were revised and approved in 2010. 9. The news media receives board meeting agendas and board packets, and agendas and minutes are posted on the district’s website, which has been recently updated. 10. The state administrator and representatives of the local California State employees’ Association (CSEA) chapter meet monthly, and the working relationship with the CSEA appears to have improved. The CSEA acknowledges and appreciates the monthly meetings. 40 Community Relations and Governance 11. The working relationship with the South Monterey County Joint Union High School District (SMCJUHSD) teachers’ association leadership still needs improvement. 12. The negotiations team leaders for the certificated bargaining group communicates with and works satisfactorily with the state administrator. The state administrator reported that the teachers’ association president is invited to meetings with the state administrator but does not attend. 13. The district has drafted a parent satisfaction survey that is scheduled to be completed and submitted by March 2012. The purpose of the survey is to determine what the community wants and how they want to receive information. The survey also gives the community the opportunity to provide feedback regarding communication, governance, the curriculum and school climate. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Finalize and fully implement the draft comprehensive plan for internal and external communications, including a media relations component. 2. As the communication plan is implemented, disseminate the goals, guidelines and procedures to all staff, board members and school sites in a timely manner. 3. As the communication plan is implemented, continue to evaluate communications efforts through surveys, focus groups or other methods that encourage participants to give their opinions freely. 4. Adjust the communication plan based on survey results to continually improve communications. 5. Continue to post board agendas and minutes on its website regularly, and continue to disseminate board agendas and packets to news media. 6. Continue to 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. Regularly send the newspaper press releases regarding student events and programs. Include the newspaper in the distribution of information sent to all parents. 7. Continue to schedule regular meetings with the classified and certificated association representatives to discuss issues of mutual concern. Community Relations and Governance 41 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 42 Community Relations and Governance 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the assistant superintendent for educational services and human resources 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with school principals and vice principal 5. Interview with the president of CSEA local chapter. 6. Monthly district information updates and welcome back letter from the state administrator 7. Department meeting agendas and other staff communications from Greenfield High School 8. King City Rustler newspaper article dated October 12, 2011, titled State Administrator Update 9. Updates from the state administrator to Greenfield and King City high school staffs 10. Samples of school staff meeting agendas and minutes 11. Interview with the editor and reporter from the King City Rustler newspaper 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 had implemented regularly scheduled meetings with the cabinet and principals to improve communication. The administrative team was fully staffed. Written information and updates were being provided to staff; however, there was limited opportunity for staff to communicate effectively with the administration. Community Relations and Governance 43 Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The state administrator has provided ongoing communication with staff as well as with the community through both written media and radio. There is evidence the district is communicating with staff, but more effort needs to be made to establish and encourage two-way communication. Findings 1. An informal letter updating employees on the state of the district is included with employees’ monthly paychecks. 2. The state administrator distributed memos updating staff on the state loan and takeover of the district. 3. There are examples of communication from staff back to the district office. 4. The state administrator conducts biweekly administrative council meetings, for which administrators have the opportunity to submit agenda items in advance and at which all administrators have the opportunity to communicate concerns, questions and suggestions. 5. Regular, systematic communication indicating proactive contact with staff and the public is provided through updates and memos from the state administrator as well as letters and other communications from principals to parents. 6. There is evidence of systematic communication at school sites regarding monthly staff meetings, state testing and reporting (STAR) meetings, site council meetings, English learner advisory committee (ELAC) meetings, department meetings, and other key meetings and events. The ELAC committee is a legal requirement for English learner programs that receive categorical funds. 7. High school websites allow parents to access their child’s grades, attendance and discipline records. Parents who do not have a computer can also receive this information by regular mail. 8. The Alert Now phone message system informs parents when their child is tardy or absent from a class or school. 9. There are advisory committee meetings at the district level to encourage communication and involvement of staff and the community in understanding the district’s programs, operation and status. There is a budget committee, a facilities committee, a technology committee and a diversity committee. The diversity committee is beginning to be established. The district has a draft document that shows the composition, membership and contact information for each committee. 10. There is a district curriculum committee but no evidence that it meets regularly. Meetings are informal and are held as needed. Coordination of this committee used to be the 44 Community Relations and Governance responsibility of the director of curriculum, but that administrative position has been eliminated. 11. Under the direction of the state administrator, collective bargaining agreements have been reached with classified and certificated employee bargaining units. These agreements include significant reductions in salaries and benefits, which is a necessary part of re-establishing the district’s fiscal solvency over the long term. Because of the state’s fiscal problems, it is probable that the district will need to make further budget reductions in the near future. Many school districts across the state are facing this issue; the district faces this in addition to the district’s state loan and receivership issues. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue expanding on a communication system to ensure 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. Continue the established advisory committees that meet monthly or quarterly to provide comment to district administrators and the board regarding priorities and issues. Also continue the ELAC committee and meetings with employee organization representatives. 4. Continue to provide the media with written press releases regularly. Establish frequent contact between the state administrator and the media between board meetings as well as immediately following board meetings. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 45 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the assistant superintendent for educational services and human resources 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with the executive assistant to the state administrator 6. Board Policies 1100 through 1700 regarding communication with the public 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 had made significant reductions in individual board members’ public comments and had prepared board policy to address this issue. The district had also increased communication and improved relations with the media. Continued efforts in this area were still required. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Board members are making good progress in understanding their roles and responsibilities as board members and with regard to communicating with the public. California School Boards Association (CSBA) training and the leadership provided by the state administrator have been beneficial. Findings 1. Board Policy 1100, adopted September 8, 2010, designates roles, responsibilities and methods of communication with the public regarding the district’s programs and decisions. 2. The state administrator makes public statements on behalf of the district. 46 Community Relations and Governance 3. The state administrator provides status reports to update the community regarding the district’s state loan and receivership issues. 4. Recently an individual board member arranged a public forum and invited a state assembly member. This meeting was arranged without the knowledge or approval of the state administrator. The state administrator was neither involved in the meeting nor invited to attend. The board member who coordinated this meeting has since resigned. 5. Other than the public forum coordinated by the one board member who resigned, there is no evidence of any miscommunication by any current board member. 6. A second board member also resigned. The replacement for the first board member who resigned was elected in the November 2011 election. The replacement for the second board member who resigned is being conducted in accordance with the provisional appointment process as indicated by law (EC 5091, 5092). 7. Members of the media indicated that on some occasions they do not receive information in a timely manner, particularly from school sites (e.g., information regarding back-to- school night). 8. Although improvement is still needed, there has been a significant effort to more effectively use media coverage of board meetings and school programs. The state administrator meets with the press following each monthly board meetings. 9. School sites are also communicating more with the local newspaper and radio station. 10. During the past year, the board has been provided with Masters of Governance training from the CSBA, which includes media relations training. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Fully implement updated board policies, particularly 1100 and 1112 regarding community relations, by finalizing the written communication plan, and implementing the goals, guidelines and procedures and distributing them to staff. 2. Encourage board members to 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 ongoing media relations training for board members and district administrators, including continuing the training in the CSBA Masters of Governance program. 4. Schedule 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; gain more positive and accurate press coverage; and better inform the public of school district policies and activities. Continue to respond as promptly Community Relations and Governance 47 as possible to media requests for information to inform the public of school district policies, activities and issues. Consider sending to the newspaper and radio station any information sent to all parents, such as the back-to-school night notice. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: 48 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the assistant superintendent for educational services and human resources 3. Interviews with principals and vice principals 4. Interview with the editor and reporter from the King City Rustler 5. Board Policy 0420 (a) School Plans/Site Councils 6. Board Policy 0420.1 (a), School-Based Program Coordination 7. Letter to parents from the Greenfield High School principal 8. Greenfield back-to-school night notice to staff 9. King City High School principal letters to parents concerning academic achievement, test scores, attendance rules, dress code and other student issues. 10. King City and Greenfield high school student/parent handbooks for 2011-12 11. Agenda notice to parents announcing school site council information 12. Greenfield and King City high school back-to-school night notices to parents 13. Interview with the president of the local chapter of the CSEA 14. Interview with the truancy specialist 15. Board Policy 1312.1, Complaints Regarding School Employees, adopted January 13, 2010 16. Administrative Regulation 1312.4, Williams Uniform Complaint Procedure, adopted December 9, 2009. Community Relations and Governance 49 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 forums 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 was improving communication between school district officials and the community through routine meetings with parents and back-to-school nights to which parents were invited to meet with school staff. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district continues to make progress in communicating with parents through the leadership of school site administrators. The draft communication plan should be adopted and disseminated to support effective and systematic communication in the district. Findings 1. A draft communication plan has been developed. The plan needs to be finalized and implemented so that, in accordance with the mission statement, multiple methods of communication can be used to ensure that parents and members of the community are regularly informed and involved. 2. A welcome letter to parents from the Greenfield High School principal explains schedules and graduation requirement changes. A parent e-mail information form was also sent to parents. 3. The principals communicate with parents regarding what is happening at the schools, and they encourage parent involvement through monthly newsletters, back-to-school night, recruitment of school site council members, and upcoming ELAC meetings. 4. Quarterly meetings of ELAC and district site councils are scheduled. 5. Principals hold public forums such as coffee klatches and school site council meetings, to discuss school issues. 6. The state administrator and the principals speak at Rotary club and chamber of commerce meetings. 7. There is media coverage of meetings with parents regarding the status of the district, but the newspaper staff indicate that they would like more contact with the state administrator and the school sites to get information for newspaper articles. 50 Community Relations and Governance 8. Many parents do not know how to get involved in school activities, do not want to be involved, or are unable to be involved because of their work hours. 9. There is limited involvement of parents in school activities such as school site councils and ELAC, but there is no evidence of any proactive, systematic plan to increase parent involvement. 10. There is some media coverage of school site council and advisory committee meetings, but the local press would like more information regarding these committees. 11. The Alert Now system provides telephone messages to parents when their child is tardy or absent from a class or school. It may benefit the district to issue a press release that explains the intent of this system to reduce tardiness and absences, and the connection between the increase in average daily attendance and an increase in state funding. 12. The district’s website has a parent portal section that is linked to each school’s website. It includes a password-protected system for parents to check their children’s academic progress on-line. 13. The district is developing a district blog page on its website. The blog will provide up-to-date information and is intended to dispel rumors and inaccurate information from uninformed sources. 14. The district’s website has been updated and is much improved. Parents can access their student’s grades, attendance and discipline records as well as announcements regarding school meetings and events. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Encourage principals and administrators to attend community functions to increase visibility. 2. Continue the open forums that principals conduct with parents and interested community members such as coffee klatches. Send advance notice of these forums to the media so they can attend. 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 and thus help 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. Community Relations and Governance 51 6. Invite the media to the administration’s open meetings with parents at which administrators will be discussing items of interest to the public, such as the district’s progress toward recovery. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 4 March 2011 Rating: 5 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: 52 Community Relations and Governance 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 the state administrator 7. Interview with the assistant superintendent for educational services and human resources 8. Interviews with principals and vice principals 9. Interviews with board members 10. Interview with the 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 was made on this standard. Board policies were updated and board members had an improved understanding of their role and responsibilities regarding community relations. However, board members’ attendance at school events was intermittent, and the board still lacked a formal plan for community relations. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The board has adopted policies regarding board/community relations and still regularly needs specific direction from the state administrator regarding how to fulfill their role in this area by Community Relations and Governance 53 supporting school activities and being visible in the community. The board members are making progress in this area and have increased their understanding of how they can contribute to effective community relations. Findings 1. Board policies concerning community relations have been updated. Policy updates and revision have become a routine part of board meetings. 2. The board is increasing its understanding of a board members’ role and responsibilities in community relations. 3. Board members are attending school functions and visiting classrooms intermittently, and school site administrators appreciate their visibility on campus. Some board members are involved with athletics, FFA and booster clubs. 4. The state administrator wants all board members to visit every classroom at least once each year. Visibility of board members at school sites could build credibility and trust between the board and staff and between the board and the community. It would be beneficial for board members to consider establishing a schedule and discuss how these visits might occur. 5. The state administrator meets with city administrators, the chamber of commerce, Rotary club and other civic groups. These activities should be continued, and the board President should be encouraged to participate in these activities, to increase the board’s visibility in community affairs. 6. The board does not have a formal written plan to improve community relations, nor has the comprehensive communication plan been finalized and implemented. 7. The district has board policies concerning community relations but no specific action plan for how board members should be involved in building community relations. 8. Board members have received the first half of the Masters of Governance training from the CSBA as well as additional training from a CSBA consultant. 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 needed. 2. Provide board members with ongoing training in developing a community relations strategy and in building community relations. Encourage all board members to complete the Masters of Governance training, which includes a community relations component. 54 Community Relations and Governance 3. Have its board review and updates its communication plan to align it 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. See 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. Encourage the board to develop a plan to work collaboratively with local governments and agencies as well as school organizations. This element should be part of the communication plan. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 55 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. 2010-11 Consolidated Application for Funding Categorical Programs; Part 1, adopted June 17, 2010; and Part 2 adopted February 3, 2011 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. Board Policy 1220 (c) and Administrative Regulation 1220 (c), Citizen Advisory Committees 5. Interviews with board members 6. Interview with the state administrator 7. Interview with the assistant superintendent for educational services and human resources 8. Interview with principals and vice principals 9. Interview with the president of CSEA local chapter 10. 2010-2011 King City and Greenfield high schools’ single plans for student achievement, adopted December 15, 2010 11. School site council letters, agendas and minutes 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. 56 Community Relations and Governance 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 had improved school site council involvement in the development of school site plans. However, timely budget information was not provided to the school site councils, which limited their ability to address student achievement. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 School site councils are functional and have a meaningful purpose. Continued efforts to discuss student achievement are needed. The district has a formal, but limited budget for school site councils, and the chief business official (CBO) has provided the councils with categorical program budgets for fiscal year 2011-12. The CBO needs to attend one council meeting per year to explain budget monitoring. Findings 1. The district has policies and procedures for the establishment of school site councils. The school site council membership is organized according to law. 2. The school site councils have agendas and minutes for their meetings. 3. School site council members are genuinely involved in developing a single plan for student achievement. There is a single plan for student achievement at each school site. 4. Parents acknowledge that test scores need improvement and that the district is still in Program Improvement status. Parents want the district to address higher expectations for students. 5. Although funding is limited, the chief business official has provided school site councils with budgets for the categorical programs for fiscal year 2011-12. 6. School site council memberships have been formed and meeting dates have been set for the 2011-12 school year. 7. There was substantial carryover of categorical funds from 2009-10 to 2010-11, including $116,000 in Title I funds and $313,000 in Economic Impact Aid (EIA) funds. 8. The district intentionally carried over these Title I and EIA funds to purchase technology and software for the Read 180 program for all students who are not successful in English. This program is offered to eligible students at both comprehensive high schools and the continuation school. The schools report that the new Read 180 program is having a positive effect on learning, but it is too soon to determine if the program will result in improved test scores. 9. The director of curriculum position has been eliminated, which means that responsibility for oversight of the school site councils fall upon the assistant superintendent of educational services and human resources and the chief business official. Community Relations and Governance 57 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that school site councils continue to follow the law regarding their organization, membership, agendas and meeting minutes. 2. Ensure that school site councils continue to address the issue of student performance expectations. 3. Continue to give clear direction to the school site councils regarding how much money is available and the legal guidelines and requirements for how that money is to be spent. 4. Continue to provide the school site councils with best estimates of budget numbers based on the previous year’s funding. Adjust the budgets at the first interim reporting period and as the year progresses and more budget information becomes available from the state. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 5 March 2012 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: 58 Community Relations and Governance 3.4 Community Collaborative, 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. Matrix of district advisory committees showing the composition, membership and contact information for newly formed budget, facilities, technology and diversity committees. 2. King City High School curriculum council members for 2009- 10 (no updated membership list was provided) 3. Welcome letter from the chief business official to the budget committee, announcing meeting dates and other information. 4. Packet of budget information that the chief business official provided to the budget committee. The information includes roles and responsibilities, how a budget is built, and budget timelines. 5. Interview with the state administrator 6. Interview with the assistant superintendent for educational services and human resources 7. Interviews with principals and vice principals 8. Interviews with board members 9. Interview with the President of the CSEA local chapter Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district had school site councils but for the most part had not established broad-based ongoing districtwide 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 had not yet established broad-based districtwide committees. Community Relations and Governance 59 Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The board and state administrator have developed school site councils at each site and membership is current. The district has established district advisory committees for budget, facilities, technology and diversity. However, the curriculum committee is informal, ad hoc, and meets as needed. Most curriculum issues are handled at the department level in department meetings. Findings 1. The district has formed school site councils, and membership has been updated. First meetings were being planned at the time of FCMAT’s visit in October 2011. ELAC Committees were also being formed in October. 2. The district has established district advisory committees for budget, facilities, technology and diversity. These committees are to meet quarterly and maintain agendas and meeting minutes. 3. An informal and ad hoc curriculum committee meets as needed. There was no evidence of a set membership and no evidence of agendas and minutes to demonstrate the ongoing involvement of this committee. Most curriculum issues are handled at the department level in department meetings. 4. More individuals from the community need to be added to the various committees. 5. The facilities committee is a positive addition to the district. The facilities committee has been involved in planning projects for the expenditure of money left over from a bond passed in the 1990s. This money, plus a small grant, has made possible roof repair and replacement as well as remodeling of the locker rooms at King City High School. The locker room project has been planned but not completed. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue its use of 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. Involve the established budget committee, which includes staff and parents, in providing input regarding budget development and determining 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. 60 Community Relations and Governance 4. Involve the established facilities committee, which includes staff, parents and students, in advising the district not only on bond expenditures and construction or remodeling plans, but also regarding maintenance and facilities priorities, including safety, cleanliness and sanitation, landscaping and grounds, handicap compliance and appearance of schools. 5. Involve the established technology committee in assisting the district in evaluating and improving technology hardware, software and training programs. 6. Establish other committees as directed by the state administrator. 7. Ensure that all committee duties are consistent with meeting and implementing the recommendations and requirements of the recovery plan. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 61 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the assistant superintendent for educational services and human resources 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 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 did not have standing advisory committees or a community collaborative. It was filling the membership of school site councils during this review. The district had made progress in training members of school site councils in their committees’ roles and responsibilities during the previous year and encouraged increased participation. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 There is evidence of training for members of school site councils and most advisory committees. The state administrator should implement a formal training program for school site council members after they are seated on the council. Findings 1. There is written evidence of a training program for site councils and most advisory committees. Training includes information about the roles and responsibilities of members and the technical content of each committee area. 2. There is some training for curriculum committee members. There is no evidence of a curriculum committee membership, and no meeting agendas or minutes were presented. 3. No evidence was presented to show that the ELAC members receive any formal training. 62 Community Relations and Governance Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Implement a formal training program for curriculum council members after they are seated on the council. 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 as well as the legal requirements of ELAC programs. Work with the Monterey County Office of Education to provide this training. 3. Ensure that curriculum committee members receive training in their subject and their role on the committee. Ensure that committee members understand the budget and the district’s goals with regard to curriculum. 4. Provide ongoing training in roles, responsibilities and relevant requirements for the members of the newly established districtwide committees for budget, facilities, technology and diversity. 5. Provide community collaborative and future LEA advisory committees with training in relevant subject matter and the role and responsibilities of their committee. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 63 4.5 Policy Professional Standard The board supports and follows its own policies once they are adopted. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with the state administrator 2. Interview with the assistant superintendent for educational services and human resources 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with the 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 made significant progress on this standard. The board was following its own policies and refraining from discussing collective bargaining or personnel issues outside of board meetings. The board had received the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA’s) boardsmanship training, ongoing training from the state administrator, and online ethics training. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Significant progress is being made in this area. Newly elected board members are following board policies and procedures and developing trust and respect with the state administrator. The state administrator should ensure that the board receives further ongoing training regarding its members’ roles and responsibilities. Findings 1. In the past, some board members did not follow the board’s adopted policies regarding maintaining confidentiality in the area of collective bargaining and dealing with informal complaints. This has improved significantly. The current board is following its own policies. 64 Community Relations and Governance 2. Because of training, the board members have improved their understanding of their role and responsibilities. 3. The board has an improved understanding that a school board is an ongoing entity regardless of who is on the board and that policies adopted by previous boards remain in effect until the current board changes those policies in a legal public board meeting. 4. The board clearly understands that it has no authority at present to govern the district or to speak for the state administrator or superintendent. 5. The board has received CSBA training in board ethics and other topics. 6. Three members of the current board have completed the first half of the Masters of Governance training. One member has completed all of the training. The fifth board member position is vacant awaiting a provisional appointment. Further CSBA Masters in Governance training is planned for the near future. 7. Many board policies have been revised, and others have yet to be revised. The state administrator places policy updates on board agendas on a continuing basis with the understanding that policy revision and update is a never-ending process. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide the board with further training regarding the roles and responsibilities of board members. The CSBA Masters in Governance training should meet this requirement. 2. Work to help the board continue 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 those policies are changed. 3. Encourage the board and staff to continue to comply with the state administrator’s advice and decisions to help ensure that the district progresses toward regaining local control. 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. Community Relations and Governance 65 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: 66 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the assistant superintendent for educational services and human resources 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with the executive assistant to the state administrator 6. Board meeting agendas indicating Masters of Governance training and additional training in study sessions with a CSBA consultant or informal training provided by the state administrator on a variety of topics. 7. The draft governance handbook that indicates 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 effective communication techniques; roles and responsibilities of the board president; role of the state administrator or superintendent and the board member visits to school sites; designated spokesperson(s); sample norms for productive interactions; types of board meetings; conducting effective board meetings; and the board’s leadership role. 9. Additional list of board training topics that included adding agenda items; materials on agenda items; adding information or materials on non-agenda items; and designated spokespersons. 10. Registration materials, purchase orders and invoices documenting the following: a board member’s attendance at a Monterey County School Boards Association meeting on April 28, 2011; the state administrator’s attendance at the annual School Finance and Management Conference in Sacramento; the planned attendance of the state administrator at the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) Leadership Summit in Sacramento on November 3-5, 2011. 11. CSBA sample board meeting guidelines and other documents concerning effective governance 12. Sample board policies regarding limits on board members’ authority; board bylaws; and principles of ethics Community Relations and Governance 67 13. CSBA Governance Consulting Service Handbook 14. 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. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district made significant progress on this standard. Board members had completed the required online ethics and governance training and were receiving the complete CSBA Masters in Governance training. Board members were developing a better understanding of their role and responsibilities. Board membership was stable, with four returning members and one new appointee. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Board members have received ethics training and are receiving the complete CSBA Masters in Governance training. The board understands its unique role while the district is governed by a state administrator, but members are also learning the skills to function effectively as a board. Findings 1. Board members have been on the board for varying lengths of time. Two board members have recently resigned. One position was filled in the November 2011 election. The other position is awaiting provisional appointment. 2. Board members have received ethics training and are receiving the complete CSBA Masters of Governance training. Three board members have completed the first half of the training, and one board member has completed all the training. One board member position is vacant pending a provisional appointment, so the training needs of that person were unknown at the time of FCMAT’s review. Training on many of the Masters in Governance and other topics was held on January 10-11, 2011. 3. Board members are developing a better understanding of their role and responsibilities through the workshops they are attending. 4. Board members have a better understanding of the state administrator’s role, and the board is aware that board members can ask questions and provide input regarding agenda items in discussions, but whether and to what degree board suggestions are included in decisions or acted upon is at the discretion of the state administrator. 68 Community Relations and Governance Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to coordinate and schedule CSBA Masters of Governance training for all board members. 2. Ensure that board members consistently attend CSBA trainings, 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. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 69 5.3 Board Roles/Boardsmanship Professional Standard The board has established an LEA-wide vision/mission statement and uses that statement as a framework for LEA action based on the identified needs of the students, staff, and educational community. Sources and Documentation 3. Interview with the state administrator 4. Interview with the assistant superintendent for educational services and human resources 5. Interviews with board members 6. Interviews with principals and vice principals 7. Interview with the executive assistant to the state administrator 8. Board-adopted mission statement 9. 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 had been updated with involvement from a variety of stakeholders and was available and on display at the district office and on the district’s website. The board was beginning to use the mission/vision statement to provide a framework for goals and academic change. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Some staff and board members were aware of the mission/vision statement and expressed pride that it reflects the district’s educational purpose. The state administrator should continue to ensure that an annual review of the vision statement and goals involves the board, staff and community. Full and sustained implementation of this standard is still needed. 70 Community Relations and Governance Findings 1. A vision statement and goals have been developed and are reviewed annually. The vision statement and goals are displayed on the district’s website and in the district boardroom. 2. A governance handbook was developed to help guide board members in their roles. 3. A culture of learning is being established, and every board agenda contains items related to student achievement and student progress. 4. At the end of each board agenda is a section for principals’ comments. Principals use this time to discuss student progress, test scores and instructional programs. 5. The district is using the district’s vision statement to provide a framework for goals and academic changes, including developing a culture of learning. 6. Under the direction of the state administrator, the board, staff and community are involved in the development and periodic review of the district’s vision statement and goals. 7. The board is kept up to date on test scores and student progress, and the board participates in discussions regarding student programs and student achievement. 8. The district has a local educational agency plan for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This plan is updated annually and was last revised and adopted at the October 13, 2011 board meeting Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to 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 the 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 its goals. 6. Hold district staff accountable for progress toward its goals. 7. As long-term strategies and goals are implemented, ensure that the board, staff and the community are involved in determining their effectiveness. Community Relations and Governance 71 8. Update strategies, goals and action plans periodically as needed, based on ongoing evaluation. Continue to finalize and implement the parent satisfaction survey. After the survey is administered and results are known, evaluate and use those results to help determine the district’s priorities, goals and objectives. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 72 Community Relations and Governance 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the assistant superintendent for educational services and human resources 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with the executive assistant to the state administrator 6. Certificates of public service ethics education for board members, February 2010 7. Masters of Governance module completion calendar for the board for October 2010 through October 2011. 8. Registration documents for the board to attend governance training in San Jose. Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 Some board members had not respected the board’s authority to make decisions 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 had made significant progress in this standard. Board members had improved their respect for the authority of the board as a whole and had become more accepting of the state administrator’s role and decisions. Board members were referring to the district administration any individuals who came to them with issues or problems. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 With changes in board members, the state administrator has had the opportunity to be proactive in having new board members understand their roles and responsibilities. The board is supportive of the state administrator’s decisions, and a spirit of mutual trust is beginning to be developed. Community Relations and Governance 73 Findings 1. Board members in their limited advisory capacity have become increasingly understanding of the role and the decisions of the state administrator and of their own ability to ask questions and provide input as appropriate. 2. Board members respect the authority of the board as a whole in making decisions that affect the district, and understand that individual members have authority as part of the board during a legal public board meeting but not as individuals outside a board meeting. 3. Board members have increased respect for the confidentiality of collective bargaining matters and the need to refer problems to the state administrator. 4. Masters of Governance training includes the following topics: foundations of effective governance; school finance; human resources; collective bargaining; policy and judicial review; community relations and advocacy; student learning and achievement; and governance integration. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the board continues to cooperate with 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. 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 and that when making a statement as a member of the public, a board member must identify himself or herself as such so as not to give the public the perception that he or she is speaking as a board member. 74 Community Relations and Governance Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 75 5.6 Board Roles/Boardsmanship Professional Standard The board and administrative team maintain functional working relationships. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with the state administrator 2. Interview with the assistant superintendent for educational services and human resources 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with the 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 had 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The board is starting to work effectively together and with the state administrator. The current board acknowledges the state administrator as experienced and knowledgeable in training board members to understand their roles and responsibilities. Findings 1. Board members have been doing a progressively better job of working through the chain of command by referring staff and community members’ concerns to the state administrator. 2. Board members are increasingly aware that it is not appropriate for them as individuals to solve parent complaints, confidential collective bargaining issues, or confidential personnel issues; they recognize these matters should be referred to the state administrator. 76 Community Relations and Governance 3. Board members are consistently improving their relationships with the state administrator and respect the decisions of the state administrator or the board majority in implementing districtwide policy. 4. Board members credit the state administrator for answering their questions and for giving them opportunities for input. 5. The board acknowledges the state administrator as experienced, knowledgeable and a good trainer to help board members understand their role and responsibilities, board law and district programs. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide the board with continued training regarding a board’s legal role and responsibilities. 2. Provide board members with 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 operations. 3. Encourage board members to continue referring complaints, collective bargaining issues, personnel issues and other matters to the district’s administration rather than providing advice or trying to resolve such issues on their own. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 77 5.9 Board Roles/Boardsmanship Professional Standard Board members respect the confidentiality of information shared by the administration. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with the state administrator 2. Interview with the assistant superintendent for educational services and human resources 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with the 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 had gained a better understanding of the importance of the confidentiality of certain issues and discussions. Training had been and continued to be provided. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Board members have an improved understanding of the importance of maintaining professional and ethical confidentiality regarding certain district issues and operations, and their roles and responsibilities in this area. Board members discuss collective bargaining and personnel issues in closed sessions as appropriate. Findings 1. The current board members have an improved understanding of their role and responsibilities regarding confidential collective bargaining and personnel issues. 2. Board members discuss collective bargaining and personnel issues within the confines of a closed session board meeting as appropriate. 78 Community Relations and Governance 3. School Services of California provided a workshop for the board regarding confidentiality and the role of the board in the collective bargaining process. 4. The board has been receiving and continues to receive training from CSBA regarding board ethics and confidentiality as well as other topics. 5. There is no evidence of current board members compromising the confidentiality of personnel or collective bargaining issues. On the whole, the current board has considerable respect for the confidentiality required for closed session items. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to ensure that board members discuss collective bargaining, personnel and other confidential matters in a closed session 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 confidential matters. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 79 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 the assistant superintendent for educational services and human resources 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with the executive assistant to the state administrator 6. Board agendas showing revisions 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 had updated many board policies and bylaws and demonstrated increasing support for the district’s administration. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The board is reviewing and revising board policies on an ongoing basis and is learning how their implementation provides consistency and effectiveness. The board provides input to the state administrator regarding policies, which assists in developing mutual trust and respect. Findings 1. The board participates in revising and updating board policies. The state administrator at times, accepts board suggestions for changes or additions to board policies. 2. The board has demonstrated increasing support for the state administrator’s decisions and accomplishments, such as in the negotiations process and in personnel decisions. 80 Community Relations and Governance 3. Board members acknowledge the state administrator’s authority and role in collective bargaining, personnel matters, parent complaints, and policy implementation. 4. The board has revised and updated many board policies and bylaws, but there are always more policies to review and update. Board members understand that policy updates and revisions will be on every board meeting agenda. 5. Board minutes highlight a variety of non-confidential topics, including the following: on September 8, 2010, a board member’s congratulations to a principal regarding increased test scores; on March 9, 2011, a discussion regarding the coordination of school calendars and schedules; on April 20, 2011, a discussion regarding professional standards for all employees; on April 24, 2011 a board member asking the state administrator a question regarding mandatory leave of absence, and the state administrator responding that the question could be brought forward at the second hearing. 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 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 81 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the assistant superintendent for educational services and human resources 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with the executive assistant to the state administrator 6. Board minutes for the meetings of September 29, 2009 and December 2, 2009 showing planning for community meetings 7. Sample of Board minutes reflecting board and principal discussions related to student progress, student achievement and student programs. 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 demonstrated a sincere interest in the district’s students and attended many school functions. The board was beginning to use data to evaluate and develop programs to improve student achievement but had not addressed the achievement gap. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Board members are encouraged to attend school functions that support all students, such as graduations and special events held at each school. Board agenda items regularly include student achievements. Findings 1. Board members attend graduation and other high school programs and events but do not follow a cooperatively developed calendar of scheduled attendance to ensure that all major school activities are covered. 82 Community Relations and Governance 2. The board recognizes student achievement at board meetings. 3. The board is improving in its routine use of data: reviewing test scores, comparing test scores with similar schools/districts and state norms to help evaluate district instructional programs to increase student achievement. 4. The board is supporting the state administrator in setting higher expectations for teachers and students to increase student achievement. 5. The board is improving in referring sensitive issues such as parent complaints, negotiations issues and personnel issues to the state administrator. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Encourage board members to continue attending school events and programs to be visible and demonstrate support for 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. Have the board continue to recognize student and staff achievement at board meetings. 4. Ensure that the board continues to review and discuss student test data, comparing pupil achievement with similar schools and state norms to evaluate student performance and set educational goals. 5. Have the board review student achievement data and addresses gaps in achievement by supporting the development of comprehensive programs for struggling students. 6. Encourage the board to continue supporting 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 the effectiveness of student programs. 8. Include some items related to student performance and achievement on all board meeting agendas so that the board can become better informed about student progress and so that the community knows that learning is the board’s highest priority. 9. Help board members cooperatively develop a calendar of attendance to ensure that all major activities are covered. Community Relations and Governance 83 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 February 12 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: 84 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the assistant superintendent for educational services and human resources 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with the 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 was becoming more consistent. Some board members asked questions relevant to the material at board meetings and some contacted the state administrator in advance for clarification of agenda items. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Board members receive board packets on time before board meetings so they have time to review and prepare for meetings. All board members stated that they have enough time and access to meet with the state administrator ahead of time to prepare for a board meeting if needed. Findings 1. Board members consistently review the board agenda and support materials prior to board meetings. 2. Board members’ preparation is becoming more consistent and systematic. 3. Board members more consistently contact the state administrator prior to the board meeting regarding questions or clarification of board agenda items, which results in the board meetings being more efficient and shorter. Community Relations and Governance 85 4. The board and the state administrator tried but abandoned using an online agenda and reverted to using printed board agendas and support materials. All concerned were more comfortable with printed agendas and support materials. Recommendations for Recovery Board members should: 1. Continue to consistently and thoroughly read and review the board agenda and support documents. 2. Continue to 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 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: 86 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the assistant superintendent for educational services and human resources 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with principals and vice principals 5. Interview with the executive assistant to the superintendent 6. Sample of board meeting agendas 7. Sample of board meeting minutes 8. Board agenda items and reports on student progress 9. Board meeting minutes of August 24, 2011 highlighting a board study session on instruction 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 was starting to pay more attention to student achievement and was discussing test scores and student achievement more frequently; however, because of the district’s low student achievement, this attention still needed to increase. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Information about test scores and student achievement is included on every regular board meeting agenda, and principals routinely speak regarding school test scores. However, the board still needs to develop goals for student achievement and engage in more discussion of higher expectations for student achievement. Community Relations and Governance 87 Findings 1. Information on test scores and student achievement is included on every regular board meeting agenda. 2. Board agendas and minutes include many items related to student achievement, test scores and related student programs. Curriculum and instruction is clearly a priority at board meetings. 3. At the end of each board agenda is an item that allows principals to comment on test scores, student progress and related program issues. This is a positive practice that supports the focus on students and keeps the board informed of student activities and issues. 4. Board meeting minutes included the following items related to student progress on the dates indicated: December 15, 2010, a comment regarding core content and data driven instruction; January 12, 2011, the approval of a student community services job description and position; May 11, 2011, a comment on meetings with teachers to assist students who need additional support, and a comment on improving technology in the classroom; May 24, 2011, a discussion of student achievement data; June 8, 2011, a student presentation on continuation school graduation, and a discussion on data and school achievement; August 24, 2011, a review of graphs analyzing and comparing student achievement. 5. Press releases and information regarding student achievement and school programs are made available to the local newspaper and radio station. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Because of the district’s low student achievement, include more board 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 the progress of programs to improve student achievement. 5. At regularly scheduled meetings, discuss budget commitments to programs designed to improve student achievement. 88 Community Relations and Governance 6. Continue and increase the practice of making information on student achievement and school programs available to the local newspaper and radio station. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Community Relations and Governance 89 90 Community Relations and Governance Table of Community Relations and Governance Ratings Community Relations and Governance 91 92 Community Relations and Governance February March March Community Relations and Governance Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – COMMUNICATIONS 1.1 The LEA has developed a comprehensive plan for internal 1 1 4 and external communications, including media relations. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – COMMUNICATIONS Information is communicated to the staff at all levels in 1.2 an effective and timely manner. Two-way communication 1 2 5 between staff and administration regarding the LEA’s operations is encouraged. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – COMMUNICATIONS Individuals not authorized to speak on behalf of the LEA 1.4 0 4 5 refrain 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 4 5 6 be involved in school activities and in their children’s education. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – PARENT/COMMUNITY RELATIONS 2.8 1 2 4 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. 3.1 2 5 7 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) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVES, LEA ADVISORY COMMITTEES, SCHOOL SITE COUNCILS The board and superintendent have established broad- 3.4 based committees and councils to advise the LEA 1 1 4 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. Community Relations and Governance 93 February March March Community Relations and Governance Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVES, LEA ADVISORY COMMITTEES, SCHOOL SITE COUNCILS The LEA encourages and provides the necessary 3.6 1 1 3 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. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – POLICY 4.5 The board supports and follows its own policies once they 0 4 5 are adopted. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BOARD ROLES/ BOARDSMANSHIP 5.2 0 3 6 Board members receive necessary training to better fulfill their roles. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BOARD ROLES/ BOARDSMANSHIP The board has established an LEA-wide vision/mission 5.3 1 3 4 and uses 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 5 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 5 The board and administrative team maintain functional working relationships. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BOARD ROLES/ BOARDSMANSHIP 5.9 0 3 7 Board members respect the confidentiality of information shared by the administration. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BOARD ROLES/ BOARDSMANSHIP Board members effectively develop policy and set the 5.10 0 3 5 direction of the LEA while supporting the superintendent and administrative staff in their responsibility to implement adopted policies and administrative regulations. 94 Community Relations and Governance February March March Community Relations and Governance Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BOARD ROLES/ BOARDSMANSHIP 5.11 1 2 5 The board acts for the community and in the interests of all students in the LEA. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BOARD MEETINGS Board members prepare for board meetings by becoming 6.6 2 4 7 familiar with the agenda and support materials prior to the meeting. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BOARD MEETINGS 6.9 Board meetings focus on matters related to student 1 2 5 achievement. Collective Average Rating 0.89 2.83 5.11 The collective average ratings for all years are based on the subset of priority standards used in this third comprehensive review. Community Relations and Governance 95 96 Personnel Management Personnel Management 97 98 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 (CBO) 4. Interviews with district administrative and human resources department staff 5. Interviews with school site administrators 6. Interview with human resources consultant 7. Board Policy 4111, adopted March 10, 2008 8. Board Policy 4115, adopted October 11, 2000 9. Board Policy 4118, adopted October 11, 2000 10. Administrative Regulation 4112, adopted October 11, 2000 11. Administrative Regulation 4212, adopted October 11, 2000 12. Administrative Regulation 4118, adopted October 11, 2000 13. Board Policy 4100, adopted September 8, 2010 14. Board Policy 4115, adopted November 4, 2009 15. Board Policies 4119.11, 4219.11, and 4319.11, adopted November 4, 2009 16. Board Policy 4139, adopted September 8, 2010 17. Board Policy 4213, adopted September 8, 2010 18. Board Policy 4300, adopted September 8, 2010 19. Administrative Regulations 4112.5, 4312.5, adopted September 8, 2010 20. Administrative Regulations 4112.62, 4312.62, adopted September 8, 2010 Personnel Management 99 21. Administrative Regulation 4115, adopted November 4, 2009 22. Administrative Regulation 4139, adopted September 8, 2010 23. Administrative Regulation 4212.5, adopted September 8, 2010 24. Administrative Regulation 4218, adopted October 14, 2009 25. Board Policy 4000, adopted September 8, 2010 26. Board Policy 4100, adopted September 8, 2010 27. Board Policies 4111, 4211, and 4311, adopted October 13, 2010 28. Administrative Regulation 4112.2, adopted June 8, 2011 29. Board Policies 4112.2, 4212.2 and 4312.2, adopted September 8, 2010 30. Administrative Regulations 4112.2, 4212.2 and 4312.2, adopted September 8, 2010 31. Administrative Regulation 4112.2, adopted January 13, 2010 32. Administrative Regulations 4112.5 and 4312.5, adopted September 8, 2010 33. Administrative Regulations 4112.6, 4212.6 and 4312.6, adopted June 8, 2011 34. Board Policies 4112.61, 4212.61 and 4312.61, adopted June 8, 2011 35. Administrative Regulations 4112.62, 4212.62 and 4312.63, adopted September 8, 2010 36. Board Policies 4112.8, 4212.8 and 4312.8, adopted June 8, 2011 37. Administrative Regulation 4117.5, adopted May 11, 2011 38. Board Policy 4118, adopted May 11, 2011 39. Administrative Regulation 4118, adopted May 11, 2011 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. 100 Personnel Management Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district had revised 35 personnel-related policies and 26 administrative regulations, including but not limited to those regarding the hiring, evaluation and discipline of employees. There was a process to ensure that all personnel-related policies were updated. The district had yet to ensure that personnel-related policies were communicated to district personnel and implemented. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district continues to review and revise board policies related to personnel functions and is communicating policy and administrative regulations revisions to district staff through newsletters attached to monthly pay warrants. The district has posted board policies and administrative regulations on its website. 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 to these policies in November 2009, December 2009, January 2010, March 2010, June 2010, August 2010, September 2010, May 2011, and June 2011. 2. The district continues to review and revise board policies related to personnel functions (the 4000 series). The district is communicating revisions to policies and administrative regulations to district staff through newsletters attached to monthly pay warrants. 3. The human resources department will continue to follow the CSBA process for updating personnel-related policies. 4. The district has posted board policies and administrative regulations on its website. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to review and revise board policies related to personnel functions (the 4000 series). Adopted policies and administrative regulations should form the basis for developing the human resources department’s day-to-day operating procedures and should ensure compliance with state and federal employment laws. 2. Implement personnel-related policies and procedures adopted by the board. 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. Personnel Management 101 4. Continue to communicate revisions to policies and administrative regulations to affected personnel, and ensure that administrators responsible for implementing and monitoring new policies have the resources to do so. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: 102 Personnel Management 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, mission, and guiding principles statements 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 were being developed but had not yet been reviewed by the cabinet or department staff. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The department has added guiding principles to the draft vision and mission statements but has not developed annual goals or objectives linked to the vision, mission, or guiding principles, and there is no evidence that it is measuring its progress toward achieving its mission. 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 statement is: “Promoting student achievement through our most valuable resources – our people.” The draft 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 department’s vision and mission statements have been expanded to include a list of guiding principles, but measurable goals and objectives have not yet been developed. 3. The department has not developed a process for the human resources staff or the cabinet to review the department’s vision and mission statements. 4. The department did not provide the board or the district’s administration with an annual report regarding the number of staff, staffing ratios and other personnel-related matters. Personnel Management 103 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 the cabinet and human resources department staff to review the department’s vision and mission statements. 3. Ensure that the human resources department annually develops measurable goals and objectives that facilitate achievement of its mission. 4. Develop a template and produce an annual report to the board 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 report to the board includes evidence of progress toward meeting the department’s goals and objectives for the year. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 104 Personnel Management 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 the assistant superintendent of educational 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 had a list of major areas of responsibility but had not created a functional organizational chart that showed all essential personnel functions and the positions that supported those functions. The assistant superintendent of educational services had been identified as the chief personnel officer, and the organizational chart showed this and listed the personnel manager as the only department staff. However, some personnel functions were shared with staff from other departments. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district’s organizational chart includes position titles and names of employees assigned to the human resources department. The department does not have a functional organizational chart indicating duties assigned to human resources staff. Findings 1. The district has not surveyed comparable school districts to determine appropriate staffing levels for the human resources department. 2. The human resources department did not use short-term consulting or contract services on a project basis to help implement the recovery plan during the review period, but began doing so subsequent to FCMAT’s fieldwork. Personnel Management 105 3. The department has not developed a functional organizational chart. Because the department has not added staffing and because almost all personnel operations are assigned to a single staff member, the development of a functional organizational chart lacks relevance. It may be more useful for the department to develop a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to district office functions, including essential duties assigned to all operational divisions. For example, the FAQs could cover questions related to tuberculosis tests, absence reporting, payroll questions, reimbursement of personal expenses and conference travel requests, and list the district office personnel to contact for additional information on each topic. 4. The human resources department has not developed a department reference manual. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Survey other districts with similar enrollment and organization 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. Develop a list of FAQs related to district office functions, including essential duties assigned to all divisions. Because employee services are an essential human resources function, the department should lead this effort. Human resources staff are encouraged to work with employee groups to identify FAQs. 3. 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 duties on the functional organization chart. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 106 Personnel Management 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with CBO 3. Interviews with educational services and district administrative support staff 4. Interview with the human resources consultant 5. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel 6. Cabinet meeting notice 7. Cabinet meeting agenda and notes 8. List of essential duties of the assistant superintendent and human resources manager 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 had been participating in cabinet meetings. With the responsibility for the department having shifted from the state administrator and chief business official to the assistant superintendent of educational services and human resources, there was a need to clearly articulate the role of the chief personnel officer and the personnel manager in cabinet- and department-level decision making. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The assistant superintendent of educational services and human resources participates in the superintendent’s cabinet. The personnel manager also continues to participate. A list of duties for each position was provided but does not clearly articulate their decision-making authority. Personnel Management 107 Findings 1. The assistant superintendent of educational services and human resources and the personnel manager are members of the superintendent’s cabinet. 2. The decision-making authority of the assistant superintendent and the personnel manager is not clearly defined. A list of essential duties for each position indicates a continuing overlap of roles and responsibilities as well as a lack of clarity regarding the activities that each position directs, facilitates and supports. Recommendation for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the assistant superintendent’s and personnel manager’s roles in the cabinet and in department level decision-making are clearly articulated. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: 108 Personnel Management 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the CBO 3. Interviews with district and school site administrators 4. 2009-10 information services data calendar 5. 2010-11 information services data calendar 6. CALPADS Modified Collection and Submission Methods: Description and Deadlines 7. 2011-12 information services data calendar 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 had historically been responsible for the collection, certification, and submission of CALPADS, CSIS, and CBEDS reports for the district. The student information manager developed a data management calendar for these activities and was supported in the collection of personnel data by the personnel manager. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The student information manager develops a data management calendar that includes activities related to the collection, certification, and submission of CALPADS, CSIS, and CBEDS reports for the district. The human resources department does not maintain a calendar of human resources annual activities related to CALPADS and CBEDS or other personnel management activities or functions. The personnel manager provides the student information manager with Personnel Management 109 information needed for CALPADS and CBEDS submissions, following the data management calendar developed by the educational services department. Findings 1. The student information manager has a data management calendar that lists CALPADS and CBEDS dates and activities. 2. Because personnel data is maintained in a separate database, the human resources department must update the database annually and must take special care to ensure its accuracy. This will continue to be a time-consuming activity until the Monterey County Office of Education purchases a new countywide financial and personnel data management system. 3. The human resources department has not developed a data management calendar but provides the student information manager with information needed for CALPADS and CBEDS submissions, following the data management calendar developed by the educational services department. 4. The personnel manager and the assistant superintendent of educational services and human resources review CALPADS and CBEDS data prior to its certification and transmission to the state of California. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the human resources department takes responsibility for human resources- related data and functions related to CALPADS and CBEDS and that it continues to update the data in the personnel database annually and takes special care to ensure its accuracy. 2. Ensure that the human resources department provides the student information manager with personnel data according to the data management calendar to ensure timely submission of required state reports. 3. Develop an annual human resources calendar that indicates required activities and tasks by month, including the department’s responsibility for CALPADS and CBEDS. 4. Ensure that the department supervisor continues to review all information before its certification and transmission to the state of California. 110 Personnel Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 111 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the CBO 3. Interviews with district and school site administrators 4. Interviews with human resources department and business office staff 5. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel 6. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education credentials department personnel 7. Letter from Monterey County Office of Education credentials department, dated March 11, 2009, and various responses from district staff 8. District’s assignment monitoring and review report, dated June 30, 2009 9. No Child Left Behind teacher action plan, dated October 22, 2009 10. 2009-10 Williams monitoring report 11. Memorandum of understanding eliminating the stipend for Cross-Cultural Language and Academic Development (CLAD) certification 12. 2011-12 King City High School master schedule 13. 2011-12 Greenfield High School master schedule 14. 2010-11 William’s assignment monitoring report 15. Board Policy 1312.3, adopted March 9, 2011 16. Administrative Regulation 1312.3, adopted March 9, 2011 17. Parent notices, including complaint rights and forms, in English and Spanish 112 Personnel Management 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. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The personnel manager was reviewing the master schedules to identify teacher misassignments. Late adjustments to the master schedule made credential monitoring particularly challenging during that 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 did not have a written procedure that ensured newly hired certificated employees were properly credentialed for vacant positions. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The human resources department has significantly improved hiring procedures by ensuring that posted vacancies are based on enrollment projections and staffing needs according to the 2011-12 master schedule for each high school. In addition, the hiring process includes a procedure to ensure that applicants and candidates selected for hire are appropriately credentialed prior to positions being offered. However, this procedure has not been put in to writing or included in a department procedures manual. 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 has reviewed the master schedule annually to identify any misassignments. 2. The annual Williams report for 2009-10 indicated seven misassignments. All misassignments were corrected for the 2010-11 school year. 3. The department significantly improved hiring procedures by ensuring that vacancies were posted based on enrollment projections and the draft 2011-12 master schedule for each high school. In addition, the hiring process now includes a procedure to ensure that applicants and candidates selected for hire are appropriately credentialed prior to positions being offered. 4. In an effort to minimize unnecessary personnel expenses, the district staffed schools based on conservative enrollment projections. In some cases, substitutes were used at the beginning of the school year until enrollment was certain. 5. There were minimal changes in teacher assignment at the beginning of the 2011-12 school year. Personnel Management 113 6. Hiring and assignment procedures have not been put in writing or included in a department procedures manual. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the human resources department continues 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 administrators and human resources department staff in the recruitment, screening, selection, hiring and assignment of certificated staff. 3. Ensure that the written hiring procedure includes a timeline for master schedule development and is aligned with the annual recruitment plan. The master schedule should be developed early in the preceding school year so that layoffs, transfers, reassignments, recruitment and hiring continue to be aligned with the needs of each school site. The district should strive for minimal assignment changes to the master schedule after school has started. 4. Continue to minimize unnecessary personnel expenses by being conservative in projecting annual enrollment. Use substitute if needed at the beginning of the school year until enrollment is settled to reduce overstaffing and safeguard scarce fiscal resources. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: 114 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the CBO 3. Interviews with district and school site administrators and support staff 4. Interview with human resources department staff 5. Classified employment application, updated 2005-06 6. Supplement for experienced custodian position, no date provided 7. Brandman University student teacher agreement 8. La Verne University student teacher agreement 9. Brandman University internship agreement 10. Certificated employment application, updated 2009-10 11. Management employment application, updated 2009-10 12. Classified employment application, updated 2009-10 13. 2010-11 teacher recruitment and hiring procedure 14. 2011-12 draft recruitment plan 15. Classified employment application form, revised August 2011 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 115 Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The human resources department did not have a recruitment plan for 2010-11. The district had updated all employment applications and was 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The human resources department developed a draft recruitment plan for 2011-12. Recruitment plan objectives are well thought out and aggressive; however, the plan neither includes an action plan nor mentions classified management and nonmanagement staff. A comprehensive written plan is still needed. Findings 1. The human resources department developed enrollment projections for the 2011-12 school year in collaboration with the business services and curriculum and instruction divisions. Instructional program changes were considered when developing the master schedule and identifying staffing needs. 2. The district’s layoff, reassignment and recruitment decisions were based on identified needs. 3. The human resources department has a draft recruitment plan that identifies the district’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) related to its recruitment efforts. For example, the district’s rural location is listed as a weakness and its employees are listed a district strength. 4. Recruitment plan objectives are well thought out and aggressive. However, the plan does not include an action plan that identifies key recruitment tasks, personnel responsible for each task, and implementation dates. In addition, the plan does not mention duties for classified management and nonmanagement staff. The department continues to move in the right direction with regard to recruitment; however, a written comprehensive plan is still needed. 5. The district uses EDJOIN (www.edjoin.org) for recruitment of certificated staff, classified staff, and administrative positions; all classified staff and administrator applications are received through EDJOIN. 6. In addition to advertising on EDJOIN, the district advertised classified positions in the local newspaper. 116 Personnel Management 7. For the 2011-12 school year, the district hired a total of 10 new certificated employees for eight nonmanagement and two management positions. 8. The maintenance, operations, transportation and facilities (MOTF) department reorganized by separating the previously combined custodian and bus driver classifications. The department was provided with the resources needed to advertise vacant positions in the local newspaper and to post flyers in the unemployment office and other public locations such as the local library. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to ensure that the human resources department works cooperatively with the business department and the school sites to develop accurate enrollment projections that enable the administration to 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 be considered when developing master schedules. 2. Ensure that the recruitment plan lists the personnel responsible for various tasks and includes a timeline. The plan should also include dates for enrollment and staffing projections, master schedule development, layoff planning, and transfer and reassignment decisions. The recruitment plan should include classified management and nonmanagement positions. 3. Develop written practices and procedures for recruitment of certificated and classified staff. 4. Continue to advertise classified management and nonmanagement positions on the EDJOIN website and in other venues. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 117 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the CBO 3. Interviews with district administrators and support staff 4. Interviews with human resources department and business office staff 5. Interview questions, not dated 6. Position testing documentation, dated 1/2003 and 10/2004 7. 2010-11 teacher recruitment and hiring procedure 8. Certificated reference check form 9. Interview packets and sample completed reference check forms 10. Interview questions for student services coordinator, teacher, bus driver, custodian technician, groundskeeper, head custodian, maintenance worker, and student services technician/office assistant positions 11. Exams for instructional aide and office clerk positions 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 had developed a standard reference check form. Reference checks were performed on all candidates recommended for hire for the 2010-11 school year. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district consistently used the new background and reference check forms when hiring new certificated and classified employees for the 2011-12 school year. The district’s procedure 118 Personnel Management for filing reference check forms was developed but was not put in writing or consistently implemented. Findings 1. The district has standard interview questions for certificated and classified positions, and interviews with the personnel manager and school 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. 2. The district consistently used the new background and reference check forms when hiring new certificated and classified employees for the 2011-12 school year. 3. The district’s procedure for filing reference check forms was developed but was not put in writing or consistently implemented. Application packets, including pre-employment exams, interview materials, and reference check forms, are being placed in the personnel files of employees who are hired rather than maintained in separate recruitment files as temporary personnel records. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to ensure that the newly implemented reference check procedure is consistently followed and that the standard reference check form is 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. 4. Retain recruitment records as temporary personnel records, and dispose of records according to the district’s record retention policy. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 119 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 1. Interview with the state administrator 2. Interview with the CBO 3. Interviews with district and school site administrators and support staff 4. Interview with human resources department staff 5. 2010-11 applications for principal positions 6. 2010-11 selection materials for principal positions 7. Student and community services coordinator job description 8. Assistant principal job description 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 In March 2011, the district eliminated a counselor position at each school and created a new certificated management position of student/community services coordinator. The job description for this position does not identify essential duties or physical and mental demands, which are legally required elements. 120 Personnel Management Findings 1. The district’s salaries for school administrators are competitive with salaries for similar positions in school districts statewide. 2. The district’s salary and employee benefits schedules appear sufficient to enable it to recruit and maintain experienced school site administrators. 3. The district has revised processes for evaluating certificated and classified staff. Consistent evaluation of administrative staff based on stated measurable goals, including student achievement, was planned at the time of FCMAT’s 2010 fieldwork; however, a plan for accomplishing this goal had not been developed at the time of FCMAT’s 2011 fieldwork. 4. The district eliminated a counselor position at each school and created a new certificated management position of student/community services coordinator. The job description for this position does not identify its essential duties or physical and mental demands, which are legally required elements. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Evaluate administrators based on measurable goals and criteria, including student achievement. 2. Monitor administrators’ progress toward meeting identified goals, and conduct regular evaluations. 3. Ensure that job descriptions for administrative positions clearly communicate performance expectations and include all legally required elements. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 121 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the CBO 3. Interviews with district and school site administrators and support staff 4. Interview with human resources department staff 5. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel 6. Certificates of completion for sexual harassment training, drug- and alcohol-free workplace training, and diversity training 7. 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, blood-borne pathogens, drug- and alcohol-free workplace, sexual harassment, and nondiscrimination 8. Administrative Regulation 4040, adopted December 9, 2009 9. Board Policies 4119.11, 4219.11 and 4319.11, adopted November 4, 2009 10. January 28, 2010 manager and supervisor sexual harassment prevention training sign-in sheet 11. Certificates of completion for manager and supervisor sexual harassment prevention training 12. Board Policy 4030, adopted November 10, 2010 13. Administrative Regulation 4030, adopted November 10, 2010 14. Administrative Regulation 4032, adopted September 8, 2010 15. Discrimination complaint forms included in August 11, 2011 legal notices to employees 122 Personnel Management 16. Interview with recently hired certificated and classified employees 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 had improved the process for ensuring that required legal notices were delivered to and signed by all employees, and the human resources department was monitoring and tracking participation in required trainings. In addition, the human resources department was working to implement Keenan Safe Schools, an online training module that can provide child abuse reporting, blood borne pathogens, drug- and alcohol-free workplace, sexual harassment, diversity and nondiscrimination training to all employees annually. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has implemented the Keenan Safe Schools online training module to provide some of the required training. The district provided required annual legal notices to all employees. New certificated and classified employees participated in new employee orientation and were informed of the requirement to participate in the online trainings. Management employees participated in on-site sexual harassment training as required. Findings 1. The district has developed 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 who received training regarding sexual harassment prevention. 3. The personnel files reviewed contained documents indicating that employees received the required training listed in this standard. 4. New employees indicated that they received training related to mandatory reporting of child abuse concerns. 5. The district sent the required annual legal notices to employees and filed the signed cover sheet in each employee’s personnel record. 6. The district implemented the Keenan Safe Schools’ online training module that provides training in child abuse reporting, blood-borne pathogens, drug- and alcohol-free workplace, sexual harassment prevention, diversity and nondiscrimination, based on job classification requirements. The district plans to expand this training in the future. The Keenan Safe Schools’ training program can send electronic notifications to employees Personnel Management 123 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. 7. Certificates of completion for manager and supervisor sexual harassment prevention training indicate that management employees participated in on-site sexual harassment training as required. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to 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 prevention, diversity training and nondiscrimination. 2. Continue to ensure that the human resources department 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 work site or at the district office. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: 124 Personnel Management 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the CBO 3. Interviews with district and school site administrators 4. Interviews with human resources department and business office staff 5. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel 6. New employee checklist 7. New teacher orientation agenda and materials 8. New teacher handbook 9. New classified employee orientation agenda and materials 10. August 2011 new classified employee orientation agenda and packet of required forms 11. August 2011 new certificated employee orientation agenda and sign-in sheet 12. Revised August 2011 new teacher handbook Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 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, March 2011 The district had 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. Personnel Management 125 Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has developed a checklist to ensure that new hires submit all legally required documents before their first day of work. The district developed and is distributing a handbook for new certificated employees but has not developed an equivalent handbook for new classified employees or conducted orientation for substitute employees. Findings 1. The district held new employee orientations for certificated and classified employees in August 2010 but did not do so in August 20111. The August 2010 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. 2. Orientation for substitute employees has not yet occurred. 3. There was no means for new employees to assess or evaluate the orientation program, resulting in a lack of evidence regarding the program’s effectiveness. 4. The district has developed a checklist for newly hired employees to ensure that all legally required documents are provided before the first day of work. Checklists are filed in employees’ personnel files. 5. The district has developed a new certificated employee handbook and provides it to all new certificated employees during orientation. An equivalent handbook for new classified employees has not been developed. 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 new employees’ needs by developing an orientation evaluation that helps assess the orientation’s effectiveness and determines what other information new employees want to know or learn more about. 3. Develop employee handbooks for management and classified employees, as has been done for certificated 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. 126 Personnel Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 127 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the CBO 3. Interviews with district and school site administrators and support staff 4. Interviews with human resources department and business office staff 5. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel 6. Report of absence by type (e.g., sick leave, vacation), not dated 7. Report of compensatory time and vacation balances as of June 30, 2010 8. District annual leave reporting forms 9. Certificated collective bargaining agreement, Article XIII: Leaves 10. District’s proposal to California School Employees Association (CSEA), Article XII: Leaves 11. District’s proposal to CSEA, Article V: Hours and Overtime 12. District’s proposal to CSEA, Article IX: Vacation 13. Administrative regulations 4161.2, 4261.2 and 4361.2 14. Fiscal year 2010-11 employee absence report including vacation and compensatory time accruals 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 128 Personnel Management eligible. It was difficult to determine workflow and tracking of leaves of absence. Compensatory time and overtime also lacked documentation. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district had made measurable progress in the area of leave management, largely as a result of successfully negotiating changes with employee bargaining groups. The district had successfully negotiated revisions to the certificated collective bargaining agreement that eliminated leave entitlements in excess of those provided for by law, and had proposed to the classified unit changes in the leave, vacation, and compensatory time provisions that would similarly ensure that benefits did not exceed statutory requirements. There was minimal evidence of a plan to eliminate vacation and compensatory time liabilities. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district’s vacation and compensatory time off liability has been minimally reduced. Some time was paid out at the end of the 2010-11 school year, but large balances remain and a plan to eliminate the current liability has not been developed. A procedure for monitoring vacation accruals has not been developed, and departments have not developed annual vacation schedules. Findings 1. The district is tracking employee leaves for all groups. For classified employees, the district is also tracking vacation accruals, overtime and compensatory time. However, documents indicate that payouts and/or scheduling of time off for employees with vacation accruals over the maximum were not consistent. 2. The district’s vacation and compensatory time off liability has been minimally reduced. Some time was paid out at the end of the 2010-11 school year, but large balances remain and the district has not developed a plan to eliminate the current liability. 3. The district has eliminated the use of overtime and compensatory time off without prior approval. 4. The district has not developed a procedure for monitoring vacation accruals, and departments have not developed annual vacation schedules. The district is not requiring employees to submit vacation requests or face having their vacations scheduled by their supervisor based on their department’s operational needs. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop a multiyear 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. If a vacation accrual exceeds the maximum allowed by Personnel Management 129 the collective bargaining agreement, it should be paid out or the employee’s supervisor should schedule the employee’s time off. 3. Continue to 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 in the district as a whole. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 130 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the CBO 3. Interviews with district and school site administrators and support staff 4. PowerPoint presentation and letter to parents, dated August 23, 2009 5. 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 agreement required the district to consider all transfer requests but was consistent with Education Code 35036, which prohibits granting priority to a teacher who requests a transfer to another school over other qualified applicants. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district carried out demotions and reassignments of management or nonmanagement school staff related to its Program Improvement status. Voluntary requests for transfer were filed for 2011-12. One involuntary transfer was made based on enrollment projections. Findings 1. The district carried out demotions and reassignments of management or nonmanagement school staff related to its Program Improvement status. 2. Voluntary requests for transfer were filed for 2011-12. One involuntary transfer was made based on enrollment projections. Personnel Management 131 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Work closely with advisors to develop a policy for implementing Program Improvement corrective actions. 2. Ensure that Education Code is followed when considering transfer requests and making teacher assignments related to the district’s Program Improvement status. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: 132 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the CBO 3. Interview with the personnel technician 4. Interview with the executive assistant to superintendent 5. Interview with the director of maintenance, operations, transportation and facilities (MOTF) 6. Sample personnel file, recreated from actual employee files, reviewed October 28, 2009 7. Sample personnel file reviewed on September 29, 2010 8. Copies of certificated and classified evaluation lists provided to site and department supervisors 9. Sample certificated and classified personnel files reviewed on August 31, 2011 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 was making significant progress in organizing personnel files and ensuring that required documents were filed annually. The department was also making a concerted effort to ensure that site and department supervisors were notified of the employees to be evaluated during the 2010-11 school year. The district still needed to ensure that supervisors were held accountable for completing the required evaluations. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The human resources department continues to make significant progress in organizing personnel files and filing required documents annually. The department developed a checklist for annual updates of personnel files and provided supervisors with lists of classified and certificated Personnel Management 133 employees due for evaluation in 2010-11. Certificated evaluations were completed and available for review. Findings 1. The human resources department has developed a checklist of annual updates for each type of personnel file and is filing the appropriate documentation. 2. At the beginning of the 2010-11 school year, the district provided site and department supervisors with lists of classified and certificated employees who were due for evaluation. Certificated evaluations were completed and were available for review during FCMAT’s September 2011 fieldwork but had not yet been filed in the employees’ personnel records. 3. Required annual notices were sent to all employees at the beginning of the 2010-11 school year and were filed in employees’ personnel files. 4. Individual personnel files are available for employees to inspect. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the human resources department consistently uses the personnel file checklist and files the appropriate documentation annually, including, but not limited to, annual evaluations and required annual legal notices. 2. Ensure that site and department supervisors complete required evaluations based on the list provided by the human resources department. Standard Implement: Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: 134 Personnel Management 5.5 Operational Procedures Professional Standard Personnel non-management 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the CBO 3. Interviews with district administrators and classified managers 4. Interviews with human resources department and business office staff 5. 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 was significantly limited by staffing levels. Thoughtfully articulating procedures and creating desk manuals was likely to remain secondary to completing the day-to-day work and implementing essential elements of the recovery plan. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The department does not have desk manuals; it has used consultants and/or retirees to help implement the recovery plan. Developing desk manuals and written operational procedures remains secondary to completing day-to-day work. Findings 1. The human resources department lacks desk manuals or any manuals that describe how job functions are to be performed. Although the department has no nonmanagement staff, developing and maintaining desk manuals for essential functions is a best practice. 2. The chief personnel officer, the personnel manager and the district’s receptionist share essential personnel functions. 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 help coworkers with essential tasks or complete them in their absence. Because the Personnel Management 135 human resources department lacks adequate staffing, developing written procedures and desk manuals is secondary to day-to-day operations. The department has not increased staffing or used consultants or retirees on a project basis to help implement the recovery plan by documenting processes and creating desk manuals. 3. Payroll and other district staff positions have not been cross trained to perform essential personnel duties in the absence of the personnel manager. 4. The district has not identified or trained backup personnel to perform essential personnel- related functions. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Request assistance or continue using consultants, retirees and/or short-term contract 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. 3. Identify and train backup personnel to perform essential human resources functions. Standard Not Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating:0 March 2011 Rating: 0 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 136 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the CBO 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 were not meeting formally, the personnel manager reported that communication was frequent. The departments were small and staff members had positive working relationships; however, formal meetings were still necessary. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The CBO and the personnel manager meet regularly but informally, continue to have a positive working relationship, and are able to quickly resolve any payroll questions or errors related to employees’ status and paperwork. Because the district’s success in this area depends on the employees involved and the positive working relationship between the CBO and personnel manager rather than formal procedures, a change in staffing could result in inefficiencies and more payroll errors. Findings 1. The payroll and human resources department maintain separate manual spreadsheets because the county office of education’s financial and payroll management software Personnel Management 137 system, which the district uses, is antiquated and ineffective. The CBO and personnel manager work together to ensure consistency in personnel and payroll data. 2. Personnel and business staff responsible for payroll include the CBO and the personnel manager, who meet regularly but informally. They continue to have a positive working relationship and are able to resolve any payroll questions or errors related to processing new employees, classification changes, employee promotions and other issues quickly. The district’s success in this area depends on the employees involved and the working relationship between the CBO and the personnel manager rather than formal processes or written procedures or protocols. A change in staffing could result in inefficiencies and increase payroll errors. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the human resources and payroll departments develop interdepartmental procedures related to new employees, classification changes, employee promotions and other payroll-related issues. Use the procedures, timelines and deadlines developed as the basis for desk manuals for each department. 2. When the county office of education adopts a new financial and personnel management system, ensure that the human resources and payroll departments implement it fully. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 138 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the former superintendent 3. Interview with the CBO 4. Interviews with district administrators 5. Interview with human resources department staff 6. Interview with the Monterey County Office of Education assistant superintendent of human resources 7. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel 8. Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) Personnel Academy registration form 9. Credential Counselors and Analysts of California (CCAC) Credential Conference registration confirmation 10. California Public Employees’ Retirement System (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 was 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 were commendable. Because the human resources department was small, identifying backup personnel for essential functions remained essential. Personnel Management 139 Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The personnel manager is scheduled to attend the Credential Counselors and Analysts of California (CCAC) Credential Conference and the CalPERS disability seminar, and the district office receptionist will attend the annual Substitute Employee Management System (SEMS) conference. Backup personnel for essential functions have not been identified. 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 attended the ACSA Personnel Academy in 2010-11. 3. The personnel manager is registered for the October 2011 CCAC Credentials Conference. 4. The personnel manager is registered to attend the 2011 CalPERS disability seminar. 5. The district’s part-time receptionist position has been filled. The receptionist was trained by the personnel manager on the use of SEMS and other duties. 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. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 140 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the CBO 3. Interviews with district and school site administrators, classified managers, and support staff 4. Interview with human resources department staff 5. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel 6. Collective bargaining agreement with certificated staff, Article XIV: Class Size 7. Interview with principals 8. Review of master schedule for Greenfield and King City high schools (total students by teacher by period) 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 had ratified a class size agreement that eliminated the 32:1 staffing ratio. The new language provided 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. Personnel Management 141 Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Overstaffing of certificated employees has been significantly reduced. The Greenfield and King City high school master schedules indicate an average enrollment of approximately 31 students per class period and few class periods with fewer than 17 students enrolled. Findings 1. 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 maximum and specifies a maximum of 35 students per class period and 170 student contacts per day. The ratified agreement also provides for overage payments when the per-period or per-day maximums are exceeded. 2. Certificated overstaffing has been significantly reduced. The Greenfield and King City high school master schedules show an average enrollment of approximately 31 students per period and few sections with fewer than 17 students enrolled. 3. Classified staffing formulas have not been developed. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to develop an instructional staffing schedule for each school based on enrollment projections and students’ needs, and staff schools at or near the new contract maximums. 2. Ensure that the human resources department works cooperatively with the business department and the school 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 students’ needs when developing master schedules. 3. Develop a timeline for staffing and enrollment projections that identifies site and district administrators’ roles and responsibilities. The timeline should ensure that necessary reductions in certificated service are identified by the end of January so they can be made within the statutory timeline and preliminary layoff notices issued by March 15. 4. Develop a district policy or general rule regarding dropping sections from the master schedule. The policy or rule should define underenrollment and establish a timeline for determining when a section will be dropped, preferably during master schedule development and before vacancies are posted and filled. 142 Personnel Management 5. Continue to 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. 6. Develop school site and district office staffing formulas for classified employees to ensure consistency between sites. 7. Ensure that staffing formulas are based on full-time equivalents and that they indicate the work year for each program and school site. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 143 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the former superintendent 3. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel 4. Interview with the CBO 5. Interview with the director of technology 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 was constrained by the system in use by the Monterey County Office of Education. Staff members described the system as inadequate in terms of the district’s needs. The county office had issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a new financial system, and the district was to participate in selection of the vendor. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The Monterey County Office of Education has not yet signed a contract with a vendor for a new financial system. The Human Resources department will continue to use the current system ACCESS to manage personnel data. An advantage of the homegrown system is that it requires minimal support. The disadvantage is that there is no ability to share the data and it is not integrated with budget and payroll. 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 remains constrained by the financial management system used by the Monterey County Office of Education, which human resources and business office staff described as antiquated and ineffective. 144 Personnel Management 4. At the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork, the Monterey County Office of Education had not signed a contract with a vendor for a new financial system. 5. The district has developed new personnel requisitions, which school site and department managers are using consistently when position vacancies occur. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Fully implement the new financial system when it is purchased to ensure accurate and effective position control. 2. In the interim, continue to maintain, monitor and update the current personnel database so that data is accurate and reports are timely. 3. Continue to use the new personnel requisition forms, and develop written procedures for their use. The written procedures should identify the roles and responsibilities of district office and school and department staff for filling new and existing positions. Responsible school site, department and district office staff should be provided with annual training on the appropriate use of the form. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 145 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 the state administrator 2. Interviews with district and school site administrators 3. Interviews with human resources staff and the chief personnel officer 4. Interview with Monterey County Office of Education fiscal oversight personnel 5. Interview with the director of technology 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 was not recommended; the district was working with the county office to select a new countywide system. FCMAT recommended that the district ensure that the new system would be fully implemented when selected. This would require significant training and support. Because the level of staffing was low, it was probable that the human resources department would need short-term assistance during the transition and training to ensure that day-to-day operations do not suffer. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 At the time of FCMAT’s review, the county office had not yet selected a new countywide financial system. As recommended during the second comprehensive review, when a new system is selected, the district should ensure that human resources staff receive adequate training and support. Findings 1. The district does not have a professional development plan for the human resources department related to the use of technology because a new countywide system has not been selected. A plan to provide district staff with professional development in the use of technology will be essential when a new system is selected and implemented. 146 Personnel Management 2. 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. 3. The district does not assess human resources and payroll employees’ skill and knowledge of software and systems used. This assessment will be essential to developing a professional development program. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Create a professional development plan and schedule to ensure the highest performance by 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’ skills in the use of 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 sufficient 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 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 147 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 the state administrator 2. Interviews with district and school site administrators and support staff 3. Interviews with human resources department and business office staff 4. Article 15 of the collective bargaining agreement with certificated employees, regarding certificated employee evaluation, pages 32-35, not dated 5. Article 10 of the collective bargaining agreement with classified employees, regarding evaluation procedures, 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. Sampling of e-mails to site and department supervisors regarding evaluation schedules for 2010-11 11. List of certificated and classified evaluation dates by site and department for 2011-12 12. Certificated evaluation timeline distributed to managers at July 2011 administrative meeting 13. Evaluation outcomes spreadsheet identifying by supervisor the number of evaluations with the following ratings: meets standards, exceeds standards, and unsatisfactory 14. Draft progressive discipline flowchart 15. Administrative Regulation 4218, adopted October 14, 2009 148 Personnel Management 16. Board Policy Professional Standards Exhibits 4219.21 and 4319.21, dated September 8, 2010 17. Board Policy 4300, adopted September 8, 2010 18. Certificated employee evaluation form 19. Management employee performance evaluation form 20. Classified employee performance evaluation form 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. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district had successfully negotiated evaluation criteria for certificated employees based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. In addition, the human resources department had provided all site and department supervisors with lists of certificated and classified staff that needed to be evaluated in 2010-11 and was developing a process to track evaluations annually. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 During 2010-11, school site administrators completed the required certificated evaluations and documentation. School site and department administrators did not complete all required classified evaluations. The state administrator evaluated department directors and school principals, and site principals are expected to evaluate assistant principals. Findings 1. The district has made considerable progress in the area of certificated evaluations. Site administrators were provided with a list of all employees who were due to be evaluated in the 2010-11 school year. Evaluation forms, procedures, and timelines were provided electronically. Site administrators completed the required certificated evaluations. 2. Ten certificated evaluations were randomly selected for review. The new district forms, which are aligned to the newly negotiated evaluation article in the collective bargaining agreement, were completed in each case. Dates of evaluation conferences and formal and informal observations were documented. Observation forms included detailed narratives of lessons that were linked to the California Standards for the Teaching Profession and indicated what the evaluator saw the teacher and students doing. Personnel Management 149 3. Site and department administrators were provided with a list of all classified employees to be evaluated in the 2010-11 school year. The list included the date of the employee’s last evaluation, their classification and their hours of employment. Site and department administrators did not complete all of the required classified evaluations. 4. Historically, management employees have not been evaluated regularly. In 2010-11, the state administrator evaluated department directors and site principals. School principals are expected to conduct evaluations of their assistant principals. 5. The district has developed a standard 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 2011-12 evaluation schedules provided by the human resources department for certificated and classified employees. 2. Hold supervising mangers accountable for completing evaluations in accordance with the provisions of the bargaining agreements with certificated and classified employees. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: 150 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 the 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. E-mails to site and department supervisors regarding evaluation schedules 11. List of evaluation dates for certificated and classified employees by site and department for 2011-12. 12. Evaluation outcomes spreadsheet identifying by supervisor the number of evaluations completed 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 Personnel Management 151 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. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district had made progress toward ensuring a meaningful evaluation process for certificated and classified employees based on measurable criteria. Managers had been provided with training on the new evaluation language and use of district forms. The evaluation process did not provide a structured program to plan for and make improvement, but this did not relieve management of the responsibility to make expectations clear to struggling employees and offer meaningful support. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has made measurable progress toward ensuring that certificated employees are evaluated annually. One employee had inadequate performance but resigned before the district could implement a formal improvement plan. 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, and new evaluation forms reflect these 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. Few certificated employees were rated below satisfactory; most were evaluated as exceeding performance standards. This is inconsistent with verbal reports made by administrative staff suggesting that the evaluation system provides for tight calibration of ratings with the California Standards for the Teaching Profession and the district’s performance standards. It is not reasonable to expect to see so many evaluations finding that employees exceed performance standards given the district’s long history of failing to evaluate certificated employees or provide meaningful improvement plans. 4. Based on their performance, the employment of a number of probationary certificated employees was not continued, indicating that site administrators took seriously their responsibility for the decision to grant permanent employment status. 5. The district provided site and department supervisors with training regarding new evaluation criteria and forms. 6. Lists of certificated and classified employees who are due for evaluation were provided by human resources to site and department supervisors. 152 Personnel Management 7. There is no evidence of a district-adopted procedure for creating improvement plans 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 continue to follow the 2011-12 schedules provided by the human resources department for the evaluation of certificated and classified employees. 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: a. Goals and objectives: what does the employee need to change? b. Evidence and artifacts: what evidence will demonstrate progress towards meeting the desired goals and objectives? Timeline: 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 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 153 9.2 Employee Services Professional Standard The personnel function has developed recognition programs for all employee groups. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with the state administrator 2. Interviews with district administrators and support staff 3. Interview with human resources department staff 4. Board policies 4156.2, 4256.2 and 4356.2, Awards and Recognition, revised June 11, 2011 5. Service awards given at June 8, 2011 board meeting 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 was wary of implementing a recognition program at a time when employees had 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Awards for years of service were presented to employees at the May 2011 regular meeting of the governing board. The state administrator acknowledges “stars” by sending a personal note thanking them for their service above and beyond the call of duty. “Stars” are identified by members of the administrative team. 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 presented to employees at the May 2011 regular meeting of the governing board. 154 Personnel Management 4. Members of the state administrator’s cabinet discuss at each cabinet meeting those employees who have gone above and beyond the call of duty and whom members of cabinet feel are deserving of recognition. The state administrator writes and sends a personal note to each of these employees Principals also identify these employees at their monthly administrative meetings. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue a program of awards for years of service. 2. Continue to identify and recognize exemplary employees, and consider including a list of these employees in the state administrator’s monthly newsletter. 3. Although the state administrator and the cabinet play a major role in recognitions, also consider the human resources department’s capacity to meet current service demands when implementing any recognition program that requires this department’s assistance, and strive to provide for a highly authentic recognition process. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 155 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 the state administrator 2. Interviews with district administrators 3. District’s proposals to certificated and classified employee groups 4. Board Policies 4143 and 4243, adopted June 5, 2011 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 had 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 would 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district settled a number of outstanding articles with both the certificated and the classified employee bargaining groups. Employee groups agreed to a number of concessions resulting in significant savings. However, the district is expected to use its entire state loan by 2013-14 because of continued deficit spending. The district will need to negotiate further reductions before the 2013-14 school year to avoid the need for an additional emergency appropriation. Findings 1. Prior to 2009-10, the superintendent and chief business official represented the district in labor negotiations. 156 Personnel Management 2. In the past, individual board members had involved themselves in the collective bargaining process with the certificated employees association. The state administrator is not required to involve board members in negotiations but does discuss negotiation issues with the board in closed sessions, including possible contract changes, the affordability of proposals, and other relevant information. 3. The district’s proposals were made public in accordance with provisions of the government code that require disclosure and provides for public input. 4. Negotiation proposals contained core values and negotiations parameters. 5. The state administrator, interim chief business official and personnel manager participated in negotiations at the end of fiscal year 2009-10. Principals were not involved in negotiations because their employment with the district had been terminated. The state administrator negotiated outstanding articles with certificated and classified employee bargaining units. 6. The district reached a tentative agreement on a number of articles with the certificated employee bargaining unit during negotiations in 2009-10. Outstanding articles were successfully negotiated by January 2011 and the contract was closed through 2012-13. 7. The district reached a tentative agreement with the classified employee bargaining unit during mediation in 2009-10. Outstanding articles were successfully negotiated by December 2010. The parties agreed to close negotiations on salary and benefits through 2012-13 but agreed to annual re-openers on other articles in the agreement. 8. The district will need to successfully negotiate reductions before the start of the 2013-14 school year to avoid the need for an additional emergency appropriation from the state. 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 on the team negotiating with the certificated employee bargaining unit. 2. Continue to 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 initial contract proposals in accordance with Government Code 3547 (a) and 3547 (b). 4. Prepare to make public any successor agreements during the 2011-12 school year. Specifically, the district should present its initial proposals to the board by March 2012, conduct public hearings by April 2012, and commence negotiations prior to the start of the 2012-13 school year. Because the district and employee groups need to identify Personnel Management 157 additional reductions prior to the start of the 2013-14 school year to avoid the need for an additional emergency appropriation, they should allow sufficient time for negotiations. 5. Ensure that the governing board (after the return of local governance) or the state administrator (until the return of local governance), in representing the public’s interest in the collective bargaining process, does the following: a. Ensure that 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 and affordable budget. b. Continually review standards of conduct pertaining to the negotiations process for board members and members of the bargaining team. c. Continue to hold meetings related to negotiations in closed session in accordance with Government Code 3549.1 when state law (the Brown Act) does not require open public meetings. Matters discussed in closed meetings should be kept in strict confidence. d. Continue to provide employee organizations with accurate information regarding the district’s financial resources. e. Continue to closely monitor the progress of negotiations and carefully consider how proposed contract provisions would affect the district’s short- and long-term fiscal, programmatic, instructional and personnel goals. f. Keep the public informed about the progress of negotiations and how negotiations may affect the district’s goals. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: 158 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 the state administrator 2. Interviews with district administrators and support staff 3. Interview with human resources department staff 4. Collective bargaining agreements with classified and certificated employee groups 5. Grievance form 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 had provided all managers with copies of the recently 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 lacked a formal plan to provide managers with training regarding other contract articles. However, these issues were being discussed as they arose in the district’s twice monthly administrative council meetings. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district does not have a plan for implementing this standard, and no documentation was provided. Findings 1. The district’s grievance procedure is documented in the collective bargaining agreements with certificated and classified employees. 2. Management staff reported that they had received copies of the new bargaining agreements with certificated and classified employees in 2010-11 and were provided with Personnel Management 159 in-service training regarding the changes to the article that covers certificated employee evaluation. 3. 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 that 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 all newly hired management personnel are provided with training regarding labor agreements. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 160 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 the 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 5. Certificated and classified employee salary schedules for 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 6. Memoranda of understanding with certificated employees related to implementation of the revised salary schedule, pregnancy disability, retiree benefits and other working conditions 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 had successfully negotiated concessions in compensation with certificated employees. The agreement kept 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 still needed to negotiate additional concessions in working conditions and eliminate restrictive contract language that limited management flexibility. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district settled a number of outstanding articles with the certificated employee bargaining group. Employee groups agreed to a number of concessions, resulting in significant savings. However, the district is expected to draw down the entire state loan by 2013-14 due to continued Personnel Management 161 deficit spending. The district will need to successfully negotiate reductions before the 2013-14 school year to avoid the need for an additional emergency appropriation. .Findings 1. The district reached a tentative agreement on a number of articles with the certificated employee bargaining unit during negotiations in 2009-10. Outstanding articles were successfully negotiated by January 2011 and the contract was closed through 2012-13. 2. The district reached a tentative agreement with the classified employee bargaining unit during mediation in 2009-10. Outstanding articles were successfully negotiated by December 2010. The parties agreed to close negotiations on salary and benefits through 2012-13 but agreed to annual re-openers on other articles in the agreement. 3. Even with these negotiated agreements and concessions, the district is expected to draw down the entire state loan by 2013-14 due to continued deficit spending. Because 79.38% of its unrestricted general fund expenses are for salaries and benefits, it will be difficult for the district to regain fiscal solvency without additional reductions in these areas. 4. The district will need to successfully negotiate reductions before the start of the 2013-14 school year to avoid the need for an additional emergency appropriation from the state. 5. The human resources department was neither involved in negotiations nor asked to provide information on the impact of bargaining proposals. Greater involvement of the human resources department will be needed to develop the personnel function identified in this standard. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Conduct additional analysis of the collective bargaining agreements to analyze areas of significant fiscal impact to the district and those that limit management’s ability to manage resources effectively. Use the results of the contract analysis to influence and shape future proposals by the district. 2. Prepare to make public any successor agreements during the 2011-12 school year. Specifically, the district should present its initial proposals to the board by March 2012, conduct public hearings by April 2012, and commence negotiations prior to the start of the 2012-13 school year. Because the district and employee groups need to identify additional reductions prior to the start of the 2013-14 school year to avoid the need for an additional emergency appropriation, they should allow sufficient time for the negotiation process. 3. Continue to involve the human resources department in the negotiations process to provide information to management and the board on the impact of bargaining proposals. 162 Personnel Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 5 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Personnel Management 163 164 Personnel Management Table of Personnel Management Ratings Personnel Management 165 166 Personnel Management February March March Personnel Management Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ORGANIZATION AND PLANNING 1.1 The LEA has clearly defined and clarified roles for board and 2 4 6 administration relative to recruitment, hiring, evaluation and discipline of employees. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ORGANIZATION AND PLANNING The personnel function has developed a mission statement 1.2 0 2 3 and 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 1.3 The personnel function has an organizational chart and 0 1 2 functions chart 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 0 4 6 Superintendent’s cabinet and participates in decision making early in the process. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ORGANIZATION AND PLANNING The personnel function has a data management calendar 1.5 that lists all the ongoing data activities and responsible 0 2 3 parties to ensure meeting 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, 3 4 5 including 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 3.9 assessment of the LEA’s needs for specific skills, knowledge, 0 2 4 and abilities. The LEA has established an adequate recruitment budget. Job applications meet legal and LEA needs. Personnel Management 167 February March March Personnel Management Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – EMPLOYEE RECRUITMENT/SELECTION Selection procedures are uniformly applied. The LEA 3.11 3 4 5 systematically 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 0 2 5 strong leadership skills, with a priority on placement of strong leaders at underperforming schools. 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 a process by which all required notices 4.3 0 2 6 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) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – INDUCTION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Initial orientation is provided for all new staff, and 4.5 2 4 6 orientation materials 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, 5.1 EC 45192, EC 45191) Tracking of employee absences 2 4 4 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 5.3 as Program Improvement are subject to corrective action 0 3 5 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 2 4 5 inspection. (EC 44031, LC 1198.5) 168 Personnel Management February March March Personnel Management Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES Personnel function nonmanagement staff members have 5.5 0 0 2 individual 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 5.7 for both personnel and payroll staff to meet regularly to solve 3 3 4 problems that develop in the processing of new employees, classification changes, employee promotions, and other issues that may develop. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 5.8 Personnel staff members attend training sessions/workshops 0 2 4 to keep abreast of best practices and requirements facing personnel administrators. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 5.10 0 2 4 Established staffing formulas dictate the assignment of personnel to the various sites and programs. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – USE OF TECHNOLOGY 7.1 An online position control system is utilized and is integrated 0 1 2 with payroll/financial systems. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – USE OF TECHNOLOGY The LEA provides professional development in the appropriate use of technological resources that will assist 7.2 1 1 1 staff in the performance of their 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). 8.1 3 4 6 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. Personnel Management 169 February March March Personnel Management Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating 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-level employee knowledgeable about 8.3 1 2 4 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. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – EMPLOYEE SERVICES 9.2 The personnel function has developed recognition programs 0 2 6 for all employee groups. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 10.2 The personnel function provides a clearly defined process for 2 4 5 bargaining 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 10.3 0 2 2 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. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE RELATIONS The personnel function has a process that provides 10.4 0 5 6 management and 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 4.27 The collective average ratings for all years are based on the subset of priority standards used in this third comprehensive review. 170 Personnel Management Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 171 172 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. Interviews with district and site administration, teachers, support staff, parents and students. 2. Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) 3. Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) accreditation reports and other WASC documents. 4. Local Educational Agency (LEA) Plan Addendum, September 2011 5. Board policies and administrative regulations 6. Title I and economic impact aid (EIA) budgets 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 maintained site budgets; however, councils did not receive current and timely information. The director of educational services continued to manage and administer the instructional support budget. Because it had hired an assistant superintendent of educational services and human resources, the district was expected to be able to focus more resources on instruction. Staff indicated that supplemental services were provided with compensatory funding; however, because the school site council budgets were not available, FCMAT was not able to confirm this. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 As of October, 2011, school site councils had been identified but no organizational or planning meetings had taken place for the 2011-2012 school year. The district has notified school site administrators of their categorical budgets, but there was no evidence that school site councils had met to prioritize spending of those budgets. There is an improvement in the overall Pupil Achievement 173 framework of the site council process but functionality is limited, especially at the beginning of the school year. Findings 1. Documents 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 planning to provide. During FCMAT’s fieldwork in October 2011, school sites and school site councils had still not completed categorical budget development to determine if supplanting was an issue. 2. Categorical budgeting and program decisions have moved to the school site level in the past two years. Under this new structure, school site councils have the potential to control planning and expenditures and review their outcomes. 3. It remains difficult to monitor the services and materials provided by categorical funding, and there continues to be little evidence to indicate that the choice of services and materials is aligned with any single plan for improving student achievement, district plans, WASC accreditation, or school improvement efforts. 4. At the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork, school site councils were not finalized at either high school, no budget expenditures had been adopted by site councils, and no categorical fund budgets were provided 5. There is no evidence of a districtwide vision or long term plan for categorical funding and support. 6. Training for school site council members regarding the purpose and effective practices of a school site council has been scheduled but not completed. 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 established by site councils and sites prior to the beginning of school each year. 2. Establish a timeline that identifies deadlines for categorical budget development, site implementation of categorical support and school site council selections, as well as meeting dates, training dates for school site councils, and dates for reviewing data to determine if categorical funding is achieving the desired results. 3. Provide annual training to school site council members regarding the purpose and effective practices of a school site council. 174 Pupil Achievement 4. Ensure that the single plans for student achievement (SPSAs) and categorical fiscal resources align with and support the LEA plan. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 175 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. LEA Plan Addendum, September 2011 2. Interviews with district and site administration, teachers, support staff, parents and students. 3. High school master schedules 4. Board policies and administrative regulations 5. Mission, vision, and goal statements 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 continued 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 was unlikely the district would achieve the student achievement gains it hopes for. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has no clear, simple statement of mission that expresses its primary purpose and that can be shared and repeated by everyone in the district, including students and parents. Existing documents do not make clear that the district takes responsibility for the success of all students and for doing whatever is necessary to ensure student success. Findings 1. FCMAT was provided with a mission, vision, and goal statement document for the district, but this information was not available on the district website. 176 Pupil Achievement 2. In various interviews with teachers, support staff, parents and students, the participants were not able to give a general statement of the district’s mission, vision and goals. Effective mission statements clearly define a district’s main purpose in a format that is simple and memorable enough that every staff member, parent and student knows and can repeat it. High-performing schools and districts all have this in common. 3. The district has made efforts to achieve some goals such as campus appearance, access to technology, and a focus on reading and math skills. 4. A clear statement of commitment to ensuring academic success for all students, and thus addressing the achievement gap, is not included in the district’s mission, vision, and goal statement document. 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 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 177 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. Interviews with district and site administrators, teachers, support staff, parents and students. 2. Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) 3. WASC accreditation reports 4. Expected schoolwide learning results (ESLRs) 5. Board policies and administrative regulations 6. 2011 student achievement data Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The board’s policies and administrative regulations were outdated and did not provide a framework for communicating standards 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 had been revised and provided additional strategic and intervention classes for struggling students. Additional district staff was hired in June 2010. The district was continuing to develop common benchmark assessments within departments and subject areas at its two high schools, and was 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. 178 Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Structural organizational improvements are evident, including a new bell schedule at both high schools, a new certificated staff evaluation system, collaboration days, and an earlier start to the instructional school year. However, communication regarding high expectations for student achievement, implementation of policies, and the need for change are not clear or effective. Findings 1. The district has access to multiple reports, some of which district staff have written, including WASC Reviews, SPSAs, LEA Plans and FCMAT reviews. However, there is little evidence that districtwide efforts blend the expectations and outcomes of all of the reports and reviews into clear and common measurable outcomes with specific action steps and timelines. Instead, it appears that each review and report is regarded individually and has little in common with a comprehensive districtwide strategy. 2. There continues to be minimal focus on academic achievement in the schools and limited evidence that a quality education is a high priority for the district. Of the district’s approximately 350 students who graduated in 2010, 14% met A-G college entrance requirements. Greenfield High School had 44 graduates who met the A-G requirements, and King City High School had five graduates that met the A-G requirements. 3. There is little evidence of a coordinated and planned instructional program that academically challenges all students, or of district leadership and guidance in providing a challenging educational program. 4. Organizational structure is improving with the implementation of a new evaluation system for certificated staff. The majority of staff are aware of the new system’s format and structure. 5. Although collaboration days have been implemented for two years, administrators do not convey and/or teachers do not have a clear focus regarding what is to be covered, accomplished or developed on these days and in what period of time. Periodically, collaboration time is used for more traditional faculty meeting issues and topics. The amount of communication between the departments at the two comprehensive high schools is minimal during collaboration times. 6. There is little evidence that student achievement 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 is not commonplace. 7. The effort to develop common benchmarks within subject areas is in its second year. More departments at both high schools and more grade level courses now have academic benchmarks in place. Pupil Achievement 179 8. The use of data is becoming more common among staff members and within departments. SChoolPlan, a data software system, continues to be implemented, and ongoing training is being used. 9. It is difficult to find reliable and consistent evidence that a focus on academic achievement for all students is becoming a districtwide norm and that past practices are changing. 10. A draft of a professional development plan was provided. Some departments have made efforts to have teachers released to observe their peers during class time; however, this is sporadic and lacks measurable outcomes. There is little evidence that districtwide or sitewide professional development is taking place and being implemented at a level that will significantly affect student achievement. 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. Engage teachers, parents and administrative staff 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 from collaboration time. 6. Continue efforts to develop a districtwide plan to create and implement common assessments in subject areas. 7. Provide districtwide professional development in using data to influence and shape instruction. 8. As funding permits, provide administrators with administrative coaches to help develop and support professional learning communities at their school sites. 180 Pupil Achievement Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 181 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. Sources and Documentation 1. LEA Plan Addendum, September 2011 2. Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) for Greenfield High School, 2010-11 3. Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) for King City 2010-11 4. Board Policy (BP) 6011(a) 5. Consolidated Application, 2010-11 6. Interviews with district and site administrators, teachers and parents 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 measurable 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 had approved policies to guide the development and/or implementation of the LEA Plan or the SPSA. The district’s updated policies did not include policies requiring the alignment of fiscal resources with instructional goals and desired student outcomes. The LEA Plan did not include required district budget information. The LEA Plan had not been developed collaboratively and had not been fully communicated to and understood by those responsible for its implementation. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The board has updated policies for student achievement that include statements of fiscal support for improving student achievement. The LEA Plan Addendum and SPSAs provide evidence that board policies are being implemented. The processes for developing the LEA Plan and the SPSAs to date have been focused on compliance. These plans need to be used as tools to improve student achievement. They need to be developed in a timely and inclusive manner, funded adequately, shared with all stakeholders, and monitored and revised regularly to ensure effective implementation. 182 Pupil Achievement Findings 1. The district’s policies have been updated, and Board Policy 6011(a) broadly addresses student achievement outcomes aligned with instructional goals and the need for fiscal support. 2. The LEA Plan Addendum approved in September 2011 includes specific steps for carrying out board policy. 3. Greenfield High School completed a SPSA for 2010-11 with updated student data and goals. Budget detail was not included in the plan. 4. King City High School completed a SPSA for 2010-11 with updated student data. Most of the goals were for 2009-10, and budget information was not updated. 5. The SPSAs for 2011-12 were still in development two months into the school year. The budget amounts were given to the sites the previous spring to enable planning as recommended. However, the process for organizing school site councils, a critical step in plan development and approval, is not timely and delays the development and implementation of SPSAs. 6. SPSAs are not developed or written in a manner that is easily shared or monitored. They lack budget detail and clear links between student achievement data and the goals and activities. Not all staff are familiar with the required performance goals and the district’s plan to meet them. A summary can be used to share essential information with all staff. A district assistance survey (DAS) is a good tool for LEA Plan review and for measuring progress. Proper development of an SPSA ensures the inclusion of the cost of each activity, a funding source, and the person or persons responsible for implementation to ensure that the need for each expenditure is supported by student achievement data and that the plan is aligned with the EPCs. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the newly approved LEA Plan Addendum serves as the foundation for the development of the SPSAs. 2. Begin establishing and convening school site councils in late spring in order to complete and approve SPSAs in a timely manner. Continue to implement the recommendations made in the March 2011 comprehensive report. 3. 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. Pupil Achievement 183 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 184 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. Board policies 6011(a) and 0420, and administrative regulation 0420 2. LEA Plan Addendum, September 2011 3. SPSA for each school site for 2010-11 4. Interviews with teachers, site administrators and district staff 5. District assistance survey (DAS) 6. Academic program survey (APS) Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district board policies were 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 had not yet developed policies that clearly outlined an instructional program for all students that aligned with the EPCs approved by the State Board of Education. There was no evidence of the use of the academic program survey (APS) or other state-developed tools required in the development of the SPSA to ensure alignment with the EPCs. The district purchased some new instructional materials, revised the master schedule and increased intervention programs. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has made progress by developing a LEA Plan Addendum that can serve as a foundation in conjunction with the components of a sound instructional program. The district has used the tools and processes recommended for developing the required plans. Next steps are to move beyond compliance to full implementation by making the changes systemic through professional development, monitoring and clear communication of expectations. Pupil Achievement 185 Findings 1. The district has updated policies that broadly address this standard, with implementation details to be included in the LEA Plan Addendum and the SPSA for each school site. 2. There is evidence that the district used the DAS and APS in the development of district and site plans. 3. The LEA Plan Addendum, approved September 2011, addresses the fundamental components of a sound instructional program. 4. At the time of fieldwork, school site councils at both sites had set the date for their first meetings but had not participated in SPSA development or approval. 5. Site and district administrators do not provide clear direction for and consistent monitoring of weekly collaboration time. Collaboration time is used for a variety of activities, with little or no accountability for appropriate use of the time or outcomes. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to use the DAS and APS to provide ongoing monitoring of the implementation of the essential components of a highly effective instructional program. Complete the APS and DAS documents in collaboration with all site staff (APS) and staff representation from each school site (DAS). Provide a setting for open discussion and honest assessment of progress. Use the questions provided by the state for each of these tools to guide a meaningful discussion of the effectiveness of the district’s instructional program. 2. Begin establishing and convening school site councils (SSCs) in late spring in order to complete and approve SPSAs in a timely manner. Ensure that district and school site staff who are responsible for SSC activities clearly understand the district’s Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 0420 regarding SSCs. 3. Because SPSAs need to be developed as working documents that can be monitored, include specific timelines and budget allocations for each activity and assign a person responsible implementing the activity. Regularly include on the SSC agendas a review of progress in implementing the plan. 4. Provide professional development for all staff in the analysis of student achievement data and the use of the APS so that staff can participate in the development of the SPSAs and implement the plans effectively. 186 Pupil Achievement Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 187 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. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with teachers, site administrators and district staff 2. LEA Plan Addendum, September 2011 3. Technology Plan 4. Board policies and administrative regulations 5. Professional development plan (draft) 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 continued to provide a student information system and a system for reporting student assessment data; however, little or no progress had been made in helping staff understand how to effectively analyze and apply data to improve teaching and student achievement. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has made progress in providing access to student achievement data through the use of SChoolPlan. They have also provided adequate time for teachers to review and analyze data through weekly collaboration time. The district has not provided professional development on the use of data analysis results or the appropriate use of the collaboration time. Findings 1. There has been some progress in the development and use of common assessments, but not enough to make them a reliable component of a comprehensive assessment system that is used to place students in appropriate interventions and other support programs. 188 Pupil Achievement 2. The district continues to rely heavily on state assessment data, primarily the California Standards Tests (CSTs), for individual student placement. The district also considers California English Language Development Test (CELDT) results and teacher recommendations when placing students. 3. The SChoolPlan data management system is intended to provide teachers and administrators with timely data to use in planning, student placement, and progress monitoring. More teachers are using the system; however, there is still no clear timeline for when every teacher is expected to fully use the system. 4. The King City High School principal and vice principal meet with departments each week to review data. The administrators and teachers reported that these meetings were useful. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Create a team of district and site staff to build a common understanding of what it means to use data effectively. Provide 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 school districts to gain a broader perspective on how data can be used to influence and shape improvements and the specific strategies used by these 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 similar professional development would also help the district build a common understanding of how to better meet all students’ needs and how to implement and sustain improvements. 2. 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 use collaboration time. 3. Provide teachers and administrators with professional development training in the appropriate use of data and analysis for improving teaching and learning. This training needs to part of a comprehensive package of staff development so the results of the analysis can be applied in the classroom effectively and in a timely manner. 4. Set clear expectations and a structure for the use of collaboration time. Have site administrators regularly monitor the use of collaboration time. Offer support where Pupil Achievement 189 needed to ensure that this investment of time is making a significant positive difference in student achievement. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 190 Pupil Achievement 1.9 Planning Processes Professional Standard The LEA holds teachers, site administrators, and district personnel accountable for student achievement through evaluations and professional development. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with teachers and with school site and district administrators 2. Board policies and administrative regulations 3. Collective bargaining contract with certificated staff 4. Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) 5. Evaluation documents and schedules 6. District professional development plan (draft) 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 was revised to hold teachers more accountable for student achievement. Changes to the evaluation form and process were agreed upon and were included in the collective bargaining agreement with certificated staff. The human resources department notified administrators of teaching staff who were due for evaluations. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district is implementing an evaluation system for teachers that is based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. A similar process is not in place for administrators. The district provides professional development through weekly collaboration time and outside providers, but there is no process for holding teachers and administrators accountable for implementing what is learned, and no system to determine which elements are making a difference in student achievement. Pupil Achievement 191 Findings 1. The district is fully implementing the revised teacher evaluation process. 2. There is little evidence that teachers are held accountable for implementing what is learned in professional development sessions. Some teachers do follow through and implement what they learned, but it was not a uniform expectation of teachers nor is it specifically monitored during administrator’s visits to classroom. It would be useful if a stated focus was developed for the classroom visits. For example, if teachers have received training in specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE) so that English learners can access content, then the site administrator should inform teachers that for that month he or she will be looking for the use of these strategies. At the end of each week, the administrator should let teachers know how many classrooms were visited and the percentage of classrooms implementing SDAIE, recognizing improvements from the week before. 3. It was not clear from documents or interviews how site and district administrators are evaluated or held accountable for implementing the professional development they receive. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to 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. Provide a specific focus for administrators for classroom visits, based on the professional development teachers are receiving. 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’s goals and priorities. Hold teachers and site administrators accountable for developing and implementing intervention strategies when school sites’ goals are not being met. 192 Pupil Achievement Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 193 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) Sources and Documentation 1. Classroom observations 2. Textbook inventory 3. Board resolution/sufficiency statement 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 made significant progress in selecting and purchasing the same standards-aligned materials for both school sites. However, the implementation of these materials varied widely. The district had not established protocols to monitor implementation, and it was not certain that site administrators were aware of the indicators of full implementation. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has purchased the appropriate instructional materials and students have access to these materials. Consistent use of materials is needed to fully address the content standards for all students, but there is no evidence that the materials approved by the board are used consistently by all teachers. To ensure the full benefit for students, the district needs to train teachers and monitor implementation of the training. Findings 1. The district has purchased standards-aligned instructional materials, including intervention materials, for districtwide use. 2. There is no evidence that the use of board-approved instructional materials is monitored. Walk-through protocols do not include an instructional materials component, and it is not 194 Pupil Achievement clear whether site administrators are aware of or are prepared to look for indicators of the appropriate use of instructional materials. 3. Classroom observations provided little evidence that the instructional materials approved for courses were being used. For example, none of the English language development (ELD) classes observed were using the Edge materials that the district has provided. 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. Ensure that evaluation of instructional materials use is included in the protocols for classroom visits. Administrators should participate in the same instructional materials training as the teachers to understand what full implementation looks like. 2. Ensure that all teachers participate in instructional materials training. Allocate funding to allow for this training during the workday so that teachers cannot opt out. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 195 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. Sources and Documentation 1. LEA Plan Addendum, approved September 19, 2011 2. Board policies 3. Classroom observations 4. Interviews with teachers and administrators 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 had made some progress toward adopting districtwide curriculum, instruction and assessments, but there was little evidence of comprehensive implementation. Teachers and site administrators had some understanding of the goals to improve student achievement through standards-based and data-driven instruction, but implementation varied and lacked clear direction or support. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has updated and completed the required plans that outline the academic program, but plan development continues to focus on compliance and needs to move toward quality implementation. Many curricular elements are in place and the knowledge and energy to carry out the work has increased. Planning and procedures need to be more collaborative and more closely aligned with achievement results and goals for all students. Findings 1. The newly approved LEA Plan Addendum provides direction for more closely aligning curriculum, instruction and assessment based on standards, frameworks, and standards- aligned instructional materials. 196 Pupil Achievement 2. The district continues to move toward the use of districtwide curriculum, instruction and assessments. The district provides directives to the school sites; however, implementation is inconsistent between campuses and among departments. Efforts to more closely align curriculum, instruction and assessments lack focus, clarity of communication and consistent monitoring. 3. Interviews and discussions with staff indicate that there is increased and more productive conversation among teachers and administrators about improving student achievement through the use of standards-based data-driven instruction, benchmark testing, collaboration, pacing and calendars. 4. The district does not fully use the tools provided by the state to analyze the effectiveness of its instructional programs. 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 support of students with disabilities. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to strive to create a single, cohesive and clearly understood districtwide plan for improving student achievement. Ensure that the plan includes timelines, funding sources and persons responsible. Use monitoring to ensure that all parties are held accountable for following the plan and meeting its goals. Check all district and site plans (LEA, SPSA, Title III, professional development, WASC, and others) for alignment. Although many of these plans are mandated, complex and have specific requirements, communicate to all interested and involved parties one plan for improving student achievement through the district’s vision, goals, and actions. 2. Continue to use the state tools for assessing school and district structures and supports for strong instructional programs: • 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 support of students with disabilities. 3. Ensure that district and site leadership teams (teachers, administrators, parents, and other staff) and school site councils meet at least quarterly to monitor implementation of the LEA Plan. Pupil Achievement 197 4. Work to ensure that the LEA Plan and the SPSA are developed using a collaborative process that includes administrators, teachers, parents, other appropriate staff, and students. 5. Use the increasing knowledge and energy of the staff to implement district plans. Involve staff in data analysis, plan development and plan monitoring to better achieve a cohesive and clearly understood districtwide plan for improving student achievement. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 198 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 Addendum, September 2011 2. Benchmark assessment samples 3. Collaboration time schedules and reports 4. Interviews with teachers and administrators Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district administered assessments required by the state and used 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 did not use collaboration time to develop common assessments, and no districtwide development of common formative and summative assessments aligned with pacing calendars or identified standards occurred. Collaboration time was not used to analyze the results of common assessments to improve instruction. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district is producing and collecting student achievement data, but how the data is used is not common knowledge districtwide. District leaders need to communicate clearly to define a comprehensive assessment system and its policies and practices. More professional development on the analysis of and use of data for improving teaching and learning is needed. Findings 1. There has been some progress in the development and use of common assessments but not enough to make them a valuable tool in improving teaching and learning. Development and use of common assessments is inconsistent, and there is confusion among staff members and administrators regarding timelines for completion and implementation of a districtwide system of common assessments. The development process is left to the discretion of individual teachers and departments at each school site. Pupil Achievement 199 2. The use of SChoolPlan software for data management has increased at both school sites. Training has been provided, and many teachers are using the system on a regular basis. However, there is no clear direction regarding the timeline by which everyone must be using the system to monitor student achievement. 3. Collaboration time is not used efficiently, effectively or consistently by all departments and staff members, and the primary purpose for scheduling this time has not been accomplished. There no clear administrative direction or responsibility for assigning and monitoring the activities that are to take place during this 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 for student placement. There is little evidence that assessment results are used to shape and inform instruction; rather, they are used primarily to identify and place students. 5. More attention has been given to the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) results, and opportunities have increased for students to access support during the school day to help them pass the exam. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: Continue its efforts to implement the following recommendations provided for this standard in the first and second comprehensive review reports. 1. Develop and implement a district policy that requires the regular collection and analysis of common formative and summative assessment data to establish instructional priorities and shape classroom instruction. 2. 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. 3. Ensure that newly developed common assessments are loaded into the SChoolPlan system for easy disaggregation of data and analysis. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 200 Pupil Achievement and should not be used as a sole source for determining a student’s instructional level or course placement. 7. 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. 8. 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 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 201 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 2. Interviews with teachers, classified staff, and site and district administrators 3. Classroom observations 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 contained goals that were 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 had been made in this standard because technology had not been a focus for the district during the past year. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district is implementing its technology plan, and teachers’ use of technology has improved and increased. More attention needs to be given to students’ use of technology in classrooms to make full use of Smart Boards and internet access. Findings 1. The district has an approved technology plan that is linked to improving student achievement. 2. FCMAT observed an increase in teachers’ use of technology for instruction. 3. Students use computers mainly in computer laboratories or the library. There was minimal student use of technology in classrooms even though almost all classrooms have Smart Boards and internet access. 4. The alternative education sites are limited in their use of technology due to wiring issues. This situation was being discussed during FCMAT’s fieldwork but had not yet been 202 Pupil Achievement remedied. Follow up is needed to ensure that access is provided for these students and teachers. 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. Ensure that alternative education sites have internet access that will address the needs of these programs. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 203 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. 2011 student achievement data 2. Parent, student, teacher, and administrator interviews 3. Classroom observations 4. Special Education Review, May 2011 5. Special Education Review Action Plan, 2011-12 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 remained far below that of the rest of the student population. Significant numbers of students scored in the below basic and far below basic categories on standardized tests. The district mainstreamed special education students but provided little or no training or support for regular education teachers. There was 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 could achieve more than they have. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The achievement levels of the district’s English learners remain far below those of the rest of the student population. Significant numbers of students score in the below basic and far below basic categories on standardized tests. There continues to be no observable difference in instruction between regular grade level classes and ELD and SDAIE classes. Strategies designed to help English learners acquire English while accessing content are not being used regularly. Significant attention needs to be given to providing appropriate instruction for English learners. The Special Education Review report and action plan have put the district on the path toward improving the results for special education students. Similar actions need to be taken for English learners. 204 Pupil Achievement Findings 1. The district’s 2011 state testing results show districtwide and schoolwide improvement in CST scores and CAHSEE passing rates when all students are reported. However, there is a large gap in achievement level between English learners and all other students. • King City High School: Schoolwide, 40% of ninth grade students, 40% of 10th grade students, and 46% of 11th grade students scored at proficient or above on the English language arts CST. However, among English learners, 3% of ninth grade students, 2% of tenth grade students, and 4% of 11th grade students scored at proficient or above. Similar gaps occurred in mathematics. Of the 77 students who took the Algebra II test, 48% of 10th grade students and 30% of 11th grade students scored proficient or above. In the same school and course, two English learners took the same test and did not score at proficient or above. • Greenfield High School: Schoolwide, 36% of ninth grade students, 33% of 10th grade students, and 38% of 11th grade students scored at proficient or above on the English language arts CST. In the same content area, among English learners, 7% of ninth grade students, 0% of 10th grade students, and 5% of 11th grade students scored at proficient or above. Similar gaps existed in mathematics. Of the 78 students who took the Algebra II test, 30% of 10th grade students and 7% of 11th grade students scored at proficient or above. In the same school and course, five English learners (one 10th grader and four 11th graders) took the test and none scored at proficient or above. • In 2011, of the 497 students in the district who took the Algebra I CST test, 286 (58%) scored below basic or far below basic. Of the 189 English learners who took the Algebra I CST, 146 (77%) scored below basic or far below basic. Algebra is a graduation requirement for every student. 2. Both administrators and teachers expressed on numerous occasions a belief that instruction for English learners is “just good teaching.” There was no observable difference in the level of instruction among 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. 3. Good progress has been made in improving achievement for special education students as indicated by 2011 CST scores. In math, 26.7 % of students with disabilities scored at proficient or above, an increase from 8.7% last year. In English language arts, 27.6 % of students with disabilities scored at proficient or above, an increase from 17.6% last year. The Academic Performance Index (API) for students with disabilities has increased by 91 points since 2008-09. 4. A part-time coordinator has been hired to bring the special education program into compliance, address the findings in the Special Education Review (May 2011), and develop an action plan for the district’s special education students. Pupil Achievement 205 5. Special education teachers need to provide training and support to regular classroom teachers to appropriately accommodate mainstreamed special education students and maximize the benefits to special education students of mainstreaming. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide professional development for teams of teachers and administrators from the district and from 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 South Monterey County Joint Union High School District that are meeting the same challenges and are successful. Before attending the Institute, the district should have all teachers read Whatever It Takes – How Professional Learning Communities Respond When Kids Don’t Learn, by Richard DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker and Gayle Karhanek (published by Solution Tree, Bloomington Indiana in 2004) and provide an outline for discussion during collaboration time. 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 strategies learned. 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. Modify the support provided to align with the Special Education Review report, May 2011 and the action plan being developed by the Special Education Director. 3. Provide teachers with training in strategies that target the needs of EL students, students with disabilities and students assigned to intervention classes, and monitor the implementation of these strategies. Provide training for all teachers in SDAIE strategies that provide access to content when a student is learning English. Promote the understanding that in a high school with significant numbers of English learners, every teacher is a SDAIE teacher. 4. Hold teachers accountable for learning strategies that will help them be more successful in teaching EL and special education students. Hold administrators accountable for monitoring the use of strategies in the classroom, encouraging and supporting teachers as they learn to use them, and identifying and providing any additional support that is needed. Use collaboration time to share how teachers are progressing with implementing strategies for English learners and special education students. 5. See also the related recommendations in Standard 3.17. 206 Pupil Achievement Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating:1 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 207 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. Interviews with district and site administrators, teachers, support staff, parents, and students 2. Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) 3. Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) accreditation report 4. Board policies and administrative regulations 5. Student registration material and course catalog 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 were occurring to improve the alignment of courses districtwide, but additional work was 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 could also make up work in continuing education or independent study. However, there was no system within the regular class schedule to support students who needed to make up courses required for graduation, and students could not take vocational courses or electives unless they were offered at their school. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Alignment of courses is still being discussed. There is no clearly communicated plan for students who need to retake a required course for graduation that they previously failed. Significant work has improved the course offerings in agriculture, but course offerings in other elective areas remain minimal. 208 Pupil Achievement Findings 1. There is ongoing discussions and planning to improve the alignment of courses between the two high schools, within departments and with the state content standards. 2. There is no clear plan or districtwide understanding of how students can make up a class that they have failed but that is needed to meet graduation requirements. 3. Elective courses at both schools are limited because of a six-period day and remediation classes offered for students who are identified as not proficient. The district and community made a strong effort this past year to reintroduce agriculture classes to the school sites. 4. Advanced Placement (AP) classes are offered at both schools, but there is a wide variation between the two comprehensive high schools in teaching strategies and in AP exam results. 5. The district changed its counseling services structure and tasks at the beginning of the 2011-12 school year. Counselor positions were eliminated, and a student services coordinator position was added to each site. It is not yet possible to determine the effectiveness of the change or its impact on students’ academic outcomes. Because of the changes in titles and job descriptions, students are uncertain about the availability of counseling services and have the perception that there are no longer any counselors. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to 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. 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. 3. Conduct a periodic survey of students and an assessment of outcomes to determine the helpfulness of the counseling services for career and college decisions. Pupil Achievement 209 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 210 Pupil Achievement 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. Interviews with district and site administrators, teachers, support staff, parents and students 2. Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) 3. WASC accreditation report and other WASC documents 4. Board policies and administrative regulations 5. Title I and Economic Impact Aid (EIA) budgets 6. Special Education Review, May 2011 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 was made during this reporting period. The district reorganized and restructured its continuation school and independent study program for the 2010-11 school year, and had begun the process of seeking accreditation for both of these programs. Special education students were enrolled in alternative programs before their individualized education plan (IEP) was rewritten. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Significant organizational improvements have been made in the district’s alternative education program. There is a clear purpose, vision, and plan for further implementation of strategies in this area. Findings 1. A new alternative education administrator was hired in the spring of 2011. The alternative education programs’ organizational structure and supervision have improved markedly since last school year. The district is systematically addressing the findings and recommendations provided by FCMAT in the March 2011 comprehensive review report. Pupil Achievement 211 2. The district hired a part-time special education coordinator to oversee special education processes, procedures and organizational structure. The coordinator is working to address the findings in the May 2011 Special Education Review. The findings from the Special Education Review agree with the findings and recommendations in this report and are being addressed systematically by the coordinator and special education staff. 3. The continuation high school campus is located at King City High School and the independent study program is located at Greenfield High School. Students may attend either program after being approved for enrollment. 4. Both the continuation school and the independent study program have been accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). Students can now earn their high school diploma through a district alternative education program. 5. The alternative education administrator has tightened procedures for referring and accepting students into alternative education programs. It was reported that at one time special education students were referred to these programs before their individual education plan (IEP) was revised. Special education students also were not assigned to independent study through the IEP process pending an expulsion hearing. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to increase communication between alternative education and regular education. 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 and implement procedures to ensure that students with an IEP are not enrolled in an alternative education program until their IEP has been rewritten to ensure 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 the 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 Special Education Review report, May 2011 to review district policy for certificates of completion. If needed, develop a new policy 212 Pupil Achievement 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). • Develop the modified course of study. • Determine staffing and identify students • Amend IEPs as needed. 6. Review the policy and practice of enrolling students into the district’s alternative high school. Ensure that a student is not required to exit special education in order to enroll in the alternative high school. Develop a process and procedure for serving special education students 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 a comprehensive high school after being successful in alternative education. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating:2 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 213 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. Interviews with district and site administrators, teachers, support staff, parents and students 2. Board policies and administrative regulations 3. Local service plan for special education 4. Sample of student individualized education programs (IEPs) 5. Special Education Review, May 2010 and 2011 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 was 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 were not consistent. The district had not developed a process for screening, referring or assessing students for special education. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 A structure is being developed for the many processes, regulations, and procedures related to special education. The special education coordinator is making steady progress in aligning the special education program with the recommendations contained in the Special Education Review, May 2011. 214 Pupil Achievement Findings 1. The district has updated its board policies related to special education. 2. The district hired a part time special education coordinator to oversee special education processes, procedures and organizational structure. The coordinator is working to address the findings in the May 2011 Special Education Review, which agree with the findings and recommendations in this report and are being addressed systematically by the coordinator and special education staff. Some of the tasks to be addressed include refining the districtwide system for referring students for special education, reestablishing the chain of command and accountability for special education instructional programs, and providing appropriate training for regular teachers of mainstreamed special education students. 3. The district holds a transitional IEP when a student moves into the school district or enters the high school from a feeder elementary school district. 4. IEP meetings are still not fully attended by general education staff as required. 5. The district does not regularly review special education teacher caseloads and IEPs to determine which students can be served using a 504 plan. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: Continue addressing the following recommendations that were provided in the March 2011 comprehensive assessment report. 1. Continue to keep all board policies related to planning and implementation of special education programs and services updated, 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. 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. Pupil Achievement 215 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 for those students whose needs can be accommodated through a 504 plan. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 216 Pupil Achievement 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. Interviews with district and site administrators, teachers, support staff, parents and students 2. Board policies and administrative regulations 3. Local Service Plan for Special Education 4. Sample of individualized education plans (IEPs) 5. Special Education Review, May 2010, and special education action 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 the 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Although there has been some progress on this standard, some issues remain. The district still lacks a common structure and understanding regarding the delivery of educational services for special education students who have been mainstreamed. The lack of regular education staff members’ participation in the IEP process also needs to be addressed. Findings 1. General education teachers have minimal participation in the IEP process; general education teachers and site administrators rarely attend IEP meetings. When accommodations or modifications are included in the IEP, the general education teachers provide little or no input into those decisions. This is not in compliance with state or federal regulations. Pupil Achievement 217 2. General education classroom teachers do not receive training on effective practices and strategies for working with mainstreamed special education students that are placed in their classes. Their responsibility for the education of these students has not been made clear. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Hold general education teachers and site administrators accountable for attendance, input and involvement in the IEP process. As recommended in the May 2011 Special Education Review, arrange presentations for all general education teachers and administrators to review the following: • The requirement that at least one general education teacher attend all 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 a general education class. 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 general education teachers when students are mainstreamed. 3. 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. • Increase the opportunity for special education students to take elective courses. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 218 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. Interviews with district and site administrators, teachers, support staff, parents and students 2. Classroom observations 3. Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSAs) 4. WASC accreditation report and other WASC documents. 5. Expected schoolwide learning results (ESLRs) 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 was 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 had more opportunities to learn of post-secondary education and career options, but more work was needed in this area. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Little progress has been made on this standard. The teaching observed during classroom visits consisted mostly of teachers giving directions, students working independently with little teacher interaction, or direct instruction. In only a few classrooms were students actively engaged. Students were most often reading silently, completing worksheets, or taking notes from an overhead projection screen during lectures. Findings 1. Students continue to express the opinion that most lessons primarily involve lectures and/ or worksheets, with little engagement or discussion. Pupil Achievement 219 2. Expected Schoolwide Learning Results (ESLRs) from WASC accreditation are posted in a number of classrooms, but there is little or no explanation or description of the learning objective for lessons being taught in classrooms. Of the 49 classes FCMAT visited, in only seven (14%) was the learning objective posted or explained to the students at the beginning of the lesson. 3. FCMAT observed the use of a broader range of teaching strategies designed to engage students and encourage active participation. However, a disproportionate amount of time is spent giving directions and assigning work, reducing the amount of time spent on instruction and learning of content and skills. FCMAT spent 8.5 hours in 49 classrooms. Approximately 40% of this time FCMAT observed teachers giving students directions regarding task completion and classroom procedures, and students working independently on a task (such as test completion, listening to audio, reading silently or viewing video) without teacher interaction. 4. In 12 of the 49 classrooms visited, a large majority of the students were actively engaged in the lesson by demonstrating interest and enthusiasm and responding without teacher prompting. In 31 classrooms, students were compliantly engaged in the lesson by following along with the lesson and responding when required. In six classrooms, a large majority of the students were not engaged in the lesson, were off task and were not attending to the teacher. 5. The district is making better use of local, regional and community professional expertise to help students develop long-range goals and to introduce career options or mentoring opportunities, especially in agriculture. Linking students with real world applications for their learning can increase student engagement. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that its professional development plan includes opportunities for teachers to learn instructional strategies to increase student engagement. Monitor classrooms for implementation of these strategies because high levels of active student engagement are directly correlated with higher student achievement. 2. Ensure that teacher collaboration time includes an expectation that teachers will share their most effective strategies for improving student engagement and how these correlate with student achievement results. 3. Visit other school sites or districts with similar demographics that have demonstrated high levels of student engagement, resulting in higher achievement for all students. 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. 220 Pupil Achievement 5. Partner with the 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. 6. Make better use of the professional expertise of the local region and communities to help students develop long-range goals, career options or mentoring opportunities, especially in agriculture. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 221 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. Sources and Documentation 1. 2011 student achievement data 2. LEA Plan Addendum 3. Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) 4. Classroom observations 5. Interviews with administrators, teachers, parents and students 6. High school master schedules 7. Special Education Review, May 2011, and special education action plan 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 were providing an opportunity for the appropriate placement of EL and special education students, though increased achievement would depend on the use of appropriate instructional strategies. Some training had been completed, and all teachers were CLAD certified; however, there was no observable difference in instruction among the ELD, SDAIE, and regular education classes. Substantial support needed to be provided to general education teachers who had increased numbers of special education students in their classes so that these students would 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. 222 Pupil Achievement Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district API for all students has increased from 639 in 2008-09 to 706 in 2010-11; this a substantial increase. However, a gap remains between this average and the average API scores of 671 for English learners and 529 for students with disabilities. The district must address the assessment, placement and instructional program for English learners and continue the improvements being made in special education if it is to see significant growth in student achievement. Findings 1. The master schedule includes support for English learners during the school day. It also includes leveled classes for strategic and intensive interventions. 2. Good progress has been made in improving special education students’ achievement as indicated by 2011 CST scores. In math, 26.7 % of students with disabilities scored at proficient or above, an increase from 8.7% last year. In English language arts, 27.6 % of students with disabilities scored at proficient or above, an increase from 17.6% last year. The API for students with disabilities has increased by 91 points since 2008-09. 3. A part-time special education coordinator has been hired to bring the special education program into compliance, address the findings in the May 2011 Special Education Review, and develop and implement an action plan for the district’s special education students. 4. The Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) program has been expanded to increase the numbers of students who are able to participate. Classroom observations and teacher interviews made it evident that some of the AVID strategies have been shared and are being used in several other classes, but not schoolwide. Training for AVID teachers is not included in the district’s professional development plan. 5. See also the related findings regarding the achievement gap in Standard 3.1. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that staff members responsible for the AVID program continue to receive the appropriate training and implement the program as it was designed. Work with the county office of education to obtain assistance with the AVID program. 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 education teachers when students are mainstreamed. 3. 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 Pupil Achievement 223 teachers who are using appropriate strategies and getting results, and provide time for them to model and coach other teachers who need support. 4. 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. 5. Ensure that students in ELD and SDAIE classes are receiving instruction appropriate to their language levels. The teachers in these classes should use strategies to improve students’ English language arts skills and their access to core content. 6. Continue to support the work being done by the part-time special education coordinator to implement the action plan that has been developed for special education students. Consider using this action plan for English learners. 7. See the recommendations in Standard 3.1 related to student achievement and measures to help close the achievement gap. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 224 Pupil Achievement 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. Sources and Documentation 1. 2011 student achievement data 2. LEA Plan Addendum, September 2011 3. Benchmark assessments 4. Interviews with administrators and teachers 5. Sample data reports 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 relied heavily on state assessment data to establish instructional priorities, though common assessments were being developed at each school site with some multi-site collaboration by departments. There was 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has made some progress in developing components of a comprehensive assessment system, but it is not complete or reliable for appropriately placing students in intervention or leveled classes. Common assessments are not complete or used by all departments and teachers. Teachers are using the SChoolPlan data management system more, but its usefulness is limited by the absence of a comprehensive and fully implemented districtwide assessment system that includes both state and local assessments. Findings 1. The district has no comprehensive assessment system that provides sufficient variety and frequency of student performance data to ensure that students are placed in intervention Pupil Achievement 225 classes or leveled classes appropriately and/or monitors their progress to determine if a change in placement is needed. 2. There has been some progress in developing and using common assessments, but not enough to make them a reliable component of a comprehensive assessment system that is used to place students in appropriate interventions and other support programs. 3. The district continues to rely heavily on state assessment data, primarily the California Standards Tests (CSTs), for individual student placement. The district also considers California English Language Development Test (CELDT) results and teacher recommendations when placing students. 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. More teachers are using the system; however, there is still no clear timeline for when every teacher is expected to fully participate in the use of the system. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. 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. 2. Complete the districtwide development of common assessments that align with the essential or power standards for each of the four core content areas. Provide clear deadlines for the completion of districtwide common benchmark assessments for all core content areas and for when they will be a functional part of the district’s comprehensive assessment system. Monitor the work to ensure that progress is being made in a timely manner. 3. Load common assessments and outcome data into SChoolPlan in a timely manner to ensure staff access. 4. Review and revise pacing calendars to ensure that they align with the essential standards and common assessments. 5. Monitor the implementation and use of pacing calendars and common assessments, and ensure that results are analyzed during scheduled collaboration time. 6. Provide clear communication to teachers and administrators regarding the purpose and use of the SChoolPlan system. Set a timeline 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. 7. Use multiple sources of assessment data to ensure the appropriate placement of students in intervention classes. 226 Pupil Achievement 8. See the related recommendations in Standard 2.4. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 227 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. LEA Plan Addendum, September 2011 2. Master schedules 3. Title III plan and results 4. CELDT test results 5. Classroom observations 6. Interviews with teachers and administrators 7. Instructional materials inventory 8. Board resolution on sufficiency of instructional materials 9. Board policies 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 had been addressed, and a structure was put in place that allowed the district to provide appropriate services for EL students. However, both support for teachers and the quality of instruction were still lacking. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has worked to make certain it is in compliance with the rules and regulations for educating English learners. However, there is little indication that the programs offered for these students are getting positive achievement results. 228 Pupil Achievement Findings 1. The district has addressed many of the issues related to program compliance, board policies, plans, instructional materials purchases, and a master schedule that accommodates English learners. 2. There is no student achievement or classroom observation data that indicates that the district is providing professional development or the needed support to teachers and administrators to enable them to meet the instructional needs of English learners. 3. The district has not met the Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) for Title III for seven years. 4. As noted in Standard 3.1, there is a significant achievement gap in API scores between English learners and other students. 5. The district has enough trained and qualified teachers and staff to assess and support the significant number of English learners and their parents. 6. There was little or no evidence of differentiated instruction during visits to English language development (ELD) and SDAIE classrooms. Instruction for English learner (EL) students in these classes was no different than the instruction provided in regular education classes. FCMAT visited 49 classrooms. In six classrooms 90% or more of the students were not engaged in the lesson; in 26 classrooms 90% or more of the students were compliantly engaged in the lesson; and in 12 classrooms 90% or more of the students were actively engaged. In addition, during FCMAT’s classroom visits, only two of the 10 EL strategies in the walk-through protocol were being used by more than one or two teachers. FCMAT observed teachers checking for understanding in only two classrooms, and only two classrooms in which vocabulary development using academic language was a part of the lesson. None of the lessons observed in the 49 classrooms visited included the opportunity for EL or other students to use expressive language Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. As the budget permits, consider hiring a district EL specialist to focus on this student population, as recommended in the March 2011 comprehensive review. 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 parents and families of EL students regarding their children’s education and serving as a coach and mentor to assist regular classroom teachers. Pupil Achievement 229 Continue to implement the following four recommendations from the February 2010 and March 2011 comprehensive reviews: 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 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 230 Pupil Achievement 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 3. Student achievement data, 2011 4. LEA Plan Addendum, September 2011 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 made it difficult to hire content experts or specialists and it had not employed any such staff. The district relied on department chairpersons to support teachers and programs, but these individuals did not receive training or release time. Collaboration time was provided but was not used to improve instruction and student learning. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has been successful in employing specialists to address the need for improvement in its alternative and special education programs. It is working towards making the best use of teacher leaders, teacher experts and collaboration time to address the need to improve student achievement. Findings 1. The district has employed a part-time coordinator for special education to help make the instructional improvements and changes needed to improve the special education program and student achievement results. The district’s fiscal condition makes it difficult to hire new employees. 2. The district provides weekly collaboration time for teachers, which is intended to help teachers work together to improve their teaching and students’ learning. To date, collaboration time has not been dedicated for this purpose districtwide. Site and district administrators do not regularly provide direction, monitoring and support to ensure that collaboration time is used appropriately. Collaboration time could be used to provide Pupil Achievement 231 learning and coaching time for teachers and administrators but is not structured to take advantage of this opportunity. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. If adequate funding can be found, hire an EL expert to focus on EL instruction, coaching and staff training. 2. 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. 3. Use teacher collaboration time to improve teaching and learning, and monitor collaboration time to ensure that it is being used for this purpose. Structure the time to address the activities outlined in the district’s professional development plan. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 232 Pupil Achievement 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. Interviews with district and site administrators, teachers, support staff, parents and students 2. Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) 3. WASC accreditation report and other WASC documents. 4. Board policies and administrative regulations 5. 2011 student achievement data 6. Student registration material and course catalogs 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 did not offer a comprehensive multiyear program of integrated academic and technical study organized around a broad theme, interest area or industry sector, and there was 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Significant progress has been made in the area of agriculture, providing students with more options in this field and garnering the support of the local agricultural community. There is no significant evidence of similar efforts for any other technology or industry program or interest area. Pupil Achievement 233 Findings 1. With the exception of agriculture, the district offers limited opportunities for a comprehensive multiyear program of integrated academic and technical study that is organized around a broad theme, interest area or industry sector. 2. There is no evidence that the district has a clearly defined vision of the potential structure, content and organization of such an integrated academic and technical study organized around a broad theme, interest area, or industry sector. 3. Information on the district’s website, regarding the district’s academic and technical programs, is not regularly updated and maintained. 4. Discussion is taking place regarding the development of an agricultural partnership academy. This would provide a link between the classroom and real world applications of skills and knowledge. It would also expand opportunities for students because the community has many resources to offer such a program. 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. Actively pursue the development of an agricultural partnership academy 2. 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 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 234 Pupil Achievement 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. Benchmark assessments for core content areas 2. Sample data reports 3. Schedule of collaboration time 4. Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) 5. Interviews with teachers and school site and district administrators 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 continued 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. Assessment development was inconsistent across departments and districtwide. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Teachers continue to work in their school departments to develop common benchmark assessments. The district is still in the very early phase of learning to use assessment results to shape, influence and direct instructional practices as part of an ongoing process of continuous improvement. Staff reported loading assessment results into SChoolPlan. Findings 1. Staff members at both comprehensive high schools continue to work collaboratively within their departments at their sites to establish common standards-based benchmark assessments and pacing guides. The focus is primarily on developing site-based common assessments and pacing guides, not on using the results to establish and communicate instructional priorities and strategies for improvement. Schoolwide and districtwide benchmark assessments are needed; they are a clear indicator of how students will Pupil Achievement 235 perform on state testing and can be used to adjust pacing or teaching to meet students’ needs. 2. Assessments are being scanned and results are being loaded into SChoolPlan. 3. Some collaboration has occurred between the two comprehensive high schools, but the majority of collaboration is site-specific. 4. The district has provided additional training for teachers on using SChoolPlan. 5. There was a significant increase in the depth of the teachers’ conversations on the subject of common assessments and their value for improving instruction and student achievement. 6. King City High School administrators meet monthly with departments to review assessment results and discuss next steps. A similar practice has not been implemented at Greenfield High School. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide staff with training and ongoing coaching in developing and using assessments to influence and shape instruction. 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. 4. View assessment not as an event but as a system with all the tools and resources needed for continuous improvement in teaching and learning. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 236 Pupil Achievement 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. Benchmark assessments for core content areas 2. Sample data reports 3. Schedule of collaboration time 4. Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) 5. Interviews with teachers and with school site and district administrators 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 had made some progress developing and administering common benchmark assessments. The number of teachers who reported having access to SChoolPlan had increased since the previous review, but little progress had been made in using data for instructional decisions and monitoring. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has made progress in developing an assessment and data system that meets administrators’ and teachers’ needs for instructional decision-making and monitoring. It is still not complete and there has not been clear communication regarding the timelines for completion and implementation. Teachers indicated an increased understanding of the value of more frequent assessments and the importance of collaboration using assessment results. Findings 1. Teachers indicated that they are accessing SChoolPlan. The results of their benchmark assessments are being loaded into SChoolPlan. 2. Teachers and administrators indicated that the district is providing additional training regarding SChoolPlan. Pupil Achievement 237 3. The SChoolPlan data management system is intended to provide teachers and administrators with timely and useful data for planning, student placement and progress monitoring. More teachers are using the system. However, there is still no clear implementation timeline with a date by which every teacher is expected to be fully using the system. 4. The district continues to rely heavily on state assessment data, primarily the California Standards Tests (CSTs), for individual student placement. The district also considers CELDT and teacher recommendations when placing students. 5. There has been some progress in developing and using common assessments, but not enough to make them a reliable component of a comprehensive assessment system that is used to place students in appropriate interventions and other support programs. 6. See the related findings in Standards 2.4 and 3.16. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the results of the common assessments are analyzed by collaborative teams of teachers and used to improve instruction to ensure that all students are achieving at high levels. 2. Provide focused professional development and ongoing coaching to help teachers learn to analyze data to identify any changes needed 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. 3. Continue to develop common assessments, but 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. 4. See the related recommendations in Standards 2.4 and 3.16. 238 Pupil Achievement Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating:2 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 239 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 and with school site and district administrators 2. Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) 3. LEA Plan Addendum, September 2011 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 had been made in identifying and providing services for students who required close monitoring, differentiated instruction, additional targeted assessment, specific research-based intervention, or acceleration. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Little progress has 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. The district does not yet have a system of assessments and communication that can be used to closely monitor individual student progress and adjust quickly to students’ needs. In the absence of such a system, the district continues to rely heavily on state assessment data, grades and teacher recommendations for individual student placement. 2. 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. More teachers are using the system. However, there is still no clear 240 Pupil Achievement timeline for full implementation or date by which every teacher is expected to be making full use of the system. 3. Teachers are not consistently identifying and tracking students who require close monitoring, differentiated instruction, additional targeted assessment, specific research- based intervention, or acceleration. Teachers indicated there is no formal support system for students who need it, and that they regret that a system of this type is not in place. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide professional development on the effective use of disaggregated data, and 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. 2. 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. Provide additional professional development on effective strategies. Provide coaching and support to help teachers make effective use of collaboration time. 3. 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. 4. See the related recommendations in Standards 2.4 and 3.16. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 241 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 Addendum, September 2011 2. Interviews with teachers and administrators 3. SPSAs for each school site 4. Professional development plan 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 had varying opinions about which type of professional development was needed. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has created a professional development plan, and implementation started in March 2011. The district should ensure the plan is aligned with the LEA Plan Addendum and the SPSAs, and that it is monitored as part of the tracking of all district plans. Creating a leadership team could help in the monitoring of district plans. Findings 1. The district has completed the LEA Plan Addendum as required under Title I Program Improvement. 2. A professional development plan has been created, and implementation began in March 2011. However, the plan is incomplete and does not indicate the professional development activities required to fully implement the LEA Plan, nor does it include the person(s) responsible for carrying out the activities. 242 Pupil Achievement 3. Improvement plans (LEA Plan, SPSAs, and Title III) are not monitored in an organized way by a district and site leadership team or other organized group that meets regularly. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Align the districtwide professional development plan more closely with the LEA Plan Addendum and the SPSAs. Include the people responsible, and prioritize the activities. 2. Consider creating a leadership team to help in the monitoring of district plans. The leadership team should include district and site administrators, teachers, classified staff, SSC representation, and other staff as appropriate. Continue to work toward fully implementing the following recommendations provided in the first comprehensive review report in February 2010. 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. For example, inform teachers of specific activities that administrators will be looking to observe during walkthroughs. 5. Because the professional development required to implement the LEA Plan Addendum cannot be accomplished in one year, prioritize the activities in the plan based on student needs and indicate, over a three year period, when the specific item will be accomplished. Include the people responsible for carrying out activities and the funding source. The professional development plan should be a working document that is monitored and communicated to everyone involved. School site council (SSC) members need to be aware of the plan so that they can support the district’s priorities. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 243 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. Teacher evaluation documents and schedules 2. Site administrator walkthrough protocols 3. Interviews with administrators 4. Classroom observations 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 had 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 was communicated to teachers prior to informal classroom visits. As a result, there was no consistent monitoring focused on fidelity of program implementation or instructional strategies. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Very little has been done to monitor program implementation to ensure better results for students. Many structures and programs have been put in place, but no corresponding training has been provided, nor has a plan for monitoring been implemented. Findings 1. The teacher evaluation system based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession is in use, and the district provided a report of completed and scheduled evaluations. 2. The district has established protocols for classroom visits/walk-throughs, and principals are starting to use them. However, administrators do not share specific expectations with teachers prior to classroom visits. 244 Pupil Achievement 3. Classroom walk-throughs as currently implemented do not provide specific feedback that teachers can use to improve instruction. Because both high schools are relatively small, consistent and frequent monitoring should be possible. 4. Interviews and classroom observations revealed that teachers are not aware of the expectation that they use board-approved instructional materials. 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. Classroom visits/walk-throughs should always have a clear program and/or instructional focus, and teachers should be informed of the focus. For example, the principal might indicate that for the next two weeks he/she will be looking for ways teachers are addressing academic language development that might have been the topic of a recent professional development session. The principal might communicate to teachers that at the end of the week, he completed 12 walk-throughs and observed that in all but one classroom he saw evidence of the purposeful development of academic language. Continue to work toward full implementation of the following recommendations provided in the first comprehensive review report in February 2010: 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. Provide more structure for collaboration time. 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. Provide teachers with individual and/or collective feedback following the classroom visits to help improve practices. Pupil Achievement 245 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 246 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, on-going training to ensure proper implementation. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district and site administration, teachers, support staff, parents and students. 2. Board policies and administrative regulations 3. Local service plan for special education 4. Sample of individualized education plans (IEPs) 5. Special Education Review, May 2011 and special education action plan 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 needed review and revision. The district had 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 were 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has completed its transfer of special education programs from the Monterey County Office of Education and is establishing a structure to ensure that all special education students’ needs are identified and met. The district also needs to provide the professional development needed to ensure that its updated special education policies are implemented. Pupil Achievement 247 Findings 1. Significant progress has been made in updating board policies regarding the special education program. 2. Teachers and staff do not uniformly understand and apply policies and procedures to ensure the appropriate application of special education rules and regulations. This issue was also noted in the May 2011 Special Education Review. 3. The district hired a part-time special education coordinator to oversee special education processes, procedures and organizational structure. The coordinator is working to address the findings in the recent May 2011 Special Education Review. The findings from the Special Education Review agree with the findings and recommendations in this report, and the coordinator and special education staff are addressing them systematically. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to review and revise board policies and administrative regulations. Use the California School Boards Association (CSBA) language as a guide. Communicate newly revised policies directly to the staff members responsible for implementing programs and services. 2. Continue to follow the recommendations in the May 2011 Special Education Review to organize and ensure that all special education master files are complete, are housed at the district office, and are accessible and traceable when removed from the district office. • Enable access to all working files to ensure that all documents are made available. • Hire classified staff members who are familiar with file organization, such as some of the paraeducators at Greenfield High School, to organize the files. • Train other staff in file organization and maintenance. • 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. • 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 correc- tions needed; and how these will be tracked. The SELPA has a form for reviewing IEPs that the district may want to adopt. 3. Ensure that district policies are current and available on the district’s website. 4. Provide support to teachers and administrators so that special education students benefit from mainstreaming. Provide training for teachers in instructional 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. 248 Pupil Achievement Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Pupil Achievement 249 5.1 Professional Development Legal 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. District professional development plan (draft) 2. Collaboration time schedule and reports 3. Interviews with teachers, classified staff, and site and district administrators 4. Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) 5. LEA Plan Addendum, September 2011 6. Board policies and administrative regulations 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 had not yet developed an articulated program of professional development for staff and administrators that would result in systemic improvement. Progress had been made training board members regarding policies, but the district lacked a coherent approach to building a common understanding among staff, administrators and board members regarding how curricula, instructional strategies and student assessment needed to change. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has created a professional development plan as recommended, but the plan needs more detail if it is to significantly affect student outcomes. Because professional development is costly, lower cost strategies that take advantage of in-house expertise and collaboration time need to be pursued. Professional development needs to be targeted and prioritized based on students’ needs. 250 Pupil Achievement Findings 1. There continues to be no evidence of a coherent, coordinated districtwide plan or planning process for professional development for instructional staff or administrators that will result in a consistent approach to improvement. However, there is such a plan for board members. 2. Teachers indicated that collaboration time is often used for purposes other than collaboration on improving instruction. For example, some time was used for gathering teacher input on the single site plans, and other days the collaboration time is used for staff meetings. Teachers expressed frustration that collaboration time is not being used to share best practices. 3. Two staff members attended training on professional learning communities this past summer. 4. The state administrator indicated that approximately 30 teachers participated in professional development on constructing meaning. Gear Up funds will be used to support teachers coaching other teachers. 5. The district, with teaching staff, wrote a professional development plan and began implementing it in March 2011. The plan lacks budget detail, a specific timeline, detail of how and when the plan will be monitored, and the person or persons responsible for completing each activity. 6. The plan does not make it clear how knowledge gained at professional development sessions will be shared with other staff members when it is not possible for everyone to attend. Sending a core group to training reduces costs, but there needs to be an expectation to share what is learned and to monitor implementation. 7. The use of collaboration time is not recognized as professional development, and little direction is given regarding how this time can be used to share teaching expertise. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. 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, but 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. 2. After the district has built a core team with a shared understanding of the steps needed to improve teaching and learning, 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. Pupil Achievement 251 3. Include in its professional development plan details regarding budget, a specific timeline, how and when the plan will be monitored, and the person or persons responsible for completing the activity. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 March 2012 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: 252 Pupil Achievement 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. Collaboration time schedule and reports 2. Interviews with teachers and school/site administrators 3. LEA Plan Addendum, September 2011 4. District professional development plan (draft) 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 had 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Teachers continue to have weekly collaboration time. However, teachers reported that time is often spent on items and activities that are not related to improving instruction or analyzing data. Findings 1. Although teacher collaboration time is included in the weekly schedule, teachers report that time is not necessarily used to plan and monitor improvements in instruction and the effective use of data. Teachers indicated that some weekly collaboration time is spent on staff meetings or administrative activities rather than collaboration on improving instruction. 2. Teachers commented that they value the time spent when collaboration time is used for analyzing assessment data, discussing the implications of the data for improving instruction, and sharing their expertise and best practices. Teachers felt that collaboration time was wasted when it was used for other purposes. Pupil Achievement 253 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 3. 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. 4. Ensure that the professional development includes having a district team attend 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 needed improvements. 5. 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 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 254 Pupil Achievement 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. Interviews with teachers and school site administrators 2. LEA Plan Addendum, September 2011 3. District professional development plan (draft) 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 timeline for completion. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district had revised the LEA plan to include a general description of the approach to and budget for professional development. The plan gave 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 to assisting teachers in learning how to use assessment data to plan and implement improvements. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Responsibility for the alignment of plans across the district has not been assigned and is not monitored. With tight alignment, the district could develop and implement one comprehensive plan for professional development focused on student needs. Findings 1. The district has written a professional development plan and began implementing it in March 2011. The plan is incomplete: it does not indicate the professional development activities required to fully implement the LEA Plan, and it does not include budget detail, how implementation will be monitored, or the person or persons responsible for carrying out the activities. 2. See the related findings in Standard 5.1. Pupil Achievement 255 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that staff participate in the Professional Learning Communities at Work Institute or similar professional development to help the district develop a common understanding of how to better meet the needs of all students and how to implement and sustain 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 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 256 Pupil Achievement 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. Interview with the student information manager 2. Reports from the Online Public Update for Schools (OPUS) 3. CALPADS status data 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 were working to prepare for the required data submissions for 2010-11. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The CALPADS Fall 1 data was submitted and certified during the 2010-11 school year. Staff worked to prepare Fall 2 and Spring 1 data, but neither was certified for the 2010-11 school year. Submission for the 2011-12 school year was under way at the time of fieldwork. Findings 1. The district submitted student enrollment, demographic, and program participation data to CALPADS during the 2010-11 school year. Fall 2 data was collected, but, because a patch from the vendor was received very late in the submission cycle, the Fall 2 data was not certified by the certification deadline. The Fall 2 data was submitted using an alternative collection method. Spring 1 data was also submitted using the alternative collection methods. 2. The district continues to make progress in improving the quality of data and in submitting and certifying data for the 2011-12 Fall 1, Fall 2 and Spring 1 submissions. Pupil Achievement 257 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 3. 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. 4. 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. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 6 March 2011 Rating: 7 March 2012 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: 258 Pupil Achievement Table of Pupil Achievement Ratings Pupil Achievement 259 260 Pupil Achievement February March March Pupil Achievement Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating LEGAL STANDARD – PLANNING PROCESSES Categorical and compensatory program funds supplement 1.1 0 1 2 and do not 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 1.3 the achievement and needs of all students with the goals of 1 1 1 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 1.4 commitment to implementing systemic reform, innovative 1 2 3 leadership, and high expectations to improve student achievement and learning. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – PLANNING PROCESSES The LEA has fiscal policies and a fiscal resource allocation 1.5 plan that are aligned with measurable student achievement 0 1 3 outcomes and 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. These include implementation 1.6 1 2 4 of instructional materials, intervention 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 and technology to manage student data, and 1.8 2 2 3 provides professional 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 1.9 0 1 2 personnel accountable for student achievement through evaluations and professional development. Pupil Achievement 261 February March March Pupil Achievement Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating LEGAL STANDARD – CURRICULUM The LEA provides and fully implements SBE-adopted and standards-based (or aligned for secondary) instructional 2.1 textbooks and materials for all students, including 1 2 3 intervention in reading/language arts and mathematics, and support for students failing to demonstrate proficiency in history, social studies, and science. (EC 60119, DAIT) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – CURRICULUM The LEA has planned, adopted and implemented an academic program based on California content standards, 2.3 1 1 3 frameworks, and 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 2.4 2 2 3 assessments 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 3 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 3.1 standing, and other factors. The LEA’s policies, practices, 1 2 2 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 3.6 meet the high school graduation requirements. (EC 51225.3) 2 3 4 The LEA provides 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 3.7 2 3 4 complete the prescribed course of study required for high school graduation. (EC 51225.3) LEGAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The LEA has adopted systematic procedures for 3.10 identification, screening, referral, assessment, planning, 2 2 4 implementation, review, and triennial assessment of students with special needs. (EC 56301) 262 Pupil Achievement February March March Pupil Achievement Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating LEGAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES Programs for special education students meet the least restrictive environment provision of the law and the quality 3.12 3 3 3 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.) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 3.13 2 2 2 Students are engaged in learning, and they are able to demonstrate and apply their knowledge and skills. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES The LEA optimizes opportunities for all students, including 3.15 1 2 2 underperforming students, students with disabilities, and English language learners, to access appropriate instruction and standards-based curriculum. (DAIT) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 3.16 The LEA makes ongoing use of a variety of assessment 2 2 3 systems to appropriately place students at grade level, and in intervention and other special support programs. (DAIT) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 3.17 Programs for English-language learners comply with state 1 2 2 and federal regulations and meet the quality criteria set forth by the California Department of Education. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 3.18 The LEA employs specialists for improving student learning, 0 1 3 including 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 3.22 1 2 4 program of integrated academic and technical study that is organized around a broad theme, interest area, or industry sector. (EC 52372.5, SBE 51226) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY The LEA has developed summative and frequent common 4.3 2 3 3 formative assessments that inform and direct instructional practices as part of an ongoing process of continuous improvement. Pupil Achievement 263 February March March Pupil Achievement Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY The LEA provides an accurate and timely school-level 4.4 2 2 3 assessment 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’ 4.5 1 1 2 needs, and whether students require close monitoring, differentiated instruction, additional targeted assessment, specific research based intervention, or acceleration. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY Principals and teachers in underperforming schools and/ 4.8 1 1 2 or in schools under mandated improvement programs are provided special training and support by the LEA. Improvement plans are monitored. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY 4.10 The LEA and school site administration monitor fidelity 0 1 2 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 4.12 2 2 5 special 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 5.1 development to keep instructional staff, administrators, and 0 0 1 board members updated on current issues and research pertaining to curriculum, instructional strategies, and student assessment. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 5.3 The LEA provides opportunities and ongoing support for 1 1 2 teachers to collaborate on the analysis and improvement of curriculum, instruction, and use of assessment data. 264 Pupil Achievement February March March Pupil Achievement Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The LEA plan includes budgeted coherent professional 5.5 2 2 2 development 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 6.1 and maintains all data to be reported to the California Pupil 6 7 7 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) Collective Average Rating 1.37 1.87 2.87 The collective average ratings for all years are based on the subset of priority standards used in this third comprehensive review. Pupil Achievement 265 266 Financial Management Financial Management 267 268 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the chief business official 3. Interviews with board members 4. Interviews with district administrators 5. Interviews with site staff members 6. Annual audit report for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2008, June 30, 2009 and June 30, 2010 7. Board policies and administrative regulations 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 had provided board members with training through sessions with representatives from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and had board members start the CSBA’s Masters in Governance training program. Online ethics training was also provided. The district was also implementing higher ethical standards by having administrators discuss what defines ethical behavior and make changes to positions and procedures when questionable activities were suspected or found. However, much work was still needed to eliminate the sense of entitlement that existed among some employees. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has made significant progress in updating its board policies, and a code of ethics has been adopted. However, communication to employees regarding the need for significant changes Financial Management 269 in the district’s budget should be increased to make more progress toward establishing the desired environment of high integrity and ethical behavior. Findings 1. Interviews with district staff members indicated that the district is trying to improve its culture and has included the code of ethics policy in the annual information packets for all employees. Conversations about ethics are reportedly happening at the cabinet level, and it is expected that each site administrator and department manager will provide that information to their staff members. However, interviews indicated that not all site administrators and department heads have followed through with the directive. While improving the ethical culture of an organization is a change that will take time and considerable effort to complete, it is being hampered by a sense of intimidation and fear of retaliation that is felt by some employees. This feeling has been fostered by some of the actions taken by district administration regarding personnel issues. For example, district employees indicated that entire classes of positions have been eliminated; new jobs with new job descriptions created; and employees whose positions were eliminated have been asked to reapply for the new positions. Employees perceive that these actions were taken because an employee in the eliminated class had displeased or angered the state administrator. While significant changes must be made to balance the district’s budget, communication with employees regarding the need for specific changes should be increased. Improving the district’s ethical values will require additional time, a consistent message and visible consequences to regain and increase the eroded trust of some employees. 2. Board Bylaw (BB) 9270, Conflict of Interest, was adopted on August 10, 2011; BB 9005.3, Principles of Ethics, was adopted on January 13, 2010; Board Policy 4119.21/4219.21/4319.21 and Exhibit 4119.21, Professional Standards Code of Ethics, was adopted on September 8, 2010; and Exhibit 4219.21, Professional Standards, was adopted on April 20, 2011. The district includes the code of ethics in each new employee packet, has each employee sign the code of ethics annually and places the signed copy in their personnel file. However, interviews with district staff indicate that not every employee has been provided formal verbal communication and/or training regarding the district’s ethical standards and the consequences of an individual’s failure to adhere to them. 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 allows 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, many employees continue to be unaware of its existence and/or how to access it. Access to the hotline is gained by dialing the main district telephone number and pressing 7. However, in addition to employees’ lack of knowledge of this system, the district continues to have no written procedure that addresses what to do when information is received, such 270 Financial Management as determining the level of investigation warranted, deciding who should perform an investigation if needed, and reporting the results of those inquiries. Interviews indicated that the state administrator is the person monitoring the hotline messages; however, employees were reluctant to use the hotline and assume that even if matters are reported, nothing will happen or callers will not be treated anonymously. Employees indicated that they prefer to report concerns to someone who will relay them to the state administrator indirectly. 4. Fraud and the misuse of physical or cash assets occur 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. A common pressure or motive is the need for money. This factor continues to be present at the district because of the current economy and the reduction in compensation and benefits. The third factor, rationalization or lack of integrity, has reportedly been prevalent. Staff members indicated that some employees perceive a double standard existing at the district: specifically, employees are expected to act in an ethical manner while top leadership does not. The remaining fraud triangle factor is opportunity, which varies throughout the district depending on an employee’s assigned duties. The district’s 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 audited financial statements identified various potential opportunities for fraud and presented them in the form of audit findings, some of which were provided in 2007-08 and repeated in two subsequent years because the district did not adequately address them. Although the district continues to move toward more ethical behaviors and avoidance of fraud, it needs to ensure that proper internal controls are in place for each function. 5. The state administrator has continued an extensive process to revise existing and adopt new board policies. These efforts have resulted in the updating of 214 policies so far compared to 49 at the time of the second comprehensive review. However, interviews indicated that the process used to review, revise and adopt policies does not consistently include the senior manager or administrator of each affected department. As a consequence, some policies may not adhere to current practice. For example, Board Policy 3100, Budget, adopted March 9, 2011, provides for a dual budget adoption process; however, the district uses the single budget adoption process. Policy revision, including the development of administrative regulations, will continue to require additional time. 6. In the district’s audited financial statements for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2008, June 30, 2009 and June 30, 2010, the auditor’s opinion included a paragraph regarding the district’s ability to continue as a 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 resolution. Financial Management 271 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. 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 for not adhering to these standards. 2. Establish meaningful communication with employees and employee groups to keep them informed of district decisions and the rationale for the decisions. 3. Continue to inform employees, students, community members and board members of the district’s hotline, and encourage its use to report any questionable activity. Establish written 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. 4. Ensure that proper internal controls are in place for each required function. 5. Include the senior manager or administrator from each applicable district department in the process of adopting or revising board policy. 6. 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 Initial Rating:1 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 272 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the chief business official 3. Interviews with district and site staff members 4. Organizational chart, dated August 8, 2011 5. Annual audit report for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2008, June 30, 2009 and June 30, 2010 6. Position control reports, 2011-12 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 had completed its organizational chart and provided a copy dated August 24, 2010; however, it had not been shared with all staff members. Staff and administrators reported that the majority of employees seemed to understand the chain of command as well as their duties. Instances of employees bypassing their supervisors and reporting issues directly to top management were becoming less frequent. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has updated its organizational chart as of August 8, 2011; however, lines of authority appear to be confusing to some employees, and others are unaware of who their direct supervisor is. The district continues to need more staff in the business office; only the chief business official (CBO) and fiscal services manager currently process all accounting and financial transactions. Findings 1. The district provided FCMAT with an organizational chart dated August 8, 2011 that identifies all management and district support staff positions and their reporting structure. Reporting and supporting lines are identified in the organizational structure; Financial Management 273 however, some district employees reported confusion regarding the structure of the organization, and some were unaware of who their direct supervisor was. A review of the organizational chart indicated that more clarity is needed for some of the reporting lines. For example, the chart indicates that the special education director reports to both the assistant superintendent and the personnel manager, and that the receptionist reports to both the executive assistant and the personnel manager. 2. 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 of budget constraints, the district has not filled one of the fiscal services manager positions included on the organizational chart. The district is also conducting an executive search to replace the CBO, who plans to leave the district before the end of the school year. The CBO and the 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 2009-2010, 2008-2009 and 2007-2008 audited financial statements (findings 2010-3, 2010-5, 2009-3, 2009-5, 2008-3, and 2008-5). This situation is exacerbated by the fact that the department has had significant turnover and has been restructured twice in two years. This continues to leave the district in the untenable position of having lost much of its institutional knowledge regarding financial matters without the opportunity to transfer that knowledge and provide training to new employees. 3. During the second comprehensive review, 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 school sites and transferred them to the district office. However, because processes and procedures were not in place at the time of the transfer, there was great confusion about how to proceed with ASB/club transactions. With only two employees in the business department, this added to the burden of day-to-day business functions. Internal control principles were also compromised because these two employees were processing the transactions and entering them into the accounting records. Sites had previously reported difficulties in the processing of their transactions because of inadequate information on the ASB accounts. School sites now report that transactions are proceeding more smoothly but that they need more processing time than was needed when the ASB functions were site-based. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that lines of reporting are clearly defined on the organizational chart, and distribute the chart to all employees to help ensure that each employee knows who they report to and who is in the chain of command above their supervisor. 2. Increase its efforts to immediately fill the open position in the business services department. 274 Financial Management 3. Provide newly hired business department staff with intensive training to ensure the continuity of institutional knowledge regarding the district’s finances. This training should be provided by the current staff if possible, but the district may need to call upon the Monterey County Office of Education or other professionals for assistance if the current employees are no longer available. 4. Immediately prepare written policies and procedures for processing ASB transactions at the district office, and provide training to school site personnel. 5. As funding permits, consider re-establishing a part-time ASB clerk position at each of its two comprehensive high schools, possibly splitting one full-time position between the two sites. If this is done, provide training to the new clerk and continue to provide training to the advisors and administrators responsible for ASB funds. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 275 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. Interviews with the state administrator and chief business official 2. Interviews with district and site staff members 3. Correspondence from the CBO to site administrators, February 4, 2011 4. District Update from the state administrator, September 2011 – August 2012 5. Annual audit report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 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 indicated that communication with the business department had improved and information was provided in writing or verbally. However, site administrators and department managers had received minimal formal training related to business functions. In addition, audit findings needed to be shared with staff each year and procedures implemented to correct each finding. The district did not have desk manuals for business office positions. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Site and department staff members indicate that a good working relationship has been established with the business department and that it provides information in a timely manner. However, more training regarding business procedures and budget functions should be provided to applicable site and department staff members. In addition, executive cabinet meetings should be conducted weekly to ensure that all pertinent district information is shared between the state administrator, CBO and assistant superintendent. The district has not developed desk manuals for business office positions. 276 Financial Management Findings 1. Communication between the business department and the school sites and other district departments is timely, and staff reported that a good working relationship has been established between the parties. However, site administrators, department managers and staff responsible for budget and purchasing functions have been provided with minimal formal training in these areas. Several staff members are relatively new to their positions and need additional verbal and written training regarding budget development, account coding and proper business procedures. 2. Staff indicated that cabinet meetings are conducted each week. Cabinet members include the state administrator, CBO, assistant superintendent, department managers and the executive assistant to the superintendent. In addition, the administrative council, which includes the state administrator, CBO, assistant superintendent, site principals, assistant principals and student services coordinators, meets two times per month. Staff indicated that some changes in business processes and procedures are discussed at these meetings and other issues are communicated via e-mail. 3. The district does not have an formalized and documented executive cabinet that would provide a venue for the state administrator, CBO and assistant superintendent to meet and discuss district issues and to ensure that decisions made by the state administrator have been communicated to staff members responsible for their implementation. The state administrator includes with employees’ monthly paychecks a letter entitled District Update, which informs employees of some of the district’s significant issues and board actions. 4. The district’s independent audit report for fiscal year 2009-10 included eight audit findings, and there were eight findings from the fiscal year 2008-09 audit report for which the recommendations had either not been implemented or had been partially implemented. Staff members interviewed indicated that the 2009-10 audit findings were shared with applicable staff members to help ensure that findings are corrected and staff is held accountable for following proper procedures. The fiscal year 2010-11 audit was scheduled to begin following FCMAT’s fieldwork. 5. School sites have online access to the district’s financial management system (FMS) and can review account line budgets and print financial reports. 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. 6. 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 a better understanding of the responsibilities of each position. This is particularly relevant in the district’s case because there has been significant turnover in business office positions, and the district anticipates that the CBO will leave the district during fiscal year 2011-12. Financial Management 277 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 provide formal written communications among departments, particularly regarding business procedures and internal controls. 3. Conduct weekly executive cabinet meetings that include the state administrator, CBO and assistant superintendent to ensure that all pertinent district information is shared between the parties. 4. Continue providing the monthly District Update to employees. 5. Continue to 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. 6. Develop and implement a budget transfer form, and make it available electronically to site and department managers. 7. Develop a desk manual for each position in the business department, and ensure that each employee includes in their desk manual step-by-step procedures for all assigned duties. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 278 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. Interviews with the state administrator and chief business official 2. Interviews with board members 3. Board meeting agendas and minutes 4. Adoption budget report, 2011-12 5. First, second and third interim reports, 2010-11 6. Unaudited actuals report, 2010-11 7. Board policies and administrative regulations 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 had 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 had reportedly helped board members gain a better understanding of the budget. The district needed to adopt policies and regulations pertaining to business functions, including budget development, and to provide additional budget training to board members. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Purchase orders and vendor and payroll warrant registers have not been provided at regular monthly board meetings since October 2010. The chief business official provided a board training session regarding the budget on March 22, 2011, and the district should continue to provide budget training to board members to increase their knowledge of the district’s finances. Financial Management 279 Applicable district administrators and managers should review proposed board policies and administrative regulations before placing the documents on the board agenda. Findings 1. Education Code section 17604 requires that the governing board/state administrator approve or ratify all contracts, which includes purchase orders. However, board meeting agendas have not included listings of the purchase orders and/or warrants since October 2010. Therefore, the district needs to ensure that purchase orders and contracts are presented for approval and that warrants, in summary form, are included for ratification on each regular board meeting agenda. 2. In months that do not include a state-required budget report, an FMS budget report and an FMS year-to-date cash flow report are included on the board agenda. In addition, at each state-required budget reporting period the CBO provides the board with a budget presentation that includes a narrative executive summary. However, information regarding year-to-year budget trends is not provided. 3. On March 22, 2011 the CBO provided a board training session regarding the budget. Interviews with board members indicated that they have gained a better conceptual understanding of the budget and will benefit from continued training regarding the budget and district finances. 4. The district has developed and/or updated several board policies and administrative regulations regarding business and noninstructional operations, including BP and AR 3100, Budget, adopted on March 9, 2011. However, BP 3100 errantly states that the district uses a dual budget adoption process when it actually uses a single budget adoption process. Providing draft policy or regulation documents to all applicable district administrators and managers for review before including an item on the board agenda for first reading would help prevent the adoption of policies and regulations that include errors. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that each regular board meeting agenda includes the approval of purchase orders and contracts and ratification of warrants by the state administrator. 2. Continue to ensure that the board takes a more active role in understanding the district’s financial position. 3. At each reporting period, include in the budget presentation charts and graphs depicting year-to-year trends in areas such as the following: • General fund revenues and expenditures • Enrollment and average daily attendance (ADA) history and projections 280 Financial Management • Net ending balances for both the unrestricted and restricted general fund • Net change in the ending balance/deficit spending for both the unrestricted and re- stricted general fund • General fund contributions to special education and any other programs or funds that require a contribution from the unrestricted general fund 4. Schedule additional board training sessions regarding the district’s budget to improve board members’ understanding of the budget and the concepts of public education finance. 5. Revise BP 3100 to indicate the single budget adoption process. 6. Provide the draft board policies and administrative regulations to all applicable district administrators and managers for review before including them on the board agenda for first reading. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 281 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. Interviews with the chief business official and the fiscal services manager 2. District organizational chart, dated August 8, 2011 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 had not developed a professional development plan for business department staff because the department staff consisted of an interim chief business official, an interim fiscal services manager, and two fiscal services technicians but was in the process of changing some of these positions. FCMAT found that the district would need to develop a formal professional development plan as soon as changes to the department’s staffing were completed. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The business department consists of a chief business official and two fiscal services manager positions; however, one of the fiscal services manager positions was vacant at the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork. The district needs to develop and implement a professional development plan and ensure that business department employees are evaluated in a timely manner. Findings 1. The district has changed the business office staffing structure two times in the last two years. The organizational chart dated August 8, 2011 includes three business department positions: a chief business official and two fiscal services managers. However, one of the fiscal services manager positions was vacant at the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork and the district was not filling the position because of budget concerns. In addition, the district was planning to begin advertising for a new CBO because the current CBO plans to leave the district in fiscal year 2011-12. 2. The district does not have a formal staff development plan for the business department positions. The district will need to immediately assess the experience and expertise 282 Financial Management of its current fiscal services manager and each new staff member as they are hired and implement a professional development plan for each individual. It is best practice to ensure that such a plan includes workshops, in-service events, cross-training opportunities, the time and financial resources required from employees and the district, and expected outcomes for each activity. Using a standard form to document the plan, and reviewing the plan at least annually are also best practices. 3. No evidence was provided to indicate that business department employees have been evaluated during this review period. Routine and timely employee performance evaluations help provide effective management of a school district. They allow opportunities for managers and administrators to give positive feedback and performance coaching to further the major goals and objectives of the district and ensure that sufficient documented evidence exists if performance is below acceptable standards so that corrective or disciplinary action can be taken when necessary. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Fill the CBO and vacant fiscal services manager positions. 2. Immediately assess the experience and expertise of each business department staff member and implement a professional development plan for each individual. Ensure that the plan includes workshops, in-service events, cross-training opportunities, and the financial resources required from employees and the district, and expected outcomes for each activity. Use a standard form to document the plan, and review the plan at least annually. 3. Ensure that business department employees are evaluated in a timely manner. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 283 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. Interviews with the chief business official and the fiscal services manager 2. Interviews with department and site staff 3. Correspondence from the CBO to site administrators, February 4, 2011 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 had improved and sites and departments had received information regarding business procedures; however, the district had 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has not developed a professional development plan for training site and department staff members about business topics. Although some staff members continue to indicate a need and a desire for additional training, no formal training was provided by the business department during this review period. Progress in this area is hampered by minimal staffing in the business department. Findings 1. The CBO provided site administrators with correspondence regarding the district’s ordering process during this review period. However, some school site and department staff members indicated that they need and desire additional training regarding business processes, account coding, and the capabilities of the Financial Management System (FMS), which is the district’s financial software. 284 Financial Management 2. The business department has not provided formal training to site and department staff members during this review period. The business department 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. However, progress in this area is hampered due to minimal business department staffing. 3. The district does not have a formal professional development plan for business department staff to use to support and train school site and department staff members. When creating the professional development plan, the business department will need to ensure that clerical and management staff members have an opportunity to provide input regarding the plan, including its goals, objectives and professional development activities. Effective professional development plans in the area of business will 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 be included. Effective plans also have a standard form to document the plan, and are reviewed at least annually. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide additional training regarding business processes, account coding, and FMS capabilities to applicable school site and department staff members. 2. Provide site and department staff with annual training that includes information regarding business-related processes, procedures and forms. 3. Implement and review at least annually a professional development plan for school sites and departments that addresses business topics and functions; includes input from clerical and management staff; identifies business-related training needs, cross-training opportunities and the time and financial commitments required by all involved entities; and contains expected outcomes. Include and use a standard form to document the plan. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 285 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 the chief business official 2. Interviews with board members 3. 2011-12 adopted budget report to the board 4. 2010-11 first, second and third interim budget reports to the board 5. 2010-11 unaudited actuals financial report to the board 6. Revenue and expenditure reports provided to the board 7. Monthly cash flow reports provided to the board 8. Board meeting minutes 9. March 22, 2011 board budget workshop materials 10. Matrix of CSBA Masters in Governance Module Completion as of March 4, 2011 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 had received and was continuing to receive a great deal of training in the area of budget development; however, to fully implement this standard, additional board training was needed regarding linking the budget to student achievement goals. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district continues to provide the board with training in the area of budget development and has expanded those efforts to include the instructional and student achievement areas. Budget 286 Financial Management reports now include executive summaries. However, the governing board has allowed their Masters in Governance training through the California School Boards Association (CSBA) to lapse, and the board continues to struggle with the very complex area of school finance and budgets as well as the link between the budget and student achievement. Findings 1. The district has continued its efforts to help increase the board’s understanding of the budget and knowledge of the district’s cash flow requirements. These measures include the following: a. With the exception of months in which other financial information is presented, such as interim reports or unaudited actuals, a monthly budget report continues to be presented. This document is generated from FMS and shows the approved budget, working budget, amounts expended during the month and year to date, encumbrances, and unencumbered balance. b. With the exception of months in which other financial information is presented, such as interim reports or unaudited actuals, a monthly cash flow report continues to be presented 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 cash flow expectations and allow them to see the full impact of budget decisions. c. A board budget workshop provided by the chief business official on March 22, 2011. d. A workshop regarding the master schedule on February 22, 2011, one regarding student achievement on May 24, 2011, and one regarding instruction on August 24, 2011, all led by the assistant superintendent of educational services and human resources. e. Five board governance workshops provided through CSBA since April 27, 2010. f. Enrollment of all five board members in the CSBA’s Masters in Governance program. However, as of March 4, 2011 each board member had completed only two of the nine program modules required, with three of the five members having last attended a module on October 9, 2010. Only one board member has completed the school finance module. The fee for this program is $1,600 per board member, $245 of which is nonrefundable. Each board member has two years from the date of registration to complete the nine modules or the district will forfeit the remainder of the fee. Fees cannot be transferred between individuals. 2. 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. The Financial Management 287 district has added an executive summary at each financial reporting period; the summary contains a discussion of the district’s status and provides instruction on fiscal and budgeting concepts as well as an indication of what to expect in the future. However, additional information such as charts, graphs and an analysis of the variance between the prior report and the one being presented can help board members and the community better 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 revenues and expenditures; funds or programs that require a contribution from the general fund; and student enrollment and ADA. Consistency in the information provided is essential to prevent confusion, because when questions are raised regarding changes going back to previous fiscal years (such as those within the SACS Criteria and Standards reports), the district lacks prior institutional knowledge regarding these issues. This highlights the need for continuity in administrative personnel and the need for additional financial analysis to help bridge the gaps in knowledge when there are changes in personnel. The tools discussed above are fundamental in helping the board understand revenue and expenditure standards and the formulas needed to maintain the district’s solvency while also focusing on students’ and the district’s needs. 3. Although board members are demonstrating a greater knowledge of the financial difficulties the district faces, they are reluctant to voice more specific questions in a public setting related to budget or finance matters; however, they do meet with the district’s CBO to obtain answers to their questions. One board member who had a great deal of knowledge regarding finance has resigned, leaving the board without someone who is as conversant in district financial issues. 4. The board has not yet fully connected their understanding of finance with student achievement and with their directive to maintain the district’s fiscal solvency. To assist them in this regard, staff members from additional district departments, such as human resources and student services, have provided board workshops and presentations in their areas of responsibility and will need to continue those efforts. 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. Provide the board with monthly cash flow reports that contain projections through year end. 3. Provide the board with additional information at each reporting cycle to augment SACS forms and to give board members financial information in a format that is easier to understand. 288 Financial Management 4. Encourage board members to complete the CSBA’s Masters in Governance program within two years from the date they enrolled. 5. Try to obtain a refund of the fees paid to CSBA for the Masters in Governance program for the board member who resigned. 6. Continue to provide supplemental trainings from district staff members to ensure that the board can effectively apply the concepts learned to local district issues and circumstances that focus on students’ and the district’s needs. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 289 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 the chief business official 2. Interviews with school site administrators 3. Interviews with department directors/managers 4. Interviews with board members 5. Audited financial statements for the years ending June 30, 2008, June 30, 2009 and June 30, 2010 6. Board policies and administrative regulations 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 had made plans to include site and department administrators in the creation of the 2011-12 budget; however, there continued to be no community or board involvement in the budget process, and no budget advisory committee had been established. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district obtained little input from sites, departments or the board in the development of the 2011-12 budget; however, on August 18, 2011 the district held its first meeting of the newly formed budget advisory committee. Findings 1. Staff reported that the 2011-12 budget was developed primarily at the district office level. Interviews with district staff revealed that budget reports were sent to the two comprehensive high schools in the spring of 2011 soliciting input to the budget process; however, only one high school returned the forms. With this small amount of input, the 2011-12 budget was developed by the state administrator and the CBO with no further 290 Financial Management involvement by site or department staff. With the planned departure of the current CBO, it is unknown how a new CBO will approach the development of the 2012-13 budget. However, should the new CBO enlist participation of site administrators and department heads as has been recommended by FCMAT, this new level of budget 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 to help staff feel comfortable with 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 the budget development process. Although it is not known whether site and department input is planned for 2012-13 budget development, the district has begun to include community and board members in the budget development process through its newly formed budget advisory committee. 3. The district’s audited financial statements for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 continue to include an audit finding regarding going concern. This finding is numbered 2010-1 for the year ending June 30, 2010, 2009-1 for the year ending June 30, 2009, and 2008-1 for the year ending June 30, 2008. Each of these findings indicated that the district had formed a budget committee. District office staff had previously indicated that although a memorandum had been issued in January 2009 announcing the reconvening of the budget advisory committee, nothing further had transpired because board policies regarding adoption of a budget advisory committee had not been updated. On March 9, 2011, the board adopted Board Policy (BP) 3100, which allows the board to “...appoint a budget advisory committee composed of staff, Board representatives, and/or members of the community.” The first meeting of the newly established budget advisory committee was held on August 18, 2011. The sign-in sheet for the meeting indicated nine people in attendance, including the district’s state administrator, the CBO and a site administrator. According to the affiliations listed by each name on the sign-in sheet, the remaining six individuals in attendance were representatives of the community, including students, and the majority were representatives of the Greenfield area. The committee’s second meeting was scheduled for November 2011. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide budget training to all administrators and managers who are to be added to the 2012-13 budget development process. Training should include the following: • Budget worksheets that show the total amount available per resource; staffing current- ly allocated to the resource with lists of the employee names, hours worked, stipends paid; time sheet positions normally attached to the resource; the indirect costs to be charged to the program; and the remaining unallocated amount for sites and depart- ments to budget. • Information regarding account coding, including how to read the code and how those codes translate into expenditure categories by object. Financial Management 291 • Detailed information regarding how each funding source is to be used. School Ser- vices of California’s (SSC’s) CAT Wizard could be an effective tool to provide this information. • Salary and benefit calculation spreadsheets that will allow site principals and depart- ment 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 be one of the largest hurdles in 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 System (STRS) or Public Employees’ Retire- ment System (PERS), social security, Medicare, workers’ compensation insurance, unemployment insurance and health and welfare. In many districts the 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 considered 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 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. Continue to include input from the governing board and the community input in budget development. 3. Ensure that the newly formed budget advisory committee meets regularly and tries to draw a broader spectrum of community interests to those meetings including, but not limited to, representatives from the board, district administration, school administration, district departments, employee bargaining units, parents, students, and the non-parent community. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 292 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 the chief business official 2. Interview with the fiscal services manager 3. Adoption budget report, 2011-12 4. Unaudited actuals financial report, 2010-11 5. Budget calendar 6. Certificated and classified employee collective bargaining agreements 7. Financial summary reports for fiscal year 2011-12 8. Board policies and administrative regulations 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 continued to be a challenge. Although the district’s efforts to reduce expenditures had produced an estimated $3.5 million in savings, the general fund still had a projected negative ending balance in 2012-13; there was a need for increased revenues or further reductions to expenditures. The district had a budget calendar in place but it needed further revision. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has recently adopted policies and regulations regarding budget development; however, the governing board was not involved in the 2011-12 budget development process. The district has received the resignation of a board member who is well versed in district financial issues and will experience the departure of its current CBO in the near future, creating Financial Management 293 uncertainty about the budget development process for fiscal year 2012-13. The district’s budget calendar continues to need further revision. Findings 1. The district continues its training with the board in how to read a budget and review budget reports for trends, including conducting a budget study session on March 22, 2011. However, the district did not involve the board in the development of the 2011-12 budget. With the upcoming departure of the current CBO along with the resignation of the board member who had knowledge of district financial issues, it is not known how the board will be involved with the development of the 2012-13 budget. Although the district recently adopted board policies and regulations regarding the budget and budget development, no evidence of processes or strategic planning objectives used during the budget development for fiscal year 2011-12 were provided. There is also no evidence that the district had developed or used any list of priorities for budget resource allocations and expenditure reductions for its 2011-12 budget. 2. A comparison of the 2009-10 unaudited actuals to the 2010-11 unaudited actuals for the general fund reveals that the district was able to do the following: • Increase its total revenues by $498,000, primarily due to an increase in local revenues; • Decrease its expenditures for salaries and benefits by $2,228,000; and • Decrease its contribution to restricted programs by $1,000,000. However, even with these increased revenues and decreased expenditures, the district continues to project a negative general fund ending balance of $190,714 for fiscal year 2013-14 as well as deficit spending in 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. In addition, the multiyear financial projection includes revenue of $2 million per year from the state loan in 2011-12 and 2012-13. However, the state loan will be fully used prior to the 2013-14 fiscal year, and the collective bargaining agreements with certificated and classified staff do not provide for reopening of salary and benefit negotiations until fiscal years 2013-14 and 2012-13, respectively. 3. Exhibit A of Form ICR, which is included in the district’s 2010-11 unaudited actuals, tracks the application of the district’s indirect cost rate to programs. This form indicates that the district’s approved indirect cost rate was 6.95% for 2010-11. The indirect rates used in programs varied from 2.0% to 6.95%. 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 the district to charge indirect costs at its individual rate, while some, such as vocational education, have a cap of either the district’s rate or 5%, whichever is greater. The district’s approved indirect cost rate for fiscal year 2011-12 is 10.78%. Charging each restricted program the appropriate indirect cost rate helps the unrestricted side of the budget defray costs from services used by restricted programs and helps show the total cost of each program. A review of the district’s 2010-11 estimated actuals revealed that some categorical programs included rates higher than allowed by law and some included rates lower than allowed by law. The district’s financial summary reports for fiscal year 2011-12 indicate that the budgets for 294 Financial Management some categorical programs do not include indirect costs, while others include rates lower than those allowed by law. 4. The district’s budget calendar includes some of the critical tasks, the staff member or department assigned to complete the task, and the month in which the task will take place. The calendar does not identify which budget cycle it was designed for, does not include all critical tasks, and does not define the dates so that specific deadlines are 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; however, the calendar included neither date. 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. The budget calendar needs to include all of the applicable tasks and the date for completion. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the board has an opportunity to provide input 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. 3. Continue to review the budget to identify revenue increases or additional expenditure reductions to eliminate ongoing deficit spending and the negative general fund ending balance projected for fiscal year 2013-14. 4. Budget and charge the full allowable indirect cost rate for each program. 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. Financial Management 295 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 296 Financial Management 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 the chief business official 2. Interview with the fiscal services manager 3. Interviews with board members 4. Adoption budget report, 2011-12 5. Unaudited actuals financial reports, 2009-10 and 2010-11 6. Position control reports, 2011-12 7. 2011-12 Budget Report, dated August 14, 2011 8. Budget report worksheet for sites 9. Board policies and administrative regulations 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 had yet to be developed. Although district staff members indicated that they were using allocation formulas for programs, none were provided to FCMAT. Staff members appeared to be using industry-standard techniques to estimate revenues, but additional care needed to be taken in those calculations. In addition, restricted revenues were not always used to the fullest extent possible before unrestricted resources were 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. Financial Management 297 Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Although board policies and regulations regarding budgeting and budget development were adopted in March 2011 and staff continue to use industry-standard techniques to estimate revenue, the district has not developed a balanced budget, used staffing ratios, included sites and departments in the budget development process or produced revenue allocation worksheets. Restricted revenues continue to be underused, and the county office continues to express concern over operating deficits. However, under SB 130, the district is not required to build or maintain required reserve levels until fiscal solvency is restored. Findings 1. On March 9, 2011, the district adopted BP 3100 and AR 3100, setting forth policies and regulations for its budget and budget development processes. A review of BP 3100 indicated that the district adopted an annual budget development process in accordance with the dual budget adoption process; however, the district’s 2011-12 and 2010-11 annual budget reports indicate a single budget adoption process. District staff indicated that department staff are not always included in the board policy adoption and revisions processes, which can lead to inaccuracies. 2. Department managers and site administrators indicated that there is inconsistency in how budget development is handled from a site and department perspective. Some sites and departments had no input regarding their 2011-12 budget; others had conversations with the CBO; and others received a budget report worksheet showing the 2010-11 working budget, expenditures to date, encumbered amounts, and unencumbered balances with a column in which to insert the 2011-12 budget amounts. Sites are provided with a discretionary budget of $100 per P-2 ADA, and they control how those dollars are budgeted and expended. Other revenue sources are allocated to sites; however, because sites do not have authority over how the funding is spent, they do not receive information on the allocation method. Interviews with district staff also indicated that some budgets are 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 SSC’s revenue limit software (RevLim). No worksheets were provided that indicated funding allocation formulas. 3. The SSC RevLim worksheets for the 2011-12 adoption budget contained the following anomalies: • The 2010-11 second reporting period (P-2) ADA was 1,773.38 (including 21.54 for Other ADA such as county educated), but the ADA indicated on the 2011-12 Adopted Budget Form RL ADA was 1,758.05. • The district’s estimate of unemployment insurance costs was $160,583 on the Rev- Lim worksheets, but the 2011-12 position control spreadsheets included a total of $149,565, which is a difference of $11,018. When divided by the unemployment in- surance cost of 1.61%, this difference results in $684,000 in salaries that would need 298 Financial Management to be added to position control to reach the $160,583 budgeted for unemployment costs. • The district’s estimate of PERS reduction expense was $41,903 (excluding the buy- out factor) on the RevLim worksheets, but the total on the 2011-12 position control spreadsheets was $44,334. 4. The district’s multiyear financial projection and budget assumptions contained in its 2011-12 adoption budget indicated the following: • For fiscal year 2011-12, the unrestricted lottery funding would yield $110 per ADA when the correct estimate per the 2011-12 SSC Dartboard from the May revision of the state budget showed $111 per ADA. • The PERS rate used by the district was 10.979% when the correct amount was 10.923% as approved by the PERS Board on May 19, 2011. • The cost of living adjustment (COLA) used for the base revenue limit per ADA in the 2012-13 multiyear projections was 2.19%; the amount indicated in the assumptions was 2.70%; and SSC’s Dartboard from the 2011-12 May revision indicated a 3.2% COLA. • The COLA used for the base revenue limit per ADA in the 2013-14 multiyear projec- tions was 2.27%; however, SSC’s Dartboard from the 2011-12 May revision indicated a 2.7% COLA. 5. A review of the district’s budget update issued in August 2011 found the following: • Based on the revised P-2 report, the actual prior year ADA was 1,775.22 (including 21.54 for Other ADA), but the district’s update used an ADA of 1,773.38. • The district had neglected to include the per ADA amount for meals for needy/begin- ning teachers salary in its 2013-14 calculations. 6. District staff had not used revenue worksheets to develop the 2011-12 budget, but provided a copy of their financial summary reports for 2011-12, dated August 14, 2011, showing the working budget. Applying the SSC May revision Dartboard and information posted by the California Department of Education (CDE) when the budget was developed revealed some deviations, including the following: • Title II, Part A is budgeted at $71,125, but information posted by CDE at the time of budget development indicates a total apportionment of $72,785 for 2010-11. This is a federal program and was anticipated to be reduced by 10% at the time of budget adoption. • The Title III, LEP (Limited English Proficiency) program is budgeted at $77,900, but information posted by CDE at the time of budget development indicates a total ap- portionment of $84,917 for 2010-11. This is a federal program and was expected to receive the same funding in 2011-12 as in 2010-11. • The Economic Impact Aid program is budgeted at $311,375, but information post- ed by CDE at the time of budget development indicates a total apportionment of $327,763 for 2010-11. This program was expected to receive the same funding for 2011-12 as it did for 2010-11. Financial Management 299 • The Home-to-School Transportation program’s apportionment is budgeted at $282,113, but information posted by CDE at the time of budget development indi- cates a total apportionment of $282,893 for 2010-11. This is a Tier III program that was expected to receive the same funding for 2011-12 as it did for 2010-11. • The Middle and High School Supplemental School Counseling program is budgeted at $152,871, but information posted by CDE at the time of budget development indi- cates a total apportionment of $124,156 for 2010-11. This is a Tier III program that was expected to receive the same funding for 2011-12 as it did for 2010-11. 7. A comparison of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 Forms CAT revealed the following: • Some ending balances or carryover amounts in the 2009-10 Form CAT were not the same as the beginning balances in the 2010-11 Form CAT, which can cause confu- sion over which are the correct numbers. Examples include Restricted Lottery, Title II - LEP, Title II – Part D, and Drug-Free Schools. Most resources had been completely used; however, the carryover amounts or fund balances for the following programs increased from 2009-10 to 2010-11: • IDEA, Special Education increased by $4,086 • Title II increased by $79,410 • Title III increased by $18,274 • Lottery – Prop 20 increased by $40,956 • Restricted Local Funding increased by $228,308 • One resource, Title II, Part D, ended fiscal year 2010-11 with a negative unused grant award of $3,136. • One resource, Title II, Part A, with prior year carryover, was missing in the 2009-10 Form CAT. 8. The district’s human resources and business services department staff indicated that staffing formulas are not being used, other than the 35:1 staffing ratio in the collective bargaining agreement with certificated staff. Little input regarding staffing was sought from principals or department managers during budget development. Because the current CBO is planning to leave the district, it is not known how a successor CBO will handle the budget development process and whether sites and departments will be included in development of the 2012-13 budget. 9. The county office’s October 7, 2011 budget review letter included the following comments and recommendations: • Absent AB 114, the county office would have recommended that the district’s adopted budget be conditionally approved due to a projected negative unrestricted fund bal- ance in the 2013-14 fiscal year. • The district continues its need to focus on operating deficits ($73,449) in 2011-12, ($30,236) in 2012-13 and ($1,777,951) in 2013-14 and to closely monitor revenues and expenditures to ensure that it is able to meet its current and two subsequent year financial obligations. 300 Financial Management Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that department staff are included in the development of board policies and administrative regulations to ensure that current practices and procedures are incorporated. 2. Ensure that it plans to include sites and departments in budget development for fiscal year 2012-13. 3. Develop and use formulas to allocate staffing and funds to school sites and departments. 4. Communicate allocations to schools and departments using spreadsheets with allocation formulas that are based on criteria consistent with the funding source. 5. Use the most recent version of SSC’s Dartboard and the most recent information posted by the CDE when developing and testing revenue estimates. 6. Develop estimates of revenues using industry-standard methods and tools such as SSC’s Dartboard, Dynamic Budget Guide and RevLim software. 7. Ensure that the ending fund balances and carryover amounts included on the prior year’s Form CAT are consistent with the corresponding beginning balances posted on the current year’s Form CAT. 8. 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. 9. Closely monitor revenues and expenditures to ensure that it is able to cease deficit spending and meet its financial obligations for the current and two subsequent fiscal years. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 301 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 1. Interview with the state administrator 2. Interview with the chief business official 3. Interview with the Monterey County Office of Education associate superintendent for business services and district advisory services 4. Adoption budget report, 2011-12 5. Monterey County Office of Education budget review letter, 2011-12 adopted budget 6. Board meeting minutes Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 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, March 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has delivered its budget ahead of the July 1 deadline for the second year in a row. Findings 1. The board held a public hearing and the state administrator adopted the district’s 2011-12 budget on June 22, 2011, within the statutory timelines established by California Education Code (EC) section 42103. On October 7, 2011, the county office staff recommended that the state superintendent of public instruction approve the budget. County office staff indicated that their office received the 2011-12 budget before the July 302 Financial Management 1 deadline required by EC 42127. This marks the second consecutive year in which the district’s budget has been delivered to the county office before the statutory deadline. However, the county office’s letter of October 7, 2011 was not within the time required by EC 42127(d), which requires that the county superintendent of schools approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the budget for a school district on or before August 15. 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, at a regularly scheduled public hearing, take testimony from the public, discuss and approve or disapprove the proposed use of funding, and make explicit the purpose for which the funds will be used. The bill allows the public hearing to take place at the governing board meeting that includes the budget adoption. On October 8, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 189, which requires that the public hearing required as a condition of receiving Tier III funding be held prior to and independent of the meeting in which the governing board adopts its budget. A review of the board meeting minutes for April 20, 2011 indicated that the district held the requisite public hearing regarding use of Tier III flexibility funding and included the explicit purposes for use of the Tier III funding for discussion. 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 42103 and 42127. 2. Follow up with the county superintendent of schools to ensure that communication regarding the approval, conditional approval or disapproval of the district’s budget occurs on or before August 15, pursuant to EC 42127(d). 3. Continue to ensure that the public hearing required by SBX3 4, as amended by AB 189, regarding receipt of flexibility funding for the 2012-13 budget year and subsequent years, is held prior to and independent of the annual public hearing for budget adoption and that the explicit purposes for use of the Tier III funding are included in the board’s agenda and minutes. Financial Management 303 Standard Fully Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 5 March 2012 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 304 Financial Management 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 chief business official 2. 2011-12 budget update, dated August 10, 2011 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 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 was 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 needed 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 On June 30, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 87 (Chapter 33, Statues of 2011), the Budget Act of 2011, which gave the state an on-time budget. The district provided its revised budget dated August 10, 2011, which complies with the 45-day requirement. Findings 1. District staff provided a 2011-12 budget update document dated August 10, 2011, which is in compliance with the 45-day requirement of EC 42127(i)(4). Financial Management 305 Recommendation for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to revise and make available to the public its revenues and expenditures based on funding made available by the relevant year’s state budget act. Standard Fully Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 6 March 2012 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 306 Financial Management 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 the chief business official 2. Interview with the Monterey County Office of Education associate superintendent for business services and district advisory services personnel 3. First, second and third interim budget reports, 2010-11 4. Monterey County Office of Education budget review letters regarding 2010-11 first and second interim 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 met the board meeting deadlines established in 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has continued to meet the deadlines for board meetings and for delivery of the third interim report as established by EC 42130 and EC 42131, respectively. The county office continued to express concerns in its review letters for the first and second interim reports. However, the county office did not issue a letter regarding the district’s third interim report. District staff expressed concerns regarding the minimal oversight efforts provided by the county office and the CDE. Findings 1. The county office’s review letter for the district’s 2010-11 first interim budget report was dated January 31, 2011, and although it did not indicate the date the report was Financial Management 307 received from the district, it did comment on the district’s timely submission of the report. Education Code section 42130 requires that this report describe the district’s financial and budget status for the period ending October 31 and be approved by the district’s governing board within 45 days after that. The minutes of the district’s December 15, 2010 governing board meeting indicate approval of the first interim report, and the meeting date complies with EC 42130. 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. The letter also commented on the district’s projected deficit spending of unrestricted funds in fiscal years 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. The county office’s review letter for the 2010-11 second interim budget report was dated May 25, 2011 but did not indicate the date the report was received. However, county office staff indicated that the district submitted their budget reports on time. Minutes of the district’s March 9, 2011 board meeting include approval of the second interim report. Education Code section 42130 requires that this report describe the district’s financial and budget status for the period ending January 31 and be approved by the district’s governing board within 45 days after that date. A meeting date of March 9, 2011 for approval of the second interim report conforms to the requirements of EC 42130. The second interim budget review letter from the county office indicated that the district’s budget included a negative certification and that the county office concurred with that assessment. The letter also made note of the district’s “ongoing pattern of deficit spending” for fiscal years 2011-12 and 2012-13 and stated that the district’s second interim report included an incorrect ADA number, which overstated the revenue limit by approximately $430,000. 3. The district did not receive a letter from the county office regarding its 2010-11 third interim budget report. FCMAT requested the letter directly from the county office, but as of this writing the letter had not been received. Interviews with county office staff indicated that the district had delivered the report on time. Minutes of the district’s May 11, 2011 board meeting include presentation of the third interim report; however, the report did not include a date of 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. The third interim report’s multiyear projections indicate deficit spending in fiscal years 2011-12 and 2012-13, even with revenue infusions of $2 million in both years from the proceeds of the state loan. In addition, a negative general fund balance is projected in 2012-13; this is offset only by the remaining funds from the state loan, which are held in the special reserve fund for noncapital outlay, fund 17. Both district and county office personnel reported that they do not meet regularly. The county office’s failure to issue a letter regarding the district’s third interim budget report 308 Financial Management is a concern, particularly based on this reported infrequency of interactions between the county office and the district. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to 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. Continue to include a plan to eliminate the district’s structural budget deficit while maintaining reserves at required levels. 2. Continue to review revenue limit calculations to avoid over- and under-statements. 3. Hold regular meetings with both the county office of education and the CDE. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 6 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 309 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 the chief business official 2. Interview with district office staff 3. Interviews with site administrators and staff 4. Samples of monthly budget reports presented to the board 5. Adoption budget report, 2011-12 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 had made progress in this area; however, additional training for sites and departments was needed to help decrease the workload of the interim fiscal services manager. Users of the FMS online purchase requisition system indicated that they wanted to receive additional training on the system and in account coding, and users of the FMS budget and reporting functions desired additional FMS training. Site staff indicated a desire to obtain additional training regarding categorical funding, particularly available funding and the expenditures appropriate to each resource. While such training would initially be a drain on the business office, it could be expected to result in fewer phone calls and e-mails. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has made little or no progress in this area since the March 2011 comprehensive review. Staff have been responsible for teaching themselves the online requisition system and have indicated their desire to receive additional training on this system as well as in the areas of account coding and categorical funding. This training will initially be a drain on the business office but should result in fewer phone calls and e-mails. 310 Financial Management 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. Staff reported that at implementation of the online system in the prior year, they were given a short tutorial regarding how to log in to the system and a printed instruction manual. There was no in-service on the system at implementation and no in-service as a refresher before the beginning of the 2011-12 school year, just the expectation that staff members would have the time and ability to teach themselves how to use the system. Although staff indicated that they have become more proficient with the online system, they felt that they could benefit from additional training in the online feature and more detailed information on account coding to help them understand how the numbers in the account code translate into what can be purchased within that line item. Questions from staff are directed to the CBO or the fiscal services manager. Additional training would reduce the number of calls to these employees, allowing them to focus on other tasks. This would ultimately provide smoother operations district-wide. 2. Staff indicated that a similar situation exists when they use FMS to produce budget reports. Staff stated that they have access to the system and are able to view accounts and print reports and are becoming more proficient with these functions. If assistance is needed with these tasks, staff are able to call or send an e-mail to the fiscal services manager or the CBO, and they receive the necessary assistance. 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 before placing orders. However, the fiscal services manager continues to be the only individual who gathers the information and prepares and enters all budget transfers into FMS. In many school districts, budget transfers are initiated by the site or department before being carried out in the business office. 4. District staff continue to present the board with a monthly budget update that identifies 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 budget projections. 5. Site staff were divided about their need for additional 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 they could rely on their administrative staff’s expertise. The business office acts as the final approval for categorical spending; however, sites need to be aware of the limitations of each categorical funding source and how funding sources can interact with one another. This Financial Management 311 information would be helpful to the principal and secretary at each site and would facilitate school site council discussions regarding funding. 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 advance their proficiency in viewing accounts and running reports. 3. Provide staff with instruction regarding how to compile the backup documentation needed to support budget transfers. After this instruction is provided, hold site and department staff accountable for monitoring their budgets using FMS. 4. Continue to present monthly budget reports to the governing board. 5. Provide site staff with additional information regarding categorical funding, including the resources available and which expenditures are appropriate for each resource. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 312 Financial Management 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 the chief business official 2. Interviews with district office staff 3. Interviews with department directors, supervisors and managers 4. Interview with the Monterey County Office of Education associate superintendent for business services and district advisory services 5. Position control reports, 2011-12 6. Adoption budget report, 2011-12 7. Board meeting minutes 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 Although the FMS has a module for position control, the county office acknowledged that it was not especially user-friendly. Further, the advantage of investing the staff time and energy needed to use the FMS position control module was uncertain because the county office was searching for a new financial software system that will include a more user-friendly position control component. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district is hampered in improving their rating in this area because of the position control system used by the county office of education. Although the county office is working toward implementing a new financial software system that includes a new position control module, district implementation is not anticipated to begin until fiscal year 2013-14. Financial Management 313 Findings 1. Because of the difficulties with the system, the district has continued to use the FMS position control module only to maintain employee demographics. The county office acknowledges the difficulty of readily using this module, understands why the district has not adopted its use and is initiating a countywide implementation of the Escape financial software system, which includes a position control module. However, it is anticipated that the new system will not be available to the district until January 2013 for development of the 2013-14 budget. As an alternative to using the current FMS software, and until the new Escape system is available, district business office staff prepare Excel spreadsheets that contain all of the positions in the district, attach the account coding for each position, and use these documents to calculate the salary and benefit costs during budget development and interim reporting periods. Staff update the spreadsheets periodically throughout the year to show personnel and position changes, and the business services and human resources departments cross check information to minimize discrepancies in this manual system. However, a review of the spreadsheets indicated the following: • The administrative position control spreadsheet contained a position without an ac- count code. • 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 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. 2. 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 payroll staff pay 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. 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. 314 Financial Management Task Responsibility Approve or authorize position Governing board Input approved position into position control, with estimated salary/budget. Each position is given a Business department unique number. Enter demographic data into the main demographic screen, including: Employee name Employee address Social Security number Human resources Credential department 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 3. A review of the district’s 2011-12 adoption budget indicates that the district has reduced salary and benefit expenditures so that they now represent 83.8% of the district’s general fund revenues (excluding the $2.0 million planned draw on the state loan). This is a significant reduction from the 2010-11 adoption budget, which indicated that 106.3% of the general fund revenues were for salary and benefit expenditures. However, even with this reduction in expenditures the district continues to project deficit spending that is anticipated to produce a negative general fund balance in fiscal year 2013-14. 4. Site and department administrators making unilateral personnel decisions can have significant impact on both position control and the district’s budget. The district has directed that hiring decisions are not to be made until approved by the state administrator and presented to the board monthly in the personnel report. These practices and the use of written communications, including the Position Requisition and Personnel Action Form, have almost eliminated hiring outside of the normal personnel procedures. Exceptions to the normal hiring process reportedly continue to occur with walk-on coaching positions, and the district continues to work with those who are subverting the process. 5. In addition to requiring the Position Requisition and Personnel Action Form that provides an audit trail in individual employee payroll files, staff members have continued several procedures to reduce the risk 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 demographic information must be entered into the position control module 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. Financial Management 315 • Position control is compared to actual payroll each month. Implementation of these procedures has resulted in payroll errors being readily detected and funds being returned to the district, as in the case of two employees with identical names, one of whom received payment for extra hours worked by the other. The error was detected, payroll corrected and overpayment returned to the district. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to work toward implementing a position control module that interacts directly with the district’s financial accounting software. 2. 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. 3. Update position control as changes are made to ensure that all revisions are captured in a timely manner. 4. Continue the directive requiring the state administrator’s approval before hiring, and hold every employee accountable for following the directive. 5. Continue to require personnel requisitions and personnel action forms for all hiring and position changes. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: 316 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 the chief business official 2. Interviews with the Monterey County Office of Education’s associate superintendent for business services and district services staff 3. Board agendas and minutes 4. District cash flow reports and projections 5. Annual audit report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 6. Revolving cash fund bank statements and reconciliations, June, July and August 2011 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 had 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 were needed. The county office performed cash reconciliations on behalf of the district but did not provide the district with this information. The district was exceeding the authorized balance in its revolving cash fund and needed to consider establishing a separate clearing account to avoid this. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Board members are 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 district is not reconciling its cash balances in FMS to the cash in county treasury monthly. The district is reconciling its revolving cash fund; however, the reconciliation is not consistently signed and dated by the employee responsible for this duty. Financial Management 317 Findings 1. District staff and board agendas indicate that the board is provided with a cash flow statement that includes the actual year-to-date balances each month. A statement that includes the actual and projected months’ data is prepared and presented to the board at budget adoption and 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. 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 and $4 million in 2010-11; staff indicated that $500,000 of the 2010-11 draw was transferred to fund 17, Special Reserve Fund for Other than Capital Outlay Projects. The district’s most recent general fund cash flow projection, dated August 10, 2011, indicates that the district will draw another $2 million from the state loan in fiscal year 2011-12. This projection includes the following conditions for 2011-12: • July 1, 2011 beginning cash balance of $615,706. • June 30, 2012 ending cash balance of negative $406,533; as noted above, this balance includes a draw of $2 million from the state loan. Staff indicated that the district has not been automatically exempted from the state’s cash deferrals to school districts in 2011-12 and must request an exemption each year. Staff also indicated that the district anticipates drawing the final $2 million from the state loan in 2012-13. 3. In the summer of 2011, the county office of education offered training for districts countywide regarding new cash balancing procedures and responsibilities. The county office now reconciles the countywide district fund in the county treasury to the records of the auditor-controller. Each district is then responsible for reconciling its cash activity to the cash balances indicated in FMS. At the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork, the district’s staff had not attended training provided by the county office and the district was not reconciling cash balances in FMS. 4. Education Code section 42800 provides for the establishment of 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 CBO is responsible for reconciling this account each month. However, the June 30, 2010 annual independent audit report included finding 2010-5, which indicated that there was no procedure in place for a different employee to review the bank reconciliations, thus internal controls were not sufficient. 318 Financial Management The June, July and August 2011 bank statements and reconciliations provided by the district indicate that the RCF is being reconciled. However, the July and August reconciliations did not include an employee signature and date. In addition, the ending bank statement balances for July and August 2011 were $142,761 and $44,986, respectively, which is more than the $6,000 authorized for the RCF. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to monitor its cash and prepare monthly cash flow statements that include actuals 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 the CDE staff and Infrastructure Bank officials regarding the timing of future draws from the state loan to meet cash flow needs. 4. Request an exemption from the state’s cash deferrals for 2011-12 and subsequent fiscal years. 5. Reconcile its cash balances in its financial management system (FMS) to the cash in the country treasury monthly. 6. Continue to reconcile the revolving cash fund monthly, and ensure that the reconciliations are signed and dated by the employee responsible for this duty. 7. Consider opening a separate clearing account for cash and checks that are received by the district and subsequently deposited in the county treasury. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 319 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 the chief business official 2. Interviews with district and site staff 3. Interviews with the Monterey County Office of Education’s associate superintendent for business services and district services staff 4. Monthly (end-of-month) Payroll Reconciliation Forms, May 2011 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 had implemented new payroll procedures and forms, resulting in fewer errors. The interim fiscal services manager was responsible for processing payroll, but it remained essential that any employee the district hired and assigned 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The chief business official is the only district employee who has the training and experience needed to process payroll. The CBO is responsible for processing payroll and signing the preliminary payroll list, and has access to the pay warrants once they are received from the county office. This does not provide for proper internal controls, and the district should immediately train and assign another employee to process payroll. 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 were not submitted on time. 320 Financial Management 2. The CBO is responsible for processing each payroll and for preparing and signing the preliminary payroll list that is submitted to the Monterey County Office of Education. The county office then produces the payroll warrants and sends them to the district office for distribution. The CBO separates the warrants by site and develops a site employee payroll list. The fiscal services manager then sends these items to each site. Staff indicated that employees are required to sign the employee payroll list to obtain their payroll warrant. The CBO is the only district employee who has the training and experience needed to process payroll. Proper internal controls would ensure that the employee responsible for processing payroll is not also the employee responsible for reviewing and signing the pre- payroll list and does not have access to the pay warrants received from the county office. 3. The district continues to use the Monthly (end-of-month) Payroll Reconciliation Form to balance the month-end payroll and help ensure that mistakes are recognized before payroll is finalized. In addition, the human resources department provides the business office with a Personnel Action Form or a letter for all payroll changes. 4. Staff indicated that there are minimal payroll errors and that staff members are able to take any payroll questions to the CBO. 5. During this review period, the county office staff indicated that the district has submitted payroll reports on time, that it responds quickly to any inquiries regarding payroll and retirement reporting, and that it has significantly reduced CalSTRS and CalPERS reporting errors. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Immediately train a district employee other than the chief business official to process payroll. 2. Provide the employee assigned to process payroll with supervision and training to ensure that they have the most current information on all matters relevant to the task. 3. Ensure that the employee responsible for processing payroll does not also review and sign the pre-payroll list or have access to the pay warrants after they are processed by the county office. 4. Continue to use the Monthly (end-of-month) Payroll Reconciliation Form and the Personnel Action Form. Financial Management 321 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 322 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 the chief business official and with district and school site staff 2. Monthly student attendance reports by school site 3. Report of School District Attendance, 2010-11 P-2 4. Amended Report of School District Attendance, 2010-11 P-2 5. Attendance Charter School Block Grant – EHS, 2010-11 P-2 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 had been with the district for several years and were 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 had opened an Independent Study Charter School during the past year and was tracking this attendance using Excel spreadsheets but should have been using the Aeries system. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district continues to retain experienced and knowledgeable district office attendance reporting and truancy staff. However, as a result of reorganization of school site clerical staffing, some employees at the school sites are not experienced in student attendance functions and recognize the need for training. The district scheduled attendance and California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) trainings at both high schools in mid-September, but should have held it before the start of each school year. One of the district’s two classes for severely handicapped students, which were previously operated by the county office, had not been claimed for attendance purposes on the 2010-11 P-2 Report of School District Attendance. Financial Management 323 The district subsequently amended the report and will generate approximately $70,000 of additional revenue. Findings 1. Because average daily attendance generates the majority of the district’s funding, it is crucial that the district provide adequate training and guidance to those employees responsible for attendance reporting. Board policies, administrative procedures and desk manuals can provide guidance to staff members charged with accurately reporting this critical information, which is essential to maximize funding. During this review period, the district has approved or revised nearly 100 new board policies and administrative regulations in several areas but none in the area of student attendance accounting and reporting. 2. The two comprehensive high schools record daily attendance in the Aeries student information system. Monthly attendance is reported to the student information manager in the district office. Attendance clerks have access to an Aeries procedural manual, which provides guidance on data entry and basic steps to add or delete students; however, they do not have desk manuals that contain a complete set of instructions for attendance procedures that are unique to the district yet that follow state-approved attendance regulations. 3. The student information manager generates a variety of system reports to verify the accuracy of the student attendance information that school site personnel enter in the Aeries attendance system. The course audit report compares the student entry date with the school enrollment reports. Several query reports are generated that compare individual student attendance records with the master course schedule. Other audit procedures compare student names in the Aeries system with current information in the CALPADS register of students when students enter the district or exit to another district. Any unusual variances or trends are examined for potential errors. The district office encourages school sites to run daily attendance reports to verify accuracy. The Aeries system can identify schools that initiate daily reports. Based on interviews and a review of system documentation, Greenfield High School completes this process; however, King City High School does not. The district office requires school sites to run weekly attendance reports to verify the accuracy of data. The reports include the signature of the staff member responsible for taking attendance, certifying that the report is accurate. 4. Both comprehensive high schools have sufficient supporting documents to verify absences and procedures to notify parents regarding truant students. School site personnel work closely with the district truancy officer, and notification letters to parents are sent monthly. Subsequent notifications for habitual truants are forwarded to the county district attorney’s office. 324 Financial Management 5. Mandatory attendance training for school site personnel did not occur at the beginning of the school year. Instead, the student information manager has offered one-on-one training upon request. Mandatory annual training gives staff the opportunity to clarify procedures and ensures that any new laws and/or regulations are communicated in a timely manner. 6. In the 2010-11 school year, the district assumed responsibility for two severely handicapped classes previously operated by the Monterey County Office of Education. One of these classes, located at Greenfield High School, was not claimed for attendance purposes on the 2010-11 P-2 Report of School District Attendance. The district subsequently amended the P-2 report to include 9.58 ADA, generating approximately $70,000 of additional undeficited revenue limit funding. 7. The district office reconciles reports for the required state reporting periods (P-1, P-2 and annual) with the monthly reports generated by the school sites. As previously mentioned, the district did not include one special education class for severely handicapped students on the state attendance reports. Attendance for this class was recorded by the school site and appeared on the monthly report; however, the school information manager was instructed incorrectly not to include the ADA generated from this class on the P-1, P-2 and annual reports because students in this class were 18 -22 years old. 8. The student information manager ensures timely submission of student data to CALPADS. Training was conducted through an on-line WebEx session on September 21, 2011. The only employee trained in this reporting procedure is the student information manager. The district needs to provide cross-training in this area to ensure that necessary functions can be maintained in the absence of the student information manager. 9. The district continues to use Excel spreadsheets to record student attendance for the South Monterey County Charter Independent Study Program. The district would benefit from using the Aeries system for all student attendance reporting. When transitioning to Aeries for charter school attendance reporting, district staff indicated that a master schedule and bell schedule to create class periods will need to be developed in Aeries. The Aeries attendance accounting procedures for independent study will need to be reviewed with the district’s independent study auditors and the CDE prior to implementation. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Adopt and/or revise board policies and administrative regulations regarding attendance accounting procedures. 2. Develop written student attendance procedures based on board policy, and develop an attendance procedures desk manual that adheres to board policy and administrative regulations and that can be used to help train employees. 3. Require all school sites to generate and validate daily attendance reports. Financial Management 325 4. Provide annual mandatory student attendance training for attendance clerks, school secretaries and principals to ensure that proper procedures are followed consistently throughout the district. 5. Provide school site and district office staff with training regarding all new attendance accounting procedures, including those related to specialized classes such as the classes for severely handicapped students, which were transferred from the county office. 6. Ensure that there is adequate cross-training for CALPADS reporting. 7. Use the Aeries student information system for all student attendance reporting functions. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 326 Financial Management 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 the chief business official and district staff 2. Board policies and administrative regulations 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, March 2011 The district had 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 was recording attendance for a recently opened independent study charter school on Excel spreadsheets, but this was not sufficient for reporting. The district needed to use its Aeries attendance system for all attendance reporting. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has adopted or revised board policies and administrative regulations regarding independent study, home and hospital instruction, adult education, interdistrict attendance, and open enrollment. Requests for independent study are processed through the district’s independent study charter school. The district continues to use Excel spreadsheets to record attendance data for its independent study students. Findings 1. The district has adopted and revised several board policies and administrative regulations identified in this standard, except for charter schools, and regional occupational centers or programs (ROC/P). Adopted and revised board policies (BP) and/or administrative regulations (AR) include the following: • BP and AR 5117, Interdistrict Attendance, revised April 20, 2011 • BP and AR 5118, Open Enrollment Act Transfer, adopted April 20, 2011 • BP and AR 6158, Independent Study, adopted May 11, 2011 • AR 6183, Home and Hospital Instruction, adopted June 8, 2011 Financial Management 327 • BP and AR 6200, adopted Adult Education, June 8, 2011 2. Applications for independent study require that the school, parents and teachers follow all of the required elements precisely in order to receive funding for ADA. Requests for independent study are now processed through the district’s independent study charter school. The charter school has defined independent study procedures in accordance with attendance accounting regulations, which is expected to eliminate funding reductions like those that occurred in previous years. 3. The district continues to record student attendance for independent study and for the South Monterey County Charter School on Excel spreadsheets. This method creates many opportunities for input errors. In addition, spreadsheets are not capable of capturing all of the student information necessary for reporting purposes. The student information manager is evaluating this process and plans to incorporate independent study attendance on the Aeries system. Placing a high priority on this project would benefit the district. 4. Internal audits are not being performed to test the validity of independent study and charter school attendance reported for apportionment purposes, and annual attendance training is not provided to site staff. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Adopt board policies and administrative regulations regarding charter schools, district of choice and ROC/P. 2. Use the Aeries student information system for independent study students and those that attend the South Monterey County Charter to help ensure complete and accurate attendance tracking and reconciliation. 3. Perform periodic internal audit procedures to test the validity of attendance reported for apportionment purposes. 4. Provide mandatory annual attendance training regarding independent study. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 328 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 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 required school sites to provide weekly attendance reports for verification and had provided several mandatory and voluntary training sessions regarding proper attendance procedures. The district had also updated internal forms and provided guidance on uniform codes to use in the Aeries system. A new parent portal allowed parents and guardians to review student attendance and other information. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Annual training regarding attendance procedures were not scheduled. Because the majority of the district’s funding is derived from student attendance, it is imperative to schedule mandatory training each year before the start of school and make additional training available when requested. Findings 1. It is critical for school districts to have accurate attendance information to claim all revenue to which they are entitled. The district’s financial crisis makes this function particularly important. Student attendance represents the majority of the district’s income, so it is imperative that personnel responsible for recording attendance are properly trained. During the previous review, mandatory attendance training sessions were provided to school site staff shortly before the start of the 2-10-11 school year. However, no training was schedule prior to the start of the 2011-12 school year. Instead, the student information manager has offered one-on-one training upon request. Several of the Financial Management 329 employees who are responsible for reporting attendance have had little or no training in this area. 2. Verification of attendance data at the school site and the district is an important function. Weekly attendance reports from school sites are used to verify district level system reports. Schools have the ability to run daily audit reports, and these reports can identify exceptions or discrepancies that can be corrected immediately. School sites are encouraged to run daily attendance reports to verify accuracy and spot check for tardies, habitual truants or unexcused absences. Interviews with district and site staff indicated that the CBO has periodically requested daily reports. 3. Students enrolled in the South Monterey County Charter School or short-term independent study programs need to be enrolled through the Aeries student information system for proper tracking and reconciliation with all other district student attendance. 4. The truancy specialist compiles information regarding student tardies and absences from Aeries reports as a basis for sending notices to parents or guardians. Parents or guardians can view their students’ attendance record through the parent portal section of the district’s web site. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide mandatory training and offer additional support for employees who are new to the student attendance accounting functions. 2. Provide mandatory annual training events each school year for all staff responsible for recording attendance. 3. 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. 4. Ensure that all attendance is recorded in the Aeries student information system to ensure proper tracking and reconciliation; this should include attendance for students who are in independent study or enrolled in the South Monterey County Charter School. 5. Perform periodic internal audit procedures to test the validity of attendance reported for apportionment purposes. 330 Financial Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 4 February 2011 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 331 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 the truancy specialist and school site staff 2. Truancy report from Aeries system 3. Monterey County Truancy Mediation Program letters • First Declaration of Truancy • Second Declaration of Truancy • Declaration of Habitual Truancy – Referral to the County District Attorney 4. 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 were using to encourage student attendance. Designated staff members had worked effectively with the Monterey County District Attorney’s Office to enforce compliance for truant students, and in some cases, their parents. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The Aeries truancy reports are monitored closely. System reports are generated several times each month, enabling the truancy specialist to intervene in time with habitual truants. The truancy specialist works closely with parents to get students to school. During FCMAT’s fieldwork, the truancy specialist represented the district in court with the Monterey County District Attorney’s Office regarding several truancy matters. Findings 1. The district continues to make progress to improve student attendance. The truancy specialist has been a district employee for several years and has an excellent rapport with school site staff, parents and students. The truancy specialist and the student information manager oversee the work of the school site attendance clerks and provide support and training as requested. 332 Financial Management 2. Many procedures are in place to reduce truancy and increase attendance rates. Interventions at the district level include telephone calls to parents or guardians, letters, a parent portal on the district’s website, and home visits. If a student is absent for more than three days with no communication from the parent or guardian, the attendance clerk telephones the parent or guardian to determine the circumstances regarding 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. The district sent more than 475 notification letters to parents and/or guardians during the 2010-11 school year. The table below shows by school site the number of direct personal contacts with either the county district attorney’s office or a parent or guardian regarding truancy issues during the 2010-11 school year. Number of Total Number of Average Number of Contacts School Contacts Students Per Student King City High School 49 19 2.6 Greenfield High School 170 43 4.0 Portola-Butler High School 50 12 4.2 South Monterey County Charter Independent Study School 34 9 3.8 Total 303 83 3.7 3. Pursuant to EC 48263, a habitual truant student may be referred to the district attorney’s office’s mediation program. Penalties for students become progressively more severe with each official notification to parents and may include revocation of driving privileges for any minor older than 13 for up to one year, per California Vehicle Code section 13202.7. The Monterey County District Attorney’s Office aggressively enforces the education and vehicle codes in an effort to reduce the number of students who drop out of school and to divert behavioral problems from the juvenile justice system. Education Code section 48262 defines a habitual truant as a pupil “who has been reported as a truant three or more times per school year…” although a “conscientious effort” by the district only requires an attempt to communicate with the parent at least once using the most cost-effective method. The Monterey County Truancy Mediation program includes the following three official notification letters to the parent or guardian of a habitually truant student: • First Declaration of Truancy – Issued after three absences or three tardies of more than 30 minutes on three days without a valid excuse. • Second Declaration of Truancy - Issued after three absences or three tardies of more than 30 minutes on three days without a valid excuse following the previous notice. • Declaration of Habitual Truancy – Referral to the District Attorney - Issued after three absences or three tardies of more than 30 minutes on three days without a valid excuse following the two previous notifications. Financial Management 333 4. The district’s 2010-11 attendance rates provide evidence that its interventions are working. The district’s 2010-11 regular program enrollment-to-ADA percentage for its comprehensive high schools was as follows: • Greenfield High School: 94.58% • King City High School: 95.83% 5. Greenfield High School has initiated a Saturday school program that is offered approximately two times per month. Students are precluded from participating in extracurricular activities until an unexcused absence is cleared. This new program holds students accountable for attendance and gives students the opportunity to make up unexcused absences. It is expected that this program will result in an increase in ADA. Recommendation for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue working with students, parents and the county district attorney’s office to enforce attendance policies. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 6 March 2012 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: 334 Financial Management 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. Interviews with district and school site staff 2. Review of the Eagle Software website for attendance workshop offerings and desk manuals 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 had provided numerous training sessions on attendance matters. Attendance staff members were required to attend trainings and indicated that this was a valuable experience. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 During this review period, the district did not provide training sessions on attendance matters. Attendance staff members were required to attend training events in the previous reporting period and those interviewed expressed that the training was a valuable experience. Findings 1. The district does not have policies, regulations or written procedures and schedules regarding training in student attendance system operations and functions. Desk manuals are also lacking. 2. During the previous review period, the district held three mandatory training events for school site personnel that offered valuable information on attendance procedures and CALPADS reporting. However, no trainings were scheduled from September 2010 through August 2011. School clerical and secretarial staff members need annual training in attendance procedures and the use of the Aeries system. It is also best practice to cross train all school office personnel in attendance procedures so they can provide coverage when another employee is on leave. 3. District staff report that the last attendance training they received was more than two years ago. Organizations such as the California Association of School Business Officials (CASBO) offer student attendance workshops for district and school site staff. These Financial Management 335 workshops offer in-depth advanced training and updates on attendance reporting and new state regulations. Several staff members expressed the need for this type of training. 4. Eagle Software, developer of the Aeries student information system, has several technical support options including online support, telephone support, e-mail and downloadable program documentation on their website, www.aeries.com. The website also has a section called “California Focus,” which is designed to assist users with California School Information Services (CSIS) and CALPADS reporting, and a free downloadable user manual. Aeries offers regional attendance workshops and users’ conferences throughout the year. District staff and attendance clerks from each school would benefit from attending these training events to ensure the highest level of accuracy with the student information system. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop written procedures and a desk manual with complete instructions for the Aeries student attendance system. Update desk manuals annually. 2. Hold mandatory training sessions for all attendance personnel before the start of each school year. 3. Ensure that school office personnel are cross trained in attendance procedures. 4. Ensure that district office and school site staff members responsible for student attendance accounting attend trainings provided by organizations such as CASBO and Aeries as necessary. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 5 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: 336 Financial Management 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 the chief business official 2. Interview with the fiscal services manager 3. Board meeting minutes 4. Annual audit report for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2008, June 30, 2009 and June 30, 2010 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 had 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 had decreased and financial reporting deadlines had been met. The district was expected to be better able to separate duties after it filled vacant business services department positions. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Because of minimal business office staffing, the district continues to struggle with providing proper supervision of activities, timely audited financial statements, and some of the controls needed to prevent and detect errors and irregularities. Audit adjustments increased for fiscal year 2009-10 compared to 2008-09 but remain fewer than the five adjustments reported in the 2007-08 audit report. Findings 1. The business office was restructured again and now includes a chief business official (CBO) and two fiscal services manager positions. The position of CBO is currently filled Financial Management 337 with the same person who had served as the interim CBO, and one of the fiscal services manager positions was vacant at the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork. It was expected that the CBO would leave the district in December 2011, and the district was working with School Services of California on an executive search to fill the CBO position. The vacant fiscal services manager position was not being advertised because of budget concerns and the difficulties the district has experienced previously when filling business office positions. The business office restructure is the second restructure since 2009-10. With only two employees 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 tried to arrange duties so that controls are in place to prevent and detect irregularities. These include the following: • Dual signatures are required to process transactions. • Journal and budget entries require back-up and second party review. • Payroll procedures are designed to help prevent and detect employees who exist only in paperwork (known as ghost employees) and over- or under-payments (see also Standard 7.3). • Daily attendance reports are duplicated and provided to the CALPADS/student infor- mation manager to ensure that attendance is reported each day. • State attendance reports are reviewed prior to submission. • Cash receipts are counted by more than one person. • Receipt of goods or services is ensured prior to payment. • The Financial Management System (FMS) software prohibits the posting of unbal- anced journal entries. • A hard stop feature in FMS prevents purchase orders from being issued if the bud- geted 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 CBO’s signature, the district will not be responsible for the goods ordered. 2. Hiring the district’s prior interim CBO and filling one of the fiscal services manager positions has enabled the district to meet its periodic financial statement deadlines. However, cross-training has not occurred in numerous areas, including budget development, payroll and accounts payable. The CBO was expecting to leave the district in December 2011 and, although the district was seeking qualified candidates, having a new person in this position may slow or reverse the improvement achieved relative to this standard. 3. Staff reported that FMS will allow duplicate payments of the same invoice because it fails to recognize the duplicate invoice numbers. The district has determined that some duplicate payments were made in the past, has reported the internal control concern to the Monterey County Office of Education, and has worked to obtain refunds of the 338 Financial Management overpayments. However, without diligent oversight, duplicate payments can be made either purposefully or unintentionally, creating a large internal control issue which is exacerbated by the fact that a limited number of business office staff process transactions. 4. Staff reported that journal entries continue to be an issue and are currently generated primarily by account coding errors for ASB transactions. The district has moved many of the responsibilities for processing ASB transactions to the district office; however, sites continue to be responsible for generating the requisitions, which contain the coding errors. Site staff require additional training in this area (see also Standard 7.2). 5. The audited financial statements for the year ending June 30, 2010 included two adjustments, one to the deferred maintenance fund’s prepaid expenditures and another to the deposits and investments of the special reserve non-capital fund. This marks an increase in audit adjustments; the audited financial statements for the year ending June 30, 2009 included only one adjustment to accounts receivable in the general fund. However, it is an improvement over the five adjustments to four funds in the 2007-08 audit report. 6. The district provided FCMAT with copies of its audited financial statements for fiscal years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. 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 Controller. A review of the audited financial statements indicates that the last day of the auditor’s fieldwork for fiscal years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 were March 24, 2009, December 28, 2009 and December 13, 2010, respectively. The 2009-10 audit marks the only time in the previous three years when the last date of fieldwork was completed before the December 15 audit 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 the issue date is one to two months after the last date of fieldwork. Education Code section 41020.3 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…” The district has violated this code section by consistently presenting the annual audit report to the board after the January 31 deadline. The last date of fieldwork for the 2007-08 audit was after this date, and a review of governing board meeting minutes revealed that the 2008-09 audit report was presented to the board on February 10, 2010 and the 2009-10 audit report was presented to the board on February 9, 2011. Further inquiry regarding this issue revealed that the delays were likely caused by additional work on issues discovered during the audit (such as attendance). The state controller’s office is responsible for the 2010-11 audit and was scheduled to begin working at the district on October 10, 2011. Financial Management 339 7. The FMS is still unable 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 the 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. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Fill the vacant fiscal services manager position. 2. After filling the vacant position in the business services department, review and revise procedures to increase separation of duties and oversight. 3. Ensure that staff are cross trained in key functions including budget development, payroll and accounts payable. 4. Review and revise internal control procedures to ensure that duplicate invoice payments cannot be made. 5. Provide additional training to school site staff in the area of account coding to decrease the number of journal entries needed. 6. Monitor the auditors’ completion of the fiscal year 2010-11 annual audit to encourage compliance with EC 41020 and 41020.3. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 340 Financial Management 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 the chief business official 2. Interviews with district, site and department staff 3. Annual audit report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 4. Master inventory report, dated August 15, 2011 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, March 2011 The district had implemented an online requisition system but needed to provide staff with additional training. However, equipment inventory issues overshadowed this accomplishment. Because an inventory had 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Although the district has completed an inventory of its equipment in compliance with EC 35168 and 34 CFR 80.32 and 5 CCR 3946, there is a large internal control lapse that allows items to be delivered to sites without being included on the fixed asset inventory. The district was able to cancel its previous outside services contract for inventory tasks that were not completed; however, it was unable to obtain a refund of fees paid. The district continues to struggle with providing in-service training to site and department staff regarding the online requisition system, items being delivered to nondistrict addresses, and internal control issues. Findings 1. Education Code section 35168 requires the governing board to establish and maintain an inventory of all equipment items with a current market value of more than $500. For Financial Management 341 technology and related equipment and items delivered to the warehouse, staff members complete fixed asset accounting during the purchasing process. However, for items that are delivered to sites, the district lacks fixed asset accounting procedures, including functions such as attaching a unique numbered asset tag to the equipment and recording pertinent information in the district’s fixed asset inventory system. When state or federal funds have been used for a purchase, the district is required to include additional information in 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). 2. The district’s audited financial statements for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 included audit finding 2010-2 indicating that the district lacked an inventory of items purchased which exceed a cost of $5,000. The district provided FCMAT with a master inventory report dated August 15, 2011, which includes an inventory of items exceeding its $5,000 capitalization threshold , those which exceed the $500 physical inventory threshold, and whether categorical funds were used for purchase. The district had previously entered into a contract with an outside firm to update its equipment inventory, and a payment of $3,080 was applied to that contract on January 28, 2010, even though no one had been sending the necessary documents to the vendor and the vendor had not visited the district to compile an inventory or updates. This contract was cancelled; however, no refund was obtained, and the district has contracted with a different vendor to provide inventory services. 3. Staff reported that purchase order processing time has continued to improve and purchase orders now take one to two days to process. The district began using an online purchase requisition system last year. However, inquiries regarding continued training to reinforce knowledge and proficiency in the requisition system indicate that staff would benefit from an annual in-service before the start of school, to include training in both the online requisition system and account coding. Information on proper account coding would reduce the number of questions site staff are now asking the CBO and the fiscal services manager via telephone and e-mail, thus saving staff time. 4. Goods continue to be shipped to the district’s warehouse if their destination is King City High School or 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 contents and the packing slip match, they are supposed to sign the packing slip and return it to the district office. Receipt of packing slips at the district office has improved, but staff continue to report incidences of employees or students receiving items at their homes instead of at district sites. 342 Financial Management 5. Staff reported that purchase orders are required for all purchases. The process was altered to accommodate the FMS online requisition capabilities and has changed minimally since the second comprehensive review. The current process is as follows: • The originating site or department completes an online purchase requisition, a super- visor authorizes it, and it is forwarded to the business office for processing. The sys- tem encumbers at the requisition level, requiring sufficient budget to exist to enter the requisition. If a budget transfer is necessary, the site or department contacts the fiscal services manager to authorize, prepare and process the transfer. Once budget issues are resolved, the requisition is forwarded to the business office. • The fiscal services manager reviews the account coding. • The fiscal services manager prints the purchase orders and submits them to the CBO and state administrator for signature. The assistant superintendent of educational services and human resources or the director of special education also approves any purchase requisition charged to a categorically funded program. • The approved purchase order is then mailed or faxed to the vendor and delivered to the originator. • When an approved invoice is received, either the CBO or the fiscal services manager processes it for payment and prepares the accounts payable batch. Accounts payable warrant batches are prepared biweekly, though this may be extended to one time per month because of cash concerns. The warrant list is reviewed and approved by the business 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 CBO or the 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 environment. Once the district fills the vacant fiscal services manager position, the ability to separate duties will increase. 6. FCMAT requested and was provided with a sample of accounts payable purchases, and noted the following anomalies: • Meals associated with employee travel were reimbursed without requiring a detailed receipt as required by AR 3350. • The accounts payable file did not include a copy of the signed contract for payments made to vendors for consulting services related to supplemental education services, a workshop guest speaker, and an analysis of redevelopment project areas. • Payments made to vendors for consulting services for the 2010-11 prom event plan- ning and a lease for photocopiers were not supported by a contract included in the accounts payable packet. • A purchase order for nonpublic school placement was supported by a contract signed by the former educational services director, but no contract was provided that was signed by either the state administrator or the CBO in accordance with district proce- dures. Financial Management 343 • Late fees were assessed and paid because the district did not receive invoices on time. Interviews indicated that these invoices are received by the elementary district and then forwarded to the high school district for payment. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Design and implement procedures to provide for fixed asset accounting for items delivered to sites. 2. Provide all employees who use the online requisition system with an annual in-service that focuses on how to use the module and the proper account coding of requisitions. 3. Provide school site and department staff with training that will enable them to prepare and submit budget transfer requests. 4. Provide a detailed in-service to any person found to have received district property or who allowed district property to be received at any location other than a district site. 5. Improve internal controls by revising purchasing and accounts payable procedures to further separate the tasks assigned to the fiscal services manager and the CBO. 6. Revise accounts payable procedures to require detailed receipts for meal expenditures. 7. Revise accounts payable procedures to require that copies of signed contracts be included in the vendor files. 8. Ensure that the state administrator or the CBO signs all contracts. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: 344 Financial Management 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 staff 2. Annual audit reports for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2009 and June 30, 2010 3. Board policies 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 had not established any board policies, regulations or procedures to govern the student body activities at school sites. Without guidance, both comprehensive high schools operated without a structure to ensure that education code, government code and taxation codes were followed. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district adopted Board Policy 3452, Student Activity Funds, which provides a description and overview of fund raising and the management of student funds. The district needs to develop administrative regulations and detailed written procedures that provide guidance to school site personnel; without this, both high schools lack a structure that ensures that education code, government code and taxation codes are followed. Findings 1. The district adopted Board Policy 3452, Student Activity Funds, on December 15, 2010. This board policy provides a description and overview of fund raising and the management of student funds. The district has not adopted a set of administrative regulations or internal written procedures that provide direction for administrative oversight and clearly define the roles and responsibilities of personnel involved in managing student body activities and funds. Financial Management 345 2. The district lacks a uniform set of written procedures to be used at all school sites that have an associated student body (ASB). Such procedures typically describe the roles and responsibilities of the student council, club advisors, leadership team and any other personnel involved with student body organization activities or the handling of ASB funds. Successful student body organizations provide handbooks and forms to those responsible for ASB activities and functions. FCMAT has developed a comprehensive Associated Student Body Accounting Manual & Desk Reference that can be downloaded for free from its website, www.fcmat.org. Topics include the following: • An overview of student organizations • Who is involved in ASB organizations • Laws and regulations • School food sales provisions of the law • Forming the organization • General business practices • Budgets and budget management • Fund raising events • Class fees, deposits and other charges • Cash receipt management and procedures • Vending machines • Gifts and donations • Contracts • Allowable and questionable expenses • Cash disbursement management and procedures • Equipment purchases and management • Student store • Employees and consultants • Accounting and financial management • Bank reconciliations • Effective district oversight Also included are other resources; sample documents and forms; frequently asked questions; and legal citations from various agencies that govern ASB organizations. At 346 Financial Management a minimum, effective ASB desk reference manuals or handbooks need to include the following: • Applicable laws and regulations that govern operations, fund-raising ac- tivities, food sales and the filing of sales and use taxes. • Formation of clubs and requirements for keeping minutes that include details of proceedings in each meeting for financial matters, authoriza- tion for expenditures and fund-raising approvals. • Accounting and financial management that includes practices for main- taining ASB records, internal controls, contracts, bank reconciliations, financial reports and other bookkeeping functions. • Cash management and cash control for collections and disbursements. • Allowable fees. • Budget development and budget monitoring. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Adopt administrative regulations and internal written procedures that provide direction for administrative oversight and that clearly define roles and responsibilities for personnel involved in managing student body activities and funds. At a minimum, the district should address business procedures, internal controls, generally accepted accounting principles, and the latest requirements from the state. 2. Develop, distribute, and oversee detailed accounting procedures for student body funds at the school sites. These procedures should include how to establish clubs, how they will be operated, and how to establish and ensure effective internal controls. 3. Develop procedures for the district office regarding the oversight, management and internal audits that need to occur to protect the district in this area. 4. Clearly segregate the responsibilities of district staff and school site ASB personnel to ensure that proper internal controls are maintained and that the district maintains adequate oversight of student body funds. Financial Management 347 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 March 2012 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: 348 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 audit report for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2009 and June 30, 2010 3. Sign-in sheet for ASB training, September 14, 2011 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 had not established any board policies, regulations or procedures regarding student body activities. The district had 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 were out of compliance in many areas. Several school site personnel expressed concern about a lack of training and the impact of additional ASB duties. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district adopted one board policy that provides an overview of student body organizations but has not approved administrative regulations, desk manuals or written guidelines. Fund deposits, bank reconciliations and cash disbursements have been centralized at the district office. School sites need to be performing these tasks, and need a plan to ensure internal control procedures on campuses. The district has tried to implement some internal controls, but inconsistent and varying procedures have left both schools out of compliance with regulations, internal control procedures and generally accepted accounting principles. Findings 1. During this review period, the district reorganized some school site duties and created a new certificated position of Coordinator of Community/Student Services at each comprehensive high school. At Greenfield High School, responsibilities include creating the master schedule, student study team, special education 504 placements, student interventions and ASB. However, at King City High School a combination of personnel are charged with the ASB duties. The two coordinators have assumed many of the duties Financial Management 349 previously assigned to the counselors, and, in the case of Greenfield High School, the ASB clerk position that was eliminated. 2. The core accounting functions, including bank reconciliation and bank deposits, are the responsibility of the district’s CBO. The district’s fiscal services manager prepares all cash disbursements. These two management employees should be performing oversight, auditing, and verifying the internal control structure instead of acting as the ASB bookkeeper. There is a lack of internal controls at both school sites and at the district office. 3. The CBO indicates that the ASB functions will return to the schools in the future. However, centralized ASB accounting does not build capacity for the eventual return of these functions to the school campuses. 4. The district has not developed or implemented procedures and written guidelines 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 and reconciliation functions. Many of these functions are given to various school site employees who have no training in ASB accounting. Each school site has created its own set of procedures for tickets and cash handling that leave both sites out of compliance with ASB regulations and pose serious concerns regarding internal control management. 5. ASB training occurred on September 14, 2011 and was attended by 46 staff and students. During FCMAT’s fieldwork, several staff members indicated the need for ASB training but were not yet aware of the training scheduled for September 14, 2011. 6. Certificated staff members who have administrative duties, particularly with student interventions and discipline, expressed concern about the conflict that exists between those functions and the need to address ASB matters in a timely manner. Staff report spending a disproportionate amount of time on ASB tasks, which reduces the amount of time they have to focus on student achievement, interventions and truancy. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Provide written guidelines and instructions that identify the staff members who are accountable for each duty related to ASB. 2. Develop, distribute, and oversee accounting procedures, particularly cash handling, for student body funds. 3. Develop procedures for the district office regarding the oversight, management and internal audits that need to occur to protect the district in the area of ASB funds. 350 Financial Management 4. Clearly segregate the responsibilities of district staff and site staff relative to ASB functions to ensure adequate oversight and maintenance of student body funds. 5. Standardize the procedures, roles and responsibilities of all employees associated with ASB at the school sites, particularly for employees who handle cash. 6. Consider hiring a part-time ASB clerk at each site or a full-time clerk that is split between the two sites. Standard Not Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 March 2012 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 351 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 the chief business official 2. Interviews with the Monterey County Office of Education’s associate superintendent for business services and district services staff 3. Adoption budget report, 2011-12 4. First, second and third interim reports, 2010-11 5. Multiyear projections, August 2011 6. Monterey County Office of Education budget review letters regarding 2010-11 first and second interim reports and 2011-12 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 indicated that the district provided MYFPs for the general fund at each reporting period. However, the MYFP prepared after the settlements with the certificated and classified employee bargaining units showed a negative ending balance in the general fund in fiscal year 2012-13. While the MYFP was an improvement from the previous review period, significant work remained to address the structural deficit. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 A review of the first, second and third interim reports for fiscal year 2010-11 and the 2011-12 adoption budget indicates that the district continues to provide multiyear financial projections 352 Financial Management (MYFPs) for the general fund at each reporting period. However, the MYFP prepared in August 2011 following approval of the state budget indicates a negative ending balance in the unrestricted general fund in fiscal year 2013-14. Significant work remains to address the district’s structural deficit, particularly given state cuts to the education budget. Findings 1. A review of the district’s 2010-11 first, second and third interim reports and the 2011-12 adoption budget indicates that the district provides multiyear financial projections (MYFPs) for the general fund at each reporting period. However, the information provided to FCMAT for the 2010-11 first interim report did not include a detailed list of assumptions used in developing the multiyear projections. A list of assumptions was provided for the 2010-11 second interim report but included the following discrepancies: • The narrative indicated a consumer price index (CPI) of 1.022%, but the amount on the SSC Dartboard was 2.20% • The narrative indicated a step and column cost increase of .05% for cer- tificated and classified salaries, but the multiyear projections reflected a cost of .50% 2. A short narrative was provided with the 2010-11 third interim report, but it did not include a detailed list of assumptions used in developing the MYFPs. In addition, the projections included a deficit factor of 17.963% rather than the correct factor of 19.608%, and did not include projections for step and column costs. 3. A list of assumptions was included in the narrative for the 2011-12 adoption budget. However, for 2012-13 the narrative indicated a COLA of 2.70% while the MYFP indicated a COLA of 2.19% and the SSC Dartboard indicated a COLA of 3.20%. In addition, the MYFP included a 2013-14 COLA of 2.27% while the SSC Dartboard indicated 2.70%. 4. The district’s most recent MYFP was completed in August 2011 following approval of the 2011-12 state budget. This MYFP included the following projected amounts for the district’s unrestricted general fund: 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Increase/(Decrease) in Fund Balance (191,164) 18,461 (1,280,228) Ending Fund Balance 831,819 850,279 (429,948) Although the projected unrestricted ending balances are an improvement over previous reviews, 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 in 2013-14. The above projections include two draws of $2 million from the state loan, one in fiscal year 2011-12 and one in 2012-13, and use of the $500,000 reserved in fund 17, Special Reserve Fund for Other than Capital Outlay Projects, from the emergency state loan. The projection also includes an annual debt Financial Management 353 service payment of approximately $1.25 million for the state loan. The loan’s 20-year repayment period began in 2010-11. 5. The assumptions included in the district’s August 2011 MYFP include COLAs in 2012-13 and 2013-14 as indicated in the SSC Dartboard. However, because of the current federal and state economic situation, the state’s ability to fund these COLAs is not ensured. Therefore the district will need to create an alternate MYFP using a 0% COLA for fiscal year 2012-13. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue taking steps to eliminate its structural budget deficit. 2. Ensure that the MYFPs include a detailed list of assumptions that include the most current information available. 3. Create an alternate MYFP using a 0% COLA for fiscal year 2012-13. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 354 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 the chief business official 2. Interviews with the Monterey County Office of Education’s associate superintendent of business services and district services staff 3. Collective bargaining agreements with the certificated and classified employee associations 4. Multiyear financial projections, August 2011 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 had negotiated collective bargaining agreements with both its certificated and classified employee bargaining units. Public disclosure documents for these settlements indicated a savings of approximately $2.27 million in 2010-11 and included multiyear financial projections (MYFPs) for the unrestricted general fund. The district would need to include the restricted and combined general fund and other affected funds in MYFPs for future settlements. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Monetary items in the collective bargaining agreement settlements were included in the MYFPs completed during the previous review period. Although the district has made significant progress toward balancing its budget, a structural deficit remains, and guidelines for collective bargaining are needed to ensure fiscal solvency. Findings 1. During the previous review period, the state administrator ratified an agreement with the district’s certificated employee bargaining unit that included a majority (19) of the Financial Management 355 articles in the July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2013 collective bargaining agreement. The district completed MYFPs for the unrestricted general fund based on that agreement. During this review period, the state administrator and the certificated bargaining unit approved memoranda of understanding (MOUs) for the remaining contract articles and signed the agreement on January 13, 2011. 2. The state administrator and the certificated employee bargaining unit also signed MOUs regarding a sick leave donation plan on March 30, 2011 and the 2011-12 and 2012-13 salary schedules on August 15, 2011. However, the district did not complete MYFPs for these items because staff indicated that all monetary items had been reported during the prior review period. 3. During the previous review period, the state administrator approved a collective bargaining agreement with the district’s classified employee bargaining unit for July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013. The district completed MYFPs for the unrestricted general fund based on this agreement. During the current review period, on December 10, 2010, the state administrator and the classified employee bargaining unit signed the collective bargaining agreement; they also approved tentative agreements regarding the 2011-12 school calendar and catastrophic leave on April 13, 2011 and May 18, 2011, respectively. However, the district did not complete MYFPs for these items because staff indicated that all monetary items had been reported during the previous review period. 4. Although the district has made significant progress toward balancing its budget, a structural deficit remains, and a negative unrestricted general fund balance of ($429,948) is projected for 2013-14 after all the state loan funds have been drawn. Recommendation for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that guidelines developed for collective bargaining align with the goal of fiscal solvency. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 356 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 the chief business official 2. Interviews with the Monterey County Office of Education’s associate superintendent of business services and district services staff 3. Board meeting agendas and minutes 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 had 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 indicated 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The majority of the articles in each collective bargaining agreement were settled during the prior review period, and remaining articles were settled during this review period. In addition, the district negotiated some MOUs and tentative agreements with the employee bargaining units on other matters. Some of these items were not presented at a public board meeting prior to ratification. Findings 1. Government Code section 3547.5 states the following: (a) Before a public school employer enters into a written agreement with an exclusive representative covering matters within the scope of representation, the major provisions of the agreement, including, but not limited to, the costs that would be incurred by the public school employer under the agreement for the current and subsequent fiscal years, shall be disclosed at a public meeting of the public school employer in a format Financial Management 357 established for this purpose by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. (b) The superintendent of the school district and chief business official shall certify in writing that the costs incurred by the school district under the agreement can be met by the district during the term of the agreement. This certification shall be prepared in a format similar to that of the reports required pursuant to Sections 42130 and 42131 of the Education Code and shall itemize any budget revision necessary to meet the costs of the agreement in each year of its term. 2. During the prior review period, the state administrator ratified agreements with the certificated and classified employee bargaining units that included a majority of the articles in the July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013 collective bargaining agreements. The district completed the public disclosure documents for those agreements. 3. During this review period, the state administrator and the certificated employee bargaining unit approved MOUs for the remaining contract articles and signed the July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2013 collective bargaining agreement on January 13, 2011. The minutes of the December 17, 2010 board meeting indicate that information was presented regarding the negotiated agreement. 4. The state administrator and the certificated employee bargaining unit signed MOUs regarding a sick leave donation plan and the 2011-12 and 2012-13 salary schedules on March 30, 2011 and August 15, 2011, respectively. However, no evidence was found indicating that these items had been presented at a public board meeting. 5. The state administrator and the classified employee bargaining unit signed the July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013 collective bargaining agreement on December 10, 2010. However, no evidence was found indicating that this item had been presented at a public board meeting. 6. The state administrator and the classified employee bargaining unit approved tentative agreements regarding the 2011-12 school calendar and a catastrophic leave bank on April 13, 2011 and May 18, 2011, respectively. The April 20, 2011 board minutes indicate that information was presented regarding the CSEA school calendar for 2011-2012. However, no evidence was found indicating that the tentative agreement regarding the catastrophic leave bank had been presented at a public board meeting. Recommendation for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the public disclosure requirements are met for all items related to its collective bargaining agreements. 358 Financial Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 359 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. Interviews with the state administrator and the chief business official 2. Board meeting agendas and minutes Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district met the public disclosure requirements during its 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 needed to ensure that the minutes indicate that the initial proposal had been adopted and that negotiations did not begin prior to sunshining the proposal. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The initial proposals regarding the 2011-12 reopeners for the collective bargaining agreement with certificated employees were sunshined as required by Government Code section 3547. However, the board minutes did not indicate that the district had adopted its initial proposal. Findings 1. Article 1.2 of the July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2013 collective bargaining agreement with certificated employees states the following: During each year of this agreement, either party may opt to reopen two additional articles other than Salary and Benefits unless mutually agreed to do so. 2. The March 9 and March 22, 2011 board meeting minutes indicate that the district met the public disclosure “sunshine” requirements of Government Code section 3547 regarding informing and allowing the public to express itself regarding the most recent collective bargaining proposal with its certificated employee bargaining unit. However, minutes indicating that the district had adopted its initial proposal were not provided. 360 Financial Management 3. Article XIX of the July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013 collective bargaining agreement with classified staff states the following: 19.3.1 Either party may submit a proposal to re-open salary and two other articles each, for 2012-13; 19.3.2 Either party may submit a proposal to negotiate a successor agreement; and/or 19.3.3 Either party may submit a proposal to negotiate the impact of a district decision or action, emergency, and/or change in law, on any subject within the scope of bargaining. 19.4 Regardless of 19.2 or 19.3 above, this Agreement may be reopened for subsequent inclusion of modifications or amendments by mutual agreement of the parties. 4. No information was provided indicating that the district and/or the classified bargaining unit have agreed to reopen the collective bargaining agreement at this time. Recommendation for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that its initial bargaining proposal is adopted following the sunshining process. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 361 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. Interviews with the state administrator and the chief business official 2. Interviews with district staff 3. Interviews with board members 4. Board meeting agendas and minutes Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 There was no evidence regarding parameters the board may have identified for the 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 had provided updates to the board throughout the collective bargaining process, and the most recent collective bargaining settlements included a substantial cost savings and indicated progress toward fiscal recovery. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Information regarding collective bargaining is provided to the board members in closed session. However, additional district staff members need to be included on the negotiating team. Findings 1. Board meeting agendas and minutes indicate that the state administrator provides information regarding negotiations with the district’s employee associations to the board members in closed session. 362 Financial Management 2. Interviews with district staff indicated that following the July and August 2010 settlements regarding the majority of the articles in the July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013 certificated and classified collective bargaining agreements, the state administrator has been the only individual included on the district’s negotiating team. Additional district staff members, such as the CBO and assistant superintendent, need to be included on the team to help build organizational capacity and help ensure that information is interpreted and implemented properly. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to consider and evaluate the effects that any tentative collective bargaining agreement may have on students’ educational opportunities, the quality of support services and the district’s fiscal solvency. 2. Include additional district staff members, such as the CBO and assistant superintendent, on the district’s negotiating team. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 6 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 363 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 the chief business official and the director of technology 2. Board policies and administrative regulations 3. September 21, 2011, Aeries training – CALPADS/CSIS 4. Sign-in sheet for October 5, 2011 Exceed training 5. Sign-in sheet for September 14, 2011 NovaNET training 6. Sign-in sheet for October 12, 2011 Accelerated Math training 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 had provided trainings on use of the student attendance system, including extensive training in proper coding. The district had not made any changes to integrate the various systems that report information for finance, student attendance, teacher credentialing and position control. Although it was not ideal, the district had developed several routines for downloading data that produce the information required for state reporting. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Several new software programs have been implemented during this review period. Each program was supported by training provided by the technology department. The district has not made any changes to integrate the various operating systems that report information for finance, student attendance, teacher credentialing, or position control. The district continues to use several download routines to produce the information required for state reporting. 364 Financial Management Findings 1. Reporting student data and attendance information correctly to the state requires staff to understand and use a uniform coding system. Variances and errors can have serious consequences in reporting items such as student truancy and could have negative financial impacts. The district scheduled one training session for CALPADS on September 21, 2011. No training has been scheduled for student attendance reporting including proper coding for student absences, tardies and truancy. Annual mandatory training is needed to ensure that all attendance staff are familiar with reporting required student data. 2. The district combined the main course catalogs for the two comprehensive high school sites effective as of the 2010-11 school year to standardize graduation requirements and course offerings at each high school campus. District office personnel helped develop the master schedules for both high schools to eliminate overstaffing after the district reduced the number of daily class periods from seven to six. 3. There continues to be a lack of integration among the district’s human resources system, the district’s student information system and the state’s student information system. This creates a potential for errors because information is manually input into multiple operating systems. The director of technology downloads data from the student information system into an Excel spreadsheet, which is then uploaded through the attendance system to provide information for CALPADS reporting. This is an acceptable workaround, but is not an optimum solution because it requires a manual transfer of data between multiple systems, which creates the opportunity for errors and duplicates work for staff who are required to enter data several times. At a minimum, the district needs to implement internal control procedures to ensure data import and exports between operating systems are accurate. 4. 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. The county office is working to implement a new software system that is scheduled for district implementation in 2013-14. 5. The current information technology department staffing consists of the director, one full- time technician II and one part-time technician. The part-time technician is responsible for King City High School work orders. The technician II is dedicated to Greenfield High School and provides training for staff, supports the school servers and addresses site work orders. The department’s staffing is reportedly adequate. 6. Implementation of new software requires adequate staff training. During this reporting period, the district implemented four new programs and included initial and follow-up training sessions. New software programs include the following: • Destiny Library Manager - This is an automated software solution de- signed to integrate and centralize circulation, cataloging, searching and Financial Management 365 reporting functions. The system provides anytime online access for stu- dents to strengthen the link between the library and the classroom. • Exceed/IEP – This is a specialized web-based software application hosted by the Monterey County Office of Education that integrates all aspects of special education and individualized education plan (IEP) data management, including referrals, parental consent and evaluations, and manages state and federal placement options available through the IEP process. • Accelerated Math - This software program is aligned with math stan- dards and creates an individualized student assessment based on instant feedback from a student’s daily assignments to assist the teacher with differentiated math instruction. • NovaNET – Portola-Butler High School implemented NovaNET during the current review period. This online software is a rigorous core high school curriculum designed to prepare students for graduation. The sys- tem allows the instructor to prescribe curricula, customize lesson plans, monitor the student’s activity and track performance. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Investigate the possibility of purchasing a system interface application, or at a minimum develop internal control procedures, to ensure that data exports and imports between operating systems are accurate. 2. Ensure that all employees who use the district’s student information system have received annual training. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: 366 Financial Management 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 the director of technology 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 continued to use Microsoft Access and Excel spreadsheets to maintain information on teacher credentialing, employee demographics and position control data for budgeting. The county office was in the process of replacing its financial software system. Until the county office has a new system in place, the district would need to develop internal control procedures to validate data when it was transferred between operating systems. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district continues to use Microsoft Access and Excel spreadsheets to maintain information on teacher credentialing, employee demographics and position control for budgeting. The district uses three separate operating systems to manage staff and student information, which requires manual input and lacks defined internal control and validation procedures. The county office is implementing a new software program countywide, with district implementation scheduled for 2013-14. Until that time, the county office has offered to assist the district in entering position control data in the current system. Financial Management 367 Findings 1. The district continues to use the Microsoft Access database to maintain teacher credential data and employee demographic information. In addition, the district maintains in the county office software system some information required to process payroll. 2. The Monterey County Office of Education has purchased a new financial software system that will improve position control processing and tracking, and expects that the new system will be available to the district in January 2013 and fully operational for the 2013-14 fiscal year. The implementation will be lengthy and will require training and data validation. In the interim the district will need to continue to use and maintain the Access database and Excel spreadsheets but develop internal controls to verify imports and exports of data entered into multiple operating systems to reduce the possibility of errors and/or omissions. 3. The district exports data from the Access database to the Aeries student information system and then to the state’s CALPADS reporting module. The student information manager is the only district employee who is familiar with this procedure. The district does not have written verification or internal control procedures in place to validate that the data has been exported accurately. 4. Employees are offered annual training for CALPADS and should also be trained in the steps necessary to download and upload critical data elements from one system to another and validate the results. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that more than one employee is trained in the functions required for exporting and importing student data among software systems. 2. Ensure that written procedures and internal control verifications are in place to validate data export and import routines for each operation that involves the transfer of data. 3. Provide annual training to employees who are required to download and upload critical data elements from one system to another, including proper validation procedures. 368 Financial Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2012 Rating: 1 February 2011 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 369 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 the director of technology 3. District technology plan for July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013 4. Board policies and administrative regulations 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 had not yet contracted with a consultant for E-rate tasks. The district was verifying free and reduced-price meal applications in an attempt to include all eligible students, which was expected to have a positive effect on E-Rate funding. Both essential computer support services and state-of-the-art equipment were needed to support the network infrastructure, computers and student information systems. There was a need to make this a priority. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Food service personnel were present during class schedule and textbook pick-up before the start of school to request that students turn in free and reduced-price meal applications. This should increase meal eligibility and thus E-rate funding. The director of technology reviews requests for hardware purchases; however, given the district’s financial position, purchases for technology are extremely limited. The technology department must continually monitor technology infrastructure, hardware and software to ensure support for instructional goals. Locating funding sources for technology will be a major ongoing challenge. 370 Financial Management Findings 1. The district has contracted with a consultant to complete E-Rate applications. The director of technology works closely with the consultant, providing documentation and other data needed to file the application. The process of applying for discounts is complex, and consultants familiar with the E-Rate process can maximize the discounts available for the district. In addition to E-Rate funding, consultants can seek other external funding available through competitive grants. 2. Free and reduced-price meal counts have a significant impact on E-rate funding eligibility; they correlate directly with the amount of funding the district receives for telecommunications, internet, network infrastructure and equipment, and computer replacement. 3. In an attempt to maximize student eligibility for free and reduced-price meals as well as E-Rate funding dependent on this eligibility, food service personnel were present when students received their class schedules and picked up textbooks before the start of the school year and requested that students turn in their completed free or reduced-price meal applications. This should have a positive impact on E-rate funding. 4. The director of technology reviews requests for hardware purchases. However, until the district stabilizes its financial position, purchases for technology are extremely limited. The district has approved the purchase of the newest version of its Linux operating system. Linux has a wide variety of uses including a remote help desk, computer repair services completed over the internet, and other outsourced information technology services. Training is scheduled for December 2011, after which the district will begin upgrading its servers. 5. The technology infrastructure is the foundation that supports operating systems and a host of software programs used by administrators, staff and students. Instructional technology uses several software applications to improve learning. Therefore, planning and implementing programs requires identifying student needs and instructional activities to meet those needs. The technology department must continually monitor connectivity requirements and analyze hardware to support instructional goals. A major challenge for the district will be to locate funding to replace obsolete equipment and computers; update infrastructure and provide adequate bandwidth; and ensure adequate technology staffing to support staff and students’ needs. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue contracting with an experienced consultant to ensure that it meets application deadlines and maximizes E-rate and other external funding. 2. Continue efforts to identify all students who are eligible for free or reduced-price meals. Financial Management 371 3. Locate a funding source for replacing equipment, updating the infrastructure and ensuring adequate staffing to support technology needs. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 372 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 2. Interviews with the chief business official and the director of technology 3. District technology plan for July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013 4. Information technology advisory committee PowerPoint presentation, October 13, 2011 5. E-mail correspondence, October 13, 2011 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 had continued to operate with limited staff, who were 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 had not made progress in this area. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district hired a company to perform a physical inventory of all assets over $500. The district has a technology plan that identifies the number of computers in each school and shows that more than 40% of the computers are more than four years old. The district does not have a plan or a funding source to replace obsolete computers and equipment, yet new software programs are continually added. Findings 1. The district contracted with a vendor to conduct a physical inventory of all assets with a cost of more than $500. An electronic file of the inventory was sent to the business office and is available online for the district to update as necessary. This should assist Financial Management 373 the district’s management team make reasonable appropriations in the budget for the replacement of antiquated equipment on a rotating schedule. 2. The technology department has many constituents both inside and outside of the district. Technology is used in several ways throughout the organization and has become vital for student data reporting, student assessments, student attendance, and notifications to parents. Curricula that depend on the ability to use computers and internet services are crucial to educational success. All central office departments depend heavily on computers and network services to do their jobs. A properly functioning technology department should appear seamless to the users of these fundamental services. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the district defines a revenue source or sources for purchasing and upgrading computers and equipment that have become obsolete. Based on district documentation provided to its information technology advisory committee, the following table shows the district’s existing hardware: Equipment Type Number Desktop Computers 720 Laptops 43 Servers 19 Smart Boards 41 Document Cameras 11 Projectors 102 Staff reported that many computers at Greenfield High School are more than 10 years old. The majority of the 720 desktop computers districtwide are more than five years old. Of the 43 laptops, 24 are more than 11 years old, and the servers that host vital information are several years old aged and need to be replaced. The district has not developed an equipment replacement schedule. E-Rate funding could serve as the initial revenue source for the purchase of new and/or replacement equipment. The district would also benefit from researching the availability of competitive grants to support its technology needs. 3. During this review period, the district appointed members to its technology committee as outlined in the district technology plan dated July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2013. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop an equipment replacement schedule. 2. Identify sources of revenue to support the purchase of aging equipment. 374 Financial Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 March 2012 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 375 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 the chief business official and district staff 2. Master inventory report, dated August 15, 2011 3. Board meeting agendas and minutes 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 were affixed to computers, but other assets were not tagged and a fixed asset inventory had not been completed in several years. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 A physical inventory of fixed assets was completed in 2010-11. However, the district needs to implement procedures to ensure that all new equipment has an asset tag affixed and that the applicable information is entered on the master inventory report. Findings 1. The district contracted with a new vendor to complete a physical inventory of its fixed assets in 2010-11. Staff indicated that the district will have the vendor complete another physical inventory in 2011-12. 2. Staff reported that the maintenance, operations, transportation and facilities (MOTF) technician is responsible for placing an asset tag on new equipment delivered to the warehouse and having a purchase price of $500 or more. The director of technology is responsible for placing an asset tag on computers delivered to the school sites. These individuals are also responsible for entering data regarding newly acquired assets into the vendor-provided web-based asset inventory report. However, no one is responsible for placing an asset tag on non-computer equipment that is delivered directly to the sites (see also Standard 10.5). 376 Financial Management 3. On January 13, 2010, Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3270 were adopted regarding the sale and disposal of books, equipment and supplies. Board meeting agendas and minutes include items regarding the disposal of some surplus property, including a school bus and technology equipment. District board policy and administrative regulation 3270 and Education Code Sections 17545 and 17546 provide for the methods of disposing of district property. These methods are predicated on whether the value of the property is more or less than $2,500. The board agenda and backup documentation provided to FCMAT did not include information regarding the value of the surplus property or the method to be used for disposal. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to conduct a physical inventory of all fixed asset items with a current market value of more than $500 at least once every two years. 2. Implement procedures to ensure that all fixed assets are accounted for properly and have an asset tag placed on the item. 3. Continue to ensure that approval for the disposal of surplus property is included on the board agenda, and implement procedures to ensure that these items have been removed from the fixed asset inventory. 4. Ensure that board agenda items related to surplus property include information indicating whether the combined value of the items exceed $2,500 and the method to be used for disposal. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 377 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. Unaudited actuals report, 2010-11 3. Cafeteria fund – budget report for July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 4. E-mail from the chief business official, August 31, 2011 5. Letter from the California Department of Education’s (CDE’s) Nutrition Services Division, January 14, 2011 6. District monthly claims report, August 2011 7. School Nutrition Program claim for reimbursement summary, March, April and June 2011 8. Board policies and administrative regulations 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 had 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 lost several months of funding for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program, requiring a substantial additional contribution from the unrestricted general fund. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district completed the first year of operating its own food service program and experienced a significant loss that required a general fund contribution of $346,380. Effective January 1, 2011, the CDE’s Nutrition Services Division approved the district’s application for state and federal 378 Financial Management reimbursements. The food and nutritional services manager was instrumental in collecting free and reduced-price meal applications at the beginning of the 2011-12 school year. The district contracts with a food service provider for its meals and is working to improve selections. Findings 1. As of July 1, 2010, the district began operating its own National School Lunch and Breakfast Program. The district hired food service workers and a food and nutritional services manager, and contracted with Preferred Meal Systems, Inc., a private food service vendor, to provide pre-portioned packaged student meals. However, the district did not have an approved application for state and federal meal reimbursement until January 2011. 2. As a result of this oversight, the district lost federal and state reimbursement revenue, resulting in a contribution of $346,380 from the unrestricted general fund. This loss of funding compounded the district’s existing adverse financial situation. 3. The district has not been satisfied with the meal selection provided by Preferred Meal Systems, Inc. In an effort to rectify the district’s concerns, the vendor is reportedly attempting to revamp the menu offerings to students and improve selections. A survey of staff and students could provide information to help the district improve food selections. 4. The food and nutritional services manager has limited experience with financial analysis of the food service program. Budget comparison reports, meals per labor hour and other statistical measurements are valuable tools that can help management analyze profitability and identify areas of concern. The department manager does not use these measurement tools. 5. The district hired food service employees for the 2010-11 fiscal year as it took over the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program. However, the district has not included these employees as part of the classified service. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that the food and nutritional services manager uses tools such as budget comparison reports and meals-per-labor-hour calculations to properly analyze and evaluate the food service program’s financial status. 2. Survey staff and students to help improve food selections. 3. Contact legal counsel regarding the proper classification of food service workers. Financial Management 379 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 5 March 2011 Rating: 0 March 2012 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: 380 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. Interview with the chief business official 2. Interviews with district and site staff 3. Special education budget reports, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 4. Unaudited actuals special education maintenance of effort reports, 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 included significant savings as a result, but supporting documentation substantiating the budget for the savings was not provided. The district was meeting its maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements, and projected that both total expenditures for special education and the general fund contribution would decrease for fiscal year 2010-11, but the transfer of revenue limit funds for special education students had been inconsistent. The district had engaged an outside services provider to complete the documents necessary to receive reimbursement for Medi-Cal administrative activities (MAA). Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district reduced its special education expenditures by approximately $504,307 in 2010-11. However, the district was provided and used $418,747 in one-time federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding during fiscal year 2009-10, which inflated expenditures in that year. The unaudited actuals report indicates that the district met its 2010-11 and projects to meet its 2011-12 maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements. Financial Management 381 Findings 1. A review of the special education budget reports for the current and three previous fiscal years indicates the following: General Fund Total Contribution Expenditures 2008-09 unaudited actuals: resources 3310, 6500 $ 773,359 $2,561,075 2009-10 unaudited actuals: resources 3310, 3313, 6500 $1,547,693 $3,134,747 2010-11 unaudited actuals: resources 3310, 3313, 6500 $1,305,204 $2,630,440 2011-12 projected budget: resources 3310, 6500 $1,322,000 $2,466,305 The 2010-11 unaudited actuals budget report indicates an overall reduction in special education expenditures of $504,307 from fiscal year 2009-10. However, the 2009-10 and 2010-11 unaudited actuals include $418,747 and $62,260, respectively, in one-time federal revenue from the ARRA (resource 3313), which also inflated expenditures in those years. In addition, based on the 2011-12 expense budget, the general fund contribution to special education is understated by $18,000 and should be projected at $1,340,000 rather than the amount indicated above. 2. Beginning in 2009-10, the district’s budget indicates that revenue limit funds for special education students were not transferred to the special education resource (6500). The California School Accounting Manual (CSAM) provides for the transfer of revenue limit funds to special education using object code 8091 and states the following: 8091 Revenue Limit Transfers—Current Year. Record transfers of Revenue Limit Sources to applicable restricted resources, such as special education or continuation education, in the general fund or other funds. This account should net to zero LEA-wide. 3. The district’s 2011-12 projected budget includes a decrease of approximately 17% in special education apportionment from the county office. Although an enrollment decline and student transfers to the South Monterey County Charter School account for approximately 9% of the decreased revenue, information was not provided that gives an explanation for the remaining projected decrease. 4. In 2010-11, the district began operating two classes for severely handicapped students that formerly were operated by the county office. Although staff had indicated that a significant savings was anticipated as a result of this change, the actual savings had not yet been calculated at the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork. 5. The 2010-11 actual and 2011-12 budget special education MOE reports, SEMA and SEMB, respectively, indicate that the district met its MOE requirement in 2010-11 and is projecting to meet its MOE requirement in 2011-12. 382 Financial Management 6. 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. 7. Staff indicated that the district has contracted with an outside service provider to complete the forms necessary to receive reimbursement for Medi-Cal administrative activities (MAA). However, the district has not yet received any reimbursement for MAA. In addition, the district has not applied for reimbursement for Medi-Cal LEA services; staff indicated that the district’s outside service provider has determined that the possible reimbursement does not warrant filing claims at this time. 8. Education Code section 56362 provides for a maximum caseload of 28 students per resource specialist teacher. However, Education Code section 56101 and California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 3100 provide for districts to request a waiver from the State Board of Education that allows the caseload to be increased to 32 students. Staff indicated that some teachers’ caseloads are nearing 28 students. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to 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 the budgeted general fund contribution to special education is sufficient to balance the resource. 4. Ensure that revenue limit funds for special education students are transferred from the general fund to special education. 5. Review the 2011-12 projected budget for special education apportionment from the county office and ensure that it is projected accurately. 6. Evaluate the savings for the two special education classes taken back from the county office. 7. Review each bill from the county office to ensure that the district is being charged accurately for students remaining in county office-operated programs. 8. Calculate and charge the allowable indirect costs to all restricted programs to accurately show total program costs. 9. Continue to assess whether reimbursement claims should be filed for Medi-Cal LEA services provided by the district. Financial Management 383 10. Determine if a waiver needs to be requested from the State Board of Education allowing resource specialists’ caseloads to be increased to 32 students. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 384 Financial Management 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. Interview with the chief business official 2. Interviews with district and site staff 3. Transportation budget reports, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 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 had decreased approximately 25% since 2008-09, but the district’s transportation expenditures had increased and contributions from the general fund had 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 Transportation costs were reduced $88,907 in 2010-11; however, approximately $65,000 of this reduction was the result of an increase in the direct costs charged to other district programs for transportation services. The district should continue to assess routes for maximum efficiency. Financial Management 385 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 Expenditure 2009-10 unaudited actuals $353,244 $645,201 2010-11 unaudited actuals $233,711 $556,294 projected budget $217,388 $524,501 The district’s budget reports indicate a reduction of $88,907 in transportation expenditures in fiscal year 2010-11. Approximately $65,000 of this reduction was the result of an increase in the direct costs charged to other district programs for transportation services. 2. In 2010-11, the district began operating two classes for severely handicapped students that formerly were operated by the county office, and the district anticipated providing transportation services for these students. Following a reorganization of the MOTF department, the district has been unable to fill some of its bus driver positions and has had to contract with the county office to provide special education bus routes at an estimated annual cost of $86,751. The district would benefit from reviewing its budget to ensure that these costs are included. 3. Because the district has been unable to fill all of its bus driver positions, it anticipates having to contract out for some extracurricular activity trips. The district budget needs to be reviewed to ensure these costs are included. 4. The district is combining its costs for transporting special education students with its costs for regular home-to-school transportation in resource 7230 and/or the special education resource 6500. The CSAM provides the following guidance regarding accounting for the transportation costs of special education students: Costs of providing specialized transportation services (e.g., buses with wheelchair lifts, aides who accompany children on the bus) specified in IEPs of special education pupils who are severely disabled or orthopedically impaired are reported in Goal 5750, Special Education, Ages 5–22 Severely Disabled. If the LEA receives a state transportation apportionment, these costs are normally reported in Resource 7240, Transportation: Special Education (SD/OI). If these costs are initially accumulated in Resource 7230, Transportation: Home to School, they are to be transferred to Resource 7240, Goal 5750, using Object 5710, Transfers of Direct Costs. Costs of providing transportation services specified in IEPs of special education students who are not severely disabled or orthopedically impaired are reported in special education goals other than 5750. These 386 Financial Management costs are normally reported in Resource 7230, Transportation: Home to School, if the LEA receives a state transportation apportionment. 5. The district is not charging the state-approved indirect cost rate to the transportation program. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to assess current bus routes to achieve maximum efficiency and reduce transportation expenditures. 2. Require the maintenance, operations, transportation and facilities director to review all proposed transportation services before they are included in special education students’ individualized education programs (IEPs) to ensure maximum efficiency. 3. Ensure that the costs for the special education bus routes provided by the county office are included in the budget, and review each invoice to ensure that the district is charged appropriately. 4. Ensure that the costs for extracurricular activity trips are included in the budget. 5. Review the CSAM regarding accounting for special education transportation costs and record expenses as applicable. 6. Calculate and charge the allowable indirect costs to all restricted programs to accurately show total program costs. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 387 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 42140) Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with staff 2. Actuarial study of retiree health liabilities, as of October 1, 2009 3. Annual audit report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 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 had made significant reductions in the amount of health care premiums it was paying 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 were expected to provide ongoing savings. The district was in compliance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requirements to update the actuarial calculations for post-employment benefits. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district offers a defined benefit healthcare plan, administered by the district, for retirees’ health and dental coverage. According to the audited financial statements dated June 30, 2010, ten retirees and their dependents were receiving benefits, as were 127 active plan members. The district is in compliance with GASB requirements to complete the actuarial calculations for post- employment benefits. A new actuarial study is required by June 30, 2012. Findings 1. The district participates in the Monterey County Schools Insurance Group (MCSIG). Commencing July 1, 2010, the district contributes an annual maximum of $10,000 per employee for medical insurance premiums. 388 Financial Management Employees 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 an additional person or family coverage, contributions are required from the employee. Part-time employees working 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 percentage of full-time equivalent (FTE). 2. The actuarial study for post-employment benefits, dated March 5, 2010 for the period ended October 1, 2009, estimated the district’s annual required contribution (ARC) at $322,713 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010. The pay-as-you-go costs were $194,357 according to the 2009-10 audited annual financial statements. 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 given its financial condition, and has budgeted $180,000 for the 2011-12 fiscal year. 3. The district has participated in the California State Teachers’ Retirement System’s Golden Handshake program. As of June 30, 2010, outstanding obligations were $360,947, including interest. These obligations are paid from the district’s general fund on a pay-as- you-go basis. The obligations are scheduled to be paid in full in fiscal year 2014-15. Recommendation for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to obtain periodic actuarial studies for other post-employment benefits as required by GASB. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 4 March 2011 Rating: 5 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 389 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. Annual audit report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 3. Workers’ compensation claims report, June 2011 4. Monterey and San Benito Counties’ Liability and Property Joint Powers Authority actuarial review, March 22, 2010 5. Monterey County Schools Joint Powers Authority actuarial review, May 20, 2010 6. Keenan & Associates property and liability inspection, February 2011 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 was initiating online training programs for employees through Keenan & Associates. These programs would be able to validate mandatory training sessions for employees and offer additional voluntary training modules. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has continued to be proactive and monitor training activities in an effort to reduce potential claims. With the assistance of Keenan and Associates, the district has several online venues for employees to complete mandatory annual trainings. Online programs track all employee training and employee results. Worker’s compensation insurance is provided through the Monterey County School’s Workers’ Compensation Joint Powers Authority (JPA). Property and liability insurance coverage is provided through a separate JPA pool that covers Monterey and San Benito counties. 390 Financial Management Findings 1. The JPAs provide actuarial studies each year that identify risk exposure and establish a program rate recommendation to a confidence level authorized by the JPA. The actuarial study is intended to manage the costs and liabilities, communicate the financial implications and comply with Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) pronouncements. Participating districts in the Monterey County Schools Workers’ Compensation JPA pay a premium based on an individual rate. An equity pooling fund is established to ensure that each participating district shares equally in the overall performance of the JPA. Administered by Keenan and Associates, the group has been successful in cost containment over the last several years, thereby stabilizing the rates charged to participating districts. For fiscal year 2009-10, the JPA recorded payroll of $326,289,800 and total claims loss of $7,543,000 including claims administration costs. Projected overall JPA rates for fiscal year 2010-11 increased slightly from $2.02 to $2.09 per $100 of payroll. 2. One example of the district’s cost containment and prevention measures is online mandatory and voluntary training for district employees. The district provides online preventive training courses developed by Keenan and Associates. The program generates a list of employees that are required to have specific training and notifies these employees by e-mailing them a link to the training modules. Upon completion of a module, the test results are sent to the district’s personnel office. Some of the online training modules developed by Keenan & Associates include the following: • Sexual harassment • Blood-borne pathogens • Chemical hazards • Safety data – lifts, disruptive behavior, transfer or movement for para- educators • Chemical storage and handling 3. Keenan and Associates commissioned an extensive property inspection report dated February 2011. The report rates compliance for classrooms, offices, physical education facilities, play areas, and specialized areas such as electrical and chemical storage. The following table summarizes the report’s findings regarding the number of areas of concern in each category: High Priority Medium Priority Greenfield High School Housekeeping 1 Classroom and Offices 2 1 Science Class/Work Rooms 1 Financial Management 391 High Priority Medium Priority King City High School Outside Areas 2 2 Classroom and Offices 1 2 Life Safety 3 1 Miscellaneous 1 Electrical 1 2 Chemical 1 Fire Equipment/Protection 1 Portola Continuation High School Life Safety 1 South Monterey County Charter No Findings Total All Sites 13 10 It would benefit the district to review the report’s findings for specific areas of concern to ensure full compliance, particularly those with high priority rankings. 4. The district has contracted with the Monterey and San Benito Counties Liability and Property JPA for insurance that covers risks of loss due to theft, damage to assets, errors and omissions. Claims over the last three years have not exceeded the commercial coverage limits; in fact, the rate per ADA fell by 4.6% for liability and 12.5% for property coverage over the preceding period. 5. The CBO attends quarterly JPA meetings. These meeting offer beneficial information regarding current claims and trends, which enables the district to respond to a particular area of concern quickly. For example, if there were several claims from custodians for back injuries, the district could initiate training specifically for this group of employees that focuses on the specific type of injury. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue developing and monitoring the online training programs. 2. Review the property and liability report findings for specific areas of concern to ensure full compliance, particularly those with high priority rankings. 3. Continue working closely with the workers’ compensation and property/liability insurance program JPAs to ensure that the district is implementing preventive measures to minimize property and liability losses. 392 Financial Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Financial Management 393 394 Financial Management Table of Financial Management Ratings Financial Management 395 396 Financial Management February March March Financial Management Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – INTERNAL CONTROL ENVIRONMENT All governing board members and management personnel set the tone and establish the environment, 1.1 exhibiting high integrity and ethical values in carrying 1 2 2 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 3 4 4 authority 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 for accounting procedures and 2.1 0 3 4 internal controls. Communications 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 board prioritizes LEA fiscal 2.3 1 4 4 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. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – STAFF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The LEA has developed and uses a professional development plan for training business staff. The plan 3.1 includes the input of business office supervisors and 1 1 1 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 397 February March March Financial Management Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – STAFF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The LEA develops and uses a professional development plan for the in-service training of school site/department 3.2 0 1 1 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. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The Governing Board focuses on expenditure standards and formulas that meet the goals and maintain the LEA’s 5.1 2 4 4 financial 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 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 5.3 the LEA’s priorities. The budget office has a technical 2 3 3 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 balanced in terms of revenues 5.4 1 1 1 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. 398 Financial Management February March March Financial Management Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating 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, the governing board shall hold a public 6.1 2 5 8 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 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 6.2 than 45 days after the governor signs the annual Budget 2 6 8 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 6.3 within the statutory deadlines established by EC 42130, et. 3 6 6 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. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BUDGET MONITORING The LEA implements budget monitoring controls, such as periodic budget reports, to alert department and site managers of the potential for overexpenditure of budgeted 7.2 2 3 3 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 Governing Board. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – BUDGET MONITORING The LEA uses an effective position control system that tracks personnel allocations and expenditures. 7.3 1 4 5 The position control system establishes checks and balances between personnel decisions and budgeted appropriations. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ACCOUNTING The LEA forecasts its cash receipts and disbursements 8.1 and verifies those projections monthly to adequately 1 2 3 manage its cash. The LEA reconciles its cash to bank statements and reports from the county treasurer monthly. Financial Management 399 February March March Financial Management Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ACCOUNTING The LEA’s payroll procedures comply with the requirements established by the county office of 8.2 education, unless the LEA is fiscally independent. (EC 2 4 3 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 9.2 3 4 4 enrollment and attendance that is reconciled monthly. School sites maintain statewide student identifiers and reconcile data required for state and federal reporting. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ATTENDANCE ACCOUNTING Policies and regulations exist for independent study, 9.3 1 1 2 charter, home study, inter-/intra-LEA agreements, LEAs of choice, and ROC/P and adult education, and address fiscal impact. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ATTENDANCE ACCOUNTING 9.4 3 4 4 Students are enrolled and entered into the attendance system in an efficient, accurate and timely manner. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ATTENDANCE ACCOUNTING 9.6 The LEA utilizes standardized and mandatory programs 1 6 7 to improve the attendance rate of pupils. Absences are aggressively followed up by LEA staff. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ATTENDANCE ACCOUNTING 9.7 School site personnel receive periodic and timely training 1 5 5 on the 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 10.4 supervised and reviewed to ensure that transactions are 2 2 2 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. 400 Financial Management February March March Financial Management Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – ACCOUNTING, PURCHASING, AND WAREHOUSING The LEA has adequate purchasing and warehousing procedures to ensure that: (1) only properly authorized 10.5 1 1 1 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. 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 11.1 0 0 1 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) LEGAL STANDARD – STUDENT BODY FUNDS The LEA provides annual training and ongoing guidance to site and LEA personnel on the policies and procedures governing Associated Student Body accounts. Internal 11.3 0 0 0 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. 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 12.1 general fund at the time of budget adoption and all interim 1 3 4 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) 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 12.2 1 4 4 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) Financial Management 401 February March March Financial Management Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating LEGAL STANDARD – IMPACT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Public disclosure requirements are met, including the 14.1 1 4 3 costs associated with a tentative collective bargaining agreement before 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 14.2 “sunshined” in accordance with the law to allow public 1 4 4 input and understanding of employee cost implications and, most importantly, the effects on the LEA’s students. (Government Code 3547, 3547.5) 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 LEA 14.3 identifies those issues for consideration by the Governing 2 6 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 15.2 involved in defining needs, developing specifications, 3 4 5 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. 402 Financial Management February March March Financial Management Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating 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 are available 15.3 to meet the need, and whether or not the LEA would 0 1 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. 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 support costs. 15.7 0 0 2 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 are replaced based on a 15.8 schedule. Hardware specifications are evaluated yearly. 0 0 1 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 2 Capital equipment and furniture is tagged as LEA-owned property and inventoried at least annually. Financial Management 403 February March March Financial Management Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – FOOD SERVICE FISCAL CONTROLS To accurately record transactions and ensure the accuracy 17.1 5 0 1 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. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – SPECIAL EDUCATION The LEA actively takes measures to contain the cost of special education services while providing an appropriate 20.1 1 3 4 level of quality 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 21.1 of transportation services and limit the contribution 3 3 3 from the general fund while providing safe and reliable transportation to the students. LEGAL STANDARD – RISK MANAGEMENT – OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS LEAs that provide health and welfare benefits for employees upon their retirement, and those benefits will 22.1 4 5 6 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) 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 financial well 22.2 2 3 4 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 2.93 3.39 The collective average ratings for all years are based on the subset of priority standards used in this third comprehensive review. 404 Financial Management Facilities Management Facilities Management 405 406 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. Board policies, administrative regulations, and exhibits 2. Site evacuation plans 3. Interview with the state administrator 4. Interview with the chief business official (CBO) 5. Interview with the director of MOTF 6. Interviews with school principals 7. Site emergency plans 8. Safety training records 9. Site visits 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 had not updated its emergency preparedness plan, but had implemented an improved and regular emergency preparedness training program. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district updated Board Policy 3516, Emergencies and Disaster Preparedness, and shows evidence of emergency preparedness training, but has not yet updated its emergency preparedness plan. Facilities Management 407 Findings 1. Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 0450 regarding Comprehensive Safety Plan were last updated and adopted in April 2005. 2. Board Policy, Administrative Regulation, and Exhibit 3515(a) regarding campus security to provide a school environment that promotes safety of students, employees and visitors through campus security measures were updated in September 2010. 3. Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3516(a), regarding emergencies and a disaster preparedness plan, were adopted January 2011. 4. This policy states that the superintendent shall develop and maintain a disaster preparedness plan that details provisions for handling emergencies and disasters and that shall be included in the district’s comprehensive school safety plan (, in accord with Education Code section 32282. 5. According to Administrative Regulation 3516(a), the plan shall address fire which endangers students and staff; earthquake and other natural disasters; environmental hazards; attack or disturbance by individual or group; bomb threat and detonation; biological, radiological, chemical, and other activities; and medical emergencies or quarantines. The superintendent shall ensure that the district’s procedures include strategies and actions to prevent, mitigate, prepare, respond and recover, such as regular inspections of facilities and equipment; instruction and practice for students and employees; determination of staff roles and responsibilities; personal safety and security; closure of schools; communication to staff, parents and/or guardians, the governing board, and the media; cooperation with other state and local agencies; and steps to be taken after the disaster or emergency. 6. The district’s current emergency preparedness plan was updated in 2007. The plan does not include all the elements identified in the updated board policy. The plan’s emergency contact information is incorrect because of staff changes and other changes in contact information. 7. The district sent a representative to Monterey County Standardized Emergency Planning training in August 2011. 8. The principal of Greenfield High School attended Safe School Planning training in Region V on September 1, 2011 and again on September 13, 2011. 9. Greenfield High School provided a site map identifying earthquake and fire evacuation routes and a plan for a safety drill scheduled for September 9, 2011. The safety planning committee certification page for 2010-11 was not signed or dated by any member. 10. The vice principal of King City High attended Safe School Planning training in Region V on September 1, 2011. 408 Facilities Management 11. King City High School provided records including sign-in sheets for school site council safe school plan meetings for 2009-10 and 2010-11; an evacuation route map for the school site; and a record of emergency drills to include fire drills, lockdowns, and false alarms that occurred between December 2010 and June 2011. Nine drill and alarm events were documented during this time. 12. Custodial standards were developed and custodians trained in the standards in January 2011. The standards include detailed and objective criteria for measuring efforts to identify and correct of safety hazards on school campuses. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Update its emergency preparedness plan, following Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3516(a) and ensuring that the information included is current and accurate. 2. Update its comprehensive safety plan and Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 0450 as needed. 3. Ensure that all site administrators attend training regarding emergency and disaster response, and understand their roles and responsibilities during an emergency. 4. Ensure that each site maintains an up-to-date emergency preparedness plan that is specific to the site and that aligns with the district’s plan and addresses all the strategies and actions identified in relevant board policies. 5. Ensure that emergency preparedness plans are communicated to staff and students and that drills are conducted regularly to ensure understanding and preparedness. 6. As an accountability measure, require that all committee meetings, training and drills related to this standard be thoroughly documented and reported to the district. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 409 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, administrative regulations, and exhibits 2. Site evacuation plans 3. Interview with the state administrator 4. Interview with the chief business official 5. Interviews with school principals 6. Site emergency plans 7. Safety training records 8. Site visits 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 had not developed a comprehensive safety plan, and no committee existed to assist with this process. The district had made some progress on improving safety measures, but others remained unaddressed. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district still has not developed a comprehensive districtwide safety plan. The district has provided school safety training to some staff members. Findings 1. Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 0450 regarding a comprehensive safety plan were adopted in April 2005 and have not been updated. 2. The district has not complied with Board Policy 0450, which requires that the school site council at each site write and develop a comprehensive school safety plan relevant to the 410 Facilities Management needs and resources of that particular school site. The policy defines the requirements of the plan, including a review and update by March 1 of each year and the requirement for board review and approval. 3. Region V held Comprehensive Safe School Plan training on September 1 and September 13, 2011. The principal for Greenfield High School attended both meetings, and a vice principal for King City High attended the first meeting. 4. Board policy 3516, regarding emergencies and a disaster preparedness plan, was updated in January 2011. The policy requires the superintendent to develop and maintain a disaster preparedness plan that details provisions for handling emergencies and disasters and that is included in the district’s comprehensive school safety plan. The district’s most current emergency preparedness plan was updated in 2007. 5. King City High School provided documents such as sign-in sheets for school site council safe school plan meetings for 2009-10 and 2010-11; an evacuation route map for the school site; and a record of emergency drills including fire drills, lock downs and false alarms from December 2010 through June 2011. Nine drills were documented during this time. 6. Greenfield High School provided a site map that identifies earthquake and fire evacuation routes and a safety drill plan that included a drill scheduled for September 9, 2011. 7. Safety training pertaining to fire extinguishers and hazardous materials handling was provided to custodial and maintenance staff in July and August 2011. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Review and update Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 0450 as needed to adhere to legal requirements and the district’s needs. 2. Develop a districtwide comprehensive safety plan that includes school site plans and disaster preparedness plans. 3. Consider forming a district safety committee to help develop and support district safety plans. 4. Establish site safety committees and ensure they meet regularly to review and communicate school safety issues and update the safety plan accordingly. 5. Ensure adherence to current board policies regarding annual review and update of the comprehensive safety plan. Facilities Management 411 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 4 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 412 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. Board policies, administrative regulations, and exhibits 2. Interview with the state administrator 3. Interview with the director of MOTF 4. Interviews with school principals 5. Job descriptions 6. Cleaning standards documents 7. Facility inspection tool, October 2010 and April 2011 8. Site visits Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district lacked sufficient staff to clean sites adequately each day. Custodial 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 were generally clean; however, areas of both campuses had excessive debris and deteriorated conditions that constituted a health and safety hazard and needed to be addressed as soon as possible. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has reorganized the custodial department. New job descriptions and work schedules have been implemented. The cleanliness of school campuses has improved; however, areas of considerable debris and deterioration remain. Facilities Management 413 Findings 1. Custodial standards were developed and custodians were trained in the standards in January 2011. The standards included detailed and objective criteria for measuring efforts to identify and correct safety hazards on school campuses, and they are currently being implemented. 2. Custodial work schedules were recently updated and include changes for different school schedules and activities. The schedules identify regular attention to restrooms and general campus litter pick up. 3. Job descriptions for the custodian technician, head custodian, groundskeeper, and maintenance worker positions were updated in April 2011 and include the responsibility to report and/or correct safety and fire hazards. 4. The district commissioned and carried out removal of and disposal of hazardous materials (outdated chemistry lab chemicals) from King City High School in October 2010. 5. The October 2010 William’s facility inspection identified numerous deficiencies at both the Greenfield High School and King City High School facilities. The report provided to FCMAT indicates that the majority, but not all, of the deficiencies were corrected. The one deficiency identified as an emergency was corrected on September 3, 2010 and the last corrective action indicated on the report was made on April 8, 2011. 6. The April 2011 facility inspection tool (FIT) rated both Greenfield High School and King City High School as in good repair with no items in need of emergency attention. However, a note on the Greenfield High School FIT states, “Grounds note: weeds are growing against buildings and walkway wings 100, 200, and gymnasium.” 7. The director of maintenance, operations, transportation and facilities (MOTF) has scheduled meetings with site administrators every other Thursday, conducts quarterly site visits, and visited King City High School in March 2011 with the state administrator. The director keeps a written log of issues identified during these talks and site visits; the issues are prioritized and addressed as opportunity permits. 8. Work has been done in the past year at King City High School to clear the overgrowth on the play fields, clean up the debris and furniture found throughout the campus, and organize the custodial and storage areas. However, the grounds continue to have many unkempt areas. Tall grass and overgrowth were found throughout the grounds, particularly along the perimeter fencing, around the football field and in the agriculture designated area. During FCMAT’s visit, the grounds staff member was cutting down weeds on the west side of the campus. Broken benches around the gymnasium continue to need repair, replacement, or removal. Fencing and facilities around the football field and interior school courtyards are neglected and need maintenance. 9. Cleanup efforts were made at Greenfield High School over the last year, and many of the issues found during the previous review have been addressed. Along the west side of campus, the overgrowth and debris have been cleaned up and the sports equipment 414 Facilities Management and construction materials have been mostly cleared, organized, and/or stored. Several fence repairs have been made, and the industrial arts shop has been organized. However, many areas need attention. The landscaping improvements at the stadium have not been maintained. Temporary fencing blocks an area near the stadium that has been ignored and has become overgrown. The maintenance yard is unorganized and contains unnecessary materials and equipment. Several couches were discarded and remain near the shop area and close to where a project car was recently subjected to arson. 10. The director of MOTF maintains a weekly to do list. Items not completed during the week are carried over to the following week. Some items have been on the list for several months without being addressed. Many items that FCMAT identified as needing attention were on the to do list for the week of August 29 to September 2, 2011. 11. The director of MOTF recently received integrated pest management training and is looking into training staff and implementing an integrated pest management plan to include pest management and weed abatement. The district has no definitive or active plan at this time; all weed and pest control is performed in a reactive fashion, which requires a great deal of time and labor. 12. The fence along the northern perimeter of Greenfield High School remains a hazard. The fence is owned by the adjacent private property owners and is broken in many places, allowing students to pass freely between the school and adjacent private properties. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop a plan for the immediate cleanup and disposal of weed overgrowth, unnecessary materials, and refuse. 2. Continue regular walk-throughs of sites and communication between the site administration and the director of MOTF to maintain a list of items or areas that need maintenance and repair. The state administrator should review the list and should assist in prioritizing projects. 3. Continue to review staffing and scheduling of custodial personnel to ensure that staff coverage is adequate to keep the sites free of debris and hazards. 4. Continue to implement custodial standards including staff training and accountability. 5. Review the maintenance and groundskeeping schedules, workload, and work completed to identify potential productivity improvements. 6. Develop maintenance and groundskeeping standards to establish productivity and work quality expectations. Provide training regarding and accountability for these standards. Facilities Management 415 7. Develop and implement a proactive, integrated pest management and weed abatement plan. 8. Install a permanent chain-link fence along the northern perimeter of Greenfield High School to prevent students from entering or exiting the campus through openings in the privately owned fence. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 3 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: 416 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. Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (IIPP) 2. Monterey County Schools Workers’ Compensation Joint Powers Authority (JPA) active claims report 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district adopted the Illness and Injury Prevention Plan (IIPP) in January 2011. The plan has not yet been completely implemented. Findings 1. The district adopted an Injury and Illness Prevention Plan in January 2011. The plan lists the director of MOTF as the administrator of the program, makes all employees responsible for compliance, and calls for the following: • Communication of occupational safety and health to all employees • Comprehensive safety inspection three times per year at each school • Investigation of incidents and exposures • Timely correction of hazards • Training and instruction in job-specific safety and health practices • Training to be documented and maintained on file. 2. The IIPP also includes specific forms to be used to document training, inspections, reporting and correction of hazardous conditions. 3. The IIPP has not been implemented. No safety inspection reports have been completed as required by the plan; no employee reports of hazards or hazardous conditions have been Facilities Management 417 received; no safety action reports have been submitted to log the correction of an unsafe condition; no training verification forms have been completed acknowledging awareness of the IIPP or any other training; and no safety meeting reports are on file. 4. The district had 18 active claims for workers’ compensation as of August 18, 2011. Of these claims, three had loss dates in 2010-11, including one that occurred in June 2011. No incident report was provided for the June incident as required by the IIPP. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Fully implement the IIPP as adopted. 2. Communicate to all employees that the IIPP is in effect, and its importance to the district and employees. 3. Establish accountability measures, including review of the safety inspection, incident, and training reports by the appropriate executive administrator. 4. Develop a schedule for conducting comprehensive school safety inspections at least three times per year. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: 418 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. Board policies and administrative regulations 2. Observations of storage facilities during site visits 3. Observations of material safety data sheet (MSDS) binders during site visits. 4. Interview with the director of MOTF 5. Hazardous materials removal invoice 6. Safety training logs 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 had updated its MSDS and was maintaining copies in more locations. It had 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has updated and adequately maintained MSDS binders and performed regular training regarding their use. Findings 1. Previously identified hazardous materials were removed from the King City High School campus. 2. Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3514.1 were last adopted in May 1997 but are current based on GAMUT. 3. All of the district’s MSDSs were reviewed and updated over the summer of 2011. Binders containing MSDSs for each product on site are kept in each storage location. Facilities Management 419 4. In July 2011, American Supply provided training on the use of chemicals and the MSDSs . 5. The lead custodian has been given the task of keeping the MSDS records current and ensuring that only authorized products are on site. 6. During site visits, FCMAT found the storage facilities clean and organized . The MSDS binders were complete, organized and readily accessible. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Routinely audit materials storage areas and MSDS binders to ensure that they are secure, maintained and organized. 2. Ensure that staff training takes place regularly and whenever a new product or employee is introduced. 3. Ensure that employees are trained and understand the importance of safe handling, storage and disposal of materials and supplies. 4. Ensure that employees are trained and understand how to handle both unknown and known hazardous materials. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 420 Facilities Management 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 organizationwide process for issuing keys to and retrieving keys from employees. Sources and Documentation 1. Board Policies, Administrative Regulations, and Exhibits 2. Interview with the state administrator 3. Interview with the CBO 4. Interview with the Director of MOTF 5. Interviews with school principals 6. Interview with the MOTF technician 7. Key control logs 8. Key authorization forms 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 had 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 have been jeopardized by a lack of oversight. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has implemented a strict key control procedure and updated its board policy in this area; however, there are still members of the district staff who do not adhere to guidelines in accordance with the procedure. Facilities Management 421 Findings 1. Board Policy, Administrative Regulation and Exhibit 3515(a) were updated in September 2010 to provide a school environment that promotes the safety of students, employees and visitors through campus security measures. 2. Administrative Regulation 3515(a) requires that the superintendent ensure that the district develops campus security procedures that are consistent with the goals and objectives of the district’s comprehensive safety plan and site-level safety plans. Included in these procedures is the method to control access to keys and other school inventory. The regulation makes the site principals responsible for the security of the school buildings and contents and identifies the need for strict key control and accountability. The regulation also identifies procedures for key issuance and replacement and specifies the personnel authorized to assign and issue keys and process exceptions. 3. Exhibit 3515(a), a key authorization form approved in September 2010, defines key issuance, responsibility agreement and key return requirements. 4. Upon request, keys are made by the MOTF technician or director of MOTF and distributed to the site principals. A key issuance log is maintained in the MOTF department to indicate which keys were issued and returned. 5. The process for retrieving keys is not followed with fidelity. Sub-master keys are not being returned at the end of the event for which the keys were issued. In some instances an administrator has signed for a key returned and, on the same day, signed to reissue the key to the same person without noting an additional valid purpose for reissuance. This situation is prevalent among coaches who retain access to the site, locker rooms, weight rooms and playing fields past the end of the sports season. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Communicate board policy, administrative regulations and key issuance procedures to administration, staff and coaches. 2. Authorize a specific administrator to oversee and strictly enforce district key issuance policies and procedures. This person should have the authority to question and restrict key issuances and the responsibility to report to the state administrator any lack of adherence to the procedure. Standard Fully Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 5 March 2012 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 423 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. Board policies, administrative regulations, and exhibits 2. Interview with the director of MOTF 3. Interview with school principals 4. Custodial standards 5. Work order logs 6. Facilities master plan, January 2011 7. MOTF budget report 2011-12 8. Facility Inspection Tool, April 2011 9. Site visits 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 had insufficient lighting in the campus interior and walkways. Greenfield High School had sufficient outside lighting in the campus building areas but the field parking lot lights were not working. No corrective action to improve outside lighting was indicated in district’s facility plans or budgets, and there was no board policy regarding this standard. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The lighting in certain areas of the King City and Greenfield high school campuses remains insufficient and problematic, as evidenced by the Facilities Inspection Tool (FIT) evaluations, interviews, and FCMAT’s observations. The district has worked to address these conditions but they continue to recur. 424 Facilities Management Findings 1. Custodial standards were developed and custodians trained in the standards in January 2011. The standards included detailed and objective criteria to measure efforts to identify and correct safety hazards on school campuses, including identifying and replacing burned out lighting. 2. The state’s Facilities Inspection Tool (FIT) evaluation conducted in April 2011 identified issues with lighting at Greenfield High School. It stated, “Outside lighting at entry to most classrooms is not coming on/flickering. System seems to be inadequate throughout the campus.” 3. Parking lot lighting at Greenfield High School continues to be inoperable. 4. King City High School had a broken area light behind room 115, and the lighting is insufficient to provide light to walkways and interior areas. 5. The facilities master plan includes exterior and parking lot lighting improvements at King City High School estimated to cost more than $64,000 and similar improvements at Greenfield High School estimated at $120,000. 6. The district’s fiscal year 2011-12 budget does not contain funds sufficient to repair and/or improve current lighting to satisfy this standard. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop a plan to regularly review, maintain and repair campus lighting. 2. Develop a plan and a process to regularly evaluate lighting structures for sufficiency and identify needed improvements. Any needed lighting improvements should be included in the facilities master plan. 3. Review budget priorities and determine whether budget adjustments can be made to fund some lighting repairs and improvements. 4. Develop and implement a plan to secure unlit areas until lighting repairs and improvements can be made. Facilities Management 425 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 426 Facilities Management 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. Board policies, administrative regulations, and exhibits 2. Site evacuation plans 3. Interview with the state administrator 4. Interview with the chief business official 5. Interviews with school principals 6. Site emergency plans 7. Safety training records 8. Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (IIPP) 9. Job descriptions 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 was no indication that the district had developed a comprehensive employee safety program, and training remained inconsistent and incomplete. However, there were some indicators of improved safety awareness. The district lacked a districtwide training program for maintenance, operations and transportation staff, and was out of compliance in a number of areas related to health and safety. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district still has not developed a comprehensive districtwide safety plan or a comprehensive plan for training district personnel. The district developed an Illness and Injury Prevention Plan (IIPP) in January 2011; however the plan has not yet been completely implemented. Facilities Management 427 Findings 1. Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 0450, regarding a comprehensive safety plan, were adopted in April 2005 and have not been updated. 2. Board Policy 0450 calls for each site to write and develop a comprehensive school safety plan relevant to the needs and resources of that particular school. The policy defines the requirements of the plan including a review and update by March 1 of each year and the requirement for board review and approval. The policy requires each school site council to write and develop a comprehensive safety plan relevant to the needs and resources of that particular school. The requirements of this policy are not being met. 3. The district does not have a comprehensive employee safety program. 4. The district does not have a committee to assist with maintaining the comprehensive safety program. 5. Region five, which is comprised of all districts in Monterey, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and San Benito counties, held comprehensive safe school plan training on September 1 and September 13, 2011. The principal of Greenfield High School attended both meetings, and a vice principal from King City High School attended the first meeting. 6. Board policy 3516, regarding an emergencies and disaster preparedness plan, was updated in January 2011. The policy requires the superintendent to develop and maintain a disaster preparedness plan that details provisions for handling emergencies and disasters that is included in the district’s comprehensive school safety plan. The district’s current emergency preparedness plan was updated in 2007. 7. In July and August of 2011, custodial and maintenance staff were provided with safety training pertaining to fire extinguishers and hazardous materials handling. 8. The district updated its IIPP in January 2011. The plan lists the director of MOTF as the administrator of the program, makes all employees responsible for compliance, and calls for the following: • Communication of occupational safety and health to all employees • Comprehensive safety inspection three times per year at each school • Investigation of incidents and exposures • Timely correction of hazards • Conducting of training and instruction regarding job-specific safety and health prac- tices • Documentation of training and maintaining documentation on file 9. The IIPP has not been implemented. 428 Facilities Management 10. Job descriptions for the custodian technician, head custodian, groundskeeper and maintenance worker positions were updated in April 2011 and include the responsibility to report and/or correct safety and fire hazards. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Designate an administrator to be responsible for the formation of a comprehensive employee safety program. 2. Consider establishing a committee to assist with developing and maintaining an employee safety program. 3. Provide regular safety training and safety communication to all employees. 4. Integrate elements of the emergency preparedness plan and IIPP into the comprehensive employee safety plan. 5. Establish and administer extensive safety procedures and training for all employees who have potentially hazardous duties. 6. Establish and maintain records documenting employee communications and training. 7. Develop a schedule for comprehensive school safety inspections at least three times per year. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 429 2.2 Facility Planning Professional 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 of King City High School 2. Site inspection of Greenfield High School 3. Interview with the director of MOTF 4. Board Policy 3517 5. Board Policy 7000 6. Interview with the state administrator 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 had not determined which buildings were nonconforming, nor had it determined whether or not it had obtained waivers. The district had not inventoried its sites as recommended in the previous review. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has not yet determined how many nonconforming buildings are in use, nor have they obtained waivers. The district has contracted with an architect to help identify nonconforming buildings and will seek a waiver from the State Allocation Board, if required, for all non conforming buildings. Findings 1. The district is using nonconforming buildings at King City High School and Greenfield High School for administrative or non-classroom purposes. 2. The district was unable to produce documentation indicating that the nonconforming buildings have waivers allowing their noncompliance with the Field Act. 430 Facilities Management 3. The district has not pursued waivers from the State Allocation Board for the continued use of the nonconforming buildings. 4. The district has contracted with an architectural firm to identify all nonconforming buildings and determine their status with the State Allocation Board in an effort to obtain any necessary waivers. 5. The district does not have an administrative regulation regarding the structural safety of school buildings as outlined in Education Code sections 17280-17317. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Complete the review of all buildings to identify those that are undocumented and nonconforming. 2. Apply for waivers from the State Allocation Board for all buildings identified as noncompliant that the district plans to continue using. 3. Develop a plan to replace all nonconforming buildings. 4. Adopt and implement Administrative Regulation 7111 regarding structural safety in school buildings. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 March 2012 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 431 2.3 Facility Planning Professional 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 7140 2. Administrative Regulation 7140 3. Interview with the 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 had not taken any steps toward establishing and using a selection process for the use of licensed architectural or engineering services, and had not updated its board policy. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district updated its board policy on architectural selection. The state administrator did not follow the competitive bidding process in his recent selection of architectural services; because of the time-sensitive nature of the district’s most recent capital improvement project, he did not involve the board where he was not required to do so. Findings 1. The district updated Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 7140 regarding architectural selection in May 2011. The policy states that the superintendent shall devise a competitive process for selecting architects and structural engineers. 2. After Board Policy 7140 was adopted, the district contracted with a new architectural firm to complete its recent and future modernization projects but did not follow the competitive selection process. The state administrator indicated that he did not follow the competitive process because time was of the essence in selecting an architect for the upcoming project, and without such timely action the district would have lost the funding for the project due to an imminent expiration of the project’s approval. 432 Facilities Management Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to follow its adopted process with future construction projects. 2. Amend its board policy and administrative regulations as needed to identify and provide for an emergency/expedited selection process as needed while maintaining legal compliance. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 433 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. School Facilities Master Plan 2. Interview with the 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 had hired TSS Consultants to develop a school facilities master plan. The district expected the plan to be completed before the end of fiscal year 2010-11. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 TSS Consultants has completed the School Facilities Master Plan. Findings 1. The district adopted its School Facilities Master Plan in February 2011. 2. Budget amounts in the facilities master plan are not included in the district’s budget. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Establish a process to regularly review and update the facilities master plan. 2. Provide capital planning funds in the district’s budget to carry out the facilities master plan. 434 Facilities Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 435 2.8 Facility Planning Professional Standard The LEA has a facility planning committee. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with the state administrator 2. Interview with the director of MOTF 3. Interview with school principals 4. Board minutes 5. Facilities advisory committee flyer 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 had not developed or implemented a facilities planning committee. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has established a facility advisory committee, which held its first meeting in September 2011. Findings 1. The district established a facility advisory committee composed of parents, students, teacher representatives, classified staff representatives, individuals from the community, administrators, and school board representatives. An advisory committee flyer states the committee is to “meet regularly, review data and processes, participate in discussions, and make recommendations to the district.” 2. The facility advisory committee will be co-chaired by the district’s chief business official (CBO) and the director of MOTF. 3. The school facilities advisory committee held its first meeting on September 22, 2011. 436 Facilities Management Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Work to ensure that committee meetings are regularly scheduled, well attended, and representative of the district’s constituents. 2. Record the activities and recommendations of the committee as well as the district’s responses to the committee’s questions and recommendations. 3. Consider renaming the committee the “School Facilities Planning Committee” to more closely comply with the standard title established in this professional standard. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 437 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the chief business official 3. Interview with the director of MOTF 4. District five-year deferred maintenance plan 5. State Allocation Board (SAB) emergency grant repair request 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 had not updated its five-year deferred maintenance plan since 2009-10, but had hired a consulting firm, which was completing a facilities master plan. It had constructed a new administrative building and obtained approval from the Office of Public School Construction to proceed with a modernization project. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has completed a school facilities master plan but has not updated its five-year deferred maintenance plan since 2009-10. The district is planning to complete a modernization project in the summer of 2012. Findings 1. The district has a five-year deferred maintenance plan that was adopted in fiscal year 2009-10 and that has yet to be fully implemented. 2. The district has no other comprehensive written plan for maintaining or modernizing its school sites. 3. The district is planning to complete a modernization project at King City High School in 2012. 438 Facilities Management 4. The district has applied for and received an unfunded approval for a grant from the State Emergency Repair Program. 5. Major maintenance projects are completed on an as-needed basis depending on their urgency or immediate threat to safety. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Although it is no longer legally required, update the five-year deferred maintenance plan to re-evaluate and determine current needs in case state funding becomes available for maintenance projects. 2. Develop a comprehensive maintenance plan for all of its facilities for planning and budgeting purpose; the plan should identify both short- and long-term facilities maintenance needs. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 439 3.3 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Legal Standard All relocatable buildings in use meet statutory requirements. (EC 17292) Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with the state administrator 2. Interview with the director of MOTF 3. Board Policy 7000 4. Review of district records 5. Architect’s report on Division of the State Architect (DSA) close-outs 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 had relocatable buildings at each site that appeared to have been built without an architect or state approval. The district had not located any records of documents indicating that these structures met statutory requirements. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has hired an architectural firm to help determine if all of its relocatable buildings meet statutory requirements. Findings 1. The district has relocatable buildings which do not meet statutory requirements; the district was unable to produce documentation to indicate that its relocatable buildings have met statutory requirements. 2. The district has retained the services of an architectural firm to prepare the documentation necessary to pursue and obtain state approval of any relocatable buildings which do not meet statutory requirements. 3. The district has improved the organization of its relocatable building construction records. 440 Facilities Management Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Complete the identification and approval process for all of its relocatable buildings. 2. Develop a plan to remove or replace any relocatable buildings that fail to meet statutory requirements and do not receive approval from the state. 3. Develop a comprehensive file of 1-A and 3-A diagrams indicating the relocatable buildings, their date of manufacture, DSA project number, Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) project number, project completion date, and total square footage. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 441 3.9 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Professional Standard The LEA manages and annually reviews its state-approved five-year deferred maintenance plan and verifies that expenditures made during the year are included in the plan. Sources and Documentation 1. District’s five-year deferred maintenance plan 2. Interview with the director of MOTF 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 had not updated its five-year deferred maintenance plan; however, expenditures had been made from the deferred maintenance fund in the past year in accord with the existing plan. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district was not required to and did not update its five-year deferred maintenance plan; however, expenditures were made from the deferred maintenance fund in the past year in accordance with the existing plan. Findings 1. The district’s budget does not allocate funds as identified in the deferred maintenance plan. 2. The district made $27,842 in expenditures from its deferred maintenance fund in fiscal year 2010-11. 3. The director of MOTF maintains an informal list of necessary maintenance projects based on urgency. 4. Under current law, the district is not required to make contributions to the deferred maintenance fund or maintain a current five-year deferred maintenance plan. 442 Facilities Management Recommendation for Recovery The district should: 1. Review and update its five-year deferred maintenance plan annually to determine needs and to provide a framework for future planning as project funding becomes available. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 5 March 2011 Rating: 5 March 2012 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 443 3.10 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Professional Standard The LEA’s staffs are knowledgeable about procedures in the Office of Public School Construction and the Division of the State Architect. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with the state administrator 2. Interview with the chief business official 3. Interview with the director of MOTF Summary of First Comprehensive Review, February 2010 The district’s CBO 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 was knowledgeable in this area. Summary of Second Comprehensive Review, March 2011 The district did not have staff with adequate knowledge of OPSC and DSA procedures and was not positioned to fill an administrative position with these responsibilities. However, the district had contracted for a study to identify the need for additional maintenance and facilities support staff. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has hired additional staff in the MOTF department, and the director’s knowledge has improved. The district is working with a new architect, who is coordinating documentation with the district, the DSA, and the OPSC for the current modernization projects. Findings 1. The director of MOTF has been attending quarterly meetings conducted by the OPSC at the Monterey County Office of Education to increase his knowledge and understanding of OPSC and DSA processes and procedures. 2. The director of MOTF has attended an annual Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH) conference to expand his knowledge of state agency processes. 3. The state administrator and the CBO are also knowledgeable about OPSC and DSA processes and procedures. 4. The district has contracted with an architectural firm to assist with the administration of its modernization projects, which require interaction with DSA and OPSC. 444 Facilities Management Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Encourage the director of MOTF to attend any informational meetings provided by OPSC and DSA staff members in the area. 2. Encourage the director of MOTF to review the OPSC and DSA handbooks. 3. Encourage the director of MOTF to establish and maintain a network of colleagues that have knowledge of OPSC and DSA procedures. 4. Identify other individuals in the district who will benefit from this knowledge, such as the recently hired position within the MOTF Office, and have them also attend regional meetings, the annual CASH conference, or other trainings. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 445 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 state administrator 2. Interview with the director of MOTF 3. Contract with Kitchell CEM 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 had not changed; it still lacked staff with adequate knowledge to ensure effective management of its construction projects, though it had hired a temporary clerk to assist with clerical duties and advertised a permanent position to continue this support. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has hired additional personnel in the MOTF department to allow the director more time to manage district projects. The district hired a professional construction management firm for its most recent modernization project. Findings 1. The district completed its most recent construction project using a lease-leaseback contract with Kitchell CEM. The cost for the construction management was budgeted at $29,143 and was included in the $626,961 total budget for the project. Pursuant to Article 8, Sections 22(A) and 8.01 of that contract, the district is to provide no management of the project, and only an owner’s representative may make decisions on behalf of the district regarding issues that may arise during the course of construction. The owner’s representative for the project is the state administrator. 2. The district intends to use the same lease-leaseback process for modernization projects planned for June 2012. The district has indicated that the state administrator will function as the decision-making liaison for the district on that project. 446 Facilities Management 3. The district has created and filled a technician position in the MOTF department, which has allowed the director more time to be involved in the management of district construction projects. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to provide training for the director of MOTF to strengthen his expertise in school construction to help ensure effective management of district construction projects. 2. Encourage the director of MOTF to establish and regularly communicate with a network of colleagues that have knowledge and experience in construction project management. 3. Continue to outsource construction management on large projects until it develops adequate staffing structure and abilities to manage such projects. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 447 4.2 Construction of Projects Professional Standard The LEA maintains appropriate project records and drawings. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with the director of MOTF 2. Interview with the MOTF technician. 3. District facility construction and maintenance project records 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 had begun to effectively organize its construction and maintenance records with the help of a temporary clerical staff position. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has hired additional personnel in the MOTF department, and this resulted in improved organization of district construction records. The district has yet to completely organize all of its records. Findings 1. The district’s organization of project records and drawings has improved over the past year. Records are filed by project, and existing drawings are organized. 2. The district is still unable to find all records relating to all of its building projects. For example, records identifying each of the DSA numbers for the relocatable buildings on each of the high school campuses have not been located. 3. The district has no system to identify when drawings or other project records are removed, who removed them, and when they were returned. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to review and organize all records in its possession. 448 Facilities Management 2. Implement a check-out system for all sets of building plans and other records to ensure that current records are returned and are not misplaced. 3. Require that all contractors and design professionals involved in all construction projects provide the district a full set of all plans and records pertaining to the project. 4. Require the MOTF director and the technician to develop a detailed and extensive recordkeeping system. These staff members should seek specialized training and assistance from colleagues regarding best practices for records management. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 3 March 2012 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 449 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 the director of MOTF 2. Interview with the MOTF technician 3. Interview with site lead maintenance staff members 4. Job descriptions 5. Custodial and maintenance schedules 6. Cleaning Standards documents 7. Maintenance records 8. Inventory records 9. Purchase orders 10. MOTF budgets for fiscal years 2010-11 and 2011-12 11. Site visits 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 was attempting to keep records and make adequate supplies available by monitoring purchasing and work orders. A team cleaning approach had been implemented and included a checklist for restrooms and training regarding backpack vacuuming. 450 Facilities Management Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has made significant improvement in the organization of records, and their supplies are adequate and monitored carefully. The district should maintain the improvement they have made and continue to refine the organization of files in the MOTF office and transportation work area. Written standards and procedures for maintenance and groundskeeping should be developed. Findings 1. Interviews indicated that staff have adequate access to the equipment, tools, materials and supplies they need to accomplish their duties, except for specialized equipment that would not be cost effective for the district to own (e.g., a lift to reach parking lot lights, a gas leak sniffer and other such equipment). 2. The district created and filled a permanent MOTF technician position. This position is responsible for maintaining files and records for inventory and maintenance. 3. The MOTF technician monitors orders to ensure that supplies and materials needed are adequate and accessible while staying within budget. 4. Warehouse and storage locations have adequate and appropriate amounts of supplies in stock. 5. MOTF job descriptions for custodians, maintenance and grounds-person were approved to indicate the district’s needs, establish essential job functions, and define expected skill, abilities and knowledge. 6. Cleaning standards were developed to establish processes and cleaning expectations, promote consistency and support accountability. 7. Custodial employees were provided with training regarding the cleaning standards. 8. Work schedules for custodians, groundskeepers, and maintenance staff were updated in August 2011 to allocate adequate time to priority tasks. These schedules are adjusted as needed to accommodate events and priorities. 9. The MOTF technician maintains an inventory of equipment that includes a product description, estimated cost, location, estimated purchase date and estimated replacement date. The inventory does not include a maintenance schedule. 10. The transportation supply storage area was unkempt and disorganized. Facilities Management 451 Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue inventory controls and adherence to district policies and procedures for purchasing and use of equipment, tools, supplies and materials. 2. Continue to implement cleaning standards and schedules. Include training in safety and procedures as part of the implementation. 3. Develop and implement maintenance and operations standards. Include training in safety and procedures as part of implementation. 4. Develop and implement groundskeeping standards. Include training in safety and procedures as part of implementation. 5. Establish and maintain routine maintenance schedules for all equipment. 6. Promote communication between employees and management regarding needs and improved ways to complete tasks. 7. Ensure that employees are trained to work safely and efficiently. 8. Encourage the director of MOTF to keep current with the most recent knowledge of industry equipment, tools, materials, methods and processes to help improve the safety, efficiency and effectiveness of the MOTF staff. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: 452 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the chief business official 3. Interview with the director of MOTF 4. Interview with the site administrators 5. MOTF organizational chart 6. Job descriptions 7. Evaluation records 8. Custodial standards and schedules 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 had evaluation rosters for classified staff that indicated all evaluations of maintenance and operations staffs were current. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has made the supervision of MOTF personnel the responsibility of the school principals. Work standards for maintenance and groundskeeping have not yet been developed. Performance evaluations for all positions in the MOTF department have not been completed. Findings 1. The district recently changed its organizational chart and employee reporting structure to show that the school site administrators are the supervisors of the custodians, groundskeepers and maintenance staff assigned to their site. Facilities Management 453 2. The school site administrators are responsible for evaluation of the employees who work at their site. The director of MOTF also provides input regarding the evaluations. 3. Job descriptions were adopted that clearly identify the requirements and skills needed for each position. 4. Custodial standards that establish expectations and support accountability are being implemented. The standards include a checklist that is to be completed daily. 5. Maintenance and groundskeeping schedules were implemented in August 2011, but work standards have not yet been developed. 6. The district eliminated several classified MOTF staff positions. Employees hired in new positions had not received an evaluation at the time of FCMAT’s review. 7. On August 29, 2011, the director of MOTF was provided with a list of three employees who needed to be evaluated. The evaluations were completed on August 31, 2011. Earlier evaluations were dated April 12, 2010. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop and implement standards for maintenance and operations. Include safety and job procedure training as part of the implementation. 2. Develop and implement standards for groundskeeping. Include safety and job procedure training as part of the implementation. 3. Provide employees who perform evaluations with training regarding the evaluation process and requirements. This training should include legal and contractual considerations as well as district preferences. 4. Ensure that all managers and employees understand the evaluation process including who will be evaluated, who will conduct the evaluation and the timeline for the evaluation. 5. Develop a system to regularly review and update job descriptions to ensure that they meet the district’s needs and adhere to best practices. 454 Facilities Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 455 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the director of MOTF 3. Interview with school site administrators 4. Job descriptions 5. Custodial standards and schedules 6. Maintenance and groundskeeping staff schedules 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 remained outdated, and most MOTF staff continued to work under split job descriptions and duties. No organizational chart was provided for the MOTF department, and the district lacked standards for MOTF department and staff performance. FCMAT found both comprehensive high school sites generally clean in the interior areas; however, both sites had 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. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The job descriptions for maintenance and custodial positions have been revised, and the district has reorganized their supervision and daily responsibilities. The changes have resulted in more staff time at school sites and less time performing tasks in the transportation department. 456 Facilities Management Findings 1. MOTF job descriptions for custodians, maintenance, and groundskeeping staff were approved in April 2011 to reflect the district’s employment needs, establish essential job functions, and define expectations regarding skills, abilities and knowledge. 2. Custodial standards were established in January 2011. The standards detail the job duties and tasks for classrooms, restrooms, gymnasiums, offices and exterior areas. Custodians received safety and performance training regarding the standards. The district is implementing these standards. 3. The district laid off several district staff. 4. In July 2011, the district hired several staff to fill custodian, maintenance, and groundskeeper positions to meet its needs. 5. In August 2011, the district developed and implemented work schedules for maintenance and groundskeeper positions but has not developed standards for these positions. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop and implement maintenance and operations standards. Include safety and procedure training in the implementation. 2. Develop and implement groundskeeping standards. Include safety and procedure training in the implementation. 3. Continue to implement custodial standards, including training and accountability measures. 4. Develop and maintain a process to periodically review and update job descriptions to accommodate changes in the district’s procedures, duties and needs. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 457 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. Board policies 2. Interview with the director of MOTF 3. Work order list 4. Maintenance and operations schedule 5. Facility Inspection Tool reports, October 2010 and April 2011 6. MOTF budget reports for 2010-11 and 2011-12 7. Inventory reports 8. Site visits 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 had not developed a preventive maintenance plan. The district had received a rating of “Fair” on its recent FIT report, and FCMAT found the grounds in poor condition with indications of long-term neglect. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has not developed a preventive maintenance plan. Maintenance projects are completed based on their urgency or whether they are a threat to student safety. Findings 1. The district does not have a written preventive maintenance plan. 2. The district does not have a written routine maintenance plan. 3. The district has no schedule for repairing or replacing equipment. 458 Facilities Management 4. The director of MOTF maintains a “to do” list of needed repairs that he delegates to staff as schedules permit. 5. The work order system allows district staff to report and log issues that require maintenance attention. 6. The district has no written plan to address ongoing painting; heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) maintenance; equipment servicing, except for buses, or other such items. The maintenance worker’s schedule includes only tasks from work orders. 7. The district reacts to maintenance needs based on their urgency rather than performing preventive maintenance. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop maintenance and operations standards and procedures specific to the district’s facilities and equipment. 2. Ensure that its inventory of facilities and equipment is current, that it records maintenance and repair activities, and that it identifies recommended maintenance frequencies. 3. Develop a comprehensive and proactive preventive maintenance plan that includes maintenance funding, service intervals, and long-term repairs and replacement. 4. Establish and implement criteria for evaluating the need for early or delayed replacement of equipment based on age, frequency of repair, cost of repair, cost of replacement, and additional benefit of replacement (e.g., improved efficiency and/or better use to the district). 5. Continue the MOTF director’s regular site visits and communications with school administrators to help identify maintenance needs early. 6. Review and update the preventive maintenance plan regularly as equipment and needs change. Facilities Management 459 Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 0 March 2012 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: 460 Facilities Management 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 timelines and the financial resources needed to maintain the facilities. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with the director of MOTF 2. Interview with the director of technology 3. Work order list 4. Maintenance and operations schedule 5. Facility Inspection Tool reports, October 2010 and April 2011 6. MOTF budget reports for 2010-11 and 2011-12 7. State Emergency Repair Program application 8. Inventory reports 9. Site visits 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 had not developed an inventory of its equipment, vehicles and facilities, and did not maintain a facilities inspection and maintenance program as required by Board Policy 3517. In January 2010, the district adopted Board policy 3270, which authorized a process for declaring equipment and supplies obsolete and disposing of them. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has begun developing a process to create and maintain a comprehensive inventory of equipment, vehicles and facilities. The inventory records do not include a plan for replacing any of the equipment. Facilities Management 461 Findings 1. The MOTF technician maintains an inventory of equipment that includes a product description, estimated cost, location, estimated purchase date, and estimated replacement date. 2. The inventory does not include a maintenance schedule. 3. The district’s budget does not include adequate funds to address the maintenance needs of the district facilities. 4. The district has identified nearly $2 million in repairs that qualify and were approved for the state’s Emergency Repair Program in May 2011. However, no state funds are available and the approval remains unfunded. 5. Buses are maintained as legally required; however, the district does not have a bus replacement plan. 6. The district has more than 850 computers, the newest of which are now two years old and some of which are more than eight years old. Computers are maintained and repaired by two full-time staff members who respond to needs in a reactive rather than proactive fashion, and the district is hiring another 20-hour per week position to assist. The district does not have a technology replacement plan. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Ensure that its inventory records include maintenance intervals and schedules for all equipment. The records should also include maintenance and service records. 2. Develop a maintenance schedule for all equipment, and identify funds to maintain and replace equipment at optimal intervals. 3. Regularly update its inventory records to account for newly acquired equipment and clear equipment that it no longer owns. 4. Develop a technology plan that includes regular maintenance, updating and replacement of computers. 462 Facilities Management Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 463 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the chief business official 3. Interview with the director of MOTF 4. Interview with the director of technology 5. Interviews with site administrators 6. School Facilities Master Plan 7. Budget reports for 2010-11 and 2011-12 8. Facilities advisory committee flyer 9. Site visits 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 had not developed and maintained a plan to ensure the equality and equity of all its school site facilities, and inequities continued to exist. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 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. The recently adopted School Facilities Master Plan and the facilities advisory committee both acknowledge the need for equity among all school facilities. The district’s budget distributes funding equitably between the two high schools. 464 Facilities Management Findings 1. The district does not have a formal plan to ensure equality and equity among its school sites. 2. The schools sites vary greatly in age, design, structure, location and appearance. These differences lead to different maintenance requirements and a very different student environment. 3. King City High School is an older campus of grand architecture. The school has 123,474 square feet of structures and sits on 36 acres. All the playing fields have permanent structures. The theater building is designated as a historical site. The gymnasium is a traditional design-build structure. This campus requires a great deal of maintenance and is currently undergoing modernization and repair. 4. Greenfield High School is a newer campus with facilities that have a total of 119,530 square feet on 44 acres. Most of the school’s buildings are modular. Because it is newer and of less elaborate design, the campus currently requires less effort to maintain its facilities. 5. The Emergency Repair Program application identifies $1,888,121 in needed repairs for King City High School and only $78,696 for Greenfield High School. 6. MOTF site budgets indicate a reasonably equitable distribution of funds between the sites for operational and maintenance services. 7. The facilities master plan contains a project list for the district that is based in part on “an examination of equity among schools at each grade level.” 8. The district is implementing a facilities advisory committee composed of parents, students, teacher representatives, classified staff representatives, individuals from the community, administrators and school board representatives. According to a facilities advisory committee flyer, the committee will “meet regularly, review data and processes, participate in discussions, and make recommendation to the district.” This committee should contribute to the funding equity among the school sites. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Develop district facilities standards and ensure that they are considered whenever the district or sites repair facilities or build new facilities. 2. Continue to seek and distribute funding and resources to its schools equitably. 3. Seek input from the facilities advisory committee regarding concerns about potential facilities inequities and how to remedy them. Facilities Management 465 4. Communicate to the facilities advisory committee, staff, parents, students and the community the goal of equity and the efforts to achieve and maintain equity among school sites. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 466 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. Board policies and administrative regulations 2. Interview with the state administrator 3. Interviews with school site administrators 4. Interview with the director of MOTF 5. Interview with the MOTF technician 6. Facilities use requests and forms 7. Facilities advisory committee flyer 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 had no written plan to promote community involvement in schools, but had passed board policies that identified facilities and grounds as a community resource and encouraged good relationships with other agencies and community members. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has no written plan to promote community involvement in schools, but it recently formed a facilities advisory committee to improve communication between the district and the community regarding facilities issues. Findings 1. The district has a plan to promote and communicate community involvement in schools. 2. The district has established a facilities advisory committee composed of parents, students, teacher representatives, classified staff representatives, individuals from the community, administrators and school board representatives. According to the state administrator, one Facilities Management 467 purpose of the committee will be to improve communication with the community and encourage the community to access and use the facilities. 3. Board Policy 1330, Joint Use Agreements, was adopted in January 2011. This policy promotes the use of public resources and increases access to needed services provided by the district in cooperation with any public agency, public institution and/or community organization. 4. A review of facilities request forms indicates that outside parties are regularly using school facilities. Interviews revealed that the frequency of facilities use has sometimes caused scheduling conflicts and resulted in some lack of communication and coordination between the district and site. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue to further establish and use the facilities advisory committee. Encourage the committee to promote the use of district resources and community involvement. 2. Use the facilities advisory committee to help develop a community involvement plan. 3. Review the use of facilities request form and the related approval process. Streamline the process to increase ease of access for the community and to improve communication between the district and the sites. 4. Continue to maintain and improve school site facilities and grounds to make them more desirable to use and decrease liability issues. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 2 March 2011 Rating: 4 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: 468 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 the state administrator 2. Interview with the director of MOTF 3. Interview with the CBO 4. Facilities inspection reports 5. Board meeting minutes 6. Facilities advisory committee flyer 7. District community forum session 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 was communicating the condition of its facilities primarily through the Williams Facilities Inspection Tool (FIT), which was conducted and reported annually to the school board. Students, staff, and the community were not informed of the conditions of the district’s facilities or its plans to remedy substandard conditions. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district has established a facilities advisory committee composed of district and community representatives who will meet regularly to review and discuss all facilities-related issues. The district continues to communicate with the public regularly through the Facility Inspection Tool mandated by the Williams Act and through annual community forums at which the state administrator discusses facilities. Findings 1. The district has established a facilities advisory committee to improve communication. The committee is co-chaired by the director of MOTF and the CBO and is composed Facilities Management 469 of parents, students, teacher representatives, classified staff representatives, individuals from the community, administrators and school board representatives. The committee is to meet regularly, review data and processes, participate in discussions and make recommendations to the district. The committee’s first meeting was held on September 22, 2011. 2. The district held a community forum on August 30 and 31, 2011 to inform interested parties of its progress in correcting a variety of issues, including facilities management items. The PowerPoint presentation shown at the forum is posted on the district’s website. 3. The district provides facility inspection reports quarterly at public board meetings. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Continue establishing and using the facilities advisory committee. Ensure that the committee meets regularly and that meetings are well attended and include representatives from staff, students and the community. 2. Continue to expand the process for regularly communicating facilities issues or concerns to parents, staff and other community members through methods such as the parent newsletter, local newspaper or district website. 3. Consider making a facilities report an agenda item at every monthly board meeting. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 0 March 2011 Rating: 1 March 2012 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 470 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 the CBO 2. Interview with the MOTF technician 3. Purchase order samples 4. MOTF budgets for 2010-11 and 2011-12 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 had not established standard protocols for procuring equipment and materials. The department did not maintain an inventory of stock materials, and there was also no inventory control of department tools or materials. The district’s maintenance workers spent much of their time obtaining parts and materials for their work projects, which was an inefficient use of employee work time. Summary of Third Comprehensive Review, March 2012 The district’s business office now requires completed purchase requisitions. The MOTF technician monitors all purchases for the MOTF department, which now has an approval procedure for open purchase orders (POs) and has organized its purchasing files. The district has not updated its board policy related to purchasing. Findings 1. The district’s business office has developed a purchasing process that requires a completed purchase requisition for all purchases. The business office is responsible for giving all purchase requisitions a purchase order (PO) number, without which no purchases are authorized. 2. The MOTF technician monitors all purchasing for the MOTF department, including initial approval of the purchase request based on existing inventory, the department Facilities Management 471 budget and appropriateness. The technician also monitors the receipt and distribution of the goods. 3. The maintenance department maintains open POs with several local vendors for routine purchases of frequently used items. Employees who wish to use the open POs must first contact the MOTF director or the MOTF technician for approval. After approval and purchase, the employee must return the signed and dated purchase receipt along with the reason for the purchase and the project the purchase was used for. These receipts are filed in a binder that corresponds to the open PO. 4. The MOTF department’s files have been organized to include purchasing records organized by vendor and by PO number. 5. The district has not updated its board policy that pertains to purchasing and governs the use of open POs, maximum dollar amounts on open purchase orders, and authorization requirements. Recommendations for Recovery The district should: 1. Refine the purchasing process created by the business office to include an approval process for purchasing items over a specified dollar amount, the use of open purchase orders, and authorization requirements. 2. Support the MOTF technician’s fidelity to the purchasing protocols through training, delegation of authority, and accountability. Standard Partially Implemented February 2010 Initial Rating: 1 March 2011 Rating: 2 March 2012 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: 472 Facilities Management Table of Facilities Management Ratings Facilities Management 473 474 Facilities Management February March March Facilities Management Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating 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 accordance with required 1.1 regulations. All school administrators are conversant with 2 4 5 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 1.3 4 4 4 includes adequate measures to protect people and property. (EC 32020, 32211, 32228-32228.5, 35294.10-35294.15) LEGAL STANDARD – SCHOOL SAFETY School premises are sanitary, neat, clean and free from 1.8 3 4 5 conditions that 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 5 requirements. (CCR Title 8, Section 3203) LEGAL STANDARD – SCHOOL SAFETY The LEA maintains updated Material Safety Data Sheets for 1.15 1 4 8 all 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 2 5 8 standard organizationwide process for issuing keys to and retrieving keys from employees. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – SCHOOL SAFETY Outside lighting is properly placed and is monitored 1.18 periodically to ensure that it functions and is adequate to 1 1 2 ensure safety during evening activities for students, staff and the public. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – SCHOOL SAFETY The LEA maintains a comprehensive employee safety 1.20 program. Employees are made aware of the LEA’s safety 0 1 1 program, and the LEA provides in-service training to employees on the program’s requirements. Facilities Management 475 February March March Facilities Management Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating LEGAL STANDARD – FACILITY PLANNING The LEA seeks and obtains waivers from the State Allocation 2.2 0 0 3 Board for continued use of any nonconforming facilities. (EC 17284-17284.5) LEGAL STANDARD – FACILITY PLANNING The LEA has established and uses a selection process to 2.3 1 1 6 choose licensed architectural/engineering services. (GC 4525- 4526) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – FACILITY PLANNING The LEA has a long-range school facilities master plan that 2.6 0 3 7 has been updated in the last two years and includes an annual capital planning budget. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – FACILITY PLANNING 2.8 0 0 5 The LEA has a facility planning committee. LEGAL STANDARD – FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MODERNIZATION 3.1 1 2 4 The LEA maintains a plan for maintaining and modernizing its facilities. (EC 17366) LEGAL STANDARD – FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MODERNIZATION 3.3 0 0 2 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 7 maintenance plan and verifies that expenditures made during the year are included in the plan. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MODERNIZATION 3.10 The LEA’s staff are knowledgeable about procedures in the 0 3 7 Office of Public School Construction and the Division of the State Architect. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECTS 4.1 0 1 6 The LEA maintains a staffing structure that is adequate to ensure the effective management of its construction projects. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – CONSTRUCTION OF 4.2 PROJECTS 2 3 5 The LEA maintains appropriate project records and drawings. 476 Facilities Management February March March Facilities Management Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS To safeguard items from loss, the LEA keeps adequate maintenance records and reports, including a complete 6.4 inventory of supplies, materials, tools and equipment. 1 2 6 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 0 1 6 work performed by maintenance and operations staff, and evaluations are completed regularly. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS The LEA has identified major areas of custodial and 6.6 maintenance responsibility and specific jobs to be performed. 2 2 6 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 0 0 1 that is 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 includes an inventory of all facilities and 6.8 0 1 4 equipment that will require maintenance and replacement. Data should include estimated life expectancies, replacement timelines 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 0 1 2 equality and equity of all of its school site facilities. (EC 35293) PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – COMMUNITY USE OF FACILITIES 8.2 2 4 6 The LEA has a plan to promote community involvement in schools. Facilities Management 477 February March March Facilities Management Standards 2010 2011 2012 Rating Rating Rating PROFESSIONAL STANDARD – COMMUNICATION The LEA fully apprises students, staff and community of 9.1 the condition of its facilities and its plans to remedy any 0 1 4 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 13.2 1 2 6 standard LEA 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 4.85 The collective average ratings for all years are based on the subset of priority standards used in this third comprehensive review. 478 Facilities Management