ebook img

Cambridge public schools review : executive order 393 : Education Management Accountability Board report PDF

78 Pages·2000·3.5 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Cambridge public schools review : executive order 393 : Education Management Accountability Board report

MassachusettsDepartmentofRevenue DivisionofLocalServices FrederickA.Laskey,Commissioner JosephJ.Chessey,Jr.,DeputyCommissioner Cambridge Public Scliools Review Executive Order 393 Education Management Accountability Board Report January 2000 EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD Michael Sentance,Chairman RobertAddelson PeterNessen MarkRoosevelt HughScott Carmel Shields AlisonTaunton-Rigby SamuelTyler,ViceChairman StafftotheBoard: JillReynolds ExecutiveOfficeforAdministration& Finance AndrewNatsios, Secretary DepartmentofRevenue FrederickA. Laskey,Commissioner Division ofLocal Services JosephJ. Chessey,Jr.,DeputyCommissioner GerardD. Perry,AssociateDeputyCommissioner DieterH. Wahl,Director,EducationalAuditBureau ProjectTeam ChesleyR.Taylor,Jr.,Auditor-InCharge BryantAyles,Auditor BrianBarry,Auditor KimberlyPenta,Auditor Technical andadministrativesupportprovidedby DawnMackiewiczandRichard Sirignano DivisionofLocalServiceswouldliketoacknowledgetheprofessionalcooperationextendedtothe auditteambyTheDepartmentofEducation, CambridgePublicSchoolsSuperintendent Mrs. Bobbie D'Allessandroandtheschooldepartmentstaff. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY II. 1 III. GENERAL CONDITIONSAND FINDINGS 6 1. CambridgeOverview 6 2. SchoolFinances 12 3. SchoolCommitteeBudgetTrend 12 4. TotalSchoolDistrictExpenditures 13 5. NetSchoolSpendingRequirements 14 6. SchoolCommitteeProgramBudget 16 7. FoundationBudget 20 8. Staffing-Full TimeEquivalent(FTE) Trends 21 9. Payroll- SalaryLevels, UnionContracts 25 10. ProfessionalDevelopmentProgram 29 11. SchoolImprovementPlans 31 12. TimeandLearning 31 13. CoursesandClassSizes 32 14. Technology 33 15. TextbooksandInstructionalSupplies 34 16. TestScores 35 17. ManagementandPersonnelPractices 40 18. accountingandreporting 43 19. ReviewofExpenditures 44 20. HighSchoolAccreditation 44 21. Grade3 Transiency 45 22. SpecialEducationand TransitionalBilingualEducation 46 23. DropoutAND Truancy 48 24. MaintenanceandCapitalImprovement 50 25. CurriculumDevelopment 50 IV. EMPLOYEE SURVEY 51 V. SUPERINTENDENT'S STATEMENT- EDUCATION REFORM 52 VI. APPENDIX 53 Digitized by the Internet Archive 2014 in https://archive.org/details/cambridgepublicsOOnnass January 2000 Cambridge Public Schools Review Introduction I. The Massachusetts Education ReformAct (MERA) of1993 hasthree majorgoals: to increase studentachievement; to achieve adequatefunding forall local and regional school districts overa seven-yearperiod; and to bring equityto localtaxation efforts based on a community's abilityto pay. In February 1997, the Governorissued Executive Order393toevaluatethe education reform programthatwas nearing the end ofitsfourth year. In FY97, Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.) Ch. 70 state aid foreducation had reached $2.1 billion. With an investmentofthis magnitude in the Commonwealth's schools, it is criticalto "review, investigate and reporton the expenditures offunds by school districts, including regional school districts, consistent with the goals ofimproving student achievement." Tothatend. Executive Order393 established the Education ManagementAccountability Board (EMAB). Chapter70 state aid has reached $2.8 billion in FY2000. The Secretary ofAdministration and Finance, serving as chiefofstafftothe EMAB, selected a team ofauditorsfrom the DepartmentofRevenue's (DOR) Division ofLocal Services (DLS) to conductthe school district reviews. DOR's DirectorofAccounts is the chiefinvestigatorwith authorityto examine municipal and school department accounts and transactions pursuantto M.G.L. Ch. 44, §§45 and 46A. The reviews are conducted in consultation with the StateAuditorand the CommissionerofEducation. The Cambridge Public Schools (CPS) isthe eighteenth school district reviewed under Executive Order 393. The auditteam began the review ofCPS in August 1999, and completed it in October 1999. As partofthis review, the auditteam conducted a confidential survey ofemployees ofthe school district and included the results in this report. School officials cooperated fullywith the auditteam. The Executive Summary includes some ofthe more significantobservations and findings ofthe review ofCPS's operations. When possible, the auditteam has identified and presented best practices, which may be adapted by otherschool districts. The reportdiscusses all results, best practices and deficiencies, ifany, in greaterdetail in the "General Conditions and Findings"section. II. Executive Summary SUMMARY Cambridge made limited progress priorto 1998 addressing issues ofeducation reform. There is little evidence ofa districtwide effortto improvethe system as envisioned by the education reform law. Priorto 1998 principalswere notformallyevaluated. Elementary principals had twoyearcontractswith the same ending date and received the same salary. Therewas no professional development plan submitted to DOE Executive Order393 - Education ManagementAccountability Board 1 January2000 Cambridge Public Schools Review before 1998/99. Afour phase system ofevaluation forteachers had noformal evaluation forphases ll-IV. Individual schools presented budgets beforethe school committee afterpresenting themtothe Superintendent. Therewere no clearlines of accountability or reporting forcurriculum, professional developmentortesting. The current superintendentwas hired in 1997 and has initiated a numberofpractices based on system wide needs. The improvements are geared in partto provide central leadership and coordinated effortsforimprovementofa systemthatclearly lacked unified direction and accountability. Testscores aregenerally belowstate averages. Exceptforgradeten English LanguageArts, MCAS 1998 scores showed thatthedistrictscored slightly belowthe state averageforall students in all subjectareas. MCAS 1999 scores showed the district belowthe state average in all subjectareas. SATscores have consistently been belowthe state average. CPS had a student population of7,825 and a budgetof$90.2 million in FY98. This allowed Cambridgeto spend well abovethe state averagefor netschool spending per student. In FY98 CPS spent $11,260 perstudent. The all/student/all/FTEteacher ratiofor FY 98was 11.1 whilethe state averagewas 14.2. The districtaverageteacher salaryforFY 98was $51,591 or 17.1 percent higherthan the state average. Enrollment increased by only2.7 percentfrom Octoberof 1988 to Octoberof 1997 whilethe state average increased 15.1 percentforthis same period. Enrollment has declined from 8,233 in FY95to 7,825 in FY98. SPED, as a percentageoftotal enrollment, was 25.3% for FY98. SPED programs, excluding salaries, increased 36.2% from FY93to FY98. Sincethe beginning ofeducation reformthe district has spentover 150 percentoftheirfoundation budgettarget. Unlike mostcommunities in Massachusetts, Cambridge nevercuttheirschool budgetduring theearly ninetieswhen fiscal pressureswere strong. CPS did develop a school improvement plan handbook in 1996 thatstrengthened school councils. School improvement planswere similarin structure, content, and followed the CPS handbook and education reform guidelines. The plans address a two yearperiod and currentplansdo not includewritten assessments ofgoalsfromthe 1996 plans. Since 1998 the school committee has set policyforfunding forschool improvementplans, a Professional DevelopmentCenter, and technologysupportfor schools. THE FOUNDATION BUDGET • CPS has exceeded the netschool spending requirements asdetermined by DOE in all fiscal yearsfrom FY94to FY98. In FY98, the districts local and state percentages ofactual netschool spending were 94.7 percentand 5.3 percent respectively. FY98 salaries and fringe benefits accounted for76.1 percentofthe school operating budget. [See Sections 5 and 6] Executive Order393 - Education ManagementAccountability Board 2 January 2000 Cambridge Public Schools Review • In FY94 the required netschool spending was set at $75.5 million by DOEwhich is 166.7 percentofthefoundation budget. In FY98 this requirementdropped to 144.8 percentofthe foundation budget. [See Section 5] • The foundation budgetdoes not mandate spending in any specific category. To encourage appropriate levels ofspending, M.G.L. Ch70 §9 requiresthata school district reporttothe CommissionerofEducation when it hasfailed to meet foundation budgetspending levelsforprofessional development, books and equipment, expanded program and extraordinary maintenance. CPS did notmeet these levelsforanyyears in the extraordinary maintenance and expanded program categories. CPS did meetthese requirementsforprofessional development in FY97 and forbooks and equipment in FY96 through FY98. CPS did notfile a reportas required by law nordid DOE direct itto do so. [See Section 7] STUDENTACHIEVEMENT • Exceptforgradeten English LanguageArts, MCAS 1998 scores showed thatthe districtscored slightly belowthe state averageforall students in all subjectareas. MCAS 1999 scores showed the district belowthe state average in all subject areas. MEAP, the state's educational testing program from 1988to 1996, showed thatCPS increased slightly in all foursubject mattersforgrades4 and 8 between 1988 and 1996. The 1998 statewide Iowa tests indicated that68 percentofCPS grade 3 students placed intothe proficientoradvanced categories in fundamental skills ofreading. [See Section 16, Appendices C and D] GOVERNANCEAND MANAGEMENT POWERS • Until FY98, undertheformersuperintendent, manyschools utilized theirown curriculum, textbooks, and instructional material. Individual school budgetswere presented tothe school committee. Administrative and principal meetingswere held separately. Principals did not have hiring decision making authority norwere theyformallyevaluated. Therewere no clearlines ofaccountabilityorreporting forcurriculum, professional developmentortesting. A new superintendent, hired in 1997, instituted management practicesto reflect system wide needs. Hiring has becomethe responsibility ofthe principals. Full administrative meetings and a budgetadvisory council were instituted. Directors ofcurriculum were added forall core subject areas. The school committee set policies on professional development, school improvementplans and technology support. [See Section 17] STUDENT/FTE TEACHER STAFFING • Between FY93 and FY98, thetotal numberofFTEteachers increased by 19.0, or 2.8 percent, from 673.2 to 692.2. The all student/all FTEteacher/ratio decreased Executive Order393 - Education ManagementAccountability Board 3 January2000 Cambridge PublicSchools Review from 11.7:1 to 11.1:1. The FY98 ratio of 11.1:1 is lowerthanthe FY98 state average of 14.2:1. The district FY98 all student/non-SPED, ESL & Bilingual teacherratio of 15.7:1 is lessthan the FY98 state average of 18.1:1. [See Section 8] TEACHER COMPENSATION • Between FY93 and FY98, expendituresforsalaries rose $9.2 million or 19.2 percent. Totalteaching salaries rose $5.9 million or 19.5 percent, reflecting additional spending fornewstaffand salary increases in teachers' contracts. Union contractannual increases plus step increasesforteachers have increased by43.2 percentfrom 1993to 1998. Thedistrict FY98 averageteachersalary reported to DOE of$51,591 was $7,540 or 17.1 percent higherthan the state average of$44,051. [See Section 9] PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT • Priorto school year 1998/99 CPS did not have anycentralized professional development, nordid theysubmita professional developmentplanto DOE. CPS metthe professional development legal minimum spending requirementsfor FY95 through FY98. [See Section 10] TIMEAND LEARNING • CPS met DOE'Stime requirements in all levelsforthe 1997/98 school yearwith a schedule of 1008 hours atthe high, 990 atthe middle and 990 hours atthe elementary level. [See Section 12] TECHNOLOGY • Cambridge has made a majorcommitmenttotechnology. The city is currently installing awide area networkconnecting all city agencies including all school facilities. CPS has committed $2.9 million overthe past4yearsto upgrade and improvetechnologyand is installing local area networkswithin each school and between buildings. The school system has morethan 2000 instructional based computers, 30 servers and all schools are connected tothe internetfor instructional purposes. The majorityofinstructional computers are Pentium level orbetterwith an apple platform configuration. [See Section 14] DISTRICT ISSUES • In verifying the accuracy ofthe enrollment numbers, the auditteam noted several variances between the numbers maintained by CPS enrollmentsystem and those reported to DOE on the October 1 foundation enrollment report. Specifically, our review offoundation enrollment reports revealed both overstated and understated Executive Order393 - Education ManagementAccountability Board 4 January 2000 Cambridge Public Schools Review student populations. The districtcould not providethe auditteamwith sufficient documentation to fullydetermine enrollmentdiscrepancies. [See Section 1] • There is no centralized textbook adoption policy and no consistent system wide approval fortexts in mostsubjectareas. Textbooks varyatgrade level throughout the district. Sometexts are over20 years old and are still being utilized. Textbooks are reviewed and approved bythe building principal, department head, ormedia specialist. BEST PRACTICES • The district has a comprehensive budget processwith a documentcontaining sections pertaining to mission statementand goals, the superintendent 's proposed budget, policy recommendations on the budget, school profiles, program narratives and an extensive appendix section. A budgetadvisory committee is in its second year. This year round budget council is made up ofparents, administrators and community membersthatserve in an ongoing advisory capacitytothe Superintendenton budgetand financial policy matters. Auditee's Response The auditteam held an exitconferencewith the Superintendentand her administrative staffon January 5, 2000. Theteam invited CPSto suggest specific technical corrections and make a formal written response. Review Scope In preparation forthe school district reviews, the auditteam held meetingswith officialsfrom DOE, the StateAuditor's Office and otherstatewide organizations such asthe MassachusettsTaxpayers Foundation, the Massachusetts Municipal Association and the MassachusettsAssociation ofSchool Superintendents. The audit team also read published reports on educational and financial issuesto preparefor the school district reviews. While on site, DOE provided data including the end-of-year reports, foundation budgets, evaluations oftest resultsforCPS students, aswell as statewide comparative data. The DOR's Division ofLocal Services Municipal Data Bank provided demographic information, community profiles and overall state aid data. While on site, the auditteam interviewed officials including, but not limited to, the Mayor, the city auditor, the school committee chair, the school Superintendent, the executive directorofmanagementservices, the city budget manager, the directorof pupil services, principals, and the directors ofcurriculum and technology. Documents reviewed included vendorand personnel contracts, invoices, payroll data, statistics on students and teachers aswell astest results and reports submitted to DOE. Executive Order393 - Education ManagementAccountability Board 5 January2000 Cambridge PublicSchools Review In keeping with the goals setoutbythe EMAB, the school district reviewwas designed to determinewhetheror not basicfinancial goals related toeducation reform have been met. The auditteam gathered data related to performance such astest scores, studenttoteacherratios and class sizesto show results and operational trends. However, this reportdoes not intend to presenta definitive opinion regarding thequality ofeducation in CPS, orits successesorfailures in meeting particular education reform goals. Rather, it is intended to presenta relevantsummaryofdata tothe EMABforevaluation and comparison purposes. Thefocus ofthis reviewwas on operational issues. Itdid notencompass all ofthe teststhatare normally partofa year-end financial auditsuch as: reviewofinternal controls; cash reconciliation ofaccounts; testing compliancewith purchasing and expenditure laws and regulations; and generallyaccepted accounting principles. The district provided a copy ofthe ComprehensiveAnnual Financial report(CAFR). The auditteam tested financial transactions on a limited basis only. The auditteam also excluded federal and state grants, revolving accounts and studentactivityaccounts. The auditteam did notteststatistical data relating toenrollment, testscores and other measures ofachievement. This report is intended forthe information and use of EMAB and CPS. However, this report is a matterofpublic record and its distribution is not limited. 11. General Conditions and Findings 1. Cannbridge Overview DOE classifiesthe city ofCambridge as an urbanized center. Its 1996 population was 93,707, down 2.0 percentfrom 1990. It is located approximatelytwo mileswestof Boston and is governed bya City Managerform ofgovernmentwith nine councilors and sixschool committee members elected at large by Proportional Representation (PR)for a two yearterm. Aftermembers ofthe Counciltakethe oath ofoffice in Januarythey electone ofthe nineto serve as Mayor, who acts as chairman ofthe school committee. Two ofCambridge's largestemployers are MITand Harvard University. Theyemploy 7,745 and 7,394 respectively. In 1994the cityvoted to abolish rentcontrol. Like many Massachusetts school districts, Cambridgefaced budgetary pressures in the early 1990's as a resultofan economic recession and the associated decline in municipal state aid foreducation. Contrarytothese pressuresthe cityofCambridge annually increased funding tothe school departmentbudget. Executive Order393 - Education ManagementAccountability Board 6

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.