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

78 Pages·2000·3.5 MB·English

by  Massachusetts. Education Management Accountability Board

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