Some in the media jumped quickly to report that an audit conducted by Curriculum Management Systems, Inc. of the Tucson Unified School District was “brutal.” They only wrote of the audit based on the limited information available in a presentation to the District’s Governing Board members last week.
The District had refused to turn over the audit (to view click here) for in-depth review until Monday, despite repeated requests for the document from the Arizona Daily Independent.
After several attempts by Board members to obtain the document, the Board members were finally notified, on Monday, that the audit is now available on the District’s website for public review.
The limited information the media received early was spun exactly as the District’s Superintendent H.T. Sanchez had intended; ‘We are a mess. We don’t meet state standards. Give us money to buy new Common Core curricula, texts, and materials for our schools.’
However, what Board President member Adelita Grijalva, who is up for re-election this year, hoped would be swept under the rug was the finding that “the governing board’s operations and activities provided an inadequate policy framework to guide the system in delivering high quality, equitable, and adequate student achievement.”
Board member Michael Hicks said, “The auditors leave little doubt about why families have been leaving the District and why teachers are so frustrated. Now, the public needs to hold the District responsible. We need the public to elect Board members who are dedicated to real reform.”
While the Governing Board has been busy developing sensitive bathroom policies for a handful of students, the audit found that “current policies and regulations are inadequate to establish and direct a sound curriculum management system and to provide a framework for quality control of the educational program and organizational operations.”
The auditors found the Board “policies, rules, and regulations to be inadequate in both content and specificity to guide all necessary aspects of curriculum management and the educational programs. Several policies in the curriculum management areas of control, direction, connectivity and equity, feedback, and productivity were either weak or absent.”
Under the protest of Governing Board members Michael Hicks and Mark Stegeman, the Board has refused to even follow state law which requires them to review and approve curriculum. Instead, the majority of the Board abdicated that responsibility in the adoption of almost all the curriculum and texts, except in the instance of the Culturally Relevant and Mexican American Studies courses.
According to the audit, the organizational chart developed by Sanchez “was found to be inadequate according to most audit criteria, and some essential and critical positions for quality control were missing.”
Auditors found, “The TUSD 2013-2014 Organizational Chart, examined by the auditors, was revised by the superintendent on August 27, 2013, and the Office of Student Equity and Intervention 2013-2014 Organizational Chart was created on November 20, 2013. The auditors found that the organizational charts did not meet audit criteria for sound organizational management, included conflicting lines of authority, and were missing key functions in curriculum management quality control…”
According to the District, “Curriculum Management Systems was contracted by TUSD to perform an extensive audit of learning systems within the district to bring to light areas that need improvements and areas that may require an overhaul in the ongoing push to close achievement gaps and improve instruction and student learning in all district schools.”
The always self-serving Sanchez said that he “knew that we would be shedding light on weakness within our district,” but that he was “okay with that because this is about fixing them and doing what’s right.”
Dr. William Poston, who led the audit for Curriculum Management Systems, provided a review of the audit at last week’s governing board meeting. In that review, he noted that the audit is meant to show areas still needing improvement and does not necessarily reflect the areas that are already doing well in the district, according to the District.
Poston said that it will take up to five years to turn the District around.
Just like his predecessor, who lasted at the District 3 years, Sanchez building a five-year strategic plan, and he is looking for data that will support his plan.
Audit finding highlights:
Finding 1.1: Board policies are inadequate to provide local curriculum management direction and to establish quality control of the educational program and organizational functions.
Finding 1.2: Some planning documents meet audit criteria to direct student achievement improvement efforts; however, they are not consistently used or implemented and require updated needs assessments, increased coordination with budget planning, and expanded informational contents to optimize the potential for attaining desired outcomes. District leaders report that they are initiating a new process that will unify several plans, integrate the priorities for improvements, and expand the inclusivity of planning participation.
Finding 1.3: The current Tucson Unified School District Administrative Organizational Chart does not meet audit criteria for sound organizational design and includes redundant and conflicting lines of authority. The organizational structure lacks crucial components, functions, and positions for effective organizational quality control.
Finding 1.4: Job descriptions are inadequate in providing position control in the district. They are lacking in clear links to chain of command for both immediate supervisors and subordinates; statements of position qualifications are incomplete.
Finding 2.1: The district lacks a comprehensive curriculum management plan to direct the development, implementation, evaluation, and modification of the district written curriculum. Current staffing at the district level is not adequate for curriculum design.
Finding 2.2: The scope of the written curriculum is inadequate to guide classroom instruction in core and non-core courses.
Finding 2.3: The quality of the written curriculum is inadequate to provide clear guidance for effective teaching and learning. Teachers report relying on a variety of sources when planning instruction, and the auditors found that the written and taught curriculum are neither articulated nor coordinated.
Finding 3.1: Direction for desired modes of instruction in governing documents is inadequate. Some elements of an instructional model are informally present, but not formalized. Auditors observed mostly large group approaches in classrooms, with varying degrees of student time-on-task.
Finding 3.2: Monitoring of instruction by building principals occurs inconsistently across the district. There is inadequate direction for the purposes of and procedures for monitoring in district documents.
Finding 3.3: District programs for exceptional education and English language learners are inadequate to provide the impetus needed to eliminate the difference in achievement among student groups District programs for gifted and talented students continue to grow, but current delivery models fail to offer equal opportunities for access.
Finding 3.4: The district lacks a formal professional development plan to increase teacher growth, provide the necessary support for curriculum implementation, and support school improvement and student achievement.
Finding 3.5: The district has been under court order for more than 34 years to create a unitary system that provides equity and equal opportunity for all students. Efforts to achieve those ends have been ineffective. Practices have perpetuated a two-tier system of haves and have-nots student groups.
Finding 4.1: There is no written district level comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation system plan to guide decision making for the improvement of student achievement.
Finding 4.2: The scope of the student assessment program is inadequate to provide sufficient data for instructional decision making in all areas of the curriculum at all grade levels.
Finding 4.3: Use of data is an emerging practice both at district and school levels, but there is no systemic use of data for program evaluation.
Finding 4.4: Assessment trends show improving proficiency rates for Tucson Unified School District students; however, performance remains below state and national averages
Finding 5.1: The district’s budget development and financial decision making are not driven by curricular goals, strategic priorities, and assessment data, and allocations are structured in a manner that prevents measurement of the cost-effectiveness of program activities and services.
Finding 5.2: The need for facility improvements is a priority in spite of recent progress. Improved technology systems and software are needed for both operational effectiveness and quality teaching and learning; the minimal funding of these improvements is a major roadblock for the district and some schools. Similarly, the human resource services are lagging in recruitment and hiring processes to ensure that all teaching positions are filled with qualified personnel. Student transportation continues to improve in service and efficiency.
Finding 5.3 Program interventions to improve student achievement are numerous, mainly grant dependent, and based on preliminary planning processes. However, program interventions lack policy direction, measurable performance objectives, and evaluations necessary to determine their effectiveness.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Review, revise, adopt, and implement current policies (governing board) and corresponding administrative regulations (superintendent) to obtain quality control with adequate elements of policy, planning, and organizational structures needed for sound curriculum management and to effectively accomplish the district’s mission and goals.
Recommendation 2: Modify planning processes and integrate plan documents to incorporate characteristics of effective planning practices and enhance cohesiveness of district and school documents to lead ongoing improvements of student achievement and organizational support functions. Ensure that plans are used regularly in decision making at all levels of the organization.
Recommendation 3: Adopt a policy governing administrative functions and the management of job descriptions and the table of organization. Revise the Superintendent’s Organizational Chart consistent with sound curriculum management principles for quality control. Configure personnel to reestablish quality control positions in curriculum design (development) and curriculum deployment (implementation) to ensure that the essential functions relating to curriculum design and delivery, assessments, data management and interpretation, professional development, and program evaluation are properly managed. Prepare and adopt a set of quality job descriptions to better define role responsibilities and supervisory functions
Recommendation 4: Develop and implement a comprehensive curriculum management system that coordinates and focuses all curriculum management functions; prioritizes curriculum development in all content areas; incorporates clear expectations for rigor in instruction as well as in student materials and resources; supports instruction that is culturally responsive; requires the development of deeply aligned, authentic formative and diagnostic assessment tools; and defines and prioritizes the effective delivery of curriculum in every grade level and course.
Recommendation 5: Establish and implement policies and procedures to provide equal access to comparable programs, services, and opportunities. Eliminate the achievement gap between ethnic groups.
Recommendation 6: Develop a comprehensive district plan for student assessment and program evaluation aligned with the district’s strategic and curriculum plans that provides for the systematic collection, analysis, dissemination, and application of student achievement and program evaluation results to promote improved student achievement. Expand board policies to provide direction for formative assessment development and program evaluation and develop administrative procedures that formalize the process for developing high quality formative assessments, conducting program evaluation, and using disaggregated data to improve curriculum design and instructional delivery. Develop a comprehensive district plan for student assessment and program evaluation aligned with the district’s strategic and curriculum plans that provides for the systematic collection, analysis, dissemination, and application of student achievement and program evaluation results to promote improved student achievement. Expand board policies to provide direction for formative assessment development and program evaluation and develop administrative procedures that formalize the process for developing high quality formative assessments, conducting program evaluation, and using disaggregated data to improve curriculum design and instructional delivery.
Recommendation 7: Develop a district staff development plan that incorporates an emphasis on growth in curriculum design and delivery, effective classroom strategies to engage the variety of learners, fulfillment of the Unitary Status plan, and ongoing professional growth among all employees focused on annual district student achievement goals.