Curriculum Management Audit of the Wauwatosa School District On site review June 4-6, 2008 Audit Report September

1. Curriculum Management Audit of the Wauwatosa School District On site review – June 4-6, 2008 Audit Report – September 2008

2. Team Members Betty Bates, M.S., Educational Consultant, Dekalb, Texas Patricia Dickson, M.A., Educational Consultant, Los Gatos, CA Mark Weinberg, M.A., Director of Academic Accountability, Michigan Dr. Audrey Hains, Lead Auditor, Consultant, Florida

3. Audit Criteria 1 Control 2 Direction 3 Connectivity and Equity 4 Feedback 5 Productivity

4. Alignment of the Three Elements Quality Control

5. Sources for the Audit Documents On-site Observation Interviews

6. What You Asked the Audit To Do Review District’s current state of planning Review District’s current state of execution Review District’s evaluation practices as they pertain to curriculum With intent to provide a system that is flexible, adaptable, and supportive of a continuous improvement model to create and sustain high levels of student achievement in a complex and rapidly changing learning environment.

7. Standard 1: The School District Demonstrates Its Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel. Finding 1.1: Existing policies and Administrative Regulations/Procedures are inadequate to provide for local control of the curriculum. However, if proposed policies are adopted in addition to the existing policies, then policies would be rated as adequate by audit standards. Working with NEOLA for past 2 years Planned adoption by December 2008 Missing: program integration and alignment to curriculum; training for staff in the delivery of the curriculum; program-centered budget process

8. Finding 1.2: Evidence of planning was found in the Wauwatosa School District, and most department and school level plans show connections to the system-level plan. However, most plans lack sufficient clarity about objectives, strategies, and action steps; and there is insufficient monitoring and evaluation to promote desired change. No one Board policy requires comprehensive planning process, coordination of all planning, prioritization, sequencing, or monitoring of a long range plan Audit criteria met: Vision/Direction; emergent fluid planning, deliberate congruent actions, aligned professional development (some areas) Audit criteria not met: data – driven, budget planning, day-to-day decisions (lack of prior planning) Direct action limited by lack of clarity about objectives, strategies, and action steps Monitoring of implementation and evaluation of progress inconsistent to determine effectiveness – reports are made to Board Lack of clear definition of Curriculum Council – scope of work, authority, decision making process Sample comment: “We don’t execute things well. We give the public a prioritized list but not the steps on what to do next.”

9. Finding 1.2 - Planning Long Range Plan in early stages of implementation 6 goals – reasonable but very broad requiring in-depth work on multiple fronts 31 major actions/strategies with 12-69 action steps under each goal- many taking place simultaneously – some inadequate linkage with goal Primary responsibility – heavy on Director of Student Learning or TBD Very ambitious – possible??? Not fiscally identified or prioritized- “Addressed when funding needs emerged” Lacking in-depth staff development for implementation : differentiated curriculum; achievement data analysis Some overlapping of objectives and action plans Lacking over-all evaluation process of Long Range Plan Long Range Plan Coordinator – first step in monitoring plan

10. Finding 1.2 – School Plans Criteria met: congruence and connectivity with district plan; reasonable and clear (but broad); emergent (annual change) Criteria not met: change strategies (staff development); integration of goals and actions; evaluation plan (some specific – some not); monitoring; evaluation Consistency among all school plans lacking

11. Finding 1.3: The organization chart does not meet audit criteria for determining sound general management of the school district. Job descriptions do not provide clear specifications of responsibilities, relationship, and linkage to curriculum and do not match the current organization chart. Span of Control – Sup’t. exceeds range of 7-12 for direct supervision Chain of Command – positions reporting to more than one supervisor (Content Team Leaders report to 3) Logical Grouping of Functions – team approach to evaluation of Principals – some evaluators not educators Separation of Line and Staff Functions – met Scalar Relationships – Coordinators on same level as Directors; Supervisors as Specialists, etc. (not similar responsibilities, authority, compensation) Full Inclusion – met DRAFT policies require development and use of job descriptions Job Descriptions – 17 percent determined adequate or above Received 19 job descriptions for 43 positions on Organization Chart – not all match current Chart

12. Standard 2: The School District Has Established Clear and Valid Objectives for Students Finding 2.1: A curriculum development plan is provided in new board policy and administration procedures but lacks necessary components to effectively direct district curriculum design and delivery. Policy and Administrative Procedure 7003 Met 2/3 of audit criteria: philosophical framework, periodic review cycle; roles and responsibilities; some format and components for guides; use of state and national standards; focused student objectives/expectations; belief regarding assessment of curriculum; staff development linkage; monitoring delivery of curriculum; communication plan regarding curriculum Not met: stages of curriculum development; multiple contexts and cognitive types not required; differentiation of instruction and selection of student objectives; procedures for use of assessment data; procedures for conducting formative and summative evaluations Comment: “We’ve gotten too fragmented over the years. The problem has become glaring and there’s no way to do the vertical articulation.”

13. Finding 2.2 The scope of the district curriculum is adequate with the inclusion of “Build Your Own Curriculum” documents. Audit permits 30% leeway - written curriculum for every course 96.5% of the subjects and courses offered have written curriculum – including “Build Your Own Curriculum”- 304 guides analyzed Board Policy requires hard-copy for every course – not followed Comment: “We do have some independent practitioners that close the door and do their own thing.” Comment: “There’s a need for a written curriculum, particularly in language arts. We need a curriculum that’s institutionalized, not a cult of personality. We can’t have a curriculum that requires seeing it from only one person’s perspective.”

14. Finding 2.3: The district curriculum guides do not meet minimum aligned audit criteria for high quality curriculum to direct instruction and improve student achievement. Clarity and specificity of objectives – 2.23 (possible 3) – lacking specificity on quality of performance; inclusion of time allocation varied Assessment - 0.47 – most guides did not address assessment of the objective Prerequisite skills – 3 Major instructional resources - 0.97 – most vague or no reference Instructional approaches – 0.93 – vague or no reference Lacking: common vocabulary and format

15. Finding 2.3 – Curriculum Guides (Further Analysis of 4 core content areas for Internal Consistency) Replication of WI Model Academic Standards in some but absent in others (Math, Science) Articulation of standards: most samples showed extensions of prior learning through the grades – Social Studies least Congruence of Instructional Resources, Strategies, Assessment with Objectives: lacking or weak Cognitive complexity ranged from knowledge through evaluation Allows for wide variations on what gets taught as well as level of mastery Expectation/direction for rigor and extension of learning beyond basic information????

16. Standard 3: The School District Demonstrates Internal Consistency and Rational Equity in Its Program Development and Implementation. Finding 3.1: Achievement gaps among student groups are likely to persist without a change in expectations and practices that include addressing the imbalance in racial representation in programs, disciplinary actions, and comparison with teacher demographics. Beliefs: “We believe in respecting and promoting diversity”; “We believe in excellence” – District commitment Long Range Plan – “All students will demonstrate proficiency of the WI Model Academic Standards”; “All students will be prepared for post high school courses” Disproportional representation – students and staff in gender and ethnicity – lack of role models; someone to turn to More males in Sp. Ed., Limited Eng., Title I, Elem. GT More females in HS AP courses More Af. Am. In Sp. Ed program, Title I More Asian students in ELL, GT, AP More White students in GT

17. Finding 3.1 – Achievement Gaps Students with disabilities, low SES students, Af.Am. lowest performing subgroups; ELL lower than Eng. proficient Females outperformed males Years to Parity – if you continue practices that you are doing with no changes, parity between groups will be reached: Few groups in 2 yrs.; many never; for some the gap will be greater Concerns about GT program; ELL program; Sp Ed program – meeting the needs of the students???? Dependent on teacher More males suspended and expelled More Af. AM. Students expelled and retained; more White students suspended District dropout rate lower than state but won’t remain if current dropout rate continues for males, Asians, Af. Am., and students with disabilities Only females and White students met or exceeded NCLB Graduation rate Unsuccessful in overcoming the predictable variable of race, poverty, and gender

18. Finding 3.2: Staff development is inadequately planned, coordinated, monitored, and evaluated system-wide and does not consistently provide sufficient in-depth training for successful implementation in the classroom leading to increased student achievement. Wide variety offered- valued and supported by policy Criteria met: policy; mission; variety of approaches Partially met: data-driven; necessary funding; research-based approaches Not met: system-wide coordination; framework for integrating innovations to mission; long range approach; systematic approach; aligned with district goals; phases of change process (initiation, implementation, institutionalization); based on learning process; follow-up application; expectation for staff development role; evaluation process with results based on actual changes in behavior Weakest – moving learning into practice; much at awareness level; in-depth knowledge for implementation lacking Professional Learning Communities and Early Release Time - newly initiated - unresolved issues: consistent implementation; guidelines for use of specialists; alignment with district initiatives Comment: “There should be comprehensive staff development for everyone –administrators and all staff. We need a subject-area focus-a systemic approach.”

19. Finding 3.3 Instructional practices are not well aligned with the district’s stated expectations for effective teaching and learning. District expectations: productive, task-centered learning environments; opportunities for active student participation and choice; varied teaching methods; use of technology for instruction; alignment to State Standards; academic rigor; focus on thinking process; differentiation; frequent feedback to learners Observation done near end of school year; after HS final exams; some on fieldtrips Some of the expectations observed in classrooms Mostly, traditional, teacher-centered, whole group instruction strategies focused on knowledge and comprehension types of thinking

20. Standard 4: The School District Uses the Results from System-Designed and/or Adopted Assessments to Adjust, Improve, or Terminate Ineffective Practices or Programs. Finding 4.1: Student and program assessment planning is inadequate to guide systemic decision making for improving student achievement. Scattered evidence of assessment planning – Board policies, Long Range Plan – lacking a formalized, systematized process 47% of criteria met Criteria met: Bd. Policy; list of assessment tools, direction on use of diverse assessment strategies; connection between district, state, and national assessments; overall assessment procedures and analysis procedures regarding curriculum effectiveness; addressing equity issues; communicating assessment results Criteria not met: formative and summative assessment system; frequent diagnostic assessment for differentiated instruction; roles and responsibilities of staff in assessment; requiring aligned assessment examples in curriculum; component of program assessment and use of this data; staff development on assessment; monitoring use of formative and summative assessments; use of program assessment data for cost-benefit analysis. Lacking: systemic approach/process that would yield and utilize data effectively Need to develop attitude and process that asks “how do we know this is effective”

21. Finding 4.2: The scope of assessment is inadequate to guide curriculum and instructional decision making. Audit has 30% leeway – assessment for every course desired – 70% of courses assessed is adequate District K-12 assessment 22% of courses taught- inadequate All assessed in reading and most in math; no common assessments for science and social studies State assessments – mainly WKCE tests; no additional common assessments in HS Had tried to implement Level II assessments but ceased using as a system; still used in communicative arts and world language courses Piloted MAP assessments this past year – reading, language usage, math

22. Finding 4.3: Student performance on the state tests is at or above state averages, but trend data show little change in average student passing rates over a five-year period. Overall achievement stable in most subject areas and grade levels; high performing district District Goal 2007-08: decrease number of grade 3-8 and 10 students who do not score proficient or higher on WKCE-CRT by 10 percent – used for analysis of test scores Little progress being made; some areas decline in number of students meeting goal “Data Retreats” initiated to analyze data for use in the classroom – no measurable impact noted Comment: “Using assessment to drive teaching is the area I’d like to focus on next.”

23. Finding 4.4: There is no formalized systemic procedure to adopt, implement, continue, or eliminate a program or intervention. Number of programs/interventions implemented at District level and more at school level –no formalized process for development, implementation, or evaluation of these endeavors 101 total – 23 District level; 78 school level Indepth analysis of ELIP (Early Literacy Intervention Program) – “put on ice” due to small number of students served Met all criteria for effective innovation and intervention design: documented need, allocation of resources; purpose of program; process for implementing program including staff development; resources needed identified for short and long term implementation; formative and summative assessment tied to program Challenge for district: find effective and efficient means to gather and analyze data; common measures that will provide comparisons Comment: “We start too many initiatives without asking the questions that need answering.”

24. Standard 5: The School District Has Improved Productivity. Finding 5.1: Long range planning provides some direction for the budgeting process, but budgeting practices do not permit educational priorities to be connected to the financial plan of the district, nor do they permit or encourage cost-benefit analyses. Long Range Plan – budgetary amounts not noted for action items Board policies expect development of budget to needs of curriculum- no expectation that budget presented in cost-benefit analyses Business Services Director meets with Superintendent to set priority needs based on Long Range Plan Criteria partially met: flexibility permitted in budget allocations based on changing needs or priorities; priorities set by key educational staff including teacher and Principal suggestions Criteria not met: connections between assessments of effectiveness and allocation of resources; cost benefits in curriculum programming; budget request presented with evaluation of results; budget requests compete for funding based upon evaluation of criticality of need and effectiveness of performance Approach used was justification for reduction – Comment: “I don’t know how they make budget cuts. They just do it.”

25. Finding 5.2: The integration of technology as an instructional tool for advancing student learning is inadequately planned for execution of district expectations. Compliance with State law – long range plan Long Range Plan – action steps include integration of technology into learning process – not required in Bd. Policy 70% of criteria met to be adequate; 64% was met Criteria met in Technology Plan: program philosophy/vision; comprehensive view; measurable student goals and objectives; ongoing program assessment; comprehensive staff training with standards; internet access standards; role of school library; implementation budget; site plans aligned with District plan Criteria not met: Board policy requiring integration; technology standards for each site for needs assessment; ongoing student assessment; school site equipment standards; maintenance budget Comment: “Teachers’ willingness to integrate technology in the classroom varies. Part of the problem is that there never has been a good approach (to staff development) in the past; it was more autonomous.” Use of technology varies; comment: “It is more often by choice that a teacher uses technology.”

26. Recommendations Recommendation 1: Revise planning efforts to provide clear direction, coordination, prioritization, and sequencing of all initiatives at all levels of the system. Require consistent monitoring and reporting of progress on all plans to key stakeholders to promote accountability and alignment to district goals. Adopt DRAFT policies and augment as each recommendation notes Board Policies – development to include preplanning, monitoring, evaluation, relationship to budget, prioritization of goals/action plans Include District planning and adherence to in job descriptions and appraisal documents Use audit criteria to guide District planning, (i.e. feasibility, thinking ahead to anticipate challenges) Reporting on all planning (Technology, Curriculum, Assessment) with relationship to Long Range Plan – monitor and evaluate all plans/planning based on this

27. Recommendation 2: Revise and formalize curriculum management processes to provide district-wide direction for the design, delivery, monitoring, and evaluation of quality aligned curriculum for all subjects taught. Adopt and augment DRAFT and existing policies Need a systematic approach – umbrella framework – formalized process for development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of curriculum for all departments/curriculum areas Use audit criteria for direction Develop consistent format, common vocabulary One curriculum area for 1st year Get teacher input along the way regarding DRAFTs, piloting use of guide Provide training for all staff on using this curriculum guide; monitor use of guide in classrooms Accelerate the process with 2 curriculum areas the next year, etc.

28. Recommendation 3: Accelerate progress in overcoming system inequities and inequalities based on ethnicity, gender, disability, and socioeconomic status as one of the district-wide initiatives in the planning process. Reaffirm high expectations for achievement of all students; policy of commitment to equal access to all services and equitable distribution of resources Include in action steps of Long Range Plan Monitor and analyze formative and summative data pertaining to equity on a consistent basis Review site-based decisions using policy direction In-depth training for all staff on cultural diversity through instructional strategies/decisions – establish a common vocabulary Coaching and modeling of differentiated instruction Monitoring of implementation of staff training

29. Recommendation 4: Establish a centralized professional development program that provides coordinated training in the essential competencies for the effective delivery of the written curriculum, including institutionalization of district expectations for best practices. Adopt and augment existing policies and DRAFT policies- evaluation of staff development in terms of student achievement and staff competence in classroom Assign responsibility to one Central Office person – focus on district priorities, delivery and assessment of curriculum and learning 3-5 key areas of focus over 3-5 yrs. – in-depth training Establish, implement, and monitor clear expectations and procedures for Professional Learning Communities

30. Recommendation 5: Implement and support through adequate staff development a balanced assessment system, coupled with procedures to use the data to guide instructional decisions, for initiation, revision, continuation, or elimination of classroom, school, and district practices, programs, and interventions. Adopt and augment policies and DRAFT policies- student and program evaluation formalized process for initiation, implementation, and evaluation Framework for formalized process of assessment – develop a “mind set” about evaluation Require use of evaluation data for decision-making Assign assessment responsibilities to one central person –District and school evaluations In-depth professional development for administrators and teachers on use and analysis of data – timely availability a necessity Develop in-house or purchase common assessments – provide in-depth professional development on use prior to implementation, during implementation, and in use of data collected Monitor the use of assessment data in classroom and use in curriculum and program development and revision/elimination

31. Recommendation 6: Develop an organization chart with corresponding written job descriptions and appraisals that will provide sound management with focus on the design and delivery of curriculum. Policy – require organization chart that meets audit criteria (Adopt DRAFT policy on job descriptions)- policy that aligns staff appraisal instruments with job descriptions Emphasize curriculum design and delivery responsibilities in all job descriptions and appraisal instruments (Audit criteria) Phasing in of changes to present Organization Chart – new hirees

33. Organization Chart Intent – supervision/evaluation of Principals to Superintendent: direct line Intent – compact number reporting to Superintendent: change Director of Recreation to Supervisor of Recreation reporting to Director of Business Services; eliminate Technology Coordinator- change to Supervisor of Assessment/Evaluation reporting to Director of Student Learning; Change title of LRP/Alumni Coordinator to LRP/Alumni Administrative Assistant reporting to Superintendent Intent – establish assessment/evaluation system: Supervisor of Assessment/Evaluation Intent - systematize curriculum and delivery of curriculum: Content Team Leaders and Instructional Technology Specialist report to Supervisor of Student Learning Intent – align technical aspect of technology: Communication Technology Specialist and Co-Network Specialists report to Director of Business Services through Manager of Business and Grounds Learning Coordinators rotating positions with expertise in curriculum area that data demonstrates need

34. Recommendation 7: Develop and implement a budgeting process that aligns district and building level resources to curricular goals and strategic priorities. Include systematic cost-benefit analyses using assessment data to assure that expenditures are producing desired results and are directed to the areas of greatest need. Adopt and augment policies pertaining to budgeting process that will provide cost-benefit analyses Include financial estimates in Long Range Plan; use these in process of prioritizing action steps based on need Initiate and implement curriculum-driven budget process through open communication with all staff and community Initiate and implement cost-benefit analysis process in developing the budget through open communication Maintain role and responsibility of Superintendent the oversight of financial decision making that aligns long range planning across the district

35. Audit PremisesDistrict – School Responsibilities School – Based Means Instruction Strategies Groupings Processes Resources Programs (all accountable to system) System – Based Ends Mission Standards Goals and Priorities Student Objectives Student Assessments