A Curriculum Management Audit - Rogers School...

A Curriculum Management Auditof the

Rogers Public Schools

Rogers, Arkansas

Elementary students chart their achievement data.

International Curriculum Management Audit Center®

Phi Delta Kappa International

Eighth and UnionBloomington, Indiana 47404

March 2009

Rogers Public Schools Audit Report Page iii

A Curriculum Management Auditof the

ROGERS PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rogers, Arkansas

Conducted Under the Auspices ofInternational Curriculum Management Audit Center®

Phi Delta Kappa InternationalP. O. Box 789

Bloomington, IN 47404-0789(Copyright use authorization obtained from

Curriculum Management Systems, Inc.P. O. Box 857, Johnston, IA 50131)

Date Audit Presented: March 2009

Members of the Rogers Public Schools Audit Team:

Lead Auditor

Roger C. Antón, Jr., M.A.

Auditors

Sandra M. Blair, Ed.D. Kay Coleman, M.Ed.Ronnie Thompson, M.Ed. H. Susan Villa, Ed.D.

Rogers Public Schools Audit Report Page iv

Rogers Public Schools Audit Report Page v

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................................1

Background .................................................................................................................................................1

Audit Background and Scope of Work ..........................................................................................................3

System Purpose for Conducting the Audit ..............................................................................................4

Approach of the Audit .............................................................................................................................5

II. METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................................7

The Model for the Curriculum Management Audit .......................................................................................7

A Schematic View of Curricular Quality Control .........................................................................................7

Standards for the Auditors .............................................................................................................................8

Technical Expertise .................................................................................................................................8

The Principle of Independence ...............................................................................................................8

The Principle of Objectivity ...................................................................................................................8

The Principle of Consistency ..................................................................................................................8

The Principle of Materiality ....................................................................................................................9

The Principle of Full Disclosure .............................................................................................................9

Data Sources of the Curriculum Management Audit ..................................................................................10

Standards for the Curriculum Audit ............................................................................................................10

III. FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................................13

STANDARD 1: The School District Demonstrates Its Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel. ........13

What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Rogers Public Schools: ...........................................................13

Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Rogers Public Schools: .......................................................13

Finding 1.1: Board policies are inadequate to provide curriculum management direction and establish quality control. ......................................................................................................................................14

Finding 1.2: The table of organization does not meet all audit criteria for sound organizational design. Available job descriptions do not meet criteria for current, accurate, and clear specifi cations of responsibilities and role relationships in the district. .......................................................................19

Finding 1.3: Administrator and staff evaluation processes and parameters are clear but do not consistently emphasize student learning or results. Sample evaluations revealed a lack of suffi cient specifi city and linkage with professional development to support both individual growth and organizational effectiveness. .................................................................................................................26

STANDARD 2: The School District Has Established Clear and Valid Objectives for Students. ......................33



Finding 2.1: Some elements of curriculum planning are in place, but a formalized comprehensive management plan to guide the design and delivery of curriculum is absent. .......................................34

Rogers Public Schools Audit Report Page vi

Finding 2.2: The scope of the written curriculum, PreK-5, is adequate to provide a cohesive framework of goals and objectives for student learning; the scope of the written curriculum at the middle school and high school level is inadequate. ..............................................................................39

Finding 2.3: The quality of curriculum guides is inadequate to guide instruction and to ensure horizontal coordination and vertical articulation. ...............................................................................50

Finding 2.4: Classroom instructional practices are inconsistent with expectations stated in the district teacher evaluation form and other district documents. .........................................................................65

STANDARD 3: The School District Demonstrates Internal Consistency and Rational Equity in Its Program Development and Implementation. ....................................................................................................................77



Finding 3.1: Inequalities exist in program access and participation by ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. Student and staff demographics refl ect imbalance in ethnic representation. .78

Finding 3.2: Inequalities exist in retention, suspension, dropout, and graduation rate data based upon demographics, gender and ethnicity. ....................................................................................................93

Finding 3.3: Design and delivery of professional development are fragmented and are not coordinated to support curriculum and instruction. ............................................................................104

STANDARD 4: The School District Uses the Results from System-Designed and/or -Adopted Assessments to Adjust, Improve, or Terminate Ineffective Practices or Programs. ..................................................................111

What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Rogers Public Schools: .........................................................111

Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Rogers Public Schools ......................................................112

Finding 4.1: The district has no comprehensive written plan for assessing student learning and evaluating instructional programs to guide efforts to improve design and delivery of the district’s curriculum. ..........................................................................................................................................112

Finding 4.2: The scope of assessment is inadequate to comprehensively evaluate the taught curriculum. .........................................................................................................................................117

Finding 4.3: Student achievement in the aggregate is at or above state averages in all subject areas; however, a signifi cant achievement gap is evident between subgroup populations. ..........................126

STANDARD 5: The School District Has Improved Productivity. ..................................................................145

What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Rogers Public Schools: .........................................................145

Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Rogers Public Schools: .....................................................145

Finding 5.1: Financial decision making and the budget development processes lack cost-benefi t analyses and are not adequately linked to curricular goals and priorities to promote maximum educational productivity. .....................................................................................................................145

Finding 5.2: Intervention programs are not systematically aligned with the curriculum and are not effectively monitored or evaluated for impact on student achievement. Feedback on program effectiveness is not available in many instances. ................................................................................150

Finding 5.3: Facilities are well-maintained and clean and provide good space for the delivery of instruction; however, dependable access to current technology within the buildings is inconsistent, negatively impacting the utilization of available instructional resources by teachers. ......................156

Rogers Public Schools Audit Report Page vii

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PDK-CMSi CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT AUDIT TEAM FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF The Rogers Public Schools .................................................................................163

Recommendation 1: Establish expectations and system guidance through updated and new board policies and administrative guidelines to support quality control of the educational program and system operations. ...............................................................................................................................163

Recommendation 2: Develop and implement a comprehensive curriculum management system that delineates short- and long-term goals, directs curriculum revision to ensure deep alignment and quality delivery, and defi nes the instructional model district leaders expect teachers to follow in delivering the curriculum. ...................................................................................................................165

Recommendation 3: Research, identify, and implement strategies to eliminate inequities and inequalities that impede opportunities for all students to succeed. .....................................................170

Recommendation 4: Establish and implement comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation plans. Support expanded skills in data use among administrators and teachers. Include data analysis in all planning processes. ...........................................................................................172

Recommendation 5: Develop and implement professional development policies, rules, and plans that provide central control and coordination for consistency and continuity in student learning, professional development, and improvement of teaching. .................................................................174

Recommendation 6: Systematically evaluate and implement district programs and District Improvement Plan interventions based on reliable measures of student achievement data and other goal-related performance indicators. ..................................................................................................176

Recommendation 7: Develop and implement a budgeting process that aligns district- and building-level resources to curricular goals and strategic priorities. Include systematic cost-benefi t analyses using assessment data to assure that expenditures are producing desired results and are directed to the areas of greatest need. .........................................................................................................................177

Recommendation 8: Update job descriptions to provide clear role responsibilities and expectations. Revise the organizational chart to meet audit criteria and improve clarity of functional relationships. .......................................................................................................................................179

V. SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................181

VI. APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................................................185

Appendix A: Auditors’ Biographical Data .........................................................................................187

Appendix B: List of Documents Reviewed .......................................................................................189

Rogers Public Schools Audit Report Page viii

Rogers Public Schools Audit Report Page ix

Table of Exhibits

Exhibit 0.1 Student Enrollment Data ............................................................................................................2

Exhibit 1.1.1 Board Policies Reviewed by Auditors .....................................................................................15

Exhibit 1.1.2 Characteristic Qualities for Strong Curriculum Management Policies And Auditors’ Assessment of Local Policies ..................................................................................................17

Exhibit 1.2.1 Curriculum Management Audit Principles of Sound Organizational Management ................20

Exhibit 1.2.2 Table of Organization ..............................................................................................................21

Exhibit 1.2.3 Job Descriptions Included in the Table of Organization ..........................................................23

Exhibit 1.2.4 Curriculum Management Audit Rating Indicators for Job Descriptions .................................24

Exhibit 1.2.5 Rating of the Quality of Job Descriptions ...............................................................................25

Exhibit 1.3.1 Auditors’ Analysis of Elementary Formative Assessments by Domain ..................................28

Exhibit 1.3.2 Auditors’ Analysis of Elementary Summative Assessments by Domain ................................28

Exhibit 1.3.3 Auditors’ Analysis of Secondary Formative Assessments by Domain ....................................29

Exhibit 1.3.4 Auditors’ Analysis of Secondary Summative Assessments by Domain ..................................29

Exhibit 1.3.5 Auditors’ Analysis of Administrator Appraisals by Domain ...................................................30

Exhibit 2.1.1 Characteristics of a Quality Curriculum Management Plan ....................................................34

Exhibit 2.1.2 Components of a Comprehensive Curriculum Management Plan and Auditors’ Assessment of District’s Approach ..............................................................................................................36

Exhibit 2.2.1 Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 5 .........39

Exhibit 2.2.2 Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and Grade Level Middle School Courses 40

Exhibit 2.2.3 Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area High School Courses ...............................42

Exhibit 2.3.1 Curriculum Management Audit Criteria for Minimum Curriculum Guide Components and Specifi city ................................................................................................................................53

Exhibit 2.3.2 Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum Guides on the Basic Minimum Guide Components and Specifi city Criteria K-5 School Level ......................................................................................55

Exhibit 2.3.3 Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum Guides on the Basic Minimum Guide Component and Specifi city Criteria Middle School Level ................................................................................56

Exhibit 2.3.4 Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum Guides on the Basic Minimum Guide Component and Specifi city Criteria High School Level ....................................................................................58

Exhibit 2.3.5 Mean Rating of Curriculum Guides by Criterion ....................................................................63

Exhibit 2.4.1 Districtwide Teacher Instructional Activities ..........................................................................69

Exhibit 2.4.2 Elementary Teacher Instructional Activities Grades K-5 ........................................................70

Exhibit 2.4.3 Middle School Teacher Instructional Activities Grades 6-8 ....................................................70

Exhibit 2.4.4 High School Teacher Instructional Activities Grades 9-12......................................................71

Exhibit 2.4.5 Student Learning Activities Districtwide .................................................................................73

Exhibit 2.4.6 Student Instructional Behaviors Activities Grade Levels PreK–5, 6–8, and 9–12 ..................73

Exhibit 2.4.7 Cognitive Types Utilized in Classrooms .................................................................................75

Rogers Public Schools Audit Report Page x

Exhibit 2.4.8 Computer Use in Classrooms ..................................................................................................75

Exhibit 3.1.1 Ethnicity and Gender of Students and District Teachers by Percentage ..................................79

Exhibit 3.1.2 Enrollment in Special Education by Gender ...........................................................................80

Exhibit 3.1.3 Special Education Enrollment by Ethnicity .............................................................................81

Exhibit 3.1.4 Special Education Disability Types .........................................................................................82

Exhibit 3.1.5 Special Education Student Environment .................................................................................83

Exhibit 3.1.6 Advanced Placement Enrollment by Gender ..........................................................................84

Exhibit 3.1.7 Advanced Placement Enrollment by Ethnicity ........................................................................84

Exhibit 3.1.8 Special Population Groups Represented in AP Courses ..........................................................85

Exhibit 3.1.9 Gifted and Talented Enrollment by Gender .............................................................................86

Exhibit 3.1.10 Ethnic Identifi cation of Students in Gifted and Talented Education........................................87

Exhibit 3.1.11 Percentage of Free/Reduced Lunch Students by Campus .......................................................88

Exhibit 3.1.12 Allocation of Title I Funds .......................................................................................................89

Exhibit 3.1.13 Educational Costs Per Student .................................................................................................90

Exhibit 3.1.14 English Language Learner Student Enrollment by Campus ....................................................91

Exhibit 3.1.15 English Language Learner FTE Allocation .............................................................................92

Exhibit 3.2.1 Number of Elementary Retentions by Gender .........................................................................94

Exhibit 3.2.2 Number of Elementary Retentions by Ethnicity ......................................................................94

Exhibit 3.2.3 Number of K-5 Retentions by Gender by Campus ..................................................................95

Exhibit 3.2.4 Number of Middle School Retentions by Gender ...................................................................96

Exhibit 3.2.5 Number of Middle School Retentions by Ethnicity ................................................................96

Exhibit 3.2.6 Number of Middle School Retentions by Gender by Campus ................................................97

Exhibit 3.2.7 Suspensions of Various Student Groups ..................................................................................98

Exhibit 3.2.8 High School Dropouts Reported for Five Years ......................................................................99

Exhibit 3.2.9 Number of Dropouts by Grade Level ......................................................................................99

Exhibit 3.2.10 Number of Dropouts by Grade and Gender ...........................................................................100

Exhibit 3.2.11 Percent of Dropouts by Ethnicity ..........................................................................................101

Exhibit 3.2.12 Gender Graduation Rates .......................................................................................................101

Exhibit 3.2.13 Graduation Rates by Ethnicity ...............................................................................................102

Exhibit 3.2.14 Cohort 9th Grade Students to Graduation by Subgroups ........................................................103

Exhibit 3.2.15 Dropouts Cohort Group 2005-2008 .......................................................................................103

Exhibit 3.3.1 Professional Development Documents Reviewed .................................................................105

Exhibit 3.3.2 Characteristics of a Comprehensive Professional Development Program and Auditors’ Assessment of District Approach ...........................................................................................107

Exhibit 4.1.1 Documents Related to Assessment Planning ........................................................................113

Rogers Public Schools Audit Report Page xi

Exhibit 4.1.2 Characteristics of a Comprehensive Program and Student Assessment Plan and Auditors’ Rating of District’s Assessment Approach ...........................................................................115

Exhibit 4.2.1 Major Assessments of Student Performance .........................................................................118

Exhibit 4.2.2 Major Assessments of Student Performance Grades PreK to 12 ..........................................121

Exhibit 4.2.3 Scope of Grades K-5 Content Areas Formally Assessed .......................................................122

Exhibit 4.2.4 Scope of Grades 6-8 Curricular Content Areas Formally Assessed ......................................123

Exhibit 4.2.5 Scope of Grades 9-12 Curriculum Formally Assessed ..........................................................124

Exhibit 4.2.6 Summary of the Scope of Grades K-12 Assessments in Core Courses .................................125

Exhibit 4.3.1 Three Year Trend on Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Grades 3 to 9 ..............................................127

Exhibit 4.3.2 Stanford 10 Percentile Scores for 2008 Grades 1-9 ...............................................................128

Exhibit 4.3.3 Benchmark District Trend Grade 3 Literacy .........................................................................129






Exhibit 4.3.9 Percent Profi cient and Advanced Grades 3-8 Literacy Benchmark Exam 2008 ...................133

Exhibit 4.3.10 Benchmark District Trend Grade 3 Mathematics ..................................................................134






Exhibit 4.3.16 2007 Benchmark & End-of-Course Results by Subpopulations Percent of Students Profi cient or Advanced ...........................................................................................................................138

Exhibit 4.3.17 2007 Benchmark & End-of-Course Results by Subpopulations Percent of Students Profi cient or Advanced in Literacy .........................................................................................................139

Exhibit 4.3.18 2007 Benchmark & End-of-Course Results by Subpopulations Percent of Students Profi cient or Advanced in Mathematics .................................................................................................139

Exhibit 4.3.19 2007 Benchmark & End-of-Course Results for Caucasian and Hispanic Subgroups ...........140

Exhibit 4.3.20 Years to Parity for Hispanic Students with All Students Grades K-5 Adequate Yearly Progress Profi ciency Rates in Mathematics .........................................................................................141

Exhibit 4.3.21 Years to Parity for Hispanic Students with All Students Grades K-5 Adequate Yearly Progress Profi ciency Rates in Literacy .................................................................................................141

Exhibit 4.3.22 Years to Parity for Hispanic Students with All Students Grades 6-8 Adequate Yearly Progress Profi ciency Rates in Mathematics .........................................................................................142

Exhibit 4.3.23 Years to Parity for Hispanic Students with All Students Grades 6-8 Adequate Yearly Progress Profi ciency Rates in Literacy .................................................................................................142

Rogers Public Schools Audit Report Page xii

Exhibit 4.3.24 Years to Parity for Hispanic Students with All Students Grades 9-12 Adequate Yearly Progress Profi ciency Rates in Mathematics ...........................................................................143

Exhibit 4.3.25 Years to Parity for Hispanic Students with All Students Grades 9-12 Adequate Yearly Progress Profi ciency Rates in Literacy ..................................................................................143

Exhibit 5.1.1 Components of a Curriculum-Driven Budget and the Auditors’ Ratings ..............................148

Exhibit 5.2.1 Criteria for Program Interventions and Innovation Effi cacy .................................................152

Exhibit 5.2.2 K-12 Program Interventions ..................................................................................................153

Exhibit 5.2.3 Comparison of the Academic Coaches to Audit Intervention Criteria ..................................154

Exhibit 5.3.1 Quality Criteria for Instructional Technology Programs and Auditors’ Assessment .............158

Rogers Public Schools Audit Report Page xiii

Table of Photographs

Elementary students chart their achievement data. .............................................................................................. i

School bulletin board encourages parental involvement. ..................................................................................19

Middle school students are involved in a district recycle program. ..................................................................22

Pre-school students eat a nutritious lunch in class daily. ...................................................................................27

High school mascots adorn door mat at district offi ce. ......................................................................................29

Middle school students participated in a project on U.S. presidents. ................................................................35

High school students utilize an open computer lab for class instruction. ..........................................................38

Elementary school students await instruction in the school’s pullout music program. .....................................40

String orchestra is an example of middle school electives offered to students..................................................42

High school Family and Consumer Science facilities provide up-to-date equipment. ......................................50

Kindergarten students participate in whole group instruction led by their teacher. ...........................................52

Computer labs are available in elementary school libraries. .............................................................................54

Teachers helps students with concepts by using manipulatives. ........................................................................66

Literacy coaches are helping teachers track student growth through the use of “Assessment Walls.” .............68

Students concentrate on their tests better when working in their own carrels. .................................................69

Instructional technology provides students with new tools for learning. ..........................................................72

Students are involved in the fi ne arts through the high school band. ................................................................74

Elementary indoor physical education and fi tness facilities serve all students. ................................................79

Equipment for the IMPACT program used to emphasize health and wellness. .................................................88

Students enjoy lunch in clean, airy cafeteria facilities. ......................................................................................89

Collaborative planning by teachers promotes aligned and articulated decision making. ................................115

Computer labs are available in schools, but auditors observed many vacant during their school visits. ........120

Rogers Public Schools’ middle school honored as Arkansas’ fi rst “Diamond School.” ..................................128

The district board room encourages wide-spread community participation and involvement. .......................148

Fenced passageway between buildings ensures security for elementary students. .........................................158

Rogers Public Schools Audit Report Page xiv

Rogers Public Schools Audit Report Page 1

A CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT AUDIT

of the

Rogers Public SchoolsRogers, Arkansas

I. INTRODUCTIONThis document constitutes the fi nal report of a Curriculum Management Audit of the Rogers Public Schools. The audit was commissioned by the Rogers Public Schools Board of Education within the scope of its policy-making authority. It was conducted during the time period of November 17-20, 2008. Document analysis was performed off site, as was the detailed analysis of fi ndings and site visit data.

A curriculum audit is designed to reveal the extent to which offi cials and professional staff of a school district have developed and implemented a sound, valid, and operational system of curriculum management. Such a system, set within the framework of adopted board policies, enables the school district to make maximum use of its human and fi nancial resources in the education of its students. When such a system is fully operational, it assures the district taxpayers that their fi scal support is optimized under the conditions in which the school district functions.

Background

Rogers School District # 30, also referred to as the Rogers Public Schools, is located in the city of Rogers, Arkansas, in the northwest region of the state. Rogers Public Schools serves a 256-square mile area surrounding the city with 14 elementary schools, four middle schools, two high schools, and an alternative school. It is a growing school district that has built more than half of its schools in the past 20 years.

Recently, the district has reconfi gured the grade levels of its schools. In 2008, the district moved from its prior confi guration of K-5 elementary schools, 6-7 middle schools, 8-9 junior high schools, a sophomore campus, and an 11-12 high school. Today, it provides for K-5 elementary schools, 6-8 middle schools, and 9-12 high schools, effectively reducing the number of student transitions.

Rogers High School is the fi rst high school in the state to receive the Arkansas Quality Award at the Commitment Level, and RHS has been chosen by Newsweek magazine as one of its top 1,500 high schools in the United States three years in a row.

School District Organization and Governance

Per Board Policy AA: School District Legal Status, “The School District is created by the State Legislature and is a body corporate. The legal name of the district is Rogers School District No. 30.” The Rogers Board of Education derives its authority from Board Policy AB: The People and Their School District and Board Policy BB: School Board Legal Status. Board Policy AB indicates that, “A Board of Education is the legal entity for conducting a system of public education within the geographic area of a school district. The system was created by, and is governed by, state statutes. “The Board of Education has the dual responsibility for implementing statutory requirements pertaining to public education and local citizens’ desires for implanting the community’s youth.” Board Policy BB states, “The Constitution of Arkansas assigns to locally elected boards of education control of the public schools in their district.”


Enrollment and Trends

The Rogers Public Schools currently serves over 13,657 students from Rogers, Lowell, Garfi eld, Avoca, and Little Flock, Arkansas. Covering a 256-square mile area, the district has 24 campuses:

Bellview Elementary School (Grades K-5) Eastside Elementary School (Grades K-5)Garfi eld Elementary School (Grades K-5) Bonnie Grimes Elementary School (Grades K-5)Grace Hill Elementary School (Grades K-5) Russell Jones Elementary School (Grades K-5)Lowell Elementary School (Grades K-5) Joe Mathias Elementary School (Grades K-5)Northside Elementary School (Grades K-5) Old Wire Road Elementary School (Grades K-5)Reagan Elementary School (Grades K-5) Frank Tillery Elementary School (Grades K-5)Elza R. Tucker Elementary School (Grades K-5) Westside Elementary School (Grades K-5)Birch Kirksey Middle School (Grades 6-8) Elmwood Middle School (Grades 6-8)Greer Lingle Middle School (Grades 6-8) Oakdale Middle School (Grades 6-8)Rogers Heritage High School (Grades 9-12) Rogers High School (Grades 9-12)Pre-kindergarten Center Crossroads (Grades 6-12)Extended Day (Grades 9-12) REAP (Grades 9-12)

Exhibit 0.1 summarizes district enrollment trends from 2001-02 to 2008-09.

Exhibit 0.1

Student Enrollment DataRogers Public Schools

2001-02 through 2008-09

Level 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09K 947 983 1,023 1,060 1,042 1,097 1,200 1,1261 900 972 1,043 1,063 1,058 1,025 1,107 1,2122 903 930 982 1,030 1,044 1,049 1,001 1,0853 898 924 945 1,002 1,031 1,027 1,072 9304 937 918 944 945 1,002 1,033 1,031 1,0445 887 979 955 947 958 1,009 1,032 1,0086 887 922 1,020 988 985 977 1,029 1,0347 867 906 977 1,048 1,010 995 999 1,0358 915 918 970 1,056 1,137 1,091 1,050 9909 833 920 991 1,025 1,089 1,174 1,160 1,14010 865 892 957 963 983 1,035 1,051 1,04311 836 864 834 934 973 970 1,022 1,04612 674 724 710 730 751 759 736 800

Total 11,349 11,852 12,351 12,791 13,063 13,241 13,490 13,657

The enrollment data summary shows an increase in student enrollment of 2,308 students (20.3 percent) since 2001-02, with increases in all grade levels.

Based on data provided by the district, student enrollment projections for the next decade indicate the following:

Districtwide enrollment for the next 10 years will increase by 6,014 students (44.0 percent).•

Enrollment is expected to increase in kindergarten by 103.1 percent by 2017-18; enrollments in grades • 1-3 are projected to each increase by more than 70 percent.

Elementary school enrollment for grades K-5 is expected to increase by 72.4 percent by 2017-18.•

High school enrollment is projected to increase by only 486 students (12.1 percent) in 2017-18.•


Enrollment Data by Ethnic and Socioeconomic Subgroups

The student population of Rogers Public Schools has increased in its diversity over the past few years. Based on the data obtained from district personnel, the current student population is ethnically represented as follows:

Caucasian—57 percent•

Hispanic—39 percent•

Asian—1.85 percent•

African-American—0.8 percent•

Native American—0.6 percent•

These data indicate that the percentage of Hispanic students has grown at a rapid rate in the last seven years. The Hispanic student population has increased by 2,517 students since 2001-02 and accounts for 117.6 percent of the district’s student enrollment increases through 2007-08. In those years, the Caucasian student enrollment decline of 539 students refl ects a 6.5 percent loss since 2001-02. In 2001-02, Caucasian student enrollment represented 72.8 percent of the district’s enrollment, while Hispanic students represented 24.7 percent of the student population.

Enrollment fi gures include a 62 percent increase in the number of English Language Learners from 2001-02 until 2006-07. The largest growth of ELL students has occurred at the middle school level (grades 6-8), with a 77.1 percent increase. An additional 1,415 ELL students have enrolled in the district since 2001-02.

Socioeconomic status is revealed in the percentage of students receiving Free/Reduced Lunches. In 2007-08, 53.9 percent of K-12 students received Free or Reduced Lunches, an increase of 13 percent since 2001-02 when 40.9 percent of students received Free/Reduced lunches. This is an increase of 2,626 students in the time period that saw an enrollment increase of 2,517 students.

There is a corresponding increase in Hispanic students in the last seven years. The increase in Hispanic enrollment is coupled by an increase in low socioeconomic and English Language Learner students. These trends are expected to continue.

Audit Background and Scope of Work

The Curriculum Management Audit is a process that was developed by Dr. Fenwick W. English and fi rst implemented in 1979 in the Columbus Public Schools, Ohio. The audit is based upon generally-accepted concepts pertaining to effective instruction and curricular design and delivery, some of which have been popularly referred to as the “effective schools research.”

A Curriculum Management Audit is an independent examination of three data sources: documents, interviews, and site visits. These are gathered and triangulated, or corroborated, to reveal the extent to which a school district is meeting its goals and objectives, whether they are internally or externally developed or imposed. A public report is issued as the fi nal phase of the auditing process.

The audit’s scope is centered on curriculum and instruction, and any aspect of operations of a school system that enhances or hinders its design and/or delivery. The audit is an intensive, focused, “postholed” look at how well a school system such as Rogers Public Schools has been able to set valid directions for pupil accomplishment and well-being, concentrate its resources to accomplish those directions, and improve its performance, however contextually defi ned or measured, over time.

The Curriculum Management Audit does not examine any aspect of school system operations unless it pertains to the design and delivery of curriculum. For example, auditors would not examine the cafeteria function unless students were going hungry and, therefore, were not learning. It would not examine vehicle maintenance charts, unless buses continually broke down and children could not get to school to engage in the learning process. It would not be concerned with custodial matters, unless schools were observed to be unclean and unsafe for children to be taught.


The Curriculum Management Audit centers its focus on the main business of schools: teaching, curriculum, and learning. Its contingency focus is based upon data gathered during the audit that impinges negatively or positively on its primary focus. These data are reported along with the main fi ndings of the audit.

In some cases, ancillary fi ndings in a Curriculum Management Audit are so interconnected with the capability of a school system to attain its central objectives, that they become major, interactive forces, which, if not addressed, will severely compromise the ability of the school system to be successful with its students.

Curriculum management audits have been performed in hundreds of school systems in more than 28 states, the District of Columbia, and several other countries, including Canada, Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Bermuda.

The methodology and assumptions of the Curriculum Management Audit have been reported in the national professional literature for more than a decade, and at a broad spectrum of national education association conventions and seminars, including the American Association of School Administrators (AASA); Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD); National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP); Association for the Advancement of International Education (AAIE); American Educational Research Association (AERA); National School Boards Association (NSBA); and the National Governors Association (NGA).

Phi Delta Kappa’s International Curriculum Management Audit Center has an exclusive contractual agreement with Curriculum Management Systems, Inc. (CMSi—a public corporation incorporated in the State of Iowa, and owner of the copyrights to the intellectual property of the audit process), for the purpose of conducting audits for educational institutions, providing training for auditors and others interested in the audit process, and offi cially assisting in the certifi cation of PDK/ICMAC-CMSi curriculum auditors.

This audit was conducted in accordance with a contract between Rogers Public Schools and the International Curriculum Management Audit Center at Phi Delta Kappa International. All members of the team were certifi ed by Curriculum Management Systems, Inc.

The curriculum auditors in this audit included the following individuals: Roger C. Antón, Jr., M.A., Sandra M. Blair, Ed.D., Kay Coleman, M.Ed., Ronnie Thompson, M.Ed., and H. Susan Villa, Ed.D. Biographical information about the auditors is found in the appendix.

System Purpose for Conducting the Audit

In 2005, the Board of Education of the Rogers Public Schools met with central offi ce administrators in a study session to review core beliefs, the mission statement, and goal for the district. The superintendent presented her vision on a transformational planning process resulting in an innovative strategic plan. The board unanimously endorsed the plan.

The superintendent solicited support from the Rogers Chamber of Commerce in moving Rogers Public Schools from “good to great.” The Chamber agreed to help by funding the process through the Rogers Development Foundation. In January 2006, a consulting fi rm was hired to facilitate the development of a strategic plan intended to improve the quality of the schools to world-class levels.

One of the strategic objectives of the plan was to deliver a coherent and rigorous education program by aligning the district’s standards, curriculum, pacing guides, assessments, professional development, and instruction. The action step was to conduct a curriculum and instructional audit. The district solicited the help from Phi Delta Kappa to conduct a curriculum management audit in 2008, and help the district continue to move forward from good to great.

Dr. Janie Darr has been superintendent of the Rogers Public Schools for ten years, following a career in the district that included being a teacher, counselor, administrative assistant, and deputy superintendent. The superintendent and board expect the Curriculum Management Audit to provide data and recommendations to improve the district’s curriculum. The superintendent shared with auditors that, while progress has been made, many challenges continue to face the district “…to increase student achievement, close achievement gaps, prepare all students for college and/or successful careers.”


Current School Board Members:

The Board of Education of the Rogers Public Schools, per Board Policy BB, consists of seven members elected for fi ve-year terms. Five members are elected by zones, in addition to two at-large members.

The Board of Education members at the time of the audit were:

Joye Kelley, President; Zone 1: 2007-2012•

Cathy Allen, Secretary; At large: 2006-2011•

Kristen Cobbs; Zone 3: 2005-2010•

Jerry Carmichael; Zone 5: 2005-2010•

Byron Black; At large: 2006-2011•

Jennifer Haskins; Zone 2: 2008-2009•

Walter Schrader; Zone 4: 2004-2009•

Approach of the Audit

The Curriculum Management Audit has established itself as a process of integrity and candor in assessing public school districts. It has been presented as evidence in state and federal litigation concerning matters of school fi nance, general resource managerial effectiveness, and school desegregation efforts in Kansas, Kentucky, New Jersey, and South Carolina. The audit served as an important data source in state-directed takeovers of school systems in New Jersey and Kentucky. The Curriculum Management Audit has become recognized internationally as an important, viable, and valid tool for the improvement of educational institutions and for the improvement of curriculum design and delivery.

The Curriculum Management Audit represents a “systems” approach to educational improvement; that is, it considers the system as a whole rather than a collection of separate, discrete parts. The interrelationships of system components and their impact on overall quality of the organization in accomplishing its purposes are examined in order to “close the loop” in curriculum and instructional improvement.


II. METHODOLOGY

The Model for the Curriculum Management Audit

The model for the Curriculum Management Audit is shown in the schematic below. The model has been published widely in the national professional literature, recently in the best-selling book, The Curriculum Management Audit: Improving School Quality (1995, Frase, English, Poston).

A Schematic View of Curricular Quality Control

General quality control assumes that at least three elements must be present in any organizational and work-related situation for it to be functional and capable of being improved over time. These are: (1) a work standard, goal/objective, or operational mission; (2) work directed toward attaining the mission, standard, goal/objective; and (3) feedback (work measurement), which is related to or aligned with the standard, goal/objective, or mission.

When activities are repeated, there is a “learning curve,” i.e., more of the work objectives are achieved within the existing cost parameters. As a result, the organization, or a subunit of an organization, becomes more “productive” at its essential short- or long-range work tasks.

Within the context of an educational system and its governance and operational structure, curricular quality control requires: (1) a written curriculum in some clear and translatable form for application by teachers in classroom or related instructional settings, (2) a taught curriculum, which is shaped by and interactive with the written one, and (3) a tested curriculum, which includes the tasks, concepts, and skills of pupil learning and which is linked to both the taught and written curricula. This model is applicable in any kind of educational work structure typically found in mass public educational systems, and is suitable for any kind of assessment strategy, from norm-referenced standardized tests to more authentic approaches.

The Curriculum Management Audit assumes that an educational system, as one kind of human work organization, must be responsive to the context in which it functions and in which it receives support for its continuing existence. In the case of public educational systems, the support comes in the form of tax monies from three levels: local, state, and federal.

In return for such support, mass public educational systems are supposed to exhibit characteristics of rationality, i.e., being responsive to the public will as it is expressed in legally constituted bodies such as Congress, state legislatures, and locally elected/appointed boards of education.

In the case of emerging national public school reforms, more and more this responsiveness is assuming a distinctive school-based management focus, which includes parents, teachers, and, in some cases, students.


The ability of schools to be responsive to public expectations, as legally expressed in law and policy, is crucial to their future survival as publicly-supported educational organizations. The Curriculum Management Audit is one method for ascertaining the extent to which a school system, or subunit thereof, has been responsive to expressed expectations and requirements in this context.

Standards for the Auditors

While a Curriculum Management Audit is not a fi nancial audit, it is governed by some of the same principles. These are:

Technical Expertise

PDK-CMSi certifi ed auditors must have actual experience in conducting the affairs of a school system at all levels audited. They must understand the tacit and contextual clues of sound curriculum management.

The Rogers Public Schools Curriculum Management Audit Team selected by the Curriculum Management Audit Center included auditors who have been school superintendents, assistant superintendents, directors, coordinators, principals and assistant principals, as well as elementary and secondary classroom teachers in public educational systems in several locations: California, Texas, Arizona, Georgia, and Colorado.

The Principle of Independence

None of the Curriculum Management Audit Team members had any vested interest in the fi ndings or recommendations of the Rogers Public Schools Curriculum Management Audit. None of the auditors has or had any working relationship with the individuals who occupied top or middle management positions in the Rogers Public Schools, nor with any of the past or current members of the Rogers Public Schools Board of Education.

The Principle of Objectivity

Events and situations that comprise the data base for the Curriculum Management Audit are derived from documents, interviews, and site visits. Findings must be verifi able and grounded in the data base, though confi dential interview data may not indicate the identity of such sources. Findings must be factually triangulated with two or more sources of data, except when a document is unusually authoritative such as a court judgment, a labor contract signed and approved by all parties to the agreement, approved meeting minutes, which connote the accuracy of the content, or any other document whose verifi cation is self-evident.

Triangulation of documents takes place when the document is requested by the auditor and is subsequently furnished. Confi rmation by a system representative that the document is in fact what was requested is a form of triangulation. A fi nal form of triangulation occurs when the audit is sent to the superintendent in draft form. If the superintendent or his/her designee(s) does not provide evidence that the audit text is inaccurate, or documentation that indicates there are omissions or otherwise factual or content errors, the audit is assumed to be triangulated. The superintendent’s review is not only a second source of triangulation, but is considered summative triangulation of the entirety of audit.

The Principle of Consistency

All PDK-CMSi-certifi ed Curriculum Management Auditors have used the same standards and basic methods since the initial audit conducted by Dr. Fenwick English in 1979. Audits are not normative in the sense that one school system is compared to another. School systems, as the units of analysis, are compared to a set of standards and positive/negative discrepancies cited.


The Principle of Materiality

PDK-CMSi-certifi ed auditors have broad implied and discretionary power to focus on and select those fi ndings that they consider most important to describing how the curriculum management system is functioning in a school district, and how that system must improve, expand, delete, or reconfi gure various functions to attain an optimum level of performance.

The Principle of Full Disclosure

Auditors must reveal all relevant information to the users of the audit, except in cases where such disclosure would compromise the identity of employees or patrons of the system. Confi dentiality is respected in audit interviews.

In reporting data derived from site interviews, auditors may use some descriptive terms that lack a precise quantifi able defi nition. For example:

“Some school principals said that ... ”

“Many teachers expressed concern that ... ”

“There was widespread comment about ... ”

The basis for these terms is the number of persons in a group or class of persons who were interviewed, as opposed to the total potential number of persons in a category. This is a particularly salient point when not all persons within a category are interviewed. “Many teachers said that...,” represents only those interviewed by the auditors, or who may have responded to a survey, and not “many” of the total group whose views were not sampled, and, therefore, could not be disclosed during an audit.

In general these quantifi cations may be applied to the principle of full disclosure:

Descriptive Term General Quantifi cation RangeSome ... or a few ... Less than a majority of the group interviewed and less than 30 percentMany ... Less than a majority, more than 30 percent of a group or class of people

interviewedA majority ... More than 50 percent, less than 75 percentMost ... or widespread 75-89 percent of a group or class of persons interviewedNearly all ... 90-99 percent of those interviewed in a specifi c class or group of personsAll or everyone ... 100 percent of all persons interviewed within a similar group, job, or class

It should be noted for purposes of full disclosure that some groups within a school district are almost always interviewed in toto. The reason is that the audit is focused on management and those people who have policy and managerial responsibilities for the overall performance of the system as a system. In all audits an attempt is made to interview every member of the board of education and all top administrative offi cers, all principals, and the executive board of the teachers’ association or union. While teachers and parents are interviewed, they are considered in a status different from those who have system-wide responsibilities for a district’s operations. Students are rarely interviewed unless the system has made a specifi c request in this regard.

Interviewed Representatives of the Rogers Public Schools

All Board Members SuperintendentDistrict Administrators and Staff School Principals and Assistant PrincipalsSchool-Based Staff, Including Teachers and Counselors Classifi ed District EmployeesParents (through personal interviews) Secondary Students

Approximately 168 individuals were interviewed during the site visit phase of the audit.


Data Sources of the Curriculum Management Audit

A curriculum audit uses a variety of data sources to determine if each of the three elements of curricular quality control is in place and connected one to the other. The audit process also inquires as to whether pupil learning has improved as the result of effective application of curricular quality control.

The major sources of data for the Rogers Public Schools Curriculum Management Audit were:

Documents

Documents included written board policies, administrative regulations, curriculum guides, memoranda, budgets, state reports, accreditation documents, and any other source of information that would reveal elements of the written, taught, and tested curricula and linkages among these elements.

Interviews

Interviews were conducted by auditors to explain contextual variables that were operating in the school system at the time of the audit. Such contextual variables may shed light on the actions of various persons or parties; reveal interrelationships; and explain existing progress, tension, or harmony/disharmony within the school system. Quotations cited in the audit from interviews are used as a source of triangulation and not as summative averages or means. Some persons, because of their position, knowledge, or credibility, may be quoted more than once in the audit, but they are not counted more than once because their inclusion is not part of a quantitative/mathematical expression of interview data.

Site Visits

All building sites were toured by the PDK-CMSi audit team. Site visits reveal the actual context in which curriculum is designed and delivered in a school system. Contextual references are important as they indicate discrepancies in documents or unusual working conditions. Auditors attempted to observe briefl y all classrooms, gymnasiums, labs, playgrounds, hallways, restrooms, offi ces, and maintenance areas to properly grasp accurate perceptions of conditions, activities, safety, instructional practices, and operational contexts.

Standards for the Curriculum Audit

The PDK-CMSi Curriculum Management Audit used fi ve standards against which to compare, verify, and comment upon the Rogers Public Schools’s existing curricular management practices. These standards have been extrapolated from an extensive review of management principles and practices and have been applied in all previous curriculum management audits.

As a result, the standards refl ect an ideal management system, but not an unattainable one. They describe working characteristics that any complex work organization should possess in being responsive and responsible to its clients.

A school system that is using its fi nancial and human resources for the greatest benefi t of its students is one that is able to establish clear objectives, examine alternatives, select and implement alternatives, measure results as they are applied against established objectives, and adjust its efforts so that it achieves a greater share of the objectives over time.

The fi ve standards employed in the PDK-CMSi Curriculum Management Audit in Rogers Public Schools were:

The school district demonstrates its control of resources, programs, and personnel.1.

The school district has established clear and valid objectives for students.2.

The school district demonstrates internal connectivity and rational equity in its program development and 3. implementation.

The school district has used the results from district-designed or -adopted assessments to adjust, improve, 4. or terminate ineffective practices or programs.

The school district has improved its productivity.5.


A fi nding within a Curriculum Management Audit is simply a description of the existing state, negative or positive, between an observed and triangulated condition or situation at the time of the PDK-CMSi audit and its comparison with one or more of the fi ve audit standards.

Findings in the negative represent discrepancies below the standard. Findings in the positive refl ect meeting or exceeding the standard. As such, audit fi ndings are recorded on nominal and ordinal indices and not ratio or interval scales. As a general rule, audits do not issue commendations, because it is expected that a school district should be meeting every standard as a way of normally doing its business. Commendations are not given for good practice. On occasion, exemplary practices may be cited.

Unlike accreditation methodologies, audits do not have to reach a forced, summative judgment regarding the status of a school district or subunit being analyzed. Audits simply report the discrepancies and formulate recommendations to ameliorate them.


III. FINDINGS

STANDARD 1: The School District Demonstrates Its Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel.Quality control is the fundamental element of a well-managed educational program. It is one of the major premises of local educational control within any state’s educational system.

The critical premise involved is that, via the will of the electorate, a local board of education establishes local priorities within state laws and regulations. A school district’s accountability rests with the school board and the public.

Through the development of an effective policy framework, a local school board provides the focus for management and accountability to be established for administrative and instructional staffs, as well as for its own responsibility. It also enables the district to make meaningful assessments and use student learning data as a critical factor in determining its success.

Although educational program control and accountability are often shared among different components of a school district, ultimately fundamental control of and responsibility for a district and its operations rests with the school board and top-level administrative staff.

What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Rogers Public Schools:

A school system meeting PDK-CMSi Curriculum Management Audit Standard One is able to demonstrate its control of resources, programs, and personnel. Common indicators are:

A curriculum that is centrally defi ned and adopted by the board of education;•

A clear set of policies that establish an operational framework for management that permits • accountability;

A clear set of policies that refl ect state requirements and local program goals and the necessity to use • achievement data to improve school system operations;

A functional administrative structure that facilitates the design and delivery of the district’s • curriculum;

A direct, uninterrupted line of authority from school board/superintendent and other central offi ce • offi cials to principals and classroom teachers;

Organizational development efforts that are focused to improve system effectiveness;•

Documentation of school board and central offi ce planning for the attainment of goals, objectives, and • mission over time; and

A clear mechanism to defi ne and direct change and innovation within the school system to permit • maximization of its resources on priority goals, objectives, and mission.

Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Rogers Public Schools:

This section is an overview of the fi ndings that follow in the area of Standard One. Details follow within separate fi ndings.

When reviewing the current status of the Rogers Public Schools in relationship to the principles of Standard One, system control and oversight, the auditors found that board policies are inadequate to provide guidance for curriculum management and to establish quality control. Local policies lack suffi cient clarity and complete content to adequately address expectations in such areas of educational program management as design and delivery of the curriculum, professional development, student assessment, program evaluation, equitable student


access to offerings, program-focused budgeting, and other related aspects of policy guidance for systemic direction.

Board policy direction for district and school planning is clear and strong. However, there is little direction for planning in areas of curriculum management, professional development, student assessment and program evaluation, instructional technology, and budget development. The required improvement planning is occurring, but other planning has been minimal. Current documents do not fully meet audit criteria to provide quality direction for ongoing improvement efforts and to cohesively link those efforts across units and functions within the school district.

The current table of organization does not meet all audit criteria for sound organizational management. Positions with current job descriptions are missing from the table. Functions are generally grouped logically, though a few problems were identifi ed in the logical clustering of functions. Scalar relationships are not accurately represented on the table of organization, with positions at different levels of responsibility and compensation depicted on the same horizontal plane.

The district’s job descriptions do not meet all audit criteria for accurate and clear specifi cations of responsibilities and relationships in the district. Not all positions on the table of organization were found to have job descriptions. Auditors judged 33 percent of the job descriptions as strong, with all four critical elements receiving ratings of adequate or higher.

Professional personnel evaluations lack suffi cient specifi city and linkage with professional development planning to infl uence individuals’ growth plans. Many comments appearing on random samples of teachers’ and administrators’ evaluations are not constructive in a nature that would lead to improved employee growth.

Finding 1.1: Board policies are inadequate to provide curriculum management direction and establish quality control.

Well-written policies regarding curriculum management and direction for a school system are critical in providing system control and communicating governance expectations of the administration and instructional staff. Such policies establish an operational framework for management of the curriculum and related functions by providing a structure for the design, delivery, and assessment of the district curriculum and a means for managing innovation and change in the school district.

For policies to be effective decision-making guides at all levels of the organization, they must be broad enough to avoid micromanagement, but specifi c enough that managers can refer to them for direction in making decisions about teaching, learning, and related district operations. If policy direction is absent, outdated, or unclear, or if it is not specifi c enough, educational decisions are left to the discretion of individuals. Results of these decisions may or may not be congruent with the intent of the district’s board of education.

The auditors examined Rogers Public Schools policies and administrative guidelines provided by school district personnel. They selected those policies most directly related to curriculum management for analysis and assessed them by comparing their content to 27 policy criteria used in Curriculum Management Audits. Interviews were conducted with board of education members, administrators, and staff to identify the extent to which board policies are used in the district to guide decisions about educational programs and the curriculum.

The auditors found that current policies are inadequate to direct a sound curriculum management system and to establish quality control of the educational program and organizational operations. Additionally, auditors found the use of the policies to guide decision making has been minimal, partly due to policies being outdated and not fully consistent with current state expectations for educational program implementation.

Auditors found direction regarding formulation, communication, and implementation of board policies and administrative guidelines in the following current policies:

Exhibit 1.1.1 lists the policies selected by the auditors for analysis because they are considered the ones most related to a curriculum management system and a fundamental support framework for educational program delivery.


Exhibit 1.1.1

Board Policies Reviewed by AuditorsRogers Public Schools

November 2008

AA School Board Legal Status 6/21/1994AB The People and Their School District 6/21/1994AD District Mission Statement 6/21/1994

ADA School District Goals and Objectives 6/21/1994ADE Effective Schools 6/21/1994AE Accountability/Commitment to Accomplishment 5/17/1994BA School Board Operational Goals 6/21/1994BB School Board Legal Status 6/21/1994

BBA Board Powers and Responsibilities 6/21/1994BCA Board Member Code of Ethics 6/21/1994

BCA Guidelines Board Member Code of Ethics/Arkansas School Boards Association 6/21/1994BDD School Board—Superintendent Relations 6/21/1994BDFA Chapter I, ECIA Districtwide Parent Advisory Committee 11/18/1986BEDH Public Participation 6/21/1994

BEDH Guideline Public Participation 6/21/1994BG School Board Policy Process 6/21/1994

BGC Policy Revision and Review 6/21/1994BGD Board Review of Administrative Guidelines 6/21/1994BHC Board Communication with Staff 6/21/1994CA General Administration Goals and Objectives 3/14/1995

CAA Administrative Personnel Hiring 5/16/1995CAC Form Evaluation of School Administration 1/16/2007

CAE Administrative Personnel Professional Development and Expenses 5/16/1995CB School Superintendent 3/14/1995

CBA Qualifi cations of Superintendent 3/14/1995CBC Superintendent Job Description 6/19/2007CBI Evaluation of Superintendent 3/14/1995

CBI Form Evaluation of Superintendent UndatedCC Administrative Organization 3/14/1995

CCA Organizational Chart 6/17/2008CCB Line and Staff Relations 3/14/1995CD Management Team/Administration 5/16/1995

CDA Deputy Superintendent Job Description 6/17/2007CDB Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Job Description 6/19/2007CDC Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Job Description 6/19/2007CE Administrative Councils and Committees 3/14/1995CF School Building Administration 3/14/1995

CFB Evaluation of Principals/Building Administrators 3/14/1995CFB Form Evaluation of Principals/Building Administrators Undated

CH Policy Implementation 3/14/1995CHA Development of Guidelines 3/14/1995CHB Board Review of Administrative Guidelines 3/14/1995CHC Administrative Guideline Communication 3/14/1995

CHCA Handbooks and Directives 3/14/1995CHD Administration in the Absence of Policy 3/14/1995CM School District Annual Report 3/14/1995


Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)Board Policies Reviewed by Auditors

Rogers Public SchoolsNovember 2008

DBC Annual Operating Budget Preparation Procedures 1/14/1997DBI Expenditure of Funds 1/14/1997DEC Federal Aid Revenues 1/14/1997EA Support Services Goals/Priority Objectives 3/9/2004EC Buildings/Grounds/Property Management 3/9/2004

EEA Student Transportation 3/9/2004FA Facility Expansion Development Goals and Objectives UndatedFB Facilities Planning Undated

FEA Educational Specifi cations UndatedGA Goals and Objectives 4/14/1998

GBEA Staff Ethics 4/14/1998GBB Staff Involvement in Decision-Making 4/15/2008GBJ Personnel Records and Files 4/14/1998GCE Professional Staff Recruiting 12/15/1998GCI Professional Development 5/18/2004

GCIB Professional Development: Professional Development Days 5/14/2007GCKA Instructional Staff Assignments 4/14/1998GCLA Length of Instructional Day 3/11/2008GCMA Professional Staff Planning Time 5/14/2001GCMC Teacher and Parent Communication 4/15/2003

GCMCA Grading/Report Cards 4/15/2003GCO Evaluation of Professional Personnel 5/15/2001

IA Instructional Goals and Learning Objectives 11/18/2003IG Curriculum Development, Adoption, and Review 2/19/2002IH Curriculum Program 11/18/2003IIA Grouping for Instruction 11/18/2003IJJ Instructional Material Selection and Adoption 11/18/2003

IJL Guidelines Library/Media Center Materials: Selection, Retention and Removal 11/18/2003IK Academic Achievement 4/17/2007

IKA Grading/Report Cards 5/19/2008IKB Homework 4/15/2008IKE Promotion and Retention 5/15/2006

IKE Guidelines Promotion and Retention 5/15/2006IKF Graduation Requirements/Honors 6/17/2008

IKFB Smart Core/Core Curriculum 4/15/2008IKFC Academic Guarantee 12/18/2007

IL Evaluation of Instructional Programs 9/21/2004JB Equal Educational Opportunities 2/17/1998

JEC Semester Test Exemption Policy 6/18/2002JFC Drop Out Prevention 1/16/2001JLD Guidance Program UndatedKB Parent Involvement 11/18/2003

KB Plan Parent Involvement 11/18/2003KBE Relations with Parent Organizations 8/15/2000KC Community Involvement in Education 10/17/2000

Auditors noted that the dates of policies selected for review ranged from November 18, 1986, to June 17, 2008, with most policies bearing dates in the 1990s through 2003. Auditors were told that the board attempts


to conduct regular reviews to revise, update, and add policies, and all policies have been reviewed in the last fi ve years although dates are changed only if there have been revisions made. Interviewees indicated that some policies are still in need of updating. Auditors found that 58 (68 percent) of the 85 policies reviewed have not been revised in more than fi ve years.

Policy Design

Auditors analyzed the most relevant policies listed in Exhibit 1.1.1 against Curriculum Management Improvement Model (CMIM) criteria used in Curriculum Management Audits to assess policy adequacy for directing management of the educational program and support services for a school district. To be considered adequate, policies must meet 70 percent (19) or more of the 27 criteria. Exhibit 1.1.2 displays the 27 criteria and the results of auditors’ analyses of the local policies against them.

Exhibit 1.1.2

Characteristic Qualities for Strong Curriculum Management Policies And Auditors’ Assessment of Local Policies


Audit Criteria Criterion Met

Criterion Not Met

Provides for Control—Requires:1. An aligned written, taught, and tested curriculumA. XPhilosophical statement of curriculum approachB. XBoard adoption of the curriculumC. XAccountability through roles and responsibilitiesD. XLong-range system-wide planningE. XFunctional decision-making structuresF. X

Provides for Direction—Requires:2. Written curriculum for all subjects/learning areasA. XPeriodic review of the curriculumB. XTextbook/resource adoption by the boardC. XContent area emphasisD. XProgram integration and alignment to curriculumE. X

Provides for Connectivity and Equity—Requires:3. Predictability of the written curriculum from one level to anotherA. XVertical articulation and horizontal coordination of the curriculumB. XTraining for staff in delivery of the curriculumC. XDelivery of the adopted curriculumD. XMonitoring of the delivery of the curriculumE. XEquitable student access to the curriculumF. X

Provides for Feedback—Requires:4. A student and program assessment planA. XUse of data from assessment to determine program/curriculum effectivenessB. XReports to the board about program effectivenessC. XUse of data to determine effi ciency/effectiveness of all district functionsD. X

Provides for Productivity—Requires:5. A program-centered budgetA. XResource allocation tied to curriculum prioritiesB. XEnvironment to support curriculum deliveryC. XSupport systems focused on organizational purposeD. XData-driven decisions for the purpose of increasing student learningE. XChange processes for long-term institutionalizationF. X


Because the current policies met only six (or 22 percent) of the 27 characteristics of strong curriculum management policies, auditors consider the policies to be inadequate to direct curriculum management and establish quality control of the educational program. Two policies were considered partially adequate. Many policies stopped short of clear detail and provided only the basic legal direction and general language of state guidance. The auditors noted the following specifi cally related to the fi ve criteria:

Control: 1. Local versions of Board Policy AD: District Mission Statement and Board Policy ADA: School District Goals and Objectives include the philosophy in a vision statement. Policies regarding curriculum are primarily legal policies indicating state-required offerings and do not address alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum in any way. Several policies include elements related to specifi c roles and responsibilities, board adoption of the curriculum, and monitoring the delivery of the curriculum.

Direction:2. No policy requires written curriculum for all offerings in the district schools, periodic review of the curriculum, or integration and congruence of programs with an adopted curriculum. A few policies allude broadly to evaluating the educational program but without specifi c reference to what components of the programs are to be evaluated and how they are to be assessed for effectiveness. Required board adoption of instructional resources is included in policy.

Connectivity and Equity:3. None of the policies addresses the components of curriculum design, such as spiraling predictability of learning objectives, articulation, and coordination. Board Policy IKE: Promotion and Retention includes statements regarding student abilities to be successful, but does not explicitly communicate required connectivity, vertically or horizontally. Teacher training in the curriculum is not mentioned in policy, nor is a requirement that teachers teach the approved curriculum. A vague reference is made in policy to monitoring curriculum delivery. The equal opportunity policies do not speak to “equitable access to the curriculum,” though some statements vaguely allude to the concept.

Feedback: 4. Board policies do not require a student assessment and program evaluation plan, though some policies mention a need to “review each area of the curriculum on a periodic basis….” No policy speaks to the use of student assessment data to determine program/curriculum effectiveness and inform decisions for improvement. There are vague references to reports to the board from the superintendent about program effectiveness, but the intent and expectations for such reports are unclear. Requirement for the use of data to determine the effi ciency or effectiveness of district functions is also absent from board policies.

Productivity: 5. The policies related to budget make no mention of either a program-driven budget or a curriculum-centered budget. The policies on support systems and facilities do allude to providing “…a vital and necessary service to the effective and effi cient functioning of the instructional program.” Policies make no reference to requirements for the use of data in making decisions to increase student learning results over time.

Policy Use

After reviewing various documents, auditors engaged in interviews with board of education members, administrators, and staff members to corroborate the use of policies to inform ongoing operational and educational decision making. Auditors were informed that policies do not play a pivotal role in directing educational decision making.

Examples of relevant comments related to policies and board policy leadership were:

“Our policies are in pretty good condition; we take a section and review the policies and then move on. • In the last fi ve years we have reviewed all policies.” (Administrator)

“A lot were written a long time ago. Recently we went through our policies because of the new high • school. We need some discussion to look at the whole book and reevaluate if our policies are still legitimate.” (Board Member)


“Seem to be adequate to me. They could probably use some in-depth look.” (Board Member)•

“The strategic plan is driving things.” (Administrator)•

“A comprehensive review and update is needed. As things happen and issues come up, then we adjust. • Some of them have not been used from the mid-90’s.” (Board Member)

“We began in the early 90’s and used NSBA samples. We selected some and updated them. We tried • to keep updated.” (Board Member)

“We review past policy regularly. When issues arise or state law changes we create a new policy.” • (Board Member)

“There is no district policy for implementation of curriculum.” (Teacher)•

“Usually issues come up from state law to alert us to change policy.” (Board Member)•

“We review policy on an ongoing basis.” (Board Member)•

“The policies are very generic, even the local ones.” (Administrator)•

“Not many policies help us at the school level.” (Administrator)•

School bulletin board encourages parental involvement.

Summary

The auditors found that board policies were inadequate to direct curriculum management and operational decision making, and to establish a framework for quality control. Most policies are general in nature and provide no specifi city to direct student learning. Some are so general in language that direction and expectations can not readily be identifi ed. Use of existing policies is minimal, due in part to being either too vague or outdated.

Finding 1.2: The table of organization does not meet all audit criteria for sound organizational design. Available job descriptions do not meet criteria for current, accurate, and clear specifi cations of responsibilities and role relationships in the district.

Clarity of administrative role relationships is important to an organization in the productive grouping and management of its tasks and functions. A functional and accurate delineation of administrative relationships is generally depicted in graphic form and called a Table of Organization.


In order to analyze the adequacy of the Rogers Public Schools table of organization, the auditors reviewed appropriate board policies, the Rogers Public Schools Organization Chart, district-provided job descriptions, and other documents communicating information about roles and areas of responsibility. Auditors interviewed board members, district and school administrators, and other staff regarding the organizational chart and job descriptions.

The auditors found that the table of organization does not meet all of the audit criteria for sound organizational management. Auditors were presented with a job description for the Director of Technology that no longer appeared on the Table of Organization, but had been replaced by the Chief Information Offi cer and System Manager positions. Auditors identifi ed a lack of clarity on the chart for key administrative areas of leadership such as curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Additionally, potential confusion exists because a number of positions have job descriptions that were presented to the auditors by district personnel but are not on the organizational chart, and likewise there are a number of positions listed on the chart for which no job description were presented to auditors.

Auditors reviewed policies for clear direction in this area and found no board policy that specifi cally requires an organizational chart, although Board Policy CC: Administrative Organization refers to a board approved organizational chart and permits the superintendent to alter the chart as needed “to keep the administrative structure in line with the needs for supervision and accountability throughout the school system.”

Table of Organization (Organizational Chart)

The auditors reviewed the district’s table of organization and other documents and used the Curriculum Management Audit design principles to examine the organizational structure. These Principles of Sound Organizational Management are presented in Exhibit 1.2.1. The audit expectation is that all design principles listed will be met.

Exhibit 1.2.1

Curriculum Management Audit Principles of Sound Organizational Management

Span of Control1. The span of control for effective day-to-day supervision requires direct responsibility for no more than 12 employees.

Chain of Command2. No employee should have more than one supervisor to avoid being placed in a compromised decision-making situation.

Logical Grouping of 3. Functions

Tasks of similar nature should be grouped together. This keeps supervisory needs to a minimum (ensuring economy of scale).

Separation of Line 4. and Staff

Line (principals and teachers) and staff positions (secretaries, custodians, etc.) should be separate from curriculum design and program assessment functions. The administrators carrying out the primary mission of the district are not confused with those supporting it. Line administrators only report to line administrators.

Scalar Relationships5. All positions shown at the same level should have similar responsibilities, authority, and compensation.

Full Inclusion6. All central functions that facilitate quality control are included in the organizational structure. All persons working within the district carrying out its essential line and staff functions should be depicted on the table of organization.

The district’s graphical depiction of its organizational structure, as presented to auditors, is shown in Exhibit 1.2.2.


Exhibit 1.2.2

Table of OrganizationRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Revise

d 4/15

/08

Exec

utive

Dire

ctor f

or C

urric

ulum

and I

nstru

ction

Busin

ess

Offic

eTe

chno

logy

Staff

Food

Servi

ceSt

aff

Asst.

Dire

ctors

Comm

unica

tions

Dire

ctor

Admi

nistra

tive O

rgan

izatio

nRo

gers

Publi

c Sch

ools

Boar

d of

Educ

ation

Supe

rinten

dent

Depu

tySu

perin

tende

nt

Assis

tant

Supe

rinten

dent

Elem

entar

y

Assis

tant

Supe

rinten

dent

Seco

ndar

y

Assis

tant

Supe

rinten

dent

Huma

n Res

ource

s

Busin

ess

Mana

ger

Trea

sure

r

Data

& Ac

coun

tabilit

yDi

recto

r

Des

crip

tor T

erm

:

OR

GA

NIZ

ATI

ON

AL

CH

AR

T

Des

crip

tor C

ode:

CC

A

Ener

gyMa

nage

rTr

ansp

.Di

recto

rSy

stems

Mana

gerCh

ief In

forma

tion

Offic

er

Food

Servi

ceDi

recto

r

Facil

ities

Dire

ctor

Athle

ticDi

recto

r

Asst.

Princ

ipals

Asst.

Princ

ipals

Facu

lty &

Staf

f

Facu

lty &

Staf

f

Custo

dians

Facil

ities

Supe

rviso

r

Staff

War

ehou

se &

Gr

ound

s Sup

er.

Solid

line

( )

repr

esen

ts su

perv

isory

relat

ionsh

ips.

Dotte

d lin

e (

) r

epre

sent

sint

erac

tive/

work

ing re

lation

ships

.

SPED

Staf

fHe

ad N

urse

Nurse

s

Testi

ng, P

rof.D

evelo

pmen

t,Fa

mily/

Scho

ol Re

lation

s Dire

ctor

Early

Child

hood

Dire

ctor

Gra

ntsDi

recto

r

Dept

/ Aca

demy

Chair

s

K-5

Princ

ipals

Curri

culum

Spe

cialis

ts

Acad

emic

Coac

hes

Lead

Tea

cher

s

Pre-

KSt

aff6-

12Pr

incipa

ls

ESOL

Migr

ant

Dire

ctor

Spec

ialSe

rvice

sDi

recto

r

Libra

ry/Me

diaDi

recto

r

ESOL

/Migr

ant S

taff

Train

ers

Coac

hes

Maint

enan

ceSu

pervi

sor

Gifte

d/Tale

nted

Dire

ctor

Coun

selin

gDi

recto

rFe

dera

l Pro

gram

sDi

recto

rCa

reer

/ Tec

h.Ed

ucati

on D

irecto

r

Care

er / T

ech.

Ed T

each

ers

Libra

ry/Me

diaPe

rsonn

elCo

unse

lors

Socia

l Wor

kers

Gifte

d/Tale

nted

Teac

hers

Staff

Staff


The following is the auditors’ assessment of the district’s current table of organization based on the criteria presented in Exhibit 1.2.2:

Span of Control:1. The district offi ce positions on the chart do not meet this criterion since the assistant superintendents supervise and evaluate more than 12 employees.

Chain of Command:2. This principle is not applied in the current organizational chart. Most director positions each report to more than one supervisor. A number of positions have a dotted line connection to more than one other position. No position should have dotted line representation on a formal organizational chart, regardless of whether that represents a second supervisor or an interrelationship connection.

Logical Grouping of Functions: 3. Functions are not grouped together logically on the organizational chart. An example is the Athletic Director position, which serves high school athletic positions as described in the job description but reports to the superintendent. This reporting relationship is not consistent with CMA expectations.

A further area of possible confusion is the depiction of director positions (Special Services Director, ESOL Migrant Director, Early Childhood Director) reporting to the superintendent and separate from the curricular and programmatic functions that report to the Deputy Superintendent who is responsible for “the school improvement process” or to the Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction who “oversees the development and implementation of instructional programs.” Logically, the planning, accountability, and school improvement functions are clustered and the campus leadership and administration are clustered.

Separation of Line and Staff:4. No major problems with line/staff confusion are evident on the organizational chart provided.

Scalar Relationships:5. This principle is not applied in the current organizational chart. Numerous positions appear on parallel lines of the chart with no consideration to degree of responsibility, salary levels, or authority. For example, numerous directors, managers, supervisors, and various assistant positions are scattered at different levels.

Full Inclusion:6. Five positions (Director of Technology, Elementary Counselor, Secondary Guidance Counselor, Library/Media Specialist, and School Psychology Specialist) for which job descriptions were provided are not included individually on the organizational chart and are indicated as reporting directly to the superintendent, director, and/or respective principals.

Middle school students are involved in a district recycle program.


Job Descriptions

Job descriptions are clearly written summaries of duties and qualifi cations of persons employed by the school district. They provide information regarding the necessary background to qualify for specifi c jobs and how those positions function within the organization. The descriptions should include an assignment of supervisory relationships and the critical components of the job duties. A clear set of job descriptions supports the district’s internal and external communication by explaining who performs what duties within the organization. Adequately designed job descriptions also make graphic depiction of administrative relationships on the table of organization more readily accomplished.

To analyze job descriptions, auditors reviewed policies directing their role, existing job descriptions, and other related documents. They also interviewed several staff regarding job descriptions, their respective job responsibilities, and the supervision/reporting structure.

Auditors were given 24 job descriptions that have a connection to the design and delivery of the curriculum or were prominent on the district’s table of organization. The job descriptions were undated. None of the job descriptions had signatures indicating that the job description had been reviewed and approved by appropriate personnel.

When the selected job descriptions were compared to the district’s table of organization (see Exhibit 1.2.2), no job descriptions were found for 16 (35 percent) of the 46 district positions depicted on the chart.

The 24 job descriptions reviewed by the audit team represented only 50 percent of the 46 positions listed on the Rogers Public Schools Organizational Chart. Of the 24 job descriptions, only 10 titles were listed identically on the organizational chart; eight appeared in modifi ed versions, and six were not on the chart.

Exhibit 1.2.3 lists the job descriptions provided to auditors by school personnel and whether the job descriptions are included in the table of organization.

Exhibit 1.2.3

Job Descriptions Included in the Table of OrganizationRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Job Description Included in Table of OrganizationSuperintendent YesDeputy Superintendent YesAssistant Superintendent, Curriculum and Instruction

No; listed as Assistant Superintendent Elementary and Assistant Superintendent Secondary

Assistant Superintendent/Human Resources YesAssistant Principal YesCurriculum Specialist YesDepartment Chair Yes; listed as Department/Academy ChairsDirector of Career/Technical Education Yes; listed as Career/Technical Education DirectorDirector of Gifted and Talented Program Yes; listed as Gifted/Talented DirectorDirector of Professional Development/Testing/Family-School Relations

Yes; listed as Testing, Professional Development, Family/School Relations Director

Director of Technology NoDirector of Early Childhood Education Yes; listed as Early Childhood DirectorDirector of Libraries and Media Services Yes; listed as Library/Media DirectorDirector of Athletics Yes; listed as Athletic DirectorDirector of Counseling Yes; listed as Counseling DirectorElementary Counselor No


Exhibit 1.2.3 (continued)Job Descriptions Included in the Table of Organization


Job Description Included in Table of OrganizationESOL/Migrant Director YesGrants Director YesLead Teacher YesLibrary/Media Specialist NoPrincipal Yes; listed separately as K-5 or 6-8 PrincipalsSchool Psychology Specialist NoSecondary Guidance Counselor NoTeacher Yes; listed as Faculty and Staff

The auditors rated each of the 24 job descriptions on the four critical elements listed below:

Qualifi cations•

Links to Chain of Command•

Functions, Duties, and Responsibilities•

Relationship to the Curriculum (where relevant)•

There are fi ve possible ratings on the four critical elements. The possible ratings are shown in Exhibit 1.2.4. For a job description to be considered strong, it must be rated as adequate or higher on all four of the critical elements.

Exhibit 1.2.4

Curriculum Management Audit Rating Indicators for Job Descriptions

Rating ExplanationMissing No statement made.Inadequate A statement is made but is incomplete and missing suffi cient details.

Adequate The statement is more or less complete, usually missing curricular linkages or suffi cient detail regarding curricular linkage/alignment.

Strong A clear and complete statement is present, including linkage to curriculum where appropriate, or, if not appropriate, is otherwise quite complete.

Exemplary A clear, complete statement is present with inclusive linkages to curriculum indicated in excellent scope and depth.


Exhibit 1.2.5 presents the job descriptions reviewed and the auditors’ assessment of their adequacy.

Exhibit 1.2.5

Rating of the Quality of Job DescriptionsRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Job Descriptions Qualifi cation Chain of Command Resp. Curricular

LinkagesSuperintendent Adequate Strong Adequate InadequateDeputy Superintendent Adequate Strong Adequate StrongAssistant Superintendent, Curriculum and Instruction Adequate Strong Adequate Strong

Assistant Superintendent/Human Resources Adequate Strong Strong InadequateAssistant Principal Inadequate Adequate Inadequate MissingCurriculum Specialist Adequate Strong Strong StrongDepartment Chair Adequate Strong Strong StrongDirector of Career/Technical Education Inadequate Adequate Adequate AdequateDirector of Gifted and Talented Program Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequateDirector of Professional Development/Testing/Family-School Relations Inadequate Adequate Adequate Strong

Director of Technology Inadequate Adequate Adequate AdequateDirector of Early Childhood Education Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequateDirector of Libraries and Media Services Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequateDirector of Athletics Adequate Adequate Adequate N/ADirector of Counseling Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequateElementary Counselor Adequate Strong Strong InadequateESOL/Migrant Director Inadequate Inadequate Adequate AdequateGrants Director Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequateLead Teacher Adequate Adequate Adequate AdequateLibrary/Media Specialist Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequatePrincipal Adequate Adequate Strong AdequateSchool Psychology Specialist Adequate Adequate Adequate InadequateSecondary Guidance Counselor Inadequate Adequate Strong InadequateTeacher Strong Adequate Adequate Exemplary

Auditors identifi ed 72 percent of the critical element ratings as adequate or higher. Of the 24 job descriptions, eight (33 percent) were judged strong with all four of the critical elements rated adequate or higher, while 16 (67 percent) received a rating of inadequate on at least one element. Further comments regarding the ratings follow:

Qualifi cations:1. Auditors found 13 (54 percent) of the descriptions of qualifi cations to be adequate or strong. Many of the job descriptions (11 positions) contain generic qualifi cations that do not address the specifi c areas of expertise needed for the position.

Chain of Command:2. The critical element receiving the most ratings of adequate was chain of command. Only one job description was rated as inadequate for chain of command.

Functions, Duties, and Responsibilities:3. The descriptions of responsibilities were found to be adequate in all cases except assistant principals, whose responsibilities listed were void of any mention of the educational program.


Curricular Linkages:4. One of the 24 job descriptions reviewed was marked as N/A (not applicable, with no direct relationship to curricular matters). Of the remaining applicable job descriptions, 11 (46 percent) were judged to be adequate or higher, and 12 (50 percent) were considered inadequate.

The following quotations from interviews also refl ect concerns about job descriptions in the school district:

“Coaches have no job description. We keep a weekly log of our activities.” (Teacher)•

“I can’t tell you which jobs have written job descriptions and which ones don’t.” (Administrator)•

The school psychologist could provide some of the needed staff development but they don’t do this.” • (Administrator)

“I don’t think I have a job description.” (Administrator)•

Summary

The current table of organization does not meet all audit criteria for sound organizational management. Several positions have a vague designation with a dotted line, which could be interpreted to be a double supervision. Several positions with job descriptions do not appear on the table of organization, while many others have a different title on the chart from the written job description. Scalar relationships are not accurately represented on the table of organization, with positions at different levels of responsibility and compensation depicted on the same horizontal plane.

The district’s job descriptions do not meet audit criteria for accurate and clear specifi cations of responsibilities and relationship in the district. Not all positions on the table of organization had job descriptions. Not all job descriptions presented to auditors were included in the table of organization when they might be expected to be included. Some descriptions were for non-existent positions. Overall, auditors judged 33 percent of the reviewed job descriptions as strong, with all four critical elements receiving ratings of adequate or higher.

Finding 1.3: Administrator and staff evaluation processes and parameters are clear but do not consistently emphasize student learning or results. Sample evaluations revealed a lack of suffi cient specifi city and linkage with professional development to support both individual growth and organizational effectiveness.

Quality in a school district cannot depend on the effectiveness of only one component of the system. The organizational focus is highly dependent on the conduct and integrity of the elected or appointed board of education that governs the organization and represents the community served by the school district. Executive leadership and management frequently determine whether an organization can reach its potential and achieve its chosen mission and goals. The extent to which students achieve the objectives of the written curriculum is directly related to the quality of instruction they receive from teachers in the classrooms of the district. Support staff provide the fundamental environment and service functions to enhance organizational effectiveness. Implementing a comprehensive system of employee appraisal and supervision that provides constructive feedback is one process that can signifi cantly infl uence the effectiveness of all functions of the school district, from policy direction to classroom instruction.

Auditors found that the expectations for administrator and teacher evaluations were clearly stated in policies. In implementation, however, the evaluations lack suffi cient specifi city and linkage with both organizational and individual professional development planning to infl uence the individual’s growth in job performance and the overall effectiveness of the organization. In short, the design and intent of the evaluation procedures and practices have limited impact when an individual’s professional growth is not based on results and guidance from the evaluations.

To assess the district’s administrator and teacher appraisal processes, auditors reviewed board policies, written evaluation procedures, evaluation instruments, and a random sample of administrator and teacher performance appraisals. Auditors found several references to personnel evaluation in board policy:


Board Policy AE: Accountability/Commitment to Accomplishment• expects evaluation of the efforts of employees to be in line with stated objectives, stating, “The fi rst purpose of personnel evaluation will be to help each individual make a maximum contribution to the goals of the school system.”

Board Policy BBA: Board Powers and Responsibilities• states, “The Board is responsible for appraising the effectiveness of its staff by providing for their regular evaluation.”

Board Policy CAC-Form: Evaluation of School Administrators• outlines the stated criteria against which school administrators are to be evaluated. Ratings range from “Unsatisfactory,” to “Basic,” to “Profi cient,” to “Exemplary.” School administrators are to be evaluated in the domains as “Instructional Leader,” “Organizational Leader,” “Administrative and Management Leader,” “Human Relations Leader,” and “Professional Growth Leader.”

Board Policy GCO: Evaluation of Professional Personnel• outlines the board’s expectations regarding evaluation of the professional staff. It cites the purpose of evaluation to be “to enhance the quality of instruction, to provide information for school personnel to improve, and to provide information to serve as the basis for sound and defensible decisions.” The policy’s latest revision occurred on May 15, 2001. The district’s Revision of the Teacher Evaluation System for Rogers Public Schools is dated August 16, 2004.

Pre-school students eat a nutritious lunch in class daily.

The auditors reviewed a 10 percent random sampling of anonymous administrator and teacher evaluations completed and fi led in the personnel offi ce. The review was for the purpose of determining the congruence between policy and intent and the actual practices and resulting evaluations. The auditors found that the teacher and administrator evaluation systems are clearly delineated, but are ineffective in providing professional, constructive feedback that would lead to the improvement of instruction and student achievement.

The Revision of the Teacher Evaluation System for Rogers Public Schools, dated August 16, 2004, states, “Through the summative assessment process, the Rogers Public Schools provides assurance to its community that all teachers are performing at a high level of profi ciency. All probationary teachers…are evaluated annually using the summative process. All non-probationary teachers do a summative assessment at least once every three years.”

The document further describes, “The formative process is under the direction of each teacher, working collaboratively with colleagues and his or her administrator…. Each teacher conducts a self-assessment, selects (together with an administrator) suitable goals for focus, develops a growth plan, and implements that plan.”

The Teacher Evaluation System utilizes an evaluation process that evaluates teacher performance in four domains and in various components within each domain: 1) Planning and Preparation, with six components; 2)


The Classroom Environment, with fi ve components; 3) Instruction, with fi ve components; and 4) Professional Responsibilities, with six components. Ratings are determined in one of four categories: Unsatisfactory, Basic, Profi cient, or Distinguished.

Auditors analyzed the random sampling of professional evaluations by elementary and secondary levels, also distinguishing between formative and summative assessments. Exhibits 1.3.1 to 1.3.4 note the ratings by grade level and evaluation category. Formative assessments are completed by teachers in consultation with their administrators, while summative assessments are completed by the teacher’s supervising administrator.

Exhibit 1.3.1

Auditors’ Analysis of Elementary Formative Assessments by Domain


Domain Unsatisfactory Basic Profi cient DistinguishedPlanning & Preparation 0.0% 3.0% 76.0% 21.0%The Classroom Environment 0.0% 9.0% 72.0% 19.0%Instruction 0.0% 10.0% 69.0% 21.0%Professional Responsibilities 0.0% 8.0% 74.0% 19.0%

TOTALS 0.0% 7.0% 73.0% 20.0%

Exhibit 1.3.1 notes the following:

Ratings as Profi cient account for 73 percent of the formative assessments.•

No Unsatisfactory ratings were recorded.•

Most Basic ratings were recorded in the Instruction domain•

The most Distinguished ratings were noted in the Planning/Preparation and Instruction domains.•

Exhibit 1.3.2

Auditors’ Analysis of Elementary Summative Assessments by Domain



TOTALS 0.0% 4.0% 78.0% 19.0%

Auditors noted the following in Exhibit 1.3.2:

Profi cient ratings were issued in 78 percent of summative teacher evaluations.•

Only four percent of teachers received a Basic summative rating.•

Fewer teachers received a rating of Distinguished than were noted on formative assessments in • Exhibit 1.3.1.

Distinguished ratings were noted most often for teachers in the Planning/Preparation domain; the least • Distinguished ratings were noted in the Professional Responsibilities domain.

No Unsatisfactory ratings were noted in elementary summative assessments.•


High school mascots adorn door mat at district offi ce.

Exhibit 1.3.3

Auditors’ Analysis of Secondary Formative Assessments by Domain



TOTALS 0.0% 7.0% 76.0% 17.0%

Auditors found the following in Exhibit 1.3.3:

Seven percent of the ratings were marked Basic on formative assessments.•

The highest percentage (20 percent) of Distinguished ratings was recorded in The Classroom • Environment domain.

Teachers were rated Profi cient on 76 percent of the random samples.•

No Unsatisfactory ratings were noted in secondary formative assessments.•

Exhibit 1.3.4

Auditors’ Analysis of Secondary Summative Assessments by Domain



TOTALS 0.0% 2.0% 88.0% 10.0%


Exhibit 1.3.4 shows the following:

The highest percentage (88 percent) of ratings is noted as Profi cient on summative assessments.•

Only two percent of summative ratings were noted as Basic.•

Profi cient ratings at 90 percent were noted in The Classroom Environment and Professional • Responsibilities domains.

The highest percentage (12 percent) of Distinguished ratings occurred in the Planning and Preparation • domain.

No Unsatisfactory ratings were given on the secondary summative evaluations.•

Auditors also analyzed anonymous evaluations of administrators. The administrator appraisal system assesses administrators in fi ve domains and various components within each domain: 1) Instructional Leader, with eight components; 2) Organizational Leader, with nine components: 3) Administrative and Management Leader, with fi ve components; Human Relations Leader, with fi ve components; and 5) Professional Growth Leader, with fi ve components. Ratings are assessed in one of four categories: Unsatisfactory, Basic, Profi cient, or Exemplary.

The audit team’s analysis of administrators’ evaluations is noted in Exhibit 1.3.5.

Exhibit 1.3.5

Auditors’ Analysis of Administrator Appraisals by Domain


Domain Unsatisfactory Basic Profi cient ExemplaryInstructional Leader 0.0% 9.0% 83.0% 8.0%Organizational Leader 0.0% 6.0% 82.0% 9.0%Administrative & Management Leader 0.0% 9.0% 75.0% 6.0%Human Relations Leader 0.0% 2.0% 76.0% 22.0%Professional Growth Leader 0.0% 12.0% 76.0% 10.0%

TOTALS 0.0% 8.0% 79.0% 11.0%

Exhibit 1.3.5 notes the following:

Profi ciency ratings were recorded in 79 percent of the appraisals.•

Ten percent of the ratings were Exemplary.•

The most Exemplary ratings were issued in the Human Relations Leader domain (22 percent); the least • percentage in the Exemplary rating occurred in the Administrative and Management Leader domain (six percent).

The highest percentage of Basic ratings (12 percent) occurred in the Professional Developer Leader • domain. The lowest percentage (two percent) occurred in the Human Relations Leader domain.

Administrators were rated Profi cient in the Instructional Leader domain on 83 percent of appraisals.•

No administrators were rated as Unsatisfactory in any domain. •

The auditors’ analysis of the random sampling of professional appraisal documents provided to them revealed a trend of marking appraisals mostly profi cient. Interviews with board members, district administrators, school-based administrators, teachers and staff members refl ected the district’s commitment to aligning appraisals with professional development needs. Auditors heard the following representative comments relative to the level of professional development desired:

“The focus is to have everyone be refl ective, better today that yesterday.” (Administrator)•


“In curriculum, we need consistent expectations from everyone.” (Administrator)•

“Middle school administrators need work on becoming instructional leaders.” (Administrator)•

“We have an elementary principals’ retreat in a couple of weeks and we are going to focus on professional • development.” (Administrator)

“We are tying our IGPs (Individual Growth Plan) to our professional development.” (Administrator)•

“I am anxious to get more into instructional practices.” (Administrator)•

Auditors noted that evaluator comments on teacher appraisals tended to be general in nature and refl ected varying levels of growth opportunities for teachers. Many of the comments were limited to expanding on teachers’ behaviors and classroom situations, and lacked the level of specifi city required to direct individual teacher’s professional development plans. Many appraisals had no comments at all, but were limited to marking evaluation rankings. Evaluator comments can identify and direct growth targets for teacher training, congruent with the categories on the appraisal rubric. Some comments are specifi c to instructional or curricular practices, but most are not. The following representative comments were noted on appraisals and refl ect the general nature of the comments made:

“Differential lessons for individual students.”•

“Establish a culture of learning for all students to demonstrate pride.”•

“Preparing lessons that refl ect best practices.”•

“Use student background knowledge, skill level and interests to differentiate for groups/individual • compared to whole group instruction.”

“[Teacher] works hard to present a learning objective that is both understandable and attainable.”•

“[Teacher] keeps her classroom fresh with ideas, teaching and concepts. It has been an honor to work • with such an outstanding professional.”

“Adapts to student needs very well.”•

“Has an effective knowledge of her students. She works hard gathering the resources her students • need.”

“Mrs. [teacher] meets all standards for professional responsibilities. She works well within her team.•

“After looking at last year’s self-evaluation, I see that I’m experiencing growth in my abilities. Teaching • literacy through the ELF model has strengthened my instruction and excites me at the progress of my students.”

“She meets the needs of all learners through differentiation of instruction.”•

“She feels that she needs to refi ne her questioning and discussion techniques which is a result of having • a new trainer this year.”

“[Teacher] does a very good job in communicating with her students and engaging the students in the • learning process.”

“Strength area is teacher’s extensive knowledge of content area.”•

“[Teacher] works hard to set high expectations for learning and is consistent.”•

“Strives to be a professional in all areas of working with students and parents to communicate student • progress.”

“Continues to do a great job in [sports] and works diligently to ensure students’ success in the • classroom.”


Auditors noted similar comments on administrators’ appraisals:

“He demonstrates good judgment when dealing with all aspects of his responsibilities. He shows • initiative in developing programs for students to increase their performance.”

“[Administrator] has done an exceptional job. She is always looking for ways to do more than her • share.”

“She is exceptionally well organized and helps the other administrators stay on task.”•

“She has done a nice job of building a culture of a caring school and a safe and orderly school • environment.”

“[Administrator] continues to demonstrate a strong ability to disseminate examples of high yield • strategies to teachers through individual and group training sessions.”

“He has great relationships with students, families, and the community.”•

“She has made a consistent effort to visit classrooms more.”•

“Your focus on learning standards and student achievement is a strength. You are continually working • with the staff to make data driven decisions to enhance student learning. Search for ways to use one of your greatest strengths—sharing your expertise in curriculum knowledge—with the staff.”

Summary

The Rogers Public Schools’ evaluation system is developed and adequate in format, but is lacking the specifi city and linkage that can lead to improvement in teachers’ performance and student learning. The district is in compliance with its own process, but performance ratings were noted to be neutral in their assignment, with little connectivity to teachers’ professional development needs and goals. Evaluation ratings focused primarily on rating teachers as Profi cient, with no teachers marked Unsatisfactory on any component of any domain.

Auditors noted similar rating responses on administrator evaluations. Profi cient was the overwhelming rating given to administrators, with no ratings of Unsatisfactory given on any component of any domain.

Auditors also noted a trend of rating teachers and administrators with the same rating level on all components within one domain. Such a practice suggests that ratings are pro forma and each component may not be considered individually for each employee evaluated. To be of value, evaluations must lead to professional development opportunities to improve teacher and administrator performance, which will lead to improvement in student performance. On administrators’ evaluations 36 percent of the Profi cient ratings were instances in which all components in a domain for a particular administrator were marked as Profi cient. This trend occurred only once in the Exemplary ratings. On teacher evaluations (combining elementary and secondary together), 44 percent of all Profi cient ratings were instances in which all components in a domain for an individual teacher were marked as Profi cient. This occurred three percent of the time in the Distinguished rating.

District policies, job descriptions and employee evaluation in the Rogers Public Schools demonstrate the level of quality control achieved by the district. Auditors noted areas of inadequacy that identify the need for improvements.


STANDARD 2: The School District Has Established Clear and Valid Objectives for Students.A school system meeting this audit standard has established a clear, valid, and measurable set of pupil standards for learning and has set the objectives into a workable framework for their attainment.

Unless objectives are clear and measurable, there cannot be a cohesive effort to improve pupil achievement in the dimensions in which measurement occurs. The lack of clarity and focus denies to a school system’s educators the ability to concentrate scarce resources on priority targets. Instead, resources may be spread too thin and be ineffective in any direction. Objectives are, therefore, essential to attaining local quality control via the school board.


Common indicators the PDK-CMSi auditors expected to fi nd are:

A clearly established, board-adopted system-wide set of goals and objectives for all programs and • courses;

Demonstration that the system is contextual and responsive to national, state, and other expectations as • evidenced in local initiatives;

Operations set within a framework that carries out the system’s goals and objectives;•

Evidence of comprehensive, detailed, short- and long-range curriculum management planning;•

Knowledge, local validation, and use of current best practices and emerging curriculum trends;•

Written curriculum that addresses both current and future needs of students;•

Major programmatic initiatives designed to be cohesive;•

Provision of explicit direction for the superintendent and professional staff; and •

A framework that exists for systemic curricular change.•


This section is an overview of the fi ndings that follow in the area of Standard Two. Details follow within separate fi ndings.

There was no comprehensive plan for curriculum management in place in Rogers Public Schools at the time of the audit. Rogers Board Policy, the district Strategic Plan, Total Instructional Alignment documents, and other curricular documents contain elements of a curriculum management plan but lack the specifi city necessary to provide for the alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum.

The scope of a district’s curriculum is the presence of curriculum documents to guide instruction in every subject and course offered to students. The lack of guiding curriculum documents increases the risk of inconsistency and fragmentation across courses, grade levels, and schools. To be considered adequate according to audit criteria, 70 percent of the district’s subjects and courses must have guiding curriculum documents. The scope of the district’s PreK to grade 12 written curriculum was analyzed by the auditors as inadequate, with 64 percent of the subjects having some type of written documents. The scope of the written curriculum of Rogers Public Schools for grades PreK through 5 has 92 percent of the subjects having some type of written document available to teachers. The scope of the written curriculum for middle school and high school is considered inadequate, with 67 percent of the middle school subjects and courses having some type of written document available to teachers, and 58 percent of the high school subjects and courses having a guiding curriculum document available to teachers for directing instruction.

Curriculum documents are only one element in providing appropriate curriculum guidance to teachers. Curriculum documents must provide direction and consistency to enable students to achieve at high levels.


Comprehensive curriculum documents identify lesson objectives, prerequisite skills necessary to address those objectives, instructional resources, suggested teaching strategies, and assessment measures. Auditors reviewed the written curriculum documents presented to them and found the Rogers Public Schools curriculum documents to be inadequate to direct teaching and ensure horizontal and vertical coordination based on audit standards.

The expectations for teaching and learning described in Rogers Public School documents do not match what was observed in most of the 574 classrooms visited by auditors. Teaching and learning were primarily limited to lecture-like activities, whole-group student activities, and seatwork. The cognitive level of activity in classrooms was predominantly at the knowledge and comprehension levels. Use of technology in teaching and learning was limited to 37 percent of classrooms that had technology available.

Finding 2.1: Some elements of curriculum planning are in place, but a formalized comprehensive management plan to guide the design and delivery of curriculum is absent.

A school system with strong curriculum management has a comprehensive curriculum management plan that establishes guidelines and procedures for the design, delivery, and evaluation of the curriculum. Such a plan delineates the procedural intent of the district leadership and provides a rigorous system of quality control. The curriculum management plan is coordinated with other major plans, such as the district’s strategic plan, the assessment plan, the cycle for adoption of materials and textbooks, the professional development plan, the technology plan, and the budgeting process. In addition, it generally includes procedures and processes for adopting and evaluating new programs and interventions. Such comprehensive planning ensures that changes in personnel will not signifi cantly affect a district’s curriculum development system. When all planning is integrated and committed to policy, consistency over time is more likely.

To determine whether Rogers Public Schools has curriculum management planning in place, auditors examined board policy, reviewed curriculum-related documents, visited all schools and most classrooms in the district, and interviewed board members, administrators, and teachers. Auditors fi rst examined district documents to determine if any of the characteristics of a quality curriculum management plan, as outlined in the curriculum management improvement model, were present. These characteristics are presented in Exhibit 2.1.1:

Exhibit 2.1.1

Characteristics of a Quality Curriculum Management Plan

Describes the philosophical framework for the design of the curriculum, including such directives 1. as standards-based, results-based, or competency-based; alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum; and the approaches used in delivering the curriculum.Identifi es the timing, scope, and procedures for a periodic cycle of review of curriculum in all 2. subject areas and at all grade levels.Defi nes and directs the stages of curriculum development.3. Specifi es the roles and responsibilities of the board, central offi ce staff members, and school-based 4. staff members in the design and delivery of curriculum.Presents the format and components of all curriculum, assessments, and instructional guide 5. documents.Directs how state and national standards will be considered in the curriculum. This includes 6. whether or not a backloaded approach, in which the curriculum is derived from high stakes tested learnings (topological and/or deep alignment), and/or a frontloaded approach, which derives the curriculum from national, state, or local learnings, will be used. Requires for every content area a focused set of precise student objectives/student expectations 7. and standards that are reasonable in number—so the student has time to master the content.Directs that the curriculum must not only specify the content of the student objectives and student 8. expectations, but that multiple contexts and cognitive types will also be included.


Exhibit 2.1.1 (continued)Characteristics of a Quality Curriculum Management Plan

Specifi es the overall beliefs and procedures governing the assessment of curriculum effectiveness. 9. This includes curriculum-based diagnostic assessments and rubrics (as needed). Such assessments are to direct instructional decisions regarding prerequisite knowledge, short-term acquisition, and long-term mastery of the learning.Directs curriculum to be designed so that it supports teachers’ differentiating both their 10. instructional approaches as well as their selection of student objectives at the right level of diffi culty. This provides for an accelerated pace for students who do not have the prerequisites (are below grade level) as well as those who have already mastered the objectives and need a more challenging, rigorous pace (those above grade level).Describes the procedures teachers and administrators will follow in using assessment data to 11. strengthen curriculum and instructional decision making.Outlines procedures for conducting formative and summative evaluations of programs and 12. content.Requires the design and delivery of a comprehensive staff development program linked to 13. curriculum design.Presents procedures for monitoring the delivery of curriculum.14. Establishes a communication plan for the process of curriculum design and delivery, as well as a 15. celebration of progress and quality.

Middle school students participated in a project on U.S. presidents.

As seen in Exhibit 2.1.1, the characteristics require a plan to direct not only the nature of the design of curriculum, but also the schedule and scope of its review, procedures for monitoring its implementation, the roles and responsibilities of staff and board, approaches for using assessment data for its revision and improvement, linkages to professional development, and methods for communicating the process of curriculum design, delivery, and quality.

Exhibit 2.1.2 refl ects the auditors’ analysis of the district’s curricular documents against the characteristics of a comprehensive curriculum management plan. A district’s approach to curriculum management is considered adequate if it meets 70 percent or more of the criteria.


Exhibit 2.1.2

Components of a Comprehensive Curriculum Management Plan and Auditors’ Assessment of District’s Approach


Components:Rating

Adequate InadequateDescribes the philosophical framework for the design of the curriculum, including 1. such directives as standards-based, results-based, and competency-based; alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum; and the approaches used in delivering the curriculum.

X

Identifi es the timing, scope, and procedures for a periodic cycle of review of curriculum 2. in all subject areas and at all grade levels. X

Defi nes and directs the stages of curriculum development.3. XSpecifi es the roles and responsibilities of the board, central offi ce staff members, and 4. school-based staff members in the design and delivery of curriculum. X

Presents the format and components of all curriculum, assessments, and instructional 5. guide documents. Partial

Directs how state and national standards will be considered in the curriculum. 6. This includes whether or not a back loaded approach, in which the curriculum is derived from high stakes tested learnings (topological and/or deep alignment), and/or frontloaded approach, which derives the curriculum from national, state, or local learnings, will be used.

X

Requires for every content area a focused set of precise student objectives/student 7. expectations and standards that are reasonable in number—so the student has time to master the content.

Partial

Directs that the curriculum must not only specify the content of the student objectives/8. student expectations, but that multiple contexts and cognitive types will also be included.

X

Specifi es the overall beliefs and procedures governing the assessment of curriculum 9. effectiveness. This includes curriculum-based diagnostic assessments and rubrics (as needed). Such assessments are to direct instructional decisions regarding prerequisite knowledge, short-term acquisition, and long-term mastery of the learning.

X

Directs curriculum to be designed so that it supports teachers’ differentiating both their 10. instructional approaches as well as their selection of student objectives at the right level of diffi culty. This is to provide for an accelerated pace for students who do not have the prerequisites (are below grade level) as well as those who have already mastered the objectives and need a more challenging, rigorous pace (those above grade level).

X

Describes the procedures teachers and administrators will follow in using assessment 11. data to strengthen curriculum and instructional decision making. X

Outlines procedures for conducting formative and summative evaluations of programs 12. and content. Partial X

Requires the design of a comprehensive staff development program linked to curriculum 13. design and its delivery. X

Presents procedures for monitoring the delivery of curriculum.14. PartialEstablishes a communication plan for the process of curriculum design and delivery, as 15. well as a celebration of progress and quality. Partial

Exhibit 2.1.2 indicates that the district’s approach to curriculum management planning meets or partially meets fi ve of the 15 criteria (33 percent) and is, therefore, inadequate to direct curriculum development and implementation. While various district documents provide some direction for the curriculum development process, no single comprehensive document provides such guidance. The collective planning documents do not meet the audit criteria for a comprehensive curriculum management plan.


In the absence of any planning documents specifi c to managing the development, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and revisions of curriculum, auditors reviewed board policy and guidelines for any of the characteristics of a quality curriculum management plan.

Auditors did fi nd a few of these characteristics in board policy, but not to the extent to be considered formal direction for all aspects of curriculum management. Relevant policies follow:

Board Policy IG: Curriculum Development, Adoption, and Review, specifi es that the superintendent will ensure the development and adoption of a high quality curriculum at all grade levels and for all subject areas. The superintendent is expected to ensure that:

Professional staff receive appropriate assignment and direction for curriculum work;•

There is an allocation of appropriate material resources for curriculum development and • implementation;

Staff will review each area of the curriculum on a periodic basis;•

Staff will be aware of current research and recognized best practices and understand the process is more • than a review of available textbooks;

Substantial changes to curriculum will be reviewed and approved by the board of education; and that•

Appropriate professional development will be offered to ensure that all staff understands the content of • the approved curriculum.

The superintendent’s responsibilities excerpted from Policy IG approach the characteristics expected to be found in a curriculum management planning document, although confi ned to only one key position in the district, rather than specifi c positions and departments within the district.

Board Policy IJJ: Instructional Materials Selection and Adoption directs, “In general, adoptions will follow the 6-year adoption cycle approved by the Arkansas Department of Education.” This provides for simply following the state’s textbook cycle. Additionally, Policy IJJ calls for curriculum committees to research and review curriculum standards and best practices in the curricular area(s) being studied and to identify and recommend to the superintendent instructional materials that best fi t the needs of the district’s students.

Other district documents were reviewed looking for specifi c direction in curriculum management. The district Strategic Plan for Year Two called for creating “a seamless K-12 curriculum.” The Strategic Plan for Year Three calls for “implementing an aligned K-12 instruction and assessment model that equips students with the skills necessary for the 21st Century and a global economy” along with eight other school improvement objectives to be addressed as part of the strategic plan.

The auditors found that, beginning in January 2007, the district began development of TIA (Total Instructional Alignment) curriculum documents found on the district website. As stated on the website, the district intent is that “the development of these documents will be phased in over a two-year period beginning in January of 2007. As such, currently each document may be in different stages of development.” The plan for this work is to move “towards a common format” for all documents and “to continue the development, through its stages of creation and revision, to a place where the individual classroom teacher can implement the document in his/her classroom in order to raise the level of student learning and achievement.”

District personnel indicated some confusion about what the current curricula are, but with an understanding that TIA (Total Instructional Alignment) curriculum documents and TLI (The Learning Institute) assessments are part of the current focus. These comments included:

“The focus of the district is to get curriculum aligned and get resources to support it.” (Academic • Coach)

“The big focus right now is folks understanding how a standards-based learning model is different and • how to use performance-based learning objectives. There has been some work done in best practices particularly in literacy and math.” (Administrator)


“There should be rigor in the curriculum and it should be uniform.” (Administrator)•

“Programs are driven by buildings. Materials are district adopted. Supplemental materials are decided • at the building level. In curriculum, we need consistent expectations for everyone.” (Administrator)

“We tend to focus on literacy and math and are beginning to move to science since the state is moving • there. What we are assessed on at the state level is driving our emphasis.” (Administrator)

“The TIAs are broad. There are too many SLEs (Student Learning Expectations) for students to master in • a content area. TLIs help to focus us but do not stress the importance of the curriculum.” (Teacher)

“How do teachers know what to teach? Some do and some don’t. We are developing TIA documents. • Elementary is pretty much in place and using the documents. We should all be done by the end of the year and then we will collect feedback.” (Administrator)

“We have a lot of work left on continuous fl ow K-12 with TIA. We have made lots of progress and are • having good conversations, but there is much work to be done.” (Administrator)

“We have made a lot of headway with our curriculum and instruction alignment documents. We are still • working on some areas but at least teachers can look at standards now and have a task analysis and key vocabulary available.” (Administrator)

“The expectation is that the department chairs from the feeder schools work on curriculum alignment • when they get together, but they usually do not have the time.” (Administrator)

“We depend mostly on the curriculum committee for curriculum recommendations.” (Board Member)•

“Curriculum should be broad. State tests are narrowing the focus of the curriculum. We need to work • on a balanced curriculum.” (Administrator)

“The board wants curriculum frameworks; I want us to put in place the programs and curriculum to • make our AYP (adequate yearly progress) through testing. I want to ensure that all students are making AYP, that they are learning, and that they are at school.” (Board Member)

High school students utilize an open computer lab for class instruction.

Summary

Rogers Public Schools lacks clarity in many aspects of managing the written, taught, and tested curriculum. The structure, as it currently exists, is not united under a single purpose and defi ned by district planning or an overarching district plan to provide a comprehensive and cohesive district-wide approach to curriculum management.


Finding 2.2: The scope of the written curriculum, PreK-5, is adequate to provide a cohesive framework of goals and objectives for student learning; the scope of the written curriculum at the middle school and high school level is inadequate.

Curriculum documents are work plans that provide for alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum. Curriculum documents may include several components to provide teachers direction as they plan classroom instruction. These components include student goals or objectives, prerequisite skills, instructional materials, teaching strategies, and assessment measures.

A written curriculum document is needed for every course and subject taught in the school district. The existence of these documents is considered the scope of the written curriculum and is a key component of a district’s quality control of its educational program. Without written curriculum documents, teachers are forced to rely on other resources for planning and delivering instruction.

Auditors were provided with written curriculum documents and access to online curriculum documents in Rogers Public Schools. These documents included curriculum standards, student learning expectations, course descriptions, course syllabi, grade level expectations, and Total Instructional Alignment documents in all subjects.

Auditors expect to fi nd curriculum documents available for every subject or course offered by a school system. The percentage of the curriculum offered to students that is covered by curriculum documents is referred to as the scope of written curriculum. If 70 percent of the available courses have curriculum documents, auditors determine the scope of the written curriculum to be adequate. The written and online curriculum documents were reviewed by auditors to assess the collective scope and quality (see Finding 2.3) of the district’s written curriculum. The scope of the district’s curriculum was analyzed at 64 percent by the auditors. Board policies, district guiding documents, and district plans were also analyzed. Interviews were conducted with district administrators, principals, and teachers concerning the scope of the district’s curriculum. The auditors determined that the scope of the written curriculum is adequate in the elementary grades, but is inadequate at the middle school and high school levels to provide local control of the curriculum.

Exhibit 2.2.1 is a listing of elementary courses and corresponding guides received on-site by the auditors. If the scope of the written curriculum is at least 70 percent, it is considered to be adequate.

Exhibit 2.2.1

Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 5


Content Area Number of Course Offerings

Offerings with Curriculum Documents

Percent of Offerings with Curriculum

DocumentsReading/LA 7 6 86ESOL 7 6 86Mathematics 7 6 86Science 7 6 86Social Studies 7 6 86Visual Arts 6 6 100Music 6 6 100PE/Health 6 6 100Library 6 6 100

Totals 59 54 92%


Exhibit 2.2.1 indicates the following:

The scope of the written curriculum for the PreK-5 level is adequate since 92 percent of the courses • taught have curriculum documents.

No curriculum documents were presented to the auditors for PreK courses taught in Rogers Public • Schools. District personnel indicated that the curriculum for PreK is the state curriculum that is not maintained with district curriculum documents.

Elementary school students await instruction in the school’s pullout music program.

The Middle School Course Descriptions and Registration for 6th, 7th and 8th Grade were analyzed to determine the courses available to students at the middle school level. Auditors compared the course listings with written curriculum guides and on-line documents presented to the audit team. These documents represent the written curriculum as available to teachers. The analysis of the scope of written curriculum for middle schools is shown in Exhibit 2.2.2.

Exhibit 2.2.2

Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and Grade Level Middle School CoursesRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Content Area Grade Levels Offerings with Curriculum Documents


DocumentsEnglish 6,7,8 3 100Reading 6,7 0 0Pre-AP English 8 0 0ESOL 6,7,8 3 100Mathematics 6,7 2 100Pre-Algebra 8 1 100Algebra 8 1 100Social Studies 6,7,8 3 100Arkansas History 7 1 100Science 6,7,8 3 100REACH 6,7 0 0Technology 6,7,8 0 0Keyboarding 8 1 100


Exhibit 2.2.2 (continued)Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and Grade Level

Middle School CoursesRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Content Area Grade Levels Offerings with Curriculum Documents


DocumentsArt 6,7,8 0 0Music 6 0 0Band 6,7,8 3 100Orchestra 6,7,8 3 100Choir 6,7,8 3 100Physical Education 6 1 100Health 6 1 100Wellness (PE & Health) 7,8 2 100Family Work Connections 7,8 0 0Survey of Foreign Language 6 0 0French I 8 1 100German I 8 1 100Spanish I 8 1 100Spanish for Native Speakers I 8 1 100Spanish for Native Speakers II 8 1 100Mass Media 8 0 0Reading Improvement 8 0 0Career Orientation 8 0 0Totals 54 Offerings 36 67%

Exhibit 2.2.2 shows the following:

The scope of the written curriculum for available middle school courses is 67 percent, which does not • meet the 80 percent requirement and is, therefore, considered inadequate.

Courses in the core areas of English, mathematics, social studies and science had curriculum • documents.

Reading courses, Pre-AP English, REACH, Technology, Art, Music, Family-Work Connections, • Survey of Foreign Language, Mass Media, Reading Improvement, and Career Orientation are lacking curriculum documents to guide instruction.

String orchestra is an example of middle school electives offered to students.


The High School Course Catalog was analyzed to determine the courses available to students at the secondary level. Auditors compared the course listings with the written curriculum guides and on-line documents presented to the audit team. These documents represent the written curriculum as available to teachers. There were a number of courses listed in the High School Course Catalog for which no curriculum documents were presented. The analysis of the scope of written curriculum for high schools is shown in Exhibit 2.2.3.

Exhibit 2.2.3

Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area High School Courses


Content Area/Course Course Offered Guide AvailableLanguage Arts

English I X XPre-AP English I XEnglish II X XPre-AP English II XEnglish III X XEnglish IV X XAP English Literature and Composition X XAP English Language and Composition X XFreshman Comp I—Concurrent Credit X XFreshman Comp II—Concurrent Credit X XPhilosophy and Literature X XReading Improvement X

English for Speakers of Other Languages ESOL II, English X XESOL II, Reading Improvement/Language Development XESOL III, English X XESOL III-English IV X XESOL I/II Biology XESOL I/II Physical Science XESOL II American History X

English AcademyESOL I English X XESOL I Health XESOL I Algebra A XESOL I Algebra B XESOL I Math Plus XESOL I Government XESOL I Reading Improvement/Language Development XESOL I US Culture/Careers XESOL I Keystone XESOL I Keyboarding X

MathematicsAlgebra I X XIntegrated Algebra A/Integrated Algebra B XIntegrated Algebra B XGeometry X X


Exhibit 2.2.3 (continued)Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area

High School CoursesRogers Public Schools

November 2008Content Area/Course Course Offered Guide Available

Mathematics (continued)Integrated Geometry A/Integrated Geometry B XPre-AP Geometry XAlgebraic Connections X XAlgebra II X XPre-AP Algebra II XAlgebra III X XTrigonometry X XFinite Math X XPre-Calculus with Trigonometry X XAP Calculus AB X XAP Statistics X XCollege Algebra X XCollege Finite Math X XCollege Trigonometry X X

Science Physical Science

Physical Science X XPhysics X XAP Physics B X XGeology X XAstronomy X XChemistry X XPre-AP Chemistry XAP Chemistry X X

Life SciencesBiology X XPre-AP Biology XAnatomy & Physiology X XEcology X XEnvironmental Science—Outdoor Ed X XZoology X XAP Biology X XIntroduction to Genetics X XAP Environmental Science X X

Social Studies American History X XPre-AP American History XAP United States History X XWar Time America X XWorld History X XAP World History X XAP European History X XArkansas History X X





Social Studies (continued)Civics X Civics/American Government X XAP United States Government and Politics/AP Comparative Government and Politics X X

Psychology X XAP Psychology X XSociology X Native American Anthropology X XWorld Geography X AP Human Geography X XEconomics XAP Microeconomics/AP Macroeconomics X X

Career and Technical General Career and Technical

Workplace Readiness X XInternship X X

Agriculture Science & TechnologyAgriculture Science & Technology X XLeadership & Communications X XAgriculture Mechanics I & 11 X XAgriculture Metals I X XAgricultural Metals II X XIntro to Horticulture Science X XGreenhouse Management X XNursery Landscape X XAnimal Sciences X XAdvanced Animal Science (Horse Production) X XBiological Animal Sciences X XForestry X X

Business and Marketing Technology Computer Applications I X XComputer Applications II X XEnterprise Management I & II X XManagement (JET) X XOffi ce Education/Work-Based Learning (COE) X XWork-Based Learning (COE) X XOffi ce Management X XComputerized Accounting I X XComputerized Accounting II X XBanking and Finance Principles X XBanking and Finance: Consumer Lending X XComputer Applications III X XDesktop Publishing II X X





Business and Marketing Technology (continued)Programming I—Visual Basic X XProgramming II—Advanced Visual Basic X XProgramming I—Visual C++ X XProgramming II—Visual C++ X XAP Computer Science (A)—Java Programming X XMarketing X XMarketing Management X XMarketing Management—Work-based Learning XRetailing X XFashion Merchandising X XAdvertising X X

Business and Marketing Technology (continued)Introduction to Hospitality X XIntroduction to Travel and Tourism X Web Design and Multimedia Productions X XBusiness Law I X XInternational Business X XKeyboarding X X

Communications—BroadcastingIntro to Career Communications X Career Communications I X XCareer Communications II X XCCII A Daily News XCC II B Daily News XCC II C Daily News XCC II D Features XCC II E Features XCC II F Features X

Family and Consumer Science Family and Consumer Sciences X XClothing Management X XFood & Nutrition X XHuman Relations X XParenting X XChild Development X XHousing and Interior Design X X

Health Science Technology EducationIntroduction to Medical Professions & Lab X XHuman Anatomy & Physiology I X XMedical Procedures X XMedical Terminology X X





Skilled & Technical SciencesBrakes and Electrical X XSteering/Suspension & Electrical X XEngine Performance & Electronics X XDrafting & Design X XArchitecture/CAD I X Architecture/CAD II X Machine Tool I & Lab X XMachine Tool II X XMachine Tool III X X

Fine Arts Fundamentals of Design (Art I) X XStudio Art 2-D Design (Art II) X XStudio Art I (Art III) X Advanced Studio Art (Art IV) XAP Studio Art: Drawing/2D-Design/3-D Design X XGraphics Design XGraphics Art II X Introduction to Ceramics X XCeramics II X AP Art History X X

Drama Drama I X XApplied Drama X XAdvanced Drama X XPlay Production XPerformance and Directing X XFundamentals of Theatre Production X XTheatre Management and Design X X

MusicBand I Instrumental Music XBand II XBand III XBand IV XJazz Band XJazz Band II XJazz Band III XAP Music Theory X XOrchestra I XOrchestra II XOrchestra III XOrchestra IV XChoir I: Beginning Men’s Choir XChoir I: Beginning Women’s Choir X





MusicChoir II: Intermediate Men’s Choir XChoir II: Intermediate Women’s Choir XChoir III: Advanced Men’s Choir XChoir III: Advanced Women’s Choir XChoir IV: Advanced Men’s Choir XChoir IV: Advanced Women’s Choir XChorale I XChorale II XChorale III XShow Choir I/Chamber Singers I XShow Choir II/Chamber Singers II XShow Choir III/Chamber Singers III X

Foreign Language French

French I X XFrench II X XPre-AP French II X Pre-AP French III X XPre-AP French IV X XAP French Language X X

GermanGerman I X XGerman II X XPre-AP German III X XPre-AP German IV X XAP German Language X

SpanishSpanish I X XSpanish II X XPre-AP Spanish II X College Intermediate Spanish I XCollege Intermediate Spanish II X Pre-AP Spanish III X XPre-AP Spanish IV X XLatin American Studies X XAP Spanish Language X XAP Spanish Literature X X

Spanish for Native SpeakersSpanish for Native Speakers I (Heritage) X XSpanish for Native Speakers II X XSpanish for Native Speakers III X XLatin American Studies X XAP Spanish Language X XAP Spanish Literature X X





JournalismJournalism I X XJournalism II (Yearbook) XJournalism III (Yearbook) XJournalism II (Newspaper) XJournalism III (Newspaper) XJournalism IV X

Physical Education, Health, and AthleticsHealth X XPhysical Education (Physical Dimensions) X XLifetime Sports (Individual and Dual Sport Activities) X XFitness and Conditioning I X XFitness and Conditioning II X Fitness and Conditioning III X Fitness and Conditioning IV X Outdoor Education (Environmental Science) XAdapted Physical Education XFootball XVolleyball XFitness & Conditioning—Basketball off-season X Golf XCross Country XTennis XSwimming XFitness & Conditioning—Football off-season X Fitness & Conditioning—Volleyball off-season X Basketball XBaseball XTrack XSoccer XSoftball XPom Squad XCheerleading X

Speech and Debate Oral Communications X XExtended Year Oral Communications XForensics I XForensics II XAdvanced Debate X

Regional Technical Center Computer Engineering

Diagnostics (Computer) X XOperations (Computer Systems) X X





Criminal JusticeIntroduction to Criminal Justice X XLaw Enforcement I X X

Pre-Engineering Principles of Engineering X XIntroduction to Engineering Design X X

MiscellaneousKeystone Class X XCapstone XCommunity Service XPersonal Finance XMath Plus (Local Credit Only) XMilitary Service (Local Credit Only) XLibrary Media Aide (Local Credit Only) XLibrary Media Aide II (Local Credit Only) XLibrary Media Aide III (Local Credit Only) XStudent Council I/Leadership Training (Local Credit Only) XStudent Council II/Leadership Training (Local Credit Only) XStudent Council III/Leadership Training (Local Credit Only) XElementary Tutor (Local Credit Only) X XStudy Hall—1st Semester XStudy Hall—2nd Semester X

Total 283 165

As can be seen in Exhibit 2.2.3:

Courses taught in grades 9-12 had a written curriculum document for 165 courses out of 283 courses, • or 58 percent of those offered in the course catalog; therefore, the scope of the written curriculum for secondary courses is inadequate.

Core curriculum areas of language arts, mathematics, and social science had written curriculum for less • than 80 percent of the courses offered and were thus inadequate in scope.

Science courses had written curriculum for 88 percent of the courses offered, so the scope is considered • adequate.

More than 80 percent of the courses in career and technical education, drama, and foreign languages, • and the Regional Technical Center had written curriculum and were considered adequate.

All other courses had less than 80 percent written curriculum and are therefore considered to be • inadequate.

Courses categorized as Miscellaneous in the • High School Course Catalog had written curriculum for 13 percent of the courses offered.

The scope of the written curriculum for available courses at the high school level is inadequate. The overall scope is at 58 percent and, therefore, does not meet the 70 percent requirement.


High school Family and Consumer Science facilities provide up-to-date equipment.

Summary

The scope of the written curriculum for grades PreK through grade fi ve was found to be adequate. However, the scope of the written curriculum in the middle and high schools was found to be inadequate. 396 courses are offered PreK through grade 12 in Rogers Public Schools. 255 of those courses have written curriculum. The overall scope for the district is 64 percent, which is inadequate to direct the work of teachers. Principals, therefore, lack the necessary information to monitor instruction for a quality program.

Finding 2.3: The quality of curriculum guides is inadequate to guide instruction and to ensure horizontal coordination and vertical articulation.

Curriculum guides are the work plans that provide direction for teachers in planning classroom instruction. Quality curriculum guides communicate instructional goals and objectives, specify prerequisite skills, list instructional materials, provide classroom strategies, and align methods of assessment with the objectives. Curriculum guides connect the curriculum vertically and horizontally across the district and provide for smooth translation into unit and daily lesson planning. Having quality curriculum guides is the fi rst step in achieving optimal alignment of the written, taught, and tested curricula.

In order to determine the quality of the curriculum currently in use in Rogers Public Schools, auditors examined board policy and guidelines, reviewed 265 curriculum guides and other pertinent curriculum documents, visited all schools and most classrooms, and interviewed district administrators, curriculum personnel, building administrators, and teachers. In addition, the auditors observed the delivery of curriculum at each campus.

The auditors found that the quality of curriculum is inadequate to direct teaching and ensure horizontal coordination and vertical articulation. The use of curriculum guides is inconsistent across schools, and internal consistency of the documents is insuffi cient to ensure alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum. The district’s curriculum documents contain more objectives than can be taught and mastered in the time allocated for instruction, objectives are not linked to assessments, strategies and approaches for classroom use are lacking, and the alignment of resources with instructional objectives is rare and lacks specifi c reference to instructional materials.

District policies were examined to fi nd what direction is provided by the board of education related to requirements for curriculum quality, delivery, and alignment. Direction for the use of written curriculum guides from board policy is limited; however, some general statements are noted:

Policy ADA: School District Goals and Objectives calls for curriculum that will result in:

The high school graduation rate increasing to at least 90 percent;•


Rogers students leaving grades four, eight, and twelve having demonstrated competency in challenging • subject matter; and

Rogers students becoming fi rst in the world in science and mathematics achievement.•

Board Policy AE: Accountability/Commitment to Accomplishment calls for a board of education to make:

Clear statements of expectations and purposes regarding operations and programs, departments, and • positions;

Provisions for the staff, resources, and support necessary to achieve stated expectation and purposes, • subject to available fi nancial resources; and

Evaluation of operations, programs, instruction, and services to determine how well expectations and • purposes are being met.

Board Policy ADE: Effective Schools specifi es the following selected objective:

“There is a clearly-articulated mission for the school through which the staff shares an understanding of • and a commitment to instructional goals, priorities, assessment procedures and accountability.”

Board Policy IA: Instructional Goals and Learning Objectives calls for:

“An environment of educational excellence where all belong, all learn, and all succeed. Individual • students are expected to learn and be successful in academic/intellectual, vocational, social/civic, and emotional/physical areas.”

The policy further expresses that students should meet the following academic and intellectual objectives:

Master basic skills and fundamental processes needed to comprehend and express ideas through words, • numbers, and symbols;

Acquire the ability to utilize all available sources of information;•

Acquire the ability to think rationally, solve problems, and apply logic and the skill of inquiry;•

Acquire a general education, including information and concepts in mathematics, language arts, • sciences, and social studies;

Acquire technological skills necessary to use current technology productively and adapt to new • technologies; and

Develop positive attitudes toward intellectual activity including curiosity and a desire for further • learning.

Board Policy IG: Curriculum Development, Adoption, and Review directs staff to:

“Review each area of the curriculum on a periodic basis to ensure the most effective scope and sequence • to accomplish district goals and objectives, compliance with all state requirements, and coordination with other areas of the curriculum; and for staff involved in curriculum review to be aware of:

“Current research and recognized best practices in the area being reviewed and to understand that the • process is more than a review of available textbooks.”

Board Policy IH: Curriculum Programs specifi es that:

“The K-12 curriculum in the Rogers Public Schools is designed to give students the opportunity to • develop their potential in all four areas outlined in Policy IA (academic/intellectual, vocational, social/civic, and emotional/physical). Appropriate curriculum is provided at each grade level, K-12, to meet these goals and to comply with rules and regulations of the Arkansas Department of Education. While the primary focus at each grade level is a program of instruction designed to lead to success in the traditional academic areas of language arts, math, science, and social studies, the district also provides students with developmentally appropriate curriculum, at grade levels approved by the Board


of Education, in health and physical education, arts, music, foreign languages, technology, careers/vocational education, problem solving, decision making, character education, and other curricular areas deemed appropriate by the Board of Education.”

Board Policy IJJ: Instructional Materials Selection and Adoption calls for curriculum committees to research and review curriculum standards and best practices in the curricular area.

Kindergarten students participate in whole group instruction led by their teacher.

Board policies in RPS refer to the district’s mission and general curriculum direction, but do not clearly outline the expectations for consistent, system-wide goals and objectives embedded in written curriculum documents that will ensure cohesive efforts to achieve pupil improvement.

District administrative documents were examined to determine direction for the curriculum. Direction was found in the Underlying Concepts of the Teacher Performance Assessment System, which calls for “teachers to create engaging, compelling, and satisfying work for students from which students learn those things valued by the community and society at large.” Additionally, the document calls “for teachers to design, deliver, and support challenging instruction and experiences that respond to the diverse needs of learners and to ensure success through academically challenging tasks.”

The district Strategic Plan defi nes additional expectations for the direction of curriculum development. Objective One of the Strategic Plan called for the district and schools to deliver a coherent and rigorous educational program. In this process the objective was to “align the district’s standards, curriculum, pacing guides, assessments, professional development, and instruction.” The executive summary of the Strategic Plan for 2007-08 states, “Curriculum was a focus in year two of the strategic plan. With the strong belief that a well-defi ned curriculum is the cornerstone for improving student achievement, the district focused on the development of our curriculum.” Many Monday “afternoons were spent articulating what is expected for each student to learn in each content area and grade level. The result will not be a document, but rather a culture of continuous re-evaluation and clarifi cation of what is to be taught.” This is a description of the process undertaken to develop the district’s Total Instructional Alignment website.

Most curriculum guides were uploaded on the district TIA (Total Instructional Alignment) website starting in January 2007. The format expected on this website is consistent across courses and grade levels. Each guide is intended to include the Student Learning Expectations (SLE) from the state content standards, objectives, task analysis of each objective, and essential vocabulary, materials, and resources for each objective. The Career and Technical courses have been uploaded from the state directly and have a different format. Many of the Advanced Placement courses are still in hard copy and are not loaded on the Rogers website. They also have a differing format from the TIA guides.


The auditors found no other documents that give direction for what should be included in the written curriculum or the design of the curriculum guides.

Auditors reviewed and rated the guides presented to them by district personnel on the basic guide components considered to be essential for quality curriculum design. The components and the criteria that comprise the rating rubric are listed in Exhibit 2.3.1.

Exhibit 2.3.1

Curriculum Management Audit Criteria for Minimum Curriculum Guide Components and Specifi city

Criterion Descriptors ValueCriterion One: Clarity and Specifi city of the Standards

No goals/objectives present 0Vague delineation of goals/learner outcomes 1States tasks to be performed or skills/concepts to be learned 2States for each standard the what, when (sequence within course/grade), how actual standard is performed, and the amount of time to be spent learning 3

Criterion Two: Congruity of the Curriculum to Assessment ProcessNo assessment approach 0Some approach of assessment stated 1States skills, knowledge, concepts that will be assessed 2Each objective is keyed to district and/or state performance assessments 3

Criterion Three: Delineation of the Prerequisite Essential Skills, Knowledge, and AttitudesNo mention of required skill 0States prior general knowledge needed 1States prior general experience needed in specifi ed grade level 2States specifi c documented prerequisite or description of discrete skills/concepts required prior to this learning (may be a scope and sequence across grades/courses if PreK-12) 3

Criterion Four: Delineation of the Major Instructional ToolsNo mention of textbook or instructional tools/resources 0Names the basic text/instructional resource(s) 1Names the basic text/instructional resource(s) and supplementary materials to be used 2States for each objective the “match” between the basic text/instructional resources(s) and the curriculum objective 3

Criterion Five: Clear Approaches for Classroom UseNo approaches cited for classroom use 0Overall, vague statement on approaching the subject 1Provides general suggestions on approaches 2Provides specifi c examples on how to approach key concepts/skills in the classroom 3

Each guide was rated from zero (0) to three (3) on each criterion, with a score of three representing the highest rating.

For Criterion 1, a rating of two is given when the objective states tasks to be performed or skills/concepts to be learned. To receive a rating of three, the objectives would need to state what, when, and how the actual standard is performed, and the amount of time teachers could generally expect students to need in order to master the objective.

Criterion 2 addresses how assessment and evaluation are linked to the objectives. To receive a score of three on this criterion, a guide would need to state the skill, knowledge, and concepts that need to be learned and specify when and with which instrument they will be assessed.


Criterion 3 states the prior skills or experiences needed before students can begin learning the current concepts, skills, or knowledge. To receive a rating of three, the guide would need to state the specifi c documented prerequisites or give a description of discrete skills/concepts required.

Criterion 4 names the basic text and instructional resources needed to support the teaching and mastery of the intended objectives. To receive a rating of three on this criterion, the guide must state the match between the basic text and instructional resources and the curriculum, objective by objective. It is expected that the resources are correlated to the objectives and their teaching sequences, rather than the objectives being correlated to the textbook.

Criterion 5 presents suggestions on the approach to teaching the objectives. Such suggestions are focused on teacher behaviors, not just student activities. A rating of three requires specifi c examples of how to teach key concepts and skills in the classroom.

A total score is determined for each guide by adding the ratings for each of the fi ve criteria, with a maximum possible score of 15 for a guide. The mean ratings for each criterion and the mean guide rating are then calculated. A curriculum guide is considered strong if it receives a rating of 12 or higher (80 percent).

Computer labs are available in elementary school libraries.

Exhibits 2.3.2, 2.3.3, and 2.3.4 present the auditors’ ratings of each guide at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels, respectively, along with the specifi c rating for each criterion. Each exhibit contains the total number of curriculum documents examined at that grade level, the average score by criterion for the total set of curriculum documents, and the average total curriculum guide score.


Exhibit 2.3.2

Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum Guides on the Basic Minimum Guide Components and Specifi city Criteria

K-5 School LevelRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Guide Year Gr. Level Obj. Asmt. Pre. Res. Strat. TotalLanguage Arts - K 2 0 2 0 0 4Language Arts - 1 2 0 2 0 0 4Language Arts - 2 2 0 2 0 0 4Language Arts - 3 2 0 2 1 0 5Language Arts - 4 2 0 2 0 0 4Language Arts - 5 2 0 2 0 0 4ESOL - K 2 0 2 0 0 4ESOL - 1 2 0 2 0 0 4ESOL - 2 2 0 2 0 0 4ESOL - 3 2 0 2 1 0 5ESOL - 4 2 0 2 0 0 4ESOL - 5 2 0 2 0 0 4Mathematics - K 2 0 2 3 0 7Mathematics - 1 2 0 2 3 0 7Mathematics - 2 2 0 2 3 0 7Mathematics - 3 2 0 2 3 0 7Mathematics - 4 2 0 2 3 0 7Mathematics - 5 2 0 2 3 0 7Social Studies - K 2 0 2 0 0 4Social Studies - 1 2 0 2 0 0 4Social Studies - 2 2 0 2 0 0 4Social Studies - 3 2 0 2 0 0 4Social Studies - 4 2 0 2 0 0 4Social Studies - 5 2 0 2 0 0 4Science - K 2 0 1 3 0 6Science - 1 2 0 1 3 0 6Science - 2 2 0 1 3 0 6Science - 3 2 0 1 3 0 6Science - 4 2 0 1 3 0 6Science - 5 2 0 2 3 0 7Visual Arts - K 1 0 0 0 0 1Visual Arts - 1 1 0 0 0 0 1Visual Arts - 2 1 0 0 0 0 1Visual Arts - 3 1 0 0 0 0 1Visual Arts - 4 1 0 0 0 0 1Visual Arts - 5 1 0 0 0 0 1Music - K 2 0 2 0 0 4Music - 1 2 0 2 0 0 4Music - 2 2 0 2 0 0 4Music - 3 2 0 2 0 0 4Music - 4 2 0 2 0 0 4


Exhibit 2.3.2 (continued)Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum Guides on the

Basic Minimum Guide Components and Specifi city Criteria K-5 School Level


Guide Year Gr. Level Obj. Asmt. Pre. Res. Strat. TotalMusic - 5 2 0 2 0 0 4PE & Health - K 2 0 2 1 0 5PE & Health - 1 2 0 2 0 0 4PE & Health - 2 2 0 1 0 0 3PE & Health - 3 2 0 1 0 0 3PE & Health - 4 2 0 1 0 0 3PE & Health - 5 2 0 2 2 0 6Library - K 2 0 0 0 0 2Library - 1 2 0 0 0 0 2Library - 2 2 0 0 0 0 2Library - 3 2 0 0 0 0 2Library - 4 2 0 0 0 0 2Library - 5 2 0 0 0 0 2Total Number of Guides 64

Average Score by Criterion 1.6 0 1.2 0.6 0 3.4

As can be noted from Exhibit 2.3.2:

Auditors rated 54 guides. No guide reached a minimum basic adequacy score of 12 points.•

The total scores of the documents ranged from a low of one to a high of seven points.•

16 of the guides (30 percent) received a rating between fi ve and seven points.•

23 of the guides (42 percent) received a rating of four points.•

Criterion 1 received the highest ratings, with an average score of 1.6 out of a possible three points.•

Criterion 2 and Criterion 5 both received an average score of zero out of a possible three points; these • were the lowest-rated criteria.

The average score for all K-5 guides was 3.4 points.•

Exhibit 2.3.3 presents the auditors’ ratings of the middle school curriculum guides.

Exhibit 2.3.3

Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum Guides on the Basic Minimum Guide Component and Specifi city Criteria

Middle School LevelRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Guide Year Gr. Level Obj. Asmt. Pre. Res. Strat. TotalEnglish - 6 2 0 2 1 0 5English - 7 2 0 2 1 0 5English - 8 2 0 2 0 0 4ESOL - 6 2 0 2 0 0 4ESOL - 7 2 0 2 0 0 4ESOL - 8 2 0 2 0 0 4



Basic Minimum Guide Component and Specifi city Criteria Middle School Level


Guide Year Gr. Level Obj. Asmt. Pre. Res. Strat. TotalMathematics - 6 2 0 2 0 0 4Mathematics - 7 2 0 2 1 0 5Pre-Algebra - 8 2 0 2 0 0 4Algebra - 8 2 0 3 2 0 7Social Studies - 6 2 0 2 1 0 5Social Studies - 7 2 0 2 1 0 5Social Studies - 8 2 0 2 1 0 57th Grade Arkansas History - 7 2 0 2 0 0 4

Science - 6 2 0 2 3 0 7Science - 7 2 0 2 3 0 7Science - 8 2 0 2 3 0 7Keyboarding 2006 8 3 1 0 0 0 4Band - 6 2 0 2 1 0 5Band - 7 2 0 2 1 0 5Band - 8 2 0 2 1 0 5Orchestra - 6 1 0 1 0 0 2Orchestra - 7 1 0 1 0 0 2Orchestra - 8 1 0 1 0 0 2Choir - 6 2 0 2 0 0 4Choir - 7 2 0 2 0 0 4Choir - 8 2 0 2 0 0 4Physical Education - 6 2 0 2 2 2 8Health - 6 2 0 0 0 0 2Wellness (PE & Health) - 7 2 0 2 1 0 5Wellness (PE & Health) - 8 2 0 2 1 0 5French I - 8 2 0 2 1 0 5German I - 8 2 0 1 0 0 3Spanish I - 8 2 0 2 1 0 5Spanish for Native Speakers I - 8 2 0 2 1 0 5

Spanish for Native Speakers II - 8 2 0 2 1 0 5

Total Number of Guides 36Average Score by Criterion 1.9 0 1.8 0.8 0.1 4.6


Thirty-six documents were examined. No guide reached a minimum basic adequacy score of 12 • points.

The total scores of the documents ranged from a low of two to a high of eight out of 15 possible • points.

One of the guides (three percent) received a rating of eight.•


30 of the guides (83 percent) received a rating between four and seven points. •

Criterion 1 received an average score of 1.9 out of a possible three points; this was the highest-rated • criterion.

Criterion 2 received an average score of zero out of a possible three points; this was the lowest-rated • criterion.

The average total score for all guides was 4.6 out of 15 possible points.•

Exhibit 2.3.4 presents the auditors’ ratings of the high school curriculum guides.

Exhibit 2.3.4

Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum Guides on the Basic Minimum Guide Component and Specifi city Criteria

High School LevelRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Guide Year Obj. Asmt. Pre. Res. Strat. TotalLanguage Arts

English I - 2 0 2 0 0 4English II - 2 0 2 0 0 4English III - 2 0 2 0 0 4English IV - 2 0 2 0 0 4AP English Literature and Composition - 2 2 2 2 2 10AP English Language and Composition - 2 2 1 2 1 8Freshman Comp I-Concurrent Credit - 2 1 1 1 0 5Freshman Comp II-Concurrent Credit - 2 1 0 0 0 3Philosophy and Literature - 2 0 0 2 1 5

English for Speakers of Other LanguagesESOL II, English - 2 0 2 0 0 4ESOL III, English - 2 0 2 0 0 4ESOL III-English IV - 2 0 2 0 0 4ENGLISH ACADEMY ESOL I English - 2 0 2 0 0 4

MathematicsAlgebra I - 2 0 3 1 0 6Geometry - 2 1 2 1 0 6Algebraic Connections - 2 0 2 0 0 4Algebra II - 2 0 2 1 0 5Algebra III - 2 0 0 0 0 2Trigonometry - 2 0 2 0 0 4Finite Math - 2 0 2 0 0 4Pre-Calculus with Trigonometry - 2 0 2 0 0 4AP Calculus AB - 2 0 0 1 0 3AP Statistics - 2 2 0 1 0 5College Algebra - 2 0 1 1 0 4College Finite Math - 2 0 1 1 0 4College Trigonometry - 2 0 1 1 0 4

SciencePhysical Science

Physical Science - 2 0 2 1 0 5



Basic Minimum Guide Component and Specifi city Criteria High School Level


Guide Year Obj. Asmt. Pre. Res. Strat. TotalPhysical Science (continued)

Physics - 2 0 2 0 0 4AP Physics B - 2 1 1 1 1 6Geology - 2 0 2 0 0 4Astronomy - 2 0 0 0 0 2Chemistry - 2 0 2 0 0 4AP Chemistry - 1 1 1 1 0 4

Life SciencesBiology - 2 0 1 1 0 4Anatomy & Physiology - 2 0 1 1 0 4Ecology - 1 0 0 0 0 1Environmental Science-Outdoor Ed - 2 0 1 0 0 3Zoology - 1 0 0 0 0 1AP Biology - 2 1 1 2 0 6Introduction to Genetics - 2 0 0 0 0 2AP Environmental Science - 1 0 0 1 0 2

Social StudiesAmerican History - 2 0 2 0 0 4AP United States History - 1 1 0 2 0 4War Time America - 2 0 0 0 0 2World History - 2 0 2 0 0 4AP World History - 2 2 0 1 0 5AP European History - 3 1 0 2 0 6Arkansas History - 1 0 0 0 0 1Civics/American Government - 2 0 2 0 0 4AP United States Government and Politics/AP Comparative Government and Politics 2006 1 1 0 2 0 4

Psychology - 2 0 0 0 0 2AP Psychology - 2 2 1 1 1 7Native American Anthropology - 2 0 0 0 0 2AP Human Geography 2006 1 0 0 2 0 3AP Microeconomics/AP Macroeconomics - 1 0 0 1 0 2

Career and TechnicalGeneral Career and Technical

Workplace Readiness 2005 3 0 1 0 0 4Internship 2004 3 0 1 0 0 4

Agriculture Science & TechnologyAgriculture Science & Technology 2006 3 1 1 0 0 5Leadership & Communications 2006 3 1 1 0 0 5Agriculture Mechanics I & II 2007 3 1 1 0 0 5Agriculture Metals I 2007 3 1 1 0 0 5Agricultural Metals II 2007 3 1 1 0 0 5Intro to Horticulture Science 2007 3 1 1 0 0 5Greenhouse Management 2007 3 1 1 0 0 5





Guide Year Obj. Asmt. Pre. Res. Strat. TotalAgriculture Science & Technology (continued)

Nursery Landscape 2007 3 1 1 0 0 5Animal Sciences 2006 3 0 1 0 0 4Advanced Animal Science (Horse Production) 2006 3 0 1 0 0 4Biological Animal Sciences 2006 2 1 1 0 0 4Forestry 2004 3 0 1 0 0 4

Business and Marketing TechnologyComputer Applications I - 2 0 0 0 0 2Computer Applications II - 2 0 0 0 0 2Enterprise Management I & II 2002 3 1 0 0 0 4Management (JET) 2004 3 1 1 0 0 5Offi ce Education/Work-Based Learning (COE) 2004 3 1 1 0 0 5Work-Based Learning (COE) 2004 3 1 1 0 0 5Offi ce Management 2004 3 1 1 0 0 5Computerized Accounting I 2004 3 1 1 0 0 5Computerized Accounting II 2003 3 1 1 0 0 5Banking and Finance Principles 2005 3 1 1 0 0 5Banking and Finance: Consumer Lending 2005 3 1 1 0 0 5Computer Applications III - 2 0 0 0 0 2Desktop Publishing II 2003 3 1 1 0 0 5Programming I—Visual Basic 2007 3 1 1 0 0 5Programming II—Advanced Visual Basic 2003 3 0 0 0 0 3Programming I—Visual C++ 2007 3 1 1 0 0 5Programming II—Visual C++ 2003 3 0 0 0 0 3AP Computer Science (A)—Java Programming 2007 2 0 1 0 0 3Marketing 2004 3 0 1 0 0 4Marketing Management 2000 3 1 1 0 0 5Retailing 2007 3 1 1 0 0 5Fashion Merchandising 2004 3 0 1 0 0 4Advertising 2004 3 0 1 0 0 4Introduction to Hospitality 2005 3 1 1 0 0 5Web Design and Multimedia Productions 2007 3 1 1 0 0 5Business Law I 2004 3 1 1 0 0 5International Business 2007 3 1 1 0 0 5Keyboarding 2006 3 1 0 0 0 4

Communications—BroadcastingCareer Communications I 2 0 0 0 0 2Career Communications II 2 0 0 0 0 2

Family and Consumer Science Family and Consumer Sciences - 3 1 0 0 0 4Clothing Management 2003 3 0 0 0 0 3Food & Nutrition 2002 3 0 1 0 0 4Human Relations - 3 0 0 0 0 3Parenting 2002 3 0 0 0 0 3





Guide Year Obj. Asmt. Pre. Res. Strat. TotalFamily and Consumer Science (continued)

Child Development 2003 3 0 0 0 0 3Housing and Interior Design 2003 3 1 1 0 0 5

Health Science Technology EducationIntroduction to Medical Professions & Lab - 3 0 1 0 0 4Human Anatomy & Physiology I 2006 3 1 0 0 0 4Medical Procedures 2006 3 1 0 0 0 4Medical Terminology - 2 0 0 0 0 2

Skilled & Technical SciencesBrakes and Electrical - 2 0 0 0 0 2Steering/Suspension & Electrical - 2 0 0 0 0 2Engine Performance & Electronics - 2 0 0 0 0 2Drafting & Design 2006 3 1 0 0 0 4Machine Tool I & Lab - 2 0 0 0 0 2Machine Tool II - 2 0 0 0 0 2Machine Tool III - 2 0 0 0 0 2

Fine ArtsFundamentals of Design (Art I) - 2 0 0 0 0 2Studio Art 2-D Design (Art II) 2007 1 2 0 1 0 4AP Studio Art: Drawing/2D-Design/3-D Design 2007 1 2 0 1 0 4

Introduction to Ceramics - 2 0 0 1 0 3AP Art History 2007 1 0 0 1 0 2

DramaDrama I - 2 0 1 1 0 4Applied Drama - 2 0 0 0 0 2Advanced Drama - 2 0 1 0 0 3Performance and Directing - 2 0 2 0 0 4Fundamentals of Theatre Production - 2 0 2 0 0 4Theatre Management and Design - 2 0 2 0 0 4

MusicAP Music Theory 2008 2 1 0 1 0 4

Foreign LanguageFrench

French I - 2 0 2 1 0 5French II - 2 0 2 1 0 5Pre-AP French III - 2 0 2 1 0 5Pre-AP French IV - 2 0 2 1 0 5AP French Language - 2 1 2 1 0 6

GermanGerman I - 2 0 1 0 0 3German II - 2 0 2 0 0 4Pre-AP German III - 2 0 0 0 0 2Pre-AP German IV - 2 0 0 0 0 2





Guide Year Obj. Asmt. Pre. Res. Strat. TotalSpanish

Spanish I - 2 0 2 1 0 5Spanish II - 2 0 2 1 0 5Pre-AP Spanish III - 2 0 2 1 0 5Pre-AP Spanish IV - 2 0 2 1 0 5Latin American Studies - 1 0 2 0 0 3AP Spanish Language - 2 1 0 1 0 4AP Spanish Literature - 1 1 0 1 0 3

Spanish for Native SpeakersSpanish for Native Speakers I (Heritage) - 2 0 2 1 0 5Spanish for Native Speakers II - 2 0 2 1 0 5Spanish for Native Speakers III - 2 0 2 1 0 5Latin American Studies - 1 0 2 0 0 3AP Spanish Language - 2 1 0 1 0 4AP Spanish Literature - 1 1 0 1 0 3

JournalismJournalism I - 2 0 0 0 0 2

Physical Education, Health, and AthleticsHealth - 2 0 2 0 0 4Physical Education (Physical Dimensions) - 2 0 0 2 1 5Lifetime Sports (Individual and Dual Sport Activities) - 2 0 2 1 1 6

Fitness and Conditioning I - 2 0 0 1 0 3Speech and Debate

Oral Communications - 2 0 2 0 0 4Regional Technical CenterComputer Engineering

Diagnostics (Computer) - 2 0 0 0 0 2Operations (Computer Systems) - 2 0 0 0 0 2

Criminal JusticeIntroduction to Criminal Justice 2006 3 1 0 0 0 4Law Enforcement I 2006 3 1 1 0 0 5

Pre-EngineeringPrinciples of Engineering - 2 0 0 0 0 2Introduction to Engineering Design - 2 0 0 0 0 2

MiscellaneousKeystone Class 2005 2 0 2 0 0 4Elementary Tutor—(Local Credit Only) - 1 0 1 0 0 2

Total Number of Guides 165Average Score by Criterion 2.21 0.39 0.88 0.36 0.05 3.89


Auditors rated 165 guides. No guide reached a minimum basic adequacy score of 12 points. •

The total scores ranged from a low of one to a high of 10 out of a possible score of 15 points.•


Ten guides (six percent) received a rating of seven to 10 points. One guide received the highest rating • of 10 points, but this rating was still below the minimum score of 12 considered to be adequate.

62 percent of the guides received a rating of four or fi ve points. •

Criterion 1 received the highest rating, an average score of 2.21 out of a possible three points.•

Criterion 5 received an average score of 0.05 out of a possible three points; this was the lowest-rated • criterion.

The average total score of the high school documents was 3.89 out of 15 possible points.•

Exhibit 2.3.5 shows the mean rank of curriculum guides included in Exhibits 2.3.2 through 2.3.4 by criterion.

Exhibit 2.3.5

Mean Rating of Curriculum Guides by CriterionRogers Public Schools

February 2009

Criterion Description Mean Rating (of possible 3.0)

One Clarity and specifi city of objectives 2.10Two Congruence of the curriculum to the assessment process 0.25

Three Delineation of the prerequisite essential skills, knowledge, and attitudes 1.13

Four Delineation of the major instructional resources 0.51Five Clear approaches for classroom use (teaching stragegies) 0.04

A summary of the ratings for each criterion follows:

Criterion One: Clarity and Specifi city of Objectives

Mean score: 2.10

As a whole, Rogers Public Schools’ curriculum guides were rated highest in this area with a mean score of 2.1. To obtain a three under Clarity and Specifi city of Objectives, the curriculum guide must clearly and specifi cally state what it is students should be able to do; indicate when the objectives should be taught (sequence within the course or grade and often presented as a pacing calendar); specify the amount of time necessary to teach the objectives, skills, and/or concept (hours/minutes range); and provide suffi cient information to the teacher about the quality of performance that would be acceptable (e.g., rubric level).

In general, the RPS curriculum guides known as Total Instructional Alignment (TIA) documents provided suffi cient information about the “what” students are expected to know and be able to do. Objectives were linked to the Arkansas Department of Education Content Standards/ Student Learning Expectations (SLE) or standards set by an outside accrediting agency, such as Advanced Placement. Most curriculum guides restated the wording of the state curriculum framework. The guides lacked a more learner-specifi c version of the Arkansas Content Standards/Student Learning Expectations that describes in measurable terms what mastery looks like, along with estimates of the time needed for learning. The specifi c content, context, and cognition required of an articulated curriculum for each grade level is not present in the guides, thereby complicating the alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum.

Many of the guides did not receive a three because the objectives did not describe an expected level of performance or estimated time needed for teaching the content. Several examples of Criterion One which were scored as a three and included objectives that provide level of performance and estimated time needed for teaching the content can be found in the Career and Technical courses at the secondary level, AP European History, and Criminal Justice courses. These can be identifi ed in Exhibit 2.3.4.


Criterion Two: Congruence of the Curriculum to the Assessment Process

Mean score: 0.25

To meet all the requirements of Criterion Two, the written curriculum needs to specify which objectives will be tested on what test and what those test items would look like so that what is taught (the content) is consistent with what is assessed and how it is assessed (context and cognitive levels).

The second criterion was weak with an average score of .25. None of the curriculum guides for RPS received a rating of three. Seven of the 255 curriculum guides had a rating of two for this component and all of those were advanced placement courses. At the high school level, 49 of the 165 courses with written curriculum (30 percent) scored a one, with some approach for assessment stated; 67 percent of those guides were in the Career and Technical courses. Most curriculum guides in RPS contained no information for classroom teachers on how standards or objectives would be assessed. The elementary and middle school levels, with one exception, fi t in the category of no assessment approach stated.

According to information made available to the auditors, teachers are responsible for developing and providing instruction and assessment that meet state SLEs. All curriculum and assessment design decisions should take place or require approval at the district level. Alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum is the essence of curriculum quality control. Curriculum alignment is not possible when classroom teachers are making individual decisions at the classroom or building level on curriculum implementation and assessment practices.

In a deeply aligned curriculum, students have learning and testing experiences in a variety of contexts, including both those that might appear on a high stakes assessment as well as other applications that incorporate “real world” or “simulated real world” experiences that go beyond the high stakes test application.

Criterion Three: Delineation of the Prerequisite Essential Skills, Knowledge and Attitudes

Mean score: 1.13

Curriculum guides should provide information about what students have been taught previously and what students are expected to know as they advance through the system. Delineation of prerequisites was the second highest rating for RPS, with a mean score of 1.13. To receive a rating of three for this criterion, it is necessary to delineate specifi c prerequisites or a description of discrete skills or concepts required prior to each course of study.

The only course with a rating of three for Criterion Three was the Algebra I course taught in middle school and high school. Sixty-fi ve percent of all curriculum guides rated a two, showing that some prior general experience was indicated in the documents. A PK-12 scope and sequence for every subject area is an effective and effi cient method to accomplish the delineation necessary, but no such documents were available. A scope and sequence of this nature is also essential to vertical articulation of written curriculum across grade levels and the horizontal coordination of written curriculum across schools within the district.

Criterion Four: Delineation of Major Instructional Resources/Tools

Mean score: 0.51

To earn a three on this criterion requires matching the textbook pages and/or other materials by page or section to the objectives. Twelve curriculum guides at the elementary level in mathematics and science received a rating of three as well as three guides at the middle school level in science, showing evidence of matching the basic instructional resources to the written objectives. The other content areas at the elementary level were primarily rated zero, with no mention of instructional tools or resources. Secondary guides were largely lacking delineation of instructional resources. This criterion requires specifi city regarding name of the resource/tool, page number or clear directions on locating the resource, and a direct connection to each objective. This criterion requires that curriculum writers address issues of quality and deep alignment in selecting and recommending resources.


Criterion Five: Clear Approaches for Classroom Use

Mean score: 0.04

This criterion received the lowest mean score for RPS curriculum guides. 247 of 255 curriculum guides received a rating of zero, indicated no teaching approaches were cited for classroom use. To receive a rating of three for Criterion Five, the guide must provide specifi c strategies, approaches, and examples for teachers on how to teach key concepts and skills in the classroom. These strategies and approaches should address instructional methods and materials recommended for use in the classroom. The TIA format, as currently confi gured, does not have space for this criterion which limits curriculum writers from inserting these specifi c recommendations.

Summary

Auditors assessed 255 curriculum guides for minimum guide components and specifi city needed to adequately direct instruction (see Exhibit 2.3.1). While a score of 12 is considered strong, the scores of the Rogers Public School’s guides ranged from a low of one to a high of 10, with an average score of 3.4 for K-5 documents (see Exhibit 2.3.2), an average score of 4.6 for middle school documents (see Exhibit 2.3.3), and an average score of 3.89 for high school documents (see Exhibit 2.3.4). Overall, the mean score for all Rogers Public School curriculum guides was 4.03 out of a possible 15.

The TIA (Total Instructional Alignment) objectives are lacking expected level of performance and estimated time needed for teaching the content and clear congruity of the curriculum to the assessment process. They also lack specifi city of prerequisite skills, knowledge, and attitudes for each course with clear approaches for classroom use and delineation of major instructional resources/tools. The current TIA format does provide a place for delineation of the major instructional tools, but only 88 current documents (35 percent) mention any delineation of major instructional tools. Additionally, the TIA format does not provide space for delineation of clear approaches for classroom use, resulting in only three percent of current curriculum guides providing examples of teaching strategies matched to instructional objectives.

The quality of curriculum documents in RPS is inadequate to direct teaching and to ensure horizontal coordination. All content areas were rated as inadequate in curriculum quality. The auditors found no direction in board policy and vague reference in other documents concerning curriculum format and the components expected to be included in written curriculum.

Finding 2.4: Classroom instructional practices are inconsistent with expectations stated in the district teacher evaluation form and other district documents.

Quality classroom instruction is the key to a district’s ability to positively infl uence student achievement. Diversity in approaches to the delivery of the curriculum and the wide use of varied teaching methods are important in promoting student learning, combating student boredom, and reaching all segments of the student population. The audit expects to fi nd the use of best practices and emerging curriculum trends defi ned by the board of education. School district boards of education and administrators communicate these expectations of the teaching staff in terms of instructional practices that are consistent with the district’s mission and goals for student learning. Auditors compared the district stakeholder expectations to the instructional strategies observed in the classrooms.

The auditors reviewed district documents and electronic fi les, as well as board policies and job descriptions for written expectations of teacher and student behaviors. Overall, auditors determined that district expectations expressed in these documents are not being implemented consistently in classrooms. Teachers were most likely to be engaged in lecture-type instruction, while students were most likely to be engaged in seatwork. Consistently, students appeared to be oriented to the work, but, overwhelmingly, they were functioning with knowledge and comprehension types of cognition. The following board policies express district expectations:

Board Policy CA: General Administration Goals and Objective calls for administrative duties and functions to “be appraised in terms of the contribution that is made to better instruction and more effective learning.”

Board Policy AD: District Mission Statement directs that “students be placed carefully in classrooms where they spend the greatest possible time actively engaged in signifi cant learning tasks of appropriate diffi culty.”


Board Policy ADE: Effective Schools specifi es the following objectives among others:

“There is a clearly-articulated mission for the school through which the staff shares an understanding of • and a commitment to instructional goals, priorities, assessment procedures and accountability.”

“Teachers allocate a signifi cant amount of classroom time to instruction in the area of basic and • extension skills. For a high percentage of that allocated time, students are engaged in planned learning activities.”

The district’s Strategic Plan delineates a strong emphasis on curriculum and improvement of instruction. Year Three objectives related to instructional practices include:

Implement an aligned K-12 instruction and assessment model;•

Implement effective strategies for general education teachers to meet the needs of ELL students • (resulting in a fi ve-year SIOP training plan);

Increase the use of effective instructional practices; and•

Improve instruction for teachers new to the district.•

Teachers helps students with concepts by using manipulatives.

Beginning in 2006-07, the leadership of the district committed to visiting classrooms in the district on a regular basis using the Teachscape protocol for walk-throughs. Data about curriculum and instructional practices is collected and entered into a database. These data are analyzed by building principals and district administrators and shared with instructional staff. These data are not meant to evaluate individual teachers but to assess district trends. The data trends across the district support the needs for professional development and developing instructional improvement initiatives. The data also provide frameworks for meaningful conversations with staff about instructional practices and help focus on curriculum and instructional initiatives.

The district walk-through checklist identifi es specifi c best instructional practices (coaching, discussion, hands-on experiences, learning centers, lecture, modeling, presentation, providing directions/instructions, providing opportunities for practice, teacher-directed Q & A, and testing). The checklist includes the research-based strategies identifi ed by Dr. Robert Marzano (identifying similarities and differences, summarizing/note taking, reinforcing effort/recognition, homework/practice, nonlinguistic representations, cooperative learning, setting objectives/feedback, generating/testing hypotheses, and cues/questions/advance organizers).


Auditors also found expectations for instructional practices in the district’s formal Teacher Evaluation Instrument, that calls for teachers to:

Use questioning techniques that refl ect high-level questions;•

Create environments in which students are highly engaged in lessons and lesson structure to allow for • student refl ection and closure;

Provide feedback to students that is timely and consistently of a high quality;•

Be highly responsive to students’ interests and questions;•

Actively build on knowledge of prerequisites and connections with other disciplines in instruction;•

Use all the elements of instructional design to support instructional goals, engage students in meaningful • learning, and show evidence of student input; and

Create lessons and units that are highly coherent and have a clear structure.•

In auditors’ interviews with stakeholders in the district, several indicated a need for changes in instructional practices:

“A challenge for us is changing instructional practices to meet the needs of learners as they have • changed over time.” (Administrator)

Interviewees also indicated concerns about a lack of consistency of expectations regarding instructional strategies to be used in all district classrooms:

“My concern is the student achievement piece and how to move our kids toward profi ciency. With • everyone doing things differently, I wonder. Do we need to put more consistent expectations in place? Would that benefi t instruction?” (Administrator)

“We are all over the place in our expectations of instructional strategies. Building principals lead this • work.” (Administrator)

“We have no district policy for implementation of instruction of the curriculum.” (Teacher)•

When district expectations have been stated, as in the Strategic Plan goal for implementing the SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol) instructional model for supporting second language learners, there are concerns expressed:

“For instructional strategies, we focus on what the focus of the building is. An example is that SIOP • instructional strategies will be seen in some buildings but not at all in others. Decisions about effective teaching strategies are driven by the building.” (Administrator)

“Where we are with SIOP depends on what building you are in. You will see a spattering of SIOP • being used across the district. The expectation of the SIOP plan is to have all staff trained in fi ve years. In order to accomplish this, it’s going to take someone at the top of the organization to state the expectation.” (Administrator)

Overall, the auditors found that the district expectations, while not always clearly stated or found in one place, include an expectation for active engagement of students, implementation of the SIOP model, high-level of cognitive activities and questions, responsive and meaningful to student interests, inclusive of hands-on learning, cooperative learning, and student generation and testing of hypotheses. These expectations served as a mirror of what was expected in classroom visits.


Literacy coaches are helping teachers track student growth through the use of “Assessment Walls.”

Observed Teacher Behaviors

Audit teams visited every campus in the district and made observations in nearly every classroom in which instruction was taking place. Auditors spent three to fi ve minutes in 574 classrooms in the Rogers Public Schools. Team members observed teacher behaviors, student behaviors, and the presence and use of computers. The auditors are aware these structured visitations may also capture transitions, and that many types of instructional situations may occur during an instructional period of the day. The purpose is not to present an in-depth picture of every instructional situation or practice, but to capture a broad band of normal teaching practices at a point in time. The data collected refl ect a slice of that time in Rogers Public Schools. The broad range of activities is typical of activities in the schools daily or weekly. District leadership, as part of their walk-through process, performs similar observations on an ongoing basis that provide deeper detail on instructional practices across the district.

Audit teams found a high incidence of direct instruction and few examples of student-centered instruction throughout the district. Auditors categorized their observations of teacher behaviors as follows:

At-Desk—• Teacher is at desk, not engaged with a student or students.

Direct Instruction• —Teacher is leading the entire class through a learning activity commonly using a lecture mode.

Small Group• —Teacher is working with a group of students that is less than one-third of the class while the rest of the class is engaged in seat work or center activities.

Monitoring• —Teacher is circulating around the classroom visually monitoring students as they complete work individually.

Assisting• —Teacher is assisting student in pairs or individually.


Exhibit 2.4.1 provides an overview of the types of teacher activities observed during the auditors’ brief classroom visits.

Exhibit 2.4.1

Districtwide Teacher Instructional Activities Rogers Public Schools

November 2008

Small Group Instruction

11%

Direct Instruction

43%

Teacher at Desk10%

Other8%

Assisting Students

14%

Monitoring Students

14%

As noted in Exhibit 2.4.1:

Direct/teacher-centered instruction was observed in 43 percent of the 574 classrooms visited.•

In 14 percent of the classrooms, teachers were assisting students; teachers were monitoring students’ • behavior in another 14 percent of the classrooms.

In 11 percent of the classrooms, instruction was organized around small group activities. •

In ten percent of the classrooms, teachers were seated at their desks not engaged with students.•

In eight percent of all Roger Public Schools’ classrooms, teachers were engaged in other instructional • activities not listed.

Students concentrate on their tests better when working in their own carrels.


Exhibit 2.4.2 provides an overview of the types of teacher activities at the elementary level in Rogers Public Schools:

Exhibit 2.4.2

Elementary Teacher Instructional Activities Grades K-5


Assisting Students

13%

Monitoring Students

11%


19%

Direct Instruction

40%

Teacher at Desk4%

Other13%


Direct instruction was the dominant teaching activity noted in 40 percent of the elementary • classrooms.

In 19 percent of the elementary classrooms, teachers were involved in small group instruction.•

13 percent of the teachers were assisting students; 13 percent were involved in other activities.•

11 percent of the teachers were monitoring students, and in four percent of the classrooms, teachers • were at their desks.

Exhibit 2.4.3 provides an overview of the types of teacher activities at the middle school level:

Exhibit 2.4.3

Middle School Teacher Instructional Activities Grades 6-8


Other6%

Teacher at Desk11%

Direct Instruction

46%Small Group Instruction

2%

Monitoring Students

17%

Assisting Students

18%


Exhibit 2.4.3 illustrates the following:

Direct/teacher centered instruction was observed in 46 percent of the middle school classrooms.•

In 18 percent of the classrooms, teachers were assisting students; teachers were monitoring students’ • behavior in 17 percent of the classrooms.

In 11 percent of the classrooms, teachers were seated at their desks not engaged with students; in six • percent of the classrooms teachers were involved in other instructional activities.

In two percent of the classrooms instruction was organized around small group activities.•

Exhibit 2.4.4 displays the percentages of teacher activities observed in the high schools:

Exhibit 2.4.4

High School Teacher Instructional Activities Grades 9-12


Direct Instruction

42%

Teacher at Desk21%

Other3%Assisting

Students11%

Monitoring Students

19%


4%


42 percent of the teachers were providing direct instruction.•

At the high schools, 21 percent of the teachers were at their desks, not engaged with students.•

In 19 percent of the classes, teachers were monitoring student work.•

11 percent of teachers were assisting students.•

Four percent of high school teachers were working with a small group of students and three percent • were engaged in an activity other than the categories listed.

In summary, few activities that might be classifi ed as student-centered were observed in RPS classrooms. The greatest amount of instructional time in the district was spent in direct, teacher-centered instruction.


Instructional technology provides students with new tools for learning.

Observed Student Behaviors

Auditors also examined student behaviors during their classroom observations. The data auditors collected on student behaviors in Rogers Public Schools was categorized as follows:

Large Group• —At least two-thirds of the students are listening without any active participation while the teacher or another student addresses the class. Students may be taking notes or simply listening and observing.

Applied Practice• —Students are using information or skills taught prior to this activity and practicing the application of that learning.

Testing• —Students are taking a quiz or test.

Problem Solving• —Students are individually or in groups trying to solve mathematical or other hypothetical problems.

Seat Work• —Students are working independently at their desks completing some type of paper and pencil exercise, writing assignment, or prepared worksheet.

Small Group• —Students are working with a group that is less than approximately one-third of the total number of students in the classroom. Examples include: reading groups and centers where the teacher assists the students.

Silent Reading• —At least two-thirds of the students are reading silently.

Other Activities• —Student are engaged in activities other than those listed, e.g., transitioning from one activity to another, taking notes, making oral presentations, reading aloud, etc.


Exhibit 2.4.5 provides an overview of the types of learning activities in which students were engaged across all schools in the district:

Exhibit 2.4.5

Student Learning Activities Districtwide


Other Activities5%Silent Reading

1%Small Group

11%

Seat Work25%

Testing3%

Problem Solving2% Applied Practice

14%

Large Group39%


Of the 574 classrooms visited, two percent of students were engaged in problem solving and 14 percent • were engaged in applied practice.

Auditors observed primarily large group instruction (39 percent) and seat work (25 percent). •

11 percent of the classrooms offered instruction that required students to work in small groups.•

Five percent of the students were engaged in other activities than those listed and one percent was • engaged in silent reading.

Exhibit 2.4.6 provides an overview of observed student behaviors at each level of Rogers Public Schools:

Exhibit 2.4.6

Student Instructional Behaviors Activities Grade Levels PreK–5, 6–8, and 9–12


Student Behavior Grades PreK–5 Middle Schools High SchoolsLarge Group 36% 43% 37%Applied Practice 16% 16% 9%Testing 3% 3% 5%Problem Solving 2% 4% 3%Seat Work 20% 23% 35%Small Group 15% 6% 9%Silent Reading 2% 1% 0%Other Activities 6% 4% 2%


The data in Exhibit 2.4.6 indicate the following regarding observed student behaviors and activities in the Rogers Public Schools:

At all levels, the greatest percentage of student activity (43 percent at middle schools, 37 percent at • high schools, and 36 percent at elementary) consisted of large group learning (taking notes while the teacher lectured, participating in large group discussions, choral responses, or responding to questions posed by the teacher).

The second most prevalent activity at all grade levels was seat work (completing worksheets, working • from textbooks, or copying information from a textbook, chalkboard, or from an image projected onto a screen). The percentage of the activity increased as the level of schooling increased (20 percent at elementary, 23 percent at middle school, and 35 percent at high school).

The percentage of students involved in applied practice was the same at the elementary and middle • schools (16 percent), but declined at the high schools to nine percent.

Small group work was observed in 15 percent of the elementary classrooms, but rarely in middle • schools (six percent) or high schools (nine percent).

Problem solving was rarely observed (two percent at elementary, four percent at middle school, and • three percent at high school).

Overall, students in the Rogers Public Schools are predominantly involved in large group and seat work in their classrooms. Application oriented approaches, such as applied practice and problem solving, constitute a smaller portion of students’ classroom learning activities, which are not congruent with auditors’ expectations based upon stated expectations in Rogers Public Schools.

Students are involved in the fi ne arts through the high school band.

Observed Cognitive Types

A priority of the district’s formal Teacher Evaluation Instrument is for teachers to ask high level questions of students. In the auditors’ observations of classrooms, data were also collected on the cognitive types of instruction, questions, and activities observed.

Exhibit 2.4.7 provides a display of the cognitive types of instruction, questions, and activities observed in classrooms. It should be noted that cognitive type data were collected only when auditors were able to identify a cognitive type; Exhibit 2.4.7 data is based on data gathered in 468 RPS classrooms.


Exhibit 2.4.7

Cognitive Types Utilized in ClassroomsRogers Public Schools

November 2008

CognitiveTypes

Grades K-5 Classrooms

Grades 6-8Classrooms

Grades 9-12Classrooms

AllClassrooms

Knowledge 61% 67% 37% 56%Comprehension 23% 23% 24% 23%Application 12% 7% 33% 17%Analysis, Synthesis, or Evaluation 4% 3% 6% 4%

Exhibit 2.4.7 shows:

The predominant cognitive type utilized in the observed RPS classrooms was the knowledge or recall • level (56 percent overall).

use of the knowledge level was highest at middle schools (67 percent), followed by 61 percent at • elementary schools, and 37 percent at high schools.

The second most dominant cognitive type was the comprehension or understanding level, with 23 • percent of instruction observed in this category overall.

Application of skills and knowledge was most utilized at the high school level. •

Few classrooms (four percent) engaged students at the analysis, synthesis, or evaluation types of • cognition.

In summary, the expectation of the audit team, based upon the priority set in the district’s Teacher Evaluation Instrument, was that teachers provide high cognitive level questions and activities in daily classroom teaching. However, the observational data indicated that the predominant cognitive level in over half of all classrooms in the district was at the knowledge or recall level.

Observed Computer Usage

Exhibit 2.4.8 provides an overview of observed computer usage across the district.

Exhibit 2.4.8

Computer Use in ClassroomsRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Elementary PreK-5

Middle Schools 6-8

High Schools 9-12

District Total

31% 38% 43% 37%


The highest level of observed computer usage occurred at the high school level, with 43 percent of the • computers used.

Overall, 37 percent of instructional computers was used in classroom instruction.•

Summary

The data indicate that district expectations for teacher pedagogy, instructional activities, and student behaviors are inconsistent with actual teacher instructional behaviors in classrooms across RPS. Teaching and learning are primarily limited to lecture-like activities, whole group student activities, and seatwork. The type of cognitive activity in classrooms is predominantly at the knowledge and comprehension levels. Thus, district expectations for teaching and learning activities are not being met.


STANDARD 3: The School District Demonstrates Internal Consistency and Rational Equity in Its Program Development and Implementation.A school system meeting this Curriculum Management Audit standard is able to show how its program has been created as the result of a systematic identifi cation of defi ciencies in the achievement and growth of its students compared to measurable standards of pupil learning.

In addition, a school system meeting this standard is able to demonstrate that it possesses a focused and coherent approach toward defi ning curriculum and that, as a whole, it is more effective than the sum of its parts, i.e., any arbitrary combinations of programs or schools do not equate to the larger school system entity.

The purpose of having a school system is to obtain the educational and economic benefi ts of a coordinated and focused program for students, both to enhance learning, which is complex and multi-year in its dimensions, and to employ economies of scale where applicable.


The PDK-CMSi auditors expected to fi nd a highly-developed, articulated, and coordinated curriculum in the school system that was effectively monitored by the administrative and supervisory staffs at the central and site levels. Common indicators are:

Documents/sources that reveal internal connections at different levels in the system;•

Predictable consistency through a coherent rationale for content delineation within the curriculum;•

Equity of curriculum/course access and opportunity;•

Allocation of resource fl ow to areas of greatest need;•

A curriculum that is clearly explained to members of the teaching staff and building-level administrators • and other supervisory personnel;

Specifi c professional development programs to enhance curricular design and delivery;•

A curriculum that is monitored by central offi ce and site supervisory personnel; and•

Teacher and administrator responsiveness to school board policies, currently and over time.•


This section is an overview of the fi ndings that follow in the area of Standard Three. Details follow within separate fi ndings.

Roger Public Schools have been dealing with signifi cant growth in the ELL population for several years, and despite efforts by Rogers Public School leaders to deal with the growth, auditors found system-wide inequities in which resources do not fl ow to the areas of greatest need. Staff demographics do not refl ect the ethnic and gender representation of the student body. Disproportional student enrollments by gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status were noted in special education, advanced placement courses, and the gifted and talented program. Furthermore, inequalities were found with regard to ethnic and gender disproportionalities in retention, suspensions, and graduation rate.

The auditors’ review of comparability of student access to courses and services revealed several concerns about equity and equal opportunities.

In order to improve student achievement and enhance effective instruction in the curriculum, a strong professional development program is needed. The auditors found that a variety of professional development opportunities are available in the district, but staff training is inadequately coordinated, monitored, and evaluated system-wide. Professional development is not consistently structured to support curriculum and instruction.


Finding 3.1: Inequalities exist in program access and participation by ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. Student and staff demographics refl ect imbalance in ethnic representation.

Equal access to programs and services available in schools are assured for all students in an effective school district. Program access and service access should not be determined by gender, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. In examining district programs, the auditors expected to fi nd similar proportions of students by gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status as refl ected by the student population of the school district. No one student group should be disproportionately represented in various special programs and services.

The auditors examined the distribution of resources based on equity. The term “equity” refers to the principle of allocating resources according to need. Rather than a per pupil expenditure allocation, equity requires that additional resources be directed to students with greater needs. When unequal access to programs and services are coupled with a lack of equitable resource allocations, school systems will show disparities in various student groups.

In order to determine whether all student subgroups have equal access to programs and academic services, and to determine whether staff ethnicity is refl ective of the ethnic composition of the student body, auditors reviewed documents including board policies, the Rogers Strategic Plan, district plans, test data, budget documents, enrollment reports, and participation reports compiled by school district personnel. Auditors interviewed board members, district administrators, principals, assistant principals, academic coaches, teachers, parents, and support staff. Auditors also visited classrooms in all schools to obtain observational data.

Overall, the auditors found that not all student subgroups have equal access to specifi c programs or services. Enrollment in some programs was found to be disproportionate in comparison to the district enrollment.

The following board policies address equal access to educational opportunities and staff diversity:

Board Policy EG: Guideline Non Discrimination/Equal Opportunity• : “The Board of Education hereby agrees to comply with Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964…. The Board of Education further agrees to the regulation that no person in the United States (on the grounds of race, color, creed, age, religion, sex, national origin, or handicap) will be excluded from any participation in, denied the benefi t of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program, activity, or employment with the district.”

Board Policy AC: Non Discrimination/Equal Opportunity• states, “The district is required by federal and state laws, executive orders, rules and regulations not to illegally discriminate on the basis of: race, creed, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, handicapping conditions, or marital status. The district commits itself to nondiscrimination on these bases in all its educational and employment activities. The district Strategic Improvement Plan references the educational needs of all students.”

The district Strategic Improvement Plan 2006-2009 references the educational needs of all students and the diversity of the staff through the following statements:

Value racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity.• “The district will develop strategies to address the academic and social needs of all students so that no achievement gaps exist between any groups. Specifi c programs and resources will be established in schools to ensure that this happens. Particular attention will be focused on students whose language is other than English and students who are economically disadvantaged. All programs, academic and extracurricular, will take steps to ensure that all interested students are encouraged to participate.”

“The district and schools build instructional capacity through high-quality teachers and leadership as • measured by percentage of staff representing minority groups.”

“Create options for high school student assignment in addition to the drawing of boundary lines between • the new and current high schools that will ensure demographic diversity. Action steps include: Monitor implementation to ensure that all schools maintain high levels of quality, meet student and parent interests, and ensure equity and fairness for all.”


“Ensure that funds are used in ways that have the greatest possible impact on student achievement. • Action steps include: Compare per pupil investments and student outcomes across schools and by student population and program in order to more effi ciently and strategically deploy resources.”

Elementary indoor physical education and fi tness facilities serve all students.

Gender and Ethnicity of Students and Teaching Staff

Auditors compared the distribution of gender and ethnicity of students and teachers to determine whether teachers mirror the students they teach. The auditors expected to fi nd that the diversity of the staff would mirror the diversity of the student population. When proportionate representation exists in the gender and ethnic make up of the staff and student population, students are provided role models that contribute to their sense of belonging.

Overall, the auditors found that the diversity of the staff was not representative of the student population with regard to ethnicity and gender.

The Rogers Public Schools Strategic Plan lists as a strategy that the district and schools will build instructional capacity through high quality teachers and leadership as measured by the percentage of staff representing minority groups.

Exhibit 3.1.1 shows a comparison of the ethnicity and gender of students and the ethnicity and gender of district teaching staff for the 2008-09 school year.

Exhibit 3.1.1

Ethnicity and Gender of Students and District Teachers by PercentageRogers Public School System

November 2008

Group Classroom Teachers StudentsCaucasian 95.79 57.00

African American 1.17 0.80Asian 0.20 1.85

Hispanic 1.17 39.00Native American 1.66 0.60

Male 18.59 51.07Female 81.41 48.93



The percentage of minority teachers is underrepresented compared with the percentage of minority • students in each ethnic group.

In 2008, 57 percent of Rogers Public Schools students were Caucasian, while 95.79 percent of teachers • were Caucasian.

In 2008, 39 percent of Rogers Public School students were Hispanic, while 1.17 percent of teachers • were Hispanic.

Male teachers (18.6 percent) are underrepresented in comparison with the percentage of male students • (51.1 percent).

Auditors also interviewed board members, district administrators, building principals, and teachers concerning the diversity of personnel. Comments shared with auditors follow:

“We need more bilingual teachers.” (Administrator)•

“Elementary campuses don’t have enough male teachers.” (Administrator)•

“We need to hire at least one coach at each school who is bilingual so we can start to make some • connections to the Hispanic community.” (Administrator)

“We have a predominately Caucasian staff. We probably have a dozen Hispanics, some African • Americans, and some American Indians. Not nearly as many as we should. We recruited in Texas, New Mexico. We are trying to grow our own with our kids that are here.” (Administrator)

“We have a need for any level of diversity on our faculty.” (Administrator)•

In summary, the current gender and ethnic make up of the teaching staff is not refl ective of the Strategic Plan goal for Rogers Public Schools.

Special Education Enrollment

The auditors expected to fi nd enrollments in special education proportionate to the gender and ethnicity of the district’s student enrollment. Enrollment data for programs serving special populations were reviewed by the auditors to determine if the students participating in the programs were representative of the district’s student population. Exhibit 3.1.2 shows the gender make up of the special education students over a three year period of time.

Exhibit 3.1.2

Enrollment in Special Education by GenderRogers Public Schools

2005–06 through 2007–08

Special Education EnrollmentYear Female % Male % Total

2005–06 496 32.44 1,033 67.56 1,5292006–07 496 33.16 1,000 67.29 1,4962007–08 486 31.99 1,033 68.01 1,519Totals 1,478 3,066 4,544


In the 2005–06 school year there were 537 more males students in special education than female • students.

In the 2006–07 school year there were 504 more male students in special education than female • students.


In the 2007–08 school year there were 547 more male students in special education than female • students.

In all three school years, there was more than twice the number of male students represented in special • education than female students.

Exhibit 3.1.3 shows the ethnic makeup of students enrolled in special education over a three year period.

Exhibit 3.1.3

Special Education Enrollment by EthnicityRogers Public Schools

2005–06 through 2007–08

Special Education EnrollmentStudent Group 2005-06 % 2006-07 % 2007-08 %

Caucasian 1,143 74.8 1,050 70.2 1,046 68.9Hispanic 356 23.3 412 27.5 436 28.7

African American 16 1.1 17 1.1 12 0.8Native American 8 0.5 11 0.7 14 0.9

Asian 6 0.4 6 0.4 11 0.7Total 1,529 1,496 1,519


Caucasian students are overrepresented in special education.•

Hispanic students are underrepresented in special education.•

Caucasian students are decreasing in special education, from 74.8 percent in the 2005-06 school year to • 68.9 percent in the 2007-08 school year.

Hispanic students have grown in special education, from 23.3 percent in the 2005-06 school year to • 28.7 percent in the 2007-08 school year.

Identifi cation of special education students in the Rogers Public Schools is based upon a referral process from staff or parent request in accordance with the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). The ADE states the following when identifying students for a specifi c learning disability:

“The State does not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement • for determining whether a child has a specifi c learning disability.”

Therefore, a student can be placed in Special Education for minor discrepancies between intellectual ability and achievement. Discretionary placements are determined at the campus level by the administrators, teachers, and parents of a student. Due to a lack of strict guidelines provided for discretionary placements, a signifi cant imbalance is prevalent in the placement of students in special education programs. Coupled with the disproportionate placement of students by ethnicity and gender, auditors determined that inequities exist in the special education program. Auditors examined the identifi cation of students by disability type and the educational environment provided for special education students. Exhibit 3.1.4 shows the percentage of disability types of special education students in the Rogers Public School system.


Exhibit 3.1.4 shows the percentage of disability type of special education students in the Rogers Public School system.

Exhibit 3.1.4

Special Education Disability TypesRogers Public Schools

November 2008

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%Sp

ecif

ic L

earn

ing

Dis

abili

ties

Spee

ch/L

angu

age

Impa

irm

ents

Oth

er H

ealth

Impa

irm

ents

Men

tal

Ret

arda

tion

Aut

ism

Em

otio

nal

Dis

turb

ance

Mul

tiple

Dis

abili

ties

Hea

ring

Impa

irm

ents

Ort

hope

dic

Impa

irm

ents

Vis

ual

Impa

irm

ents

Tra

umat

ic B

rain

Inju

ry

Dea

f-B

lindn

ess


The highest percentage of students receiving special education services, 38.73 percent, falls within the • learning disability category.

19.65 percent of special education students receive services for speech/language impairment.•

16.45 percent of special education students receive services that fall within the category of Other Health • Impairments.


Exhibit 3.1.5 shows the educational environment for special education students for the 2007-08 school year.

Exhibit 3.1.5

Special Education Student EnvironmentRogers Public Schools

November 2008

0.26% 0.51% 0.06%

48.21%

0.06%

29.07%

21.83%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Public SpecialDay School

Hospital/Homebound

ParentallyPlaced inPrivateSchools

Regular Class PrivateResidential

Facility

Resource Separate Class

Special EducationEducational Environment

2007-08


48.21 percent of the special education students receive services through the regular classroom setting.•

29.07 percent of the special education students receive services through resource.•

21.83 percent of special education students receive services through a separate class.•

Auditors also interviewed board members, district administrators, building principals, and teachers regarding special education. Comments shared with auditors follow:

“We need to get off the special education disproportionality list.” (Administrator)•

“I am concerned about the student achievement piece and moving special education students toward • profi ciency.” (Administrator)

“Special education classes may have three different grade levels and children with different categories, • but most of them must meet the benchmarks.” (Administrator)

In summary, there are gender disproportionalities in the identifi cation of more male students versus female students in special education. Ethnic partialities are occurring as well, as seen in the overrepresentation of Caucasian students and the underrepresentation of Hispanic students in special education. Discretionary placement of students in special education is more representative in the Learning Disabled category, and a large number of special education students are served through the regular classroom setting.


Advanced Placement Enrollment

Several Advanced Placement (AP) courses are available to students in Rogers Public Schools. Students enrolled in AP courses have the opportunity to take the AP exam. Scores on the AP exams range from 1-5. Students who receive a 3 or higher become eligible for college credit. Auditors reviewed the gender and ethnic enrollment data in AP courses. The auditors expected to fi nd that the proportion of students enrolled in AP courses would mirror the proportion of the student population.

Exhibit 3.1.6 shows the gender makeup of students enrolled in AP courses.

Exhibit 3.1.6

Advanced Placement Enrollment by Gender Rogers Public Schools

2005-06 through 2007-08


Year Female %District

Enrollment %

Male %District

Enrollment %

Difference

2005-06 270 55.9 49.0 213 44.1 51.0 572006-07 291 57.1 48.9 219 42.9 51.1 722007-08 327 59.9 48.9 219 40.1 51.1 106

Total 888 641 247


In all three years, female students were overrepresented in AP courses compared to the number of male • students enrolled.

The number of female students enrolled in AP courses has increased from 270 in 2005-06 to 327 in • 2007-08.

Female enrollment in AP courses has increased at a faster rate than male enrollment in AP courses.•

57 percent of students enrolled in AP are female, as compared to an overall female student population • of 49 percent.

Exhibit 3.1.7 shows the ethnic makeup of enrollment in Advanced Placement courses over a three year period.

Exhibit 3.1.7

Advanced Placement Enrollment by EthnicityRogers Public Schools

2005-06 through 2007-08


Student Group 2005-06 AP

%

District Enrollment

%2006-07 AP

%

District Enrollment

%2007-08 AP

%

District Enrollment

%Caucasian 423 87.6 63 425 83.3 60 454 83.2 57Hispanic 54 11.2 34 60 11.8 37 79 14.5 39African

American 1 0.2 .01 3 0.6 .01 0 0.0 0.8

Native American 3 0.6 .01 2 0.4 .01 1 0.2 0.6

Asian 2 0.4 .02 20 3.9 .02 12 2.2 1.85Total 483 510 536



Caucasian students are overrepresented in AP courses, as indicated by 83.2 percent AP enrollment in • the 2007-08 school year compared to a 57 percent Caucasian student enrollment.

Hispanic students are underrepresented in AP courses. They represent only 14.5 percent of AP students • in the 2007-08 school year, as compared to an overall Hispanic student population of 39 percent representation.

Exhibit 3.1.8 shows a graphic representation of special population groups represented in Advanced Placement courses.

Exhibit 3.1.8

Special Population Groups Represented in AP CoursesRogers Public Schools

November 2008

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2007 4% 22% 17% 1% 22%

2008 5% 24% 18% 1% 20%

Limited English Proficient

Economically Disadvantaged

Hispanic Special Education Gifted and Talented


Limited English Profi cient (LEP) students represent 4-5 percent of the students enrolled in AP • courses.

Economically Disadvantaged students (FRL) represent approximately 24 percent of the students • enrolled in AP courses, as compared to a student population of approximately 54 percent FRL.

Hispanic students represent approximately 17 percent of the enrollment in AP courses, although the • overall Hispanic student population is 39 percent.

Special Education students represent one percent of the enrollment in AP courses, as compared to a 12 • percent special education student population.

Gifted and Talented (GT) students represent approximately 20 percent of the enrollment in AP courses • compared to a seven percent student population of GT students.

Access to Advanced Placement courses needs to be free of barriers that may prohibit certain groups of students from becoming involved in the program. Auditors identifi ed barriers such as grade requirements, attendance at meetings, and parent permission requirements. Such requirements may preclude student enrollment in AP classes. The high school course guide addresses prerequisites for entry into AP courses with the following statements:

One or both parents/guardians must attend an AP parent information meeting before registration.•


Student and parent/guardian must sign a contract for each AP course, acknowledging its rigor, its honor • code and making a commitment to stay in the course.

Some AP courses may have additional content related pre-requisites—please check the course • description(s) of the individual course(s).

Overall, the auditors found that some barriers exist that may prevent certain groups of students from participating in AP courses. A requirement such as expecting parents to attend a meeting may prevent some students from participating in the program due to lack of transportation or family working conditions.

Auditors also interviewed board members, district administrators, building principals, and teachers regarding placement in AP courses. Comments shared with auditors include:

“Hispanic students are underrepresented in AP classes.” (Administrator)•

“We have applied for grants to enhance underrepresented populations in pre-AP and AP classes and • increase pre-AP offerings at the middle school level.” (Administrator)

In summary, there are gender, ethnic, and socioeconomic disproportionality in the enrollment of students in Advanced Placement courses. Caucasian females are especially overrepresented in AP courses.

Gifted and Talented

The auditors also examined the data reporting the enrollment of students assigned to the Gifted and Talented (GT) program by gender and ethnicity. Rogers Public Schools has changed the way students are served through the GT program and currently teach K-2 students in whole group instruction in all classrooms in order to expose all students to GT instructional methods. The increased talent pool is then identifi ed as students move to the third grade. Rogers Public Schools application for GT education to the Arkansas Department of Education shows 16.03 percent of GT students receiving free and reduced lunch. Exhibit 3.1.9 illustrates the existing disproportionate representations of gender and ethnic groups in the GT program.

Exhibit 3.1.9

Gifted and Talented Enrollment by GenderRogers Public Schools

2005–06 through 2007–08

GT EnrollmentYear Female % Male % Difference

2005–06 336 55.35 271 44.65 672006–07 339 54.41 284 45.59 452007–08 327 54.32 275 45.68 52

Total 1,002 830 172


In all three years female students were overrepresented in the GT program; male students were • underrepresented.

54 percent to 55 percent of students identifi ed for the GT program are female, as compared to a female • student population of 49 percent.


Exhibit 3.1.10 shows the ethnic identifi cation of students in the Gifted and Talented program.

Exhibit 3.1.10

Ethnic Identifi cation of Students in Gifted and Talented EducationRogers Public Schools

2005–06 through 2007–08

Gifted and Talented EnrollmentStudent Group 2005-06 % 2006-07 % 2007-08 %

Caucasian 525 87.5 525 84.3 587 80.9Hispanic 58 9.6 73 11.7 91 15.1

African American 2 0.3 3 0.5 3 0.5Native American 5 0.8 6 1.0 7 1.2

Asian 17 2.8 16 2.6 14 2.3Total 607 623 712


Caucasian students are overrepresented in the GT program, as indicated by 80.9 percent enrollment in • the 2007-08 school year compared to a 57 percent Caucasian student population.

Hispanic students are underrepresented in the GT program, with only 15.1 percent representation in the • 2007-08 school year as compared to a Hispanic student population of 39 percent.

The Caucasian representation in the GT program has decreased from 87.5 percent in the 2005-06 school • year to 80.9 percent in the 2007-08 school year.

The Hispanic representation has increased from 9.6 percent in the 2005-06 school year to 15.1 percent • in the 2007-08 school year.

Auditors also interviewed board members, district administrators, building principals, and teachers about the Gifted and Talented program. Comments shared with auditors follow:

“I am concerned about moving GT and struggling learners toward the same goal.” (Administrator)•

“With our criteria assessment for GT placement, procedural type things need to be improved. Are • students really engaged and are we meeting all domains? Are we meeting the requirements for the dual identifi ed student?” (Administrator)

“Sometimes the smarter kids are forgotten the most. Have to be pushed too, so they can be accepted at • good colleges and university.” (Board Member)

In summary, while the practice of serving all K-2 students using GT methodologies in the classroom has increased the talent pool for identifi cation, disparities still exist in gender, ethnic, and socioeconomic representation in the Gifted and Talented program in the Rogers Public Schools.


Equipment for the IMPACT program used to emphasize health and wellness.

Distribution of Resources

The auditors examined the distribution of resources based on equity. In assessing equity in the distribution of resources, two areas of need stand out at Rogers Public Schools: (1) the growth of students who qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL), and (2) the growth of English Language Learners (ELL). Auditors examined the distribution of resources to assess district efforts to meet the needs of these learners, comparing the distribution of FRL students by campus with the allocation of Title I funds by campus. Exhibit 3.1.11 shows the percentage of FRL students by campus.

Exhibit 3.1.11

Percentage of Free/Reduced Lunch Students by CampusRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Free and Reduced Lunch

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Gra

ce H

ill

Jone

s

Mat

hias

Til

lery

Old

Wir

e

Bon

nie

Gri

mes

Eas

tsid

e

Nor

thsi

de

Lin

gle

MS

Kir

ksey

MS

Oak

dale

MS

Elm

woo

d M

S

Low

ell

Her

itag

e H

S

Wes

tsid

e

Gar

fiel

d

Rea

gan

Tuc

ker

Rog

ers

HS

Bel

lvie

w


Grace Hill and Jones Elementary Schools have the highest population of FRL students, with • approximately 84 percent each.


Bellview Elementary School has the lowest population of FRL students, with only approximately fi ve • percent.

All four middle schools, Kirksey, Lingle, Elmwood, and Oakdale, have approximately the same FRL • student population of around 57 percent.

Students enjoy lunch in clean, airy cafeteria facilities.

Rogers Public Schools chooses to use the Title I funds at the elementary level. The auditors would expect to fi nd Title I funds allocated equitably to the respective campuses based on the number of FRL students that are served on each campus. FRL students at the secondary schools are not served with Title I funds although they have larger FRL students enrolled than fi ve elementary schools that do receive funding. Exhibit 3.1.12 shows the allocation of Title I funds according to the number of FRL students at each elementary campus.

Exhibit 3.1.12

Allocation of Title I FundsRogers Public Schools

November 2008

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Title Funds $1000 $207 $201 $201 $191 $184 $179 $172 $124 $120 $119 $109 $108 $34 $0

# FRL 400 388 388 369 356 347 333 240 233 230 212 209 65 35

Grace Hill Tillery Mathias Jones Old WireBonnie Grimes

Eastside Westside Northside Lowell Reagan Tucker Garfield Bellview



Title I funds follow the FRL student at the elementary campuses.•

Grace Hill Elementary receives the most Title I funds and has the highest FRL student population.•

Bellview Elementary receives no Title I funds and has the least number of FRL students.•

Exhibit 3.1.13 shows the cost to educate one student based upon the total budgeted allocation per elementary campus. The auditors would expect to fi nd that the campuses with the highest population of Title I students would also have the highest cost to educate a student.

Exhibit 3.1.13

Educational Costs Per StudentRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Educational Costs Per Student by Title Rank

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

Grace Hill(1)

Jones (2)

Mathias(3)

Tillery(4)

Old Wire(5)

Bonnie Grimes

(6)

Eastside(7)

Northside(8)

Lowell(9)

Westside(10)

Garfield(11)

Reagan(12)

ElzaTucker

(13)

Bellview(14)


Garfi eld Elementary School is ranked 11• th in Title I student population and has the highest cost per student of $8,284.

Jones Elementary School is ranked second in Title I student population and has the second highest cost • per student of $7,754.

Old Wire Elementary School, which is ranked fi fth in Title I student population, has the third highest • cost per student of $7,213.

Bellview Elementary School is ranked 14• th in Title I student population and has the lowest cost per student: $5,130.

Auditors also interviewed board members, district administrators, building principals, and teachers. Representative comments include the following:

“It took us a long time to decide what to do about equity. We wanted to be fair to everyone and every • school got the same thing. As we become more diverse, we realized that every school should not get equal amounts.” (Administrator)

“A weakness in the district is the demographic change, the diversity, ethnicity, and the number on free/• reduced lunch, and the mobility within the district as well as in and out.” (Administrator)


In summary, allocation of Title I funds should follow the FRL student population in order for campuses to use the resources to meet the needs of the students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Total budgeted funds per campus are inequitable in their allocation as compared to the total student population of Title I students.

English Language Learners (ELL)

English Language Learners are students identifi ed by the State Board of Education as not profi cient in the English language based upon approved assessment instruments that measure oral, reading, and writing profi ciency. The population of ELL students in Rogers Public Schools has multiplied in the past years, increasing from 810 to 4270 over a 14 year period. ELL students receive services based upon their level of educational need. There are fi ve levels of language profi ciency that are considered:

Level 1: Non-English speaker•

Level 2: Very limited English speaker•

Level 3: Limited English speaker•

Level 4: Functional English speaker•

Level 5: Fluent and profi cient English speaker•

English Language Learner students who are enrolled in the fi rst three levels receive services. Exhibit 3.1.14 shows the enrollment of ELL students by campus in the 2008-09 school year.

Exhibit 3.1.14

English Language Learner Student Enrollment by CampusRogers Public Schools

2008–09

School ELL-1 ELL-2 ELL-3 Total ELL

Total Students

% Students ELL

Jones Elem 32 115 79 226 442 51.13Grace Hill Elem 37 90 73 200 476 42.02Bonnie Grimes Elem 37 90 73 200 488 40.98Eastside Elem 45 92 46 183 513 35.67Mathias Elem 33 79 43 155 499 31.06Old Wire Elem 23 77 41 141 498 28.31Lowell Elem 22 55 30 107 470 22.77Tillery Elem 24 65 27 116 516 22.48Lingle Middle 14 73 58 145 733 19.78Kirksey Middle 10 66 64 140 734 19.07Northside Elem 16 39 18 73 402 18.16Oakdale Middle 11 65 56 132 732 18.03Tucker Elem 23 48 12 83 484 17.15Reagan Elem 13 45 16 74 451 16.41Elmwood Middle 6 49 52 107 735 14.56Heritage High 23 50 120 193 1,591 12.13Westside Elem 14 23 21 58 511 11.35Rogers High 14 83 130 227 2,377 9.55Bellview Elem 3 6 3 12 555 2.16Garfi eld Elem 0 0 0 0 138 0.00Total 400 1,210 962 2,572 13,345 19.27%



Jones Elementary serves the highest number of ELL students, with 226, or 51.13 percent of its student • population.

Garfi eld Elementary serves no ELL students.•

FTE allocations to Lingle Middle, Oakdale Middle, Heritage High, and Rogers High Schools exceed • the allocations of other schools with higher percentages of ELL students

Overall, the auditors found that the Full Time Equivalent (FTE) resource allocation was disproportionate to the number of ELL students needing services on each campus. Some campuses received excessive FTE disproportionately to their ELL enrollments.

Exhibit 3.1.15 shows the resource allocation of FTE based upon the English Language Learner student population per campus.

Exhibit 3.1.15

English Language Learner FTE AllocationRogers Public Schools

November 2008

ELL FTE Allocation by Campus

3.012.84

2.62

1.97 2.02

1.53 1.41 1.5

1

3.5

0

3.36

1.25

2.33

3.64

2.33

1.83

0.18

3.79

2.33

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Jone

s

Gra

ce H

ill

Bon

nie

Gri

mes

Eas

tsid

e

Mat

hias

Old

Wir

e

Low

ell

Till

ery

Lin

gle

Kir

ksey

Nor

thsi

de

Oak

dale

Tuc

ker

Rea

gan

Elm

woo

d

Her

itage

Wes

tsid

e

Rog

ers

Bel

lvie

w

Gar

fiel

d

ELL FTE


Jones Elementary receives the most ELL FTE allocation: 3.79.•

Grace Hill Elementary receives the second highest ELL FTE allocations of 3.65.•

Garfi eld Elementary receives no ELL FTE allocations.•

Bellview Elementary receives 0.18 ELL FTE allocations.•

Auditors also interviewed board members, district administrators, building principals, and teachers. Comments shared with auditors include the following:

“We have fi ve levels of ESOL students and usually take 1-3 years to move a student through a level.” • (Administrator)

“The ESOL population creates lots of challenges.” (Administrator)•


“We wanted to be fair so all schools get the same. More diverse schools with a high ESOL and • Economically Disadvantaged students get more resources.” (Administrator)

“ESL is still a challenge. A large number of immigrants are moving in.” (Board Member)•

“I’m proud that we are closing the achievement gap between high achievers and second language • learners.” (Board Member)

“One counselor was hired to work with Latino students who do not speak English. The Latino counselor • for K-12 works closely with the community in many ways. The counselors are involved in some aspects of the community.” (Administrator)

Summary

Slight discrepancies exist in the allocation of English Language Learner FTEs in comparison to the number of ELL students served by each campus. The distribution of resources for the English Language Learner population is inequitable in Rogers Public Schools.

Overall, auditors found that the percentage of minority teachers remains below that of the students they serve. Staff demographics do not refl ect the shifting demographics of the student population. In addition, disproportional student enrollments exist by gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status in the Special Education, Advanced Placement, and Gifted and Talented programs. Despite efforts by district administrators to confront inequities, the auditors found that inequities in the allocation of resources remain with English Language Learners and overall allocation of funds and resources between campuses.

Finding 3.2: Inequalities exist in retention, suspension, dropout, and graduation rate data based upon demographics, gender and ethnicity.

A well-managed school system refl ects a strong commitment to success for all learners. Decisions are made that provide students with equal opportunity and equitable support to achieve intended outcomes. Equality and fairness for all students are expected in areas such as student retention, suspension, dropouts, and graduation rate. No one student group should be disproportionately represented in retention rates, suspension rates, dropout rates, or graduation rates.

To determine the status of equality and equity in Rogers Public Schools, the auditors reviewed and analyzed data from a number of sources that might reveal equity issues in the school system. Areas of interest to the auditors included enrollment data, promotion and retention data, and graduation data. Information on groups that have traditionally performed below academic norms or who have been the subjects of inequitable treatment by the educational system was of particular concern to the auditors. Student retention, suspension, and graduation rates indicate disparities among student groups.

Retention and Promotion

The ethnic and gender distribution of student retention on any grade level often provides an indication of limited access to district resources and/or insuffi cient support to ensure equitable achievement levels. As with other data, in an effective school system, retention and promotion rates are expected to mirror the proportional distribution of students in each subgroup in the district.

Auditors found the following board policies related to promotion and retention:

Board Policy IKE: Promotion and Retention• outlines that Rogers Public Schools is committed to the academic success of all students. The policy cites the criteria by which students may be retained, including development of an Academic Improvement Plan. Students who do not participate in the program, do not pass a required Benchmark exam, or do not pass an end-of-courses assessment shall be retained. The fi nal decision for promotion or retention rests with the principal.

Board Policy IKE: Guidelines for Promotion and Retention • outlines the requirements for specifi c grade level promotion. The guidelines refl ect the commitment to have all students become successful in being promoted to the next grade level.


Exhibit 3.2.1 shows the number of retentions by gender for K-5 students in Rogers Public Schools for a three-year period from 2005 to 2008.

Exhibit 3.2.1

Number of Elementary Retentions by GenderRogers Public Schools

2005-2008

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08Grade Level Female Male Female Male Female Male

K-5 37 57 46 60 39 53Percentage 39.36 60.64 43.40 56.60 42.39 57.61


In the 2006-07 school year, 60 male students were retained in grades K-5.•

In the 2006-07 school year, 46 female students were retained in grades K-5.•

In all three years male students were retained at a higher rate than female students.•

Exhibit 3.2.2 shows the number of retentions by ethnicity of K-5 students in Rogers Public Schools for a three-year period from 2005 to 2008.

Exhibit 3.2.2

Number of Elementary Retentions by EthnicityRogers Public Schools

2005-2008

Annual Retention K-5

Student Group 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Total 3 yearsAverage %

District Enrollment3 year Average

Caucasian 52 64 38 154 52.7 60.0Hispanic 39 37 39 125 42.8 36.7

African American 0 3 4 7 2.4 0.3Asian 3 1 0 4 1.8 0.6

Native American 0 1 1 2 0.7 0.04Totals 94 106 82 282


From 2005-06 to 2007-08, 154 Caucasian students were retained, which was 52.74 percent of the • number of elementary retentions.

From 2005-06 to 2007-08, 125 Hispanic students were retained, or 42.81 percent of elementary • retentions.

The number of Caucasian students retained has declined by 27 percent during the three-year period; the • number of Hispanic students retained has remained constant.


Exhibit 3.2.3 shows the number of retentions of K-5 students by gender for each elementary school in the Rogers Public School system over a three-year period.

Exhibit 3.2.3

Number of K-5 Retentions by Gender by CampusRogers Public Schools

2005-2008

Elementary School2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Total %Female Male Female Male Female Male

Eastside 5 3 8 5 4 6 31 10.73Garfi eld 2 4 2 4 0 0 12 4.15Lowell 1 3 0 5 1 7 17 5.88

Northside 0 2 0 2 1 0 5 1.73Westside 2 3 3 6 1 5 20 6.92

Grace Hill 3 3 3 3 2 7 21 7.27Bonnie Grimes 3 6 1 4 3 0 17 5.88

Reagan 2 5 7 7 8 2 31 10.73Tillery 1 4 4 4 3 6 22 7.61

Mathias 7 9 3 5 4 3 31 10.73Bellview 1 5 1 3 1 1 12 4.15

Jones 8 3 7 7 4 5 34 11.76Tucker 1 2 1 3 0 5 12 4.15

Old Wire 1 5 2 3 7 6 24 8.30


Jones Elementary has retained the highest number of students from 2005-06 to 2007-08, with 34 K-5 • students retained.

Eastside, Jones, and Mathias have retained the second highest number of K-5 students: 31 from 2005-• 06 to 2007-08.

Northside retained the least number of K-5 students, with only fi ve students retained from 2005-06 to • 2007-08.


Exhibit 3.2.4 shows the number of retentions by gender for middle school students in Rogers Public Schools for a three-year period from 2005-06 to 2007-08.

Exhibit 3.2.4

Number of Middle School Retentions by GenderRogers Public Schools

2005-2008

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08Grade Level Female Male Female Male Female Male

6th-8th 10 38 27 35 18 35Percentage 20.83 79.17 43.55 56.45 33.96 66.04


In 2005-06, 79.17 percent of middle school retentions were male students. •

The number of middle school male students retained has remained fairly constant for the three years. •

The lowest number of female students retained was in 2005-06, with 10 students or 20.83 percent of • middle school retentions.

From 2005-06 to 2007-08, male students were retained at a much higher rate than females.•

Exhibit 3.2.5 shows the number of retention of middle school students by ethnicity in Rogers Public Schools during the same time period.

Exhibit 3.2.5

Number of Middle School Retentions by EthnicityRogers Public Schools

2005-2008

Student Group 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Total 3 yr Average%

Caucasian 25 25 30 80 52.29Hispanic 13 36 21 70 45.75

African American 0 1 0 1 0.65Asian 0 0 1 1 0.65

Native American 0 0 1 1 0.65

Exhibit 3.2.5 illustrates:

A total of 153 middle school students were retained from 2005-06 to 2007-08.•

Caucasian students comprised 52.29 percent of students retained from 2005-06 to 2007-08, but are 57 • percent of the population.

Hispanic students comprised 45.79 percent of the students retained from 2005-06 to 2007-08, and • represent 39 percent of the student population.


Exhibit 3.2.6 shows the number of retentions of middle school students by gender for each middle school in Rogers Public School system over a three-year period.

Exhibit 3.2.6

Number of Middle School Retentions by Gender by CampusRogers Public Schools

2005-2008

Middle School2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Total %Female Male Female Male Female Male

Lingle 0 2 1 1 1 0 5 3.27Kirksey 0 4 7 6 5 9 31 20.26Oakdale 3 11 14 16 4 14 62 40.52

Elmwood 7 11 5 12 8 12 55 35.95


Oakdale has the highest number of students retained from 2005-06 to 2007-08, with 62 or 40.52 percent • of retained middle school students.

Elmwood has the second highest number of students retained from 2005-06 to 2007-08, with 55 or • 35.95 percent of retained middle school students.

Lingle retained the least number of students from 2005-06 to 2007-08, with fi ve or 3.27 percent.•

Disparities exist in the retention of students in grades kindergarten through fi ve and in grades six through eight. No data for high school retention was provided to the auditors. Evidence shows efforts have been made to remediate and assist students in meeting promotion and retention guidelines, but some slight ethnic imbalances exist while the gender disproportionality in retention indicate signifi cant disparity between male and female students.

Suspensions

The auditors expected to fi nd the percentage of students suspended and/or expelled (by subgroup) proportionate to their composition in the total student population. Auditors found the following board policies regarding student discipline:

Board Policy JIC: Student Conduct• sets forth the district’s expectation for student behavior: “Students are expected to conduct themselves at all times (at school, at school activities and events, and traveling to and from school) in a manner that will promote the best interest of the school system and will not infringe on the rights of others.”

Board Policy JK: Student Discipline Policy• outlines the expectations for students, staff, and parents related to student conduct and discipline. It includes a set of reasons for which students may be removed from class, a description of the student removal process, and guidelines for alternative placement. In addition, it contains a section on students with disabilities.


Auditors examined school records for suspensions from the 2007-08 school year and calculated the percentage of suspensions of various student groups compared to the percentage of student groups represented in Rogers Public Schools. The results are depicted in Exhibit 3.2.7.

Exhibit 3.2.7

Suspensions of Various Student GroupsRogers Public Schools

2007-08

Group Total Suspended Students

Percent of Total Suspended Students

Percent of Total District Enrollment

General Education 2,587 79.60 88.48Special Education 663 20.40 11.52Caucasian 1,602 51.96 59.83Hispanic 1,428 43.32 37.13Male 2,293 70.55 51.07Female 957 29.45 48.93


Special Education students are suspended at a rate almost double their percentage of total district • enrollment.

Hispanic students are also suspended at a rate greater than their percentage of total district enrollment. •

Male students are suspended at a rate that is almost 20 percent greater than their percentage of total • district enrollment, and almost two and a half times more often than female students.

A total of 3,250 student suspensions were issued in 2007-08.•

Overall, auditors did not fi nd adequate policy or procedures that address student discipline and equity for all student populations. Auditors reviewed the only suspension data presented from the 2007-08 school year and noted a large gender imbalance in suspensions, with male students being suspended at a signifi cantly higher rate than females.

Dropout and Graduation Rates

The Arkansas Department of Education defi nes the graduation rate as a “rate that indicates the percentage of students enrolled during grade 9 through 12, and completing grade 12 without dropping out.”

The ethnic and gender distribution of student failure on any grade level often provides an indication of limited access to district resources and insuffi cient support to ensure academic success. As with other data, in an effective school system the dropout and graduation rates are expected to be proportional with the enrollment rates of student subgroups in the district.

Auditors found the following board policy regarding dropouts and graduation rate:

Board Policy ADA: School District Goals and Objectives • sets forth what it would take for Rogers Public Schools to be a top school in the state of Arkansas. One of the board’s objectives to accomplish this goal is for the graduation rate to be 90 percent by the year 2000.

The district Strategic Plan also cites Rogers Public Schools’ desire to become one of the best districts in the country with the following goal: “All students meet high academic expectations and graduate high school prepared for college as measured by disaggregating graduation rates.”


Exhibit 3.2.8 displays the fi ve year history of high school dropouts in Rogers Public School from 2003 to 2008.

Exhibit 3.2.8

High School Dropouts Reported for Five YearsRogers Public Schools

2003-2008

Year Number of Dropouts Enrollment Dropout Rate2003-04 179 3,319 5.39%2004-05 193 3,410 5.66%2005-06 194 3,533 5.49%2006-07 207 3,666 5.65%2007-08 206 3,977 5.18%

Total 979 17,905 5.47%


The number of dropouts has increased from 179 in the 2003-04 school year to 206 in the 2007-08 • school year, but this number refl ects a lower dropout rate.

The dropout rate has decreased in the fi ve years from 5.39 percent in the 2003-04 school year to 5.18 • percent in the 2007-08 school year.

The highest dropout rates occurred in 2004-05 and 2006-07; the lowest rate occurred in 2007-08.•

A closer look at the dropout data provided for the 2007-08 school year is shown in Exhibit 3.2.9 and depicts dropouts by grade level from grade 7 through grade 12.

Exhibit 3.2.9

Number of Dropouts by Grade LevelRogers Public Schools

2007-08

# Dropouts

3 5

15

35

73

48

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th



The highest number of dropouts occurred in grade 11 with 73.•

The second highest number of dropouts occurred in grade 12 with 48.•

The least number of dropouts occurred in grade 7 with three.•

Exhibit 3.2.10 depicts the number of dropouts by gender.

Exhibit 3.2.10

Number of Dropouts by Grade and GenderRogers Public Schools

2007-08

# Dropouts

1 2

96

39

34

20

28

8

27

33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Mal

es

Fem

ales

Mal

es

Fem

ales

Mal

es

Fem

ales

Mal

es

Fem

ales

Mal

es

Fem

ales

Mal

es

Fem

ales

7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th


Grade 11 males had the highest number of dropouts with 39 versus 34 females in the same year.•

The greatest disproportion of dropouts by gender was in grade 10, with 27 male dropouts compared to • eight female dropouts.

The number of dropouts for males is higher than females in all grades except grade 8.•

Males had a total of 107 dropouts versus 72 female dropouts in 2007-08.•


Exhibit 3.2.11 shows the dropouts for the 2007-08 school year by percentage of ethnic group.

Exhibit 3.2.11

Percent of Dropouts by EthnicityRogers Public Schools

2007-08

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Caucasian African American Hispanic Asian

Dropout

DistrictEnrollment


Caucasian students are overrepresented with a 64 percent dropout rate.•

Hispanic students have the second highest dropout rate of 34 percent.•

Exhibit 3.2.12 shows the graduation rates by gender for the Classes of 2000 to 2006.

Exhibit 3.2.12

Gender Graduation RatesRogers Public Schools

2000-2006

Longitudinal Gender Graduation Rate

Class Males Enrolled

Males Graduated % Graduated Females

EnrolledFemales

Graduated%

Graduated2000 339 294 86.73 327 299 91.442001 371 300 80.86 339 301 88.792002 347 298 85.88 327 298 91.132003 363 319 87.88 361 322 89.202004 358 343 95.81 352 333 94.602005 369 350 94.85 361 346 95.842006 361 295 81.72 390 337 86.41


The highest graduation rates for male students are 95.81 percent in 2004 and 94.85 percent in 2005.•

The highest graduation rates for female students are 95.84 percent in 2005 and 94.60 percent in 2004.•

The lowest graduation rate for male students is 80.86 percent in the 2001 graduation year; the second • lowest graduation rate for male students is 81.72 percent in the 2006 graduation year.


The lowest graduation rate for female students is 86.41 percent in the 2006 graduation year; the second • lowest graduation rate for female students is 88.79 percent in the 2001 graduation year.

Female students graduated at a higher rate than male students in every graduation year except 2004.•

Exhibit 3.2.13 shows the longitudinal graduation rates by ethnicity for Caucasian and Hispanic students from the graduating classes of 2000 to 2006.

Exhibit 3.2.13

Graduation Rates by EthnicityRogers Public Schools

2000-2006

Longitudinal Ethnic Graduation Rate

Group Caucasian Enrolled

Caucasian Graduated

% Graduated

Hispanic Enrolled

Hispanic Graduated

% Graduated

2000 564 502 89.01 88 80 90.912001 583 500 85.76 112 88 78.572002 551 487 88.38 100 87 87.002003 548 496 90.51 159 130 81.762004 547 529 96.71 141 128 90.782005 543 519 95.58 163 153 93.872006 519 458 88.25 214 160 74.77

Cum Total 3,855 3,491 90.56 977 826 84.54


For the seven year period, Caucasian students (90.56 percent) graduated at a higher rate than Hispanic • students (84.54 percent).

The highest graduation rates for Caucasian students occurred with 96.71 percent in 2004 and 95.58 • percent in 2005.

The highest graduation rates for Hispanic students was 93.87 percent in 2005 and 90.91 percent in • 2000.

The lowest graduation rate for Caucasian students was 85.67 percent in the 2001 graduation year; the • second lowest graduation rate for Caucasian students was 88.25 percent in the 2006 graduation year.

The lowest graduation rate for Hispanic students was 74.77 percent in the 2006 graduation year; the • second lowest graduation rate for Hispanic students was 78.57 percent in the 2001 graduation year.

Caucasian students graduated at a higher rate than Hispanic students in all years except in the 2000 • graduation year.


Auditors were provided with detailed graduation data for the class of 2008. Exhibits 3.2.14 and 3.2.15 depict the data provided.

Exhibit 3.2.14

Cohort 9th Grade Students to Graduation by SubgroupsRogers Public Schools

November 2008

2008 Graduating Class

Students Enrolled Spring 2005 (9th Grade)

Students Graduated 2008

Dropouts 2005-2008

Males 529 255 117Females 501 276 69

Caucasian 715 402 109Hispanic 291 118 73

Other 24 11 4SpEd 143 66 23ELL 195 57 59FRL 464 156 122


Eighteen (18) percent of the class of 2008 dropped out between the spring of ninth grade in 2005 and • graduation in 2008.

Fifty-two (52) percent of ninth graders in 2005 graduated in 2008.•

The remaining students in the cohort who are not refl ected in the graduation and dropout numbers can be attributed to mobility factors or are still enrolled in school.

Exhibit 3.2.15

Dropouts Cohort Group 2005-2008Rogers Public School

November 2008

2005-2008 Dropouts

8

4147

90

0

20

40

60

80

100

9th 10th 11th 12th


The most students dropped out in the 12th grade, with 90 dropouts recorded.•

The lowest number of dropouts was recorded in ninth grade with eight students.•


The number of students who dropped out increased each year from grade 9 to grade 12.•

Auditors interviewed board members, district administrators, building principals, and teachers of Rogers Public Schools. Relevant comments shared with auditors follow:

“The new feeder pattern should help with graduation rate because we can identify the students who are • in trouble earlier, before they get to our building.” (Administrator)

“The feeder pattern is going to help. I’m getting my students for three years now so I can build • relationships with my students.” (Administrator)

“A weakness is the loss of students from 9th grade year to graduation.” (Board Member)•

“I think the district blames the high schools for the drop out rate…we feel the pressure. The drop out • problem goes back to lower levels as well.” (Administrator)

“We have focused so much on the Harvard and Yale students and forgotten the others.” • (Administrator)

“We have never been able to get our arms around the loss of students in grades 1-12. We have 1,000 • students in classes coming up and we only graduate 700. We are losing students and we need to understand why.” (Administrator)

Overall, the quotes from district personnel show a realization of the need to address and implement measures to help prevent dropouts.

Summary

Rogers Public Schools shows evidence of promoting equality and fairness for all students and have expectations in areas of student retention, suspension, and graduation rate. Auditors found disproportionate gender and ethnic rates in promotions and retentions, suspensions, and dropout and graduation numbers. Specifi cally, Hispanic students are overrepresented in retentions, suspensions, and have a lower graduation rate. Male students are overrepresented in retentions, suspensions and have a lower graduation rate. Therefore, Rogers Public School show inequalities in retentions, suspensions, and dropout data based upon demographic gender and ethnic disproportionalities that signifi cantly affect the graduation rates.

Finding 3.3: Design and delivery of professional development are fragmented and are not coordinated to support curriculum and instruction.

In any organization, the skills of the workforce are a signifi cant—perhaps the most signifi cant—factor in achieving the organization’s goals. To change the output of the organization, leaders need to enhance the capabilities of the workforce and provide the training experiences necessary to keep skill development of employees congruent with the organizational mission and goals. That is the primary reason school districts provide professional development. To improve student achievement, there must be a comprehensive plan for effective professional development leading to relevant changes and/or growth in the teachers’ delivery of the district’s curriculum and attainment of the goals for student learning.

An effective professional development program is guided by a comprehensive plan that provides all staff with the knowledge and skills to be productive and move toward the long-range goals of the district. Professional development that is centrally coordinated with other district and building plans is powerful when it is data-driven and focuses on organizational change. Effective professional development programs offer a variety of delivery models coupled with intensive follow-up and support and are inclusive of all staff. Follow-up activities include meaningful practice of what was presented. High quality programs are ongoing and utilize research based strategies to guide improvement. Monitoring professional development strategies helps to effectively measure the success of the training in improving student achievement.

To determine the adequacy of the professional development program in Rogers Public Schools, auditors reviewed district policies, professional development plans, professional development calendars, job descriptions, and the district improvement plan. Interviews were conducted with board members, district administrators, principals, assistant principals, academic coaches, teachers, parents, and support staff.


Auditors found that the district has a practice of decentralized professional development, which allows building-level administrators to plan and provide professional development that meets individual campus needs, and which may or may not align with the needs of the district. The lack of data to provide for informed decision making and the decentralization of professional development planning contribute to professional development that is fragmented, and in which individual campuses operate independently and without the connectivity necessary to achieve district goals. Exhibit 3.3.1 presents the documents reviewed.

Exhibit 3.3.1

Professional Development Documents ReviewedRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Date of Document Documents Reviewed

2006-07 Rogers Public Schools Professional Development Procedural PlanOctober 2008 My Learning Plan—Catalog of Offerings

October 2008 Alignment of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Implementation Plan & Professional Development Calendar

2008-09 District Improvement PlanOctober 2008 Rogers Public Schools Strategic PlanBoard PoliciesJune 2007 CBG: Superintendent’s Professional Development OpportunitiesMay 2004 GCI: Professional Staff DevelopmentMay 2007 GCIB: Professional Development: Professional Development DaysNo Date CFB-Form: Evaluation of Principals/Building AdministratorsJob DescriptionsJune 2007 SuperintendentJune 2007 Deputy SuperintendentJune 2007 Assistant Superintendent for InstructionJune 2007 Assistant Superintendent for Human ResourcesNo Date Director of Professional Development/Testing/Family-School RelationsNo Date Building Principal

In review of board policies, the auditors located several policies that specifi cally address professional development:

CAE: Administrative Personnel Professional Development and Expenses• states that the superintendent shall encourage administrative personnel to participate in professional organizations and attend local, state, and national meetings and workshops for the purpose of improving personnel’s ability to serve the district. Administrative personnel may be reimbursed for expenses incurred for attendance at professional meetings as approved by the superintendent. Funds for this purpose are provided in the annual budget.

CBC: Superintendent Job Description• includes the expectation that the superintendent manages subordinates who supervise the Professional Development department.

CBG: Superintendent’s Professional Development Opportunities• set out the board expectation that the superintendent attend local, state, and national meetings and workshops that will improve his/her ability to serve the district.

CDA: Job Description for the Deputy Superintendent• includes the following essential responsibility: “Coordinates and monitors the professional development program.”


CDB: Job Description for the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction• includes the following essential responsibility: “Assists in the development of the district Professional Development Plan. Assists in oversight of the professional development activities as they relate to district and state initiatives in curriculum and instruction.”

CDC: Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Job Description• lists responsibilities for the training of employees and chairing of the district staff development (salary lane change) committee.

CFB-Form: Evaluation of Principals/Building Administrators • includes a standard for evaluation as a “Professional Growth Leader” who develops and monitors individual teachers’ growth plans and professional development opportunities.

GCI: Professional Staff Development• meets the needs of the teachers and requires continued professional development.

GCIB: Professional Development • indicates that the Rogers Public Schools will provide opportunities for professional growth on the 10 scheduled professional development days (60 hours) required by the Arkansas Department of Education every year, including six hours of technology training and two hours of parent involvement training. (Administrators are required to obtain three parental involvement hours). Up to 12 hours of professional development credit may be earned for time spent planning and preparing curriculum and materials prior to the students’ fi rst day of classes. All professional development hours that are to be counted toward meeting the state requirement must be related to the School Improvement Plan, must be designed to increase student achievement, and must be approved by the building principal according to the Arkansas Department of Education Rules and Regulations for Professional Development.

IG: Curriculum Development, Adoption, and Review• directs that appropriate professional development will be offered to ensure that all staff members (new and existing) understand the content of the district’s approved curriculum in those areas in which the staff members have teaching responsibilities.

KB-PLAN:• Parent Involvement states that each year teachers are required to have two hours of professional development on effective parental involvement strategies and administrators are required to have three hours of professional development on strategies and leadership.

No policies were presented that: (1) provide direct guidance on how professional development needs should be identifi ed, prioritized, and coordinated at the district, site, and individual levels; (2) require the identifi cation of professional development outcomes; or (3) require evaluations to determine the effectiveness of professional development activities. Therefore, board policies do not provide suffi cient direction for a comprehensive, coordinated professional development program.

The Rogers Public Schools Strategic Plan includes the following statements with regard to professional development:

District leadership will also be expected to provide to schools necessary resources and supports in the • form of highly qualifi ed staff, high-quality professional development, timely and meaningful data about student outcomes, instructional materials, facilities, and time for instruction and collaboration among teachers.

The Rogers School District will provide high-quality professional development focused on teaching • and learning to all instructional staff.

Teachers and principals will have signifi cant input into the content and delivery of both district and • school professional development, but the professional development program shall be coordinated through a lead central offi ce position.

The professional development provided will be research based, job specifi c, relevant, and based at the • school or classroom. Such professional development cannot be provided during a few days scattered


throughout a school year, but must be ongoing throughout the year. The district must provide the time and other resources needed for the activities and support to be meaningful and effective.

The district must also provide specifi c professional development for district level instructional leaders • and principals so that they have the tools they need to lead school-based professional development activities and provide the necessary follow-up with teachers to ensure that new skills and strategies are taking hold in classrooms.

While the identifi cation of best practices is critical, the district must also put in place a plan to ensure • that these practices are replicated in classrooms. The district will provide high-quality professional development activities to provide teachers with the knowledge and skills to implement the practices.

The district and schools build instructional capacity through high-quality teachers and leadership. • Rating of professional development is completed by teachers and principals.

Align the district’s standards, curriculum, pacing guides, assessments, professional development, and • instruction.

With signifi cant input from teachers and principals, restructure the district’s professional development • plan to focus on improving the quality of instruction and delivery of curriculum. Professional development should be tied to academics and curriculum, focused on school and district goals, based at the schools, built on real-time collaboration, conducted regularly, and evaluated regularly.

Analyze student outcome data, strengths and weaknesses of current professional development, and best • practices in professional development in other districts.

Include in the professional development plan, strategies for developing other leaders.•

Auditors rate the information gathered from documents, interviews and campus visits according to 13 characteristics of a professional development program that is adequate for developing the capabilities of the district’s workforce. The 13 characteristics are listed in Exhibit 3.3.2, along with the auditors’ determination of adequacy for each characteristic. The criteria are built around policy, planning and design, delivery, and evaluation. Following Exhibit 3.3.2 is a discussion of several of the characteristics, explaining the meaning of the trait and describing the evidence the auditors considered in their rating.

Exhibit 3.3.2

Characteristics of a Comprehensive Professional Development Program and Auditors’ Assessment of District Approach


Characteristics: A quality professional development program… Auditors’ Rating

Adequate InadequateHas policy that directs professional development activities and actions that 1. are aligned to and are an integral part of the district strategic and/or long-range plan and its implementation.

X

Fosters a norm of continuous improvement and learning community.2. XProvides for organizational, unit, and individual development in a systemic 3. manner. X

Is for all employees.4. XExpects each supervisor to be a staff developer of staff supervised.5. XIs based on a careful analysis of data and is data driven. Utilizes 6. disaggregated student achievement data to determine adult learning priorities, monitors progress, and helps sustain improvement of each person carrying out his/her work.

X


Exhibit 3.3.2 (continued)Characteristics of a Comprehensive Professional Development Program

and Auditors’ Assessment of District ApproachRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Characteristics: A quality professional development program… Auditors’ Rating

Adequate InadequateFocuses on proven research-based approaches that have been shown to 7. increase productivity. X

Provides for the following: initiation, implementation, institutionalization, 8. and renewal. X

Is based on adult learning and development theory and directs professional 9. development efforts congruent with system priorities as refl ected in the district plan.

X

Uses a variety of professional development approaches.10. XProvides the follow-up and requires on-the–job application necessary to 11. ensure improvement. X

Requires an evaluation process that includes multiple sources of 12. information, focuses on all levels of the organization, and which is based on actual changed behavior and increased student achievement.

X

Provides for system-wide management oversight of professional 13. development efforts. X

Total 2 11Percentage of Adequacy 15.38%

For a school district’s professional development program to be determined as adequate, 70 percent of the 13 audit criteria must be met. As noted above, the auditors rated Rogers Public Schools professional development program adequate on two, or 15.38 percent, of the characteristics. Thus, the auditors rated the professional development program as inadequate.

Details supporting the analysis in Exhibit 3.3.2 are as follows:

Characteristic 1: In the policy review, auditors did not locate any board policy that gave direction in determining professional development goals, and further, how to select, prioritize, or coordinate professional development activities based upon those goals. Various campuses and departments offer trainings for employees at the discretion of building principals.

Characteristic 2: The auditors found evidence to support the district’s value of continuous professional development as a way to build capacity in people: Board Policy GCI: Professional Staff Development states that the district should “…meet the needs of the teachers and encourage continued professional development.” My Learning Document includes a wide variety of professional development activities to improve performance. In the 2008-09 school calendar, the district scheduled professional development days prior to the start of the school year and throughout the school year. Auditors determined that the district’s current practice is adequate to meet the criterion.

Characteristic 3: Rogers Public Schools provides professional development opportunities at the district (organizational) and department and school (unit) levels. Building personnel plan and organize campus-level training with little input from the district. Further, individuals (teachers and administrators) are given the option of enrolling in professional development classes offered by the district, or teachers may attend outside trainings with building level approval. The auditors found no system in place to connect the district, building, and individual professional development trainings and found no evidence of a systematic approach to differentiated professional development for teachers or administrators based on individual need.


Characteristic 4: An organized system to provide professional development or training to every district employee is not currently in place. Although the professional development plan mentions the importance of providing opportunities for all staff at all levels of the organization, no evidence was shown to provide all staff the opportunity for growth through professional development. The auditors concluded that the district’s practice is inadequate to meet this criterion.

Characteristic 5: The job description for the principal does contain a requirement to coordinate professional development for staff in alignment with the identifi ed needs of the campus. Other administrator job descriptions do not include expectations of a supervisory role in monitoring the professional development of employees reporting to the administrator. The principals are not formally required to participate in the teachers’ professional development trainings, and, therefore, they may not be aware of the content or strategies that are being presented. District expectations for monitoring professional development implementation have not been communicated in a systematic manner to all district and building supervisors.

Characteristic 6: A review of the Implementation Plan & Professional Development Calendar lists the trainings based on the district area of focus (e.g., TIA document development, ELLA training, ELF training). Other trainings refer mainly to collaboration meetings with no agenda guiding the purpose of the meetings. Disaggregated data training is absent in documents provided for both campus and district professional development. No evidence of using data to drive the professional development offerings was found.

Characteristic 7: No districtwide system is in place to oversee or evaluate the delivery methodology of the person providing professional development to district staff. Discretion of the professional development methodologies is left to the individual trainers or building principals. This criterion is considered to be inadequate since methods and content are not coordinated at the district level.

Characteristic 8: District and buildings can arrange and conduct their own trainings: consequently, there is little institutionalization of training content. No formal process is in place to determine how training will fl ow from district initiatives and goals to buildings and individual staff members. No evidence exists of how documentation of professional development efforts is institutionalized across the system.

Characteristic 9: As mentioned in Characteristic 7 above, the content and delivery style of professional development sessions are dependent upon the trainer and/or building principal. There is no organized method or expectations for how trainings will be conducted or what content will be included. The relationship of professional development to the district curriculum is not always coordinated at the district level. Trainings are not differentiated for adult learner readiness levels.

Characteristic 10: Professional development sessions are offered by a variety of sources including outside professionals, Rogers Public Schools staff, and “virtual” professional development offerings from the state of Arkansas. With a variety of instructional approaches to professional development in place, the district meets this criterion.

Characteristic 11: Interview and site visit data indicate that principals are not monitoring the use of new knowledge or skills acquired through professional development. All administrators have been trained in a walk-through training system that is used consistently at all buildings. The walk-through system monitors instructional skills that may or may not have been provided through a formal professional development process. The walk-through system is disconnected from professional development offerings. Further, principals are not required to attend teacher professional development trainings; thus, no connection is made to professional development when monitoring classrooms. No systematic follow-up or application of professional development information is embedded in district procedures.

Characteristic 12: A Participant’s Learning Refl ection feedback form is available for use with district professional development and is completed by staff attending the training. The form includes questions related to level of satisfaction and the need to improve the content and delivery of the training. Auditors did not receive compiled data from the evaluation forms, nor did they receive documentation regarding how professional development evaluations were used by district staff.


Characteristic 13: There is no district department that oversees, approves, and coordinates all district and building professional development. This criterion is not met because documentation of systemic oversight was not evident.

Auditors also interviewed board members, district administrators, building principals, and teachers concerning the availability, organization, and connectivity of professional development in Rogers Public Schools. Comments shared with auditors include the following:

“Our view of professional development is that we pose our expectations as optional until you capture • most of the people.” (Administrator)

“We need to change the way people view professional development (‘This too shall pass.’) and focus • on implementation.” (Administrator)

“We got a condensed version of the • TIA process.” (Administrator)

“We need to build a cohesive professional development plan.” (Administrator)•

“We are at an adolescent phase with professional development…like a middle school kid.” • (Administrator)

“Professional development is a work in progress.” (Administrator)•

“The professional development piece is missing.” (Administrator)•

“We let the buildings develop their own professional development plans.” (Administrator)•

“Professional development is falling on the assistant superintendents. We need more guidance with • professional development.” (Administrator)

“Professional development is more driven by the building level principal.” (Administrator)•

“(We) have used the Train the Trainer model for a lot of the school-focused training.” (Administrator)•

“TLI is great but teachers need more training in what to do with it.” (Administrator)•

The comments noted by auditors from interviews with school personnel provide evidence of the fragmentation of the design and delivery of professional development and its lack of support for curriculum and instruction.

Summary

While professional development opportunities for instructional personnel in Rogers Public Schools are extensive in scope, no comprehensive, data-driven needs assessment related to professional development needs or planning was presented to the auditors. There is no centralized process or plan to coordinate district, department, or campus efforts to ensure content and delivery quality. Board policy does not provide clear guidance for planning or implementing professional development activities. Targeted improvement in the skills of teachers and other personnel in the district is critical to improve student achievement and create relevant change and growth in teachers’ delivery of curriculum. Overall, the auditors determined that the design and delivery of professional development are fragmented and lack a coordinated effort to support curriculum and instruction.


STANDARD 4: The School District Uses the Results from System-Designed and/or -Adopted Assessments to Adjust, Improve, or Terminate Ineffective Practices or Programs.A school system meeting this audit standard has designed a comprehensive system of assessment/testing and uses valid measurement tools that indicate how well its students are achieving designated priority learning goals and objectives. Common indicators are:

A formative and summative assessment system linked to a clear rationale in board policy;•

Knowledge, local validation, and use of current curricular and program assessment best practices;•

Use of a student and program assessment plan that provides for diverse assessment strategies for varied • purposes at all levels—district, school, and classroom;

A way to provide feedback to the teaching and administrative staffs regarding how classroom instruction • may be evaluated and subsequently improved;

A timely and relevant data base upon which to analyze important trends in student achievement;•

A vehicle to examine how well specifi c programs are actually producing desired learner outcomes or • results;

A data base to compare the strengths and weaknesses of various programs and program alternatives, as • well as to engage in equity analysis;

A data base to modify or terminate ineffective educational programs;•

A method/means to relate to a programmatic budget and enable the school system to engage in cost-• benefi t analysis; and

Organizational data gathered and used to continually improve system functions.•

A school district meeting this audit standard has a full range of formal and informal assessment tools that provide program information relevant to decision making at classroom, building (principals and school-site councils), system, and board levels.

A school system meeting this audit standard has taken steps to ensure that the full range of its programs is systematically and regularly examined. Assessment data have been matched to program objectives and are used in decision making.


The auditors expected to fi nd a comprehensive assessment program for all aspects of the curriculum, PreK through grade 12, which:

Was keyed to a valid, offi cially adopted, and comprehensive set of goals/objectives of the school • district;

Was used extensively at the site level to engage in program review, analysis, evaluation, and • improvement;

Was used by the policy-making groups in the system and the community to engage in specifi c policy • review for validity and accuracy;

Was the focus and basis of formulating short- and long-range plans for continual improvement;•

Was used to establish costs and select needed curriculum alternatives; and•

Was publicly reported on a regular basis in terms that were understood by key stakeholders in the • community.


Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Rogers Public Schools

This section is an overview of the fi ndings that follow in the area of Standard Four. Details follow within separate fi ndings.

A comprehensive written assessment plan establishes a framework for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of data at all levels of the school district. The data produced from the implementation of the plan informs decisions regarding the design and delivery of curriculum. These data also assist in the determination of whether programs are effective in achieving intended results.

The auditors found a lack of a comprehensive district plan for student assessment and program evaluation to guide decision making in the Rogers Public Schools (see Finding 4.1). Most of the district’s assessment efforts are directed by the state-required assessments in the areas of language arts and mathematics, and to some degree, science. While a system of formative assessments has been developed to provide teachers with information about students’ progress toward grade level content in the areas of language arts and mathematics, its use is inconsistent throughout all the schools. The auditors also found a lack of adequate board policy designed to guide student assessment.

The current scope of assessment is adequate in mathematics and language arts, but inadequate in the other core subject areas of science and social studies. Science is assessed only at grades fi ve, and seven and in high school biology. Social studies are not formally assessed. Many of the other courses offered by the districts are not included in the district’s student assessment program. The board of education, educators, students, and their parents do not have a full range of formal and informal assessment information to use in decision making. (see Finding 4.2).

Student achievement on Arkansas’ Augmented Benchmark and End-of-Course examinations generally is above state and national averages. Achievement gaps, however, persist for certain student groups, and the rate of improvement is insuffi cient for those populations to bridge the achievement gap in the foreseeable future (see Finding 4.3).

Overall, the auditors found an increasing level in the utilization of data for decision making in some areas, but this is inconsistent throughout all schools and levels of the organization. Use of data to evaluate the effectiveness of the district’s numerous programs and interventions is minimal.

Finding 4.1: The district has no comprehensive written plan for assessing student learning and evaluating instructional programs to guide efforts to improve design and delivery of the district’s curriculum.

Assessment of student achievement and evaluation of educational programs is essential for determining if students are mastering the approved curriculum and if programs are achieving the purposes for which they were adopted. These activities generate data for sound educational decision making. It is essential for districts to have policies, administrative guidelines, and detailed plans to manage assessment and evaluation. A written comprehensive assessment plan is necessary to guide the collection, analysis, dissemination, and use of data to support sound decisions for curriculum design and delivery. When a district lacks such guidance, or those documents are inadequate, the board and staff are unable to determine if instructional strategies and programs are effective, and students, parents, and staff have insuffi cient feedback about student learning.

The auditors examined documents, conducted interviews, and visited schools to determine the status of student assessment and program evaluation planning in the Rogers Public Schools. Among the documents reviewed were board policies, the Rogers Public School Assessment Schedule, the Arkansas Curriculum Framework, the Rogers Public Schools’ Strategic Plan, school improvement plans, job descriptions, and the results of district and state assessments.

The auditors found that a comprehensive approach to measuring student achievement and assessing the effectiveness of curriculum and programs is in process, but has not been fully developed. A district system of formative assessments, particularly in the areas of language arts and mathematics, has been established, but is not yet used systematically to provide teachers with the information needed to adjust their teaching. Board policy requires a plan to guide student assessment and program evaluation, but such a plan has not been developed.


Some components of assessment planning are provided in the documents reviewed, particularly in the district’s strategic plan. The use of data to inform the instructional process and evaluate program effectiveness is emerging, but is not yet comprehensive. Numerous programs and interventions have been implemented to address student needs, but evaluation of those programs is minimal, except for state and/or grant requirements.

Board policies that reference student assessment and program evaluation include the following:

Board Policy AD: District Mission • states that the district needs to frequently and systematically monitor student progress in achieving the established instructional goals and modify the learning tasks appropriately.

Board Policy ADE:• Effective Schools attests to frequent monitoring of student progress. Multiple assessment methods are used. The results of testing are used to improve individual student performance and the instructional program.

Board Policy ADE:• Accountability/Commitment to Accomplishment indicates that the board of education accepts its ultimate responsibility for all facets of school operations and programs. It states that the board will maintain a program of accountability that includes evaluation of operations, programs, instruction, and services to determine how well expectations and purposes are being met.

Board Policy GCMCA and IKA:• Grading/Report Cards commits to regular feedback on progress toward meeting academic goals and objectives, which includes the extent to which a student has achieved the expressed academic objectives for the course. Grades that refl ect other educational objectives, such as the student learning standards contained in the curriculum frameworks, would be given using the terminology of advanced, profi cient, basic, and below basic.

Board Policy IL:• Evaluation of Instructional Program indicates that an evaluation of the instructional program and its effectiveness shall be made periodically.

The Roger’s Public Schools board policies indicate the intent to measure student achievement and program effectiveness. However, the policies do not request the development of a student and program assessment plan with specifi c components to be included in the plan, nor do they provide clear direction for the review, analysis, evaluation, and improvement of instructional programs or the use of assessment data at school sites.

Although a comprehensive assessment planning document is not available, the auditors were provided several documents related to assessment planning. Exhibit 4.1.1 lists the documents reviewed by the auditors:

Exhibit 4.1.1

Documents Related to Assessment Planning Rogers Public Schools

November 2008

Document Reviewed DateState Testing Program Subject Areas Grade Level Requirements 2008–09State Assessment Schedule 2008–09The Learning Institute Interim Assessment Schedule 2008–09Elementary Minimum Testing Requirements 2008–09The Learning Institute Formative Assessment-Who is Tested UndatedData Team Meeting Schedule 2008–09Data Training Schedule 2008–09Data Training Schedule 2007–08Data Notebook Data Analysis Activity 2008Elementary Benchmark Item Analysis Template UndatedSample Benchmark Growth Research 2008Secondary Data Analysis Meeting September 2008


Exhibit 4.1.1 (continued)Documents Related to Assessment Planning


Document Reviewed DateSchool Board Policies VariousCombined Instructional Procedure Handbook UndatedHigh School Course Catalog 2008–09Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plans (ACSIP) 2008–09Strategic Planning Process UndatedDistrict Strategic Plan and Executive Summary 2006–07District Strategic Plan and Executive Summary 2007–08District Strategic Plan 2008–09Curriculum-Instruction-Assessment Connection Chart UndatedCurriculum, Instruction & Assessment Memo August 2007Literacy Curriculum Maps VariousMath Curriculum Maps VariousJob Descriptions Various

The district’s three-year Strategic Plan emphasizes that the district will be data-driven. It contains a section labeled Data, that includes several objectives, action items, person responsible, a measurement, and a timeline. The plan states that results from local and summative state assessments will be used to improve student achievement. The Executive Summary elaborates on how the objectives are being met, with particular emphasis on the staff involved. The district supports the implementation of this area of the Strategic Plan through its job descriptions. Several positions are noted as being responsible for the collection and analysis of data.

Superintendent—Administers the schools in conformity with the adopted policies of the board and rules • and regulations of the Arkansas Department of Education and in accordance with state and federal law; develops administrative rules and procedures to implement board policy. Oversees the instructional program.

Deputy Superintendent—Works in tandem with the superintendent in the administration of all aspects • of the school district, especially in the coordination of all curriculum, instruction and professional development programs, and the district strategic plan.

Assistant Superintendent, Curriculum and Instruction—Assists in analyzing student achievement data • to develop strategies for improving student achievement.

Curriculum Specialist—Works with Assistant Superintendent, Director of Data Analysis and • Accountability, and principals to interpret and disseminate assessment data.

Department Chair—Using assessment data, works with principals, Curriculum Specialist, and Assistant • Superintendent to revise and adjust curriculum as needed.

Director of Gifted and Talented Program—Assesses accomplishments of students and the program. •

Director of Professional Development/Testing/Family-School Relations—Assists with reviewing, • evaluating, and reporting results of districtwide and state testing programs.

ESOL/Migrant Director—Leads the planning, implementation, and evaluation of program services • including data collection and data analysis.

Principal—Analyzes student achievement data and works with staff to make adjustments in curriculum • and instruction.


Teacher—Evaluates students’ academic growth through teacher-made tests, standardized tests, • checklists, observations, demonstrations, and other performance assessments; keeps appropriate records and prepares progress reports.

Grants Director—Directs and coordinates evaluation and monitoring of grant-funded programs. •

Collaborative planning by teachers promotes aligned and articulated decision making.

Exhibit 4.1.2 presents the characteristics of a comprehensive program and student assessment plan and the auditors’ assessment of the documents related to district assessment. The exhibit includes the 15 characteristics used by auditors to assess the district’s approach to student and program assessment planning.

Exhibit 4.1.2

Characteristics of a Comprehensive Program and Student Assessment Plan and Auditors’ Rating of District’s Assessment Approach


Characteristic (The plan…)Auditors’ Rating

Adequate InadequateDescribes the board’s policy regarding the philosophical framework for 1. the design of the program and student assessment plan and directs both formative and summative assessment of the curriculum by course and grade and expectations of ongoing program evaluation, both formative and summative ( Directs use of data to analyze group, school, program, and system student trends).

X

Explicitly includes a formative and summative assessment system to carry 2. out board policy (if such). Provides for regular formative and summative assessment at all levels of the system (organization, program, student).

P

Provides for frequent diagnostic (formative) instructional assessments 3. aligned to district curriculum that teachers use to make ongoing decisions including which students receive which learner objectives to be at the appropriate level of diffi culty (e.g., provides data for differentiated instruction).

P

Provides a list of assessment tools, purposes, subjects, type of student 4. tested, timelines, etc. X


Exhibit 4.1.2 (continued)Characteristics of a Comprehensive Program and Student Assessment Plan

and Auditors’ Rating of District’s Assessment Approach Rogers Public Schools

November 2008

Characteristic (The plan…)Auditors’ Rating

Adequate InadequateIdentifi es and provides direction on the use of diverse assessment 5. strategies for multi-purposes at all levels—district, school, and classroom. X

Specifi es the roles and responsibilities of the central offi ce staff and 6. school-based staff for assessing all functions and operations of the system. X

Specifi es the connection(s) between district, state, and national 7. assessments. X

Specifi es overall assessment procedures and analysis procedures to 8. determine curriculum effectiveness. X

Requires aligned assessment examples and tools to be placed in 9. curriculum, instruction, and assessment guides. X

Specifi es how equity issues will be identifi ed and addressed using data 10. sources as well as controls for bias. X

Identifi es the factors, processes, and structures of program assessment 11. and how data will be used to determine continuation, modifi cation, or termination of a given program.

X

Provides for appropriate trainings and development for various audiences 12. on assessment. X

Delineates responsibilities and procedures for 13. monitoring formative and summative assessment design, implementation, and results. X

Establishes a process for communicating procedures, results, and trends of 14. student and program assessment. X

Provides a method/means to use program assessments data in cost-benefi t 15. analysis. X

Key: P = partially adequate

Exhibit 4.1.2 refl ects the auditors’ rating of the Rogers Public Schools’ approach to assessment planning, which does not adequately meet the characteristics of sound assessment planning due to the lack of a written plan. However, while a comprehensive plan does not exist, the district’s strategic plan and other documents refl ect that several of the characteristics are partially present. The auditors found fi ve of the 15 characteristics (33 percent) present in the documents provided. To be rated as adequate, 70 percent of the criteria must be found adequate.

The auditors noted the following in regard to the characteristics:

Board policies provide general direction for student assessment and program evaluation, but • administrative guidelines do not exist to specify implementation procedures.

Board Policy ADE:• Accountability/Commitment to Accomplishment states that the board will maintain a program of accountability that includes evaluation of operations, programs, instruction, and services to determine how well expectations and purposes are being met, but no specifi c procedures are outlined.

The Learning Institute (TLI) provides formative assessments only in reading, writing, and mathematics. • It is in the beginning stages of developing assessments for science. No formative assessments are administered in the area of social studies.

Job descriptions describe assessment responsibilities for various positions.•


Guidance is provided for the feedback process and for the use of data for a small number of staff • members, those who are part of a site Data Team, with the expectation that the team members will assist teachers at their school sites.

Some professional development has been provided to staff on the use of assessment data, but an ongoing • training plan has not been developed.

Board policies and other district documents do not specifi cally address non-discriminatory assessment • practices related to culture or socioeconomic status.

Documents do not clearly identify the factors, processes, and structures of program assessment and how • data will be used to determine continuation, modifi cation, or termination of a given program.

Auditors interviewed staff and community members regarding the district’s assessment practices. The following comments are representative of the areas identifi ed in the assessment plan analysis.

“A major goal of the board is student achievement. I have a lot of confi dence in the superintendent. • When they graduate, I want our students to be prepared for college or work.” (Characteristic 1) (Board Member)

“I am concerned about the TLI because we have data, but what are we doing about or with it?” • (Characteristic 3) (Principal)

“TLI mirrors state standards, but it is not used to improve instruction. It narrows the focus on • curriculum.” (Characteristic 3) (Administrator)

“What we are teaching is aligned to the test and the professional development addresses what the data • shows.” (Characteristic 5) (Administrator)

“The administration (principals) determines how and to what extent data is used.” (Characteristic 11) • (Teacher)

“TLI is great, but teachers need more training in what to do with it.” (Characteristic 12) (Principal)•

“The Literacy Coaches are the ones who use data the most.” (Characteristic 12) (Administrator)•

“We have no plans for eliminating or adding programs. This should be through a structured evaluation • program.” (Characteristic 13) (Administrator)

“I don’t see enough black and white data to evaluate programs.” (Characteristic 13) (Administrator)•

“I do not feel we have a strong program evaluation. We have a lot of looking at data. Still need a richer • set of data.” (Characteristic 13) (Administrator)

Summary

The auditors found that the Rogers Public Schools’ board policies provide the expectation that students will be assessed systematically, but a written assessment plan has not been developed. While several documents and comments from staff indicate that the district has the goal of a comprehensive assessment program, no formal plan exists. The district Strategic Plan provides some direction in the area of assessment, but lacks scope and specifi city. The plan delineates what data is to be collected for what purposes, but it does not provide an overarching plan for district assessment in all areas, nor clear direction to ensure that the teaching staff utilizes data to make instructional decisions. General direction for program evaluation and evaluation of student performance is provided in policies and documents, but specifi c guidance and planning is lacking.

Finding 4.2: The scope of assessment is inadequate to comprehensively evaluate the taught curriculum.

School district leaders can make informed decisions about curriculum and instruction when comprehensive student achievement data are available. An effective testing program requires that student achievement is formally evaluated in all of the subjects and courses taught and at every grade level. When the scope of assessment does not meet this standard, the board, staff, students, and parents lack suffi cient evidence of how students are progressing in each content area as they move through the grades.


Auditors reviewed board policies, school improvement planning documents, curriculum guides, the 2008-09 assessment schedule, and other documents related to state and district testing to determine the scope of assessment in Rogers Public Schools. Auditors also interviewed district employees, parents, and board of education members regarding the extent of assessment of the curriculum areas taught.

Board policies require monitoring each area of instruction in the educational program. Auditors determined that the scope of assessment is adequate in reading, language arts, and mathematics, but it is insuffi cient in the core curricular areas of science and social studies. The overall scope of assessment is inadequate to provide feedback to the staff and community on the effectiveness of curriculum design and delivery.

The following board policies reference the scope of student assessment:

Board Policy ADE: Effective Schools • attests to frequent monitoring of student progress. One of the correlates states that feedback on student academic progress is frequently obtained. Multiple assessment methods such as teacher-made tests, samples of students’ work, mastery skills checklists, criterion-referenced tests, norm referenced tests, and performance portfolios are used. The results of testing are used to improve individual student performance and also to improve the instructional program.

Board Policy IL:• Evaluation of Instructional Program indicates that an evaluation of the instructional program and its effectiveness shall be made periodically and reported to the board by the superintendent or a designee. Elements of this evaluation may include, but are not limited to: Arkansas Standards for Accreditation of Schools, the monitoring of Standards Assurance Compliance by the Arkansas Department of Education, North Central Association standards, analysis of data from nationally norm-referenced tests, criterion-referenced tests and district and course assessments, study of school achievement records, utilization of out-of-district services, study of school dropout records, follow-up studies of graduates, and review of research on effective instructional programs.

While board policies state the expectation for a student assessment program, the policies falls short of requiring formal evaluation of each subject and course taught PreK–12. The district assessment program, however, is in compliance with state requirements for the assessments that are to be administered. The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) is the blueprint for educational reform in the state. State assessments include the Augmented Benchmarks and End-of-Course Criterion-Referenced Examinations. National assessments include the Iowa Test of Basic Skills Norm-Referenced Exam (replaced by the Stanford Achievement Test –10th Edition), and the American College Test (ACT). The Achievement Section includes participation in Advanced Placement classes and the No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

Exhibit 4.2.1 outlines the major assessments used in Rogers Public Schools as provided to auditors. Tests used by specialists (e.g., diagnosticians, speech pathologists, etc.) to diagnose learning diffi culties are not included.

Exhibit 4.2.1

Major Assessments of Student PerformanceRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Test Frequency Grades DescriptionStanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (SAT 10)

Annually 1, 2, 9 Norm-referenced test. This exam is administered to grades 1, 2, and 9 in the areas of language arts and mathematics.

ACT/SAT/PSAT Annually 11, 12 Norm-referenced tests. These are college entrance examinations offered to junior and senior high school students in the areas of reading, mathematics, and science.

Metropolitan Achievement Test 8th Edition (MAT 8)

Annually K Norm-referenced test. This exam is administered to kindergarten in the areas of language arts and mathematics.


Exhibit 4.2.1 (continued)Major Assessments of Student Performance


Test Frequency Grades DescriptionAugmented Benchmark Examinations

Annually 3-8 Criterion-referenced tests. The exams are administered to students in grades 3-8 in the areas of reading/literacy and mathematics, and science in grades 5 and 7. Results from the Benchmark Exams show how well a student is performing at a particular stage of the student’s schooling.

End-of-Course Examinations

Twice a year 9-10 Criterion-referenced tests. The End-of-Course Exams are administered to students at the end of a course to determine whether the student demonstrates attainment of knowledge and skills necessary for mastery of that subject. End-of-Course Exams are given in Algebra I, Biology, and Geometry.

Advanced Placement Exams

Annually 9-12 Criterion-referenced tests. These standardized tests are offered to students taking Advanced Placement classes. The tests are administered on campus and submitted to the College Board for scoring.

11th Grade Literacy Annually 11 Criterion-referenced test. This exam is administered to students completing grade 11 in March of each year.

English Language Development Assessment (ELDA)

Annually K-12 Criterion-referenced test. This assessment is designed to measure students’ progress in attaining English language profi ciency.

MAC II As needed K-12 Criterion-referenced test. (Incoming Second Language Students)The Learning Institute (TLI) Assessments

Quarterly 1-11 Formative assessment. The TLI formative assessments are given in grades 1-11 in the areas of mathematics, reading, and writing. Students in grades 2-11 are assessed approximately one time a quarter in each of the three areas. Students in grade 1 begin assessments in the second semester of the school year and take three math assessments and two writing assessments throughout the spring semester. First graders are not formatively assessed in reading. The assessments generally consist of multiple choice items and one open response.

STAR Reading/Math 3 times a year

1-5 Formative assessment. This computer-based assessment uses a modifi ed cloze passage activity to determine such things as a student’s percentile rank, grade equivalent, and lexile level.

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy Skills (DIBELS)

Annually K-3 Norm-referenced test. Early reading test measures phonemic awareness, alphabetic principles, accuracy and fl uency in reading, vocabulary, and reading comprehension.

Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)

Annually K-5 Formative assessment. This test is administered by teachers to students individually to measure accuracy, fl uency, phrasing, and retelling (comprehension).

PPVT, DIAL 3, MACII

Annually Pre-School

Pre-School assessments. The purpose of these assessments is to measure language development and readiness skills of preschool children.

Qualls Early Learning Inventory

Annually K-1 Early screener of readiness skills.


The following observations are presented in Exhibit 4.2.1:

The district’s assessments incorporate state norm-referenced and criterion-referenced exams, as well as • formative assessments for language arts and mathematic.

Standardized tests are given in language arts and mathematics for grade K-9, and science in grades 5 • and 7. District formative assessments are administered in grade 1 through 11 in the areas of reading, writing, and mathematics.

The Learning Institute provides formative assessments in the areas of reading, writing, and mathematics • for grades 1 through 11. In addition to these quarterly exams, teachers can use the program to develop their own assessments to measure student progress. The development of assessments for the area of science is in the beginning stages.

English language learners are assessed using the English Language Development Assessment (ELDA) • to determine initial placement and to measure progress, in addition to the Maculaitis Test of English Language (MAC II) for incoming second language learners.

Diagnostic tests are used to determine early readiness at the preschool level and for determination of • need for specialized programs.

Computer labs are available in schools, but auditors observed many vacant during their school visits.


Exhibit 4.2.2 provides a summary of the scope of state and district required and optional assessments by grade level.

Exhibit 4.2.2

Major Assessments of Student Performance Grades PreK to 12 Rogers Public Schools

November 2008

Test Pre K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12SAT 10Language Arts X X XMathematics X X XACT/SAT/PSATLanguage Arts X XMathematics X XScience X XMetropolitan Achievement Test (MAT 8)Language Arts XMathematics XAugmented Benchmark Examinations Language Arts X X X X X XMathematics X X X X X XScience X XEnd-of-Course ExaminationsAlgebra X XGeometry XBiology XAdvanced Placement ExamsLanguage Arts X X X XMathematics X X X X11th Grade LiteracyLanguage Arts XEnglish Language Development Assessment (ELDA) and MACIILanguage Arts X X X X X X X X X X X X XThe Learning Institute (TLI) AssessmentsLanguage Arts X X X X X X X X X X XMathematics X X X X X X X X X X XSTAR Reading/MathLanguage Arts X X X X XMathematics X X X X XDevelopmental Reading Assessment (DRA)Language Arts X X X X X XDIAL 3/PPVT/QuallsLanguage and Readiness Skills X X X


Using the scope of the district curriculum established in Finding 2.2, auditors compared the formal district assessments administered in subject areas at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels to determine if the scope of assessment was adequate. Auditors considered the state assessments in reading and writing as English/language arts. Only required assessments given to all students in a course or grade level were used in calculating the percentage of curriculum that is formally assessed. Exhibits 4.2.3, 4.2.4, and 4.2.5 display the course of study for students in grades K-12 in the core academic areas and elective areas. Teacher-created tests were not included in the analysis because they are not consistent in all classes taught in the same subject area and grade level, and district personnel do not collect data on their results at the central offi ce level.

Exhibit 4.2.3 shows the scope of district assessment of the written curriculum for elementary grades K-5. To be considered adequate, the scope of the taught curriculum that is assessed must be at least 70 percent.

Exhibit 4.2.3

Scope of Grades K-5 Content Areas Formally AssessedRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Content AreaNumber

of Course Offerings

Courses Formally Assessed

Percent of Courses Formally

AssessmentReading/Language Arts 6 6 100Mathematics 6 6 100Science 6 1 17Social Studies 6 0 0

Total Core Courses 24 13 54%Visual/Performing Arts 12 0 0Physical Education/Health 6 0 0Other (Library, ESOL) 12 0 0

Total Non-Core Courses 30 0 0%Totals 54 13 24%

The following observations may be made from Exhibit 4.2.3:

The scope of assessment in Rogers Public Schools for grades K-5 is 100 percent for mathematics and • language arts, and 54 percent for all four core academic courses.

The percent of the scope of assessment is 24 percent when non-core courses (e.g., the arts, physical • education) are considered. Therefore, the scope of the grades K-5 assessment program is inadequate to monitor achievement in the subject areas taught.

Criterion-referenced tests, the Augmented Benchmark exams, are used to assess grades 3 through 5 in • language arts and mathematics, and formative assessments using the TLI assessments are provided for grades 1 through 5.

The district does not formally assess social studies in the elementary grade levels.•

None of the non-core subject areas are assessed in the elementary grade levels.•


Exhibit 4.2.4 shows the scope of district assessment of the middle school written curriculum. To be considered adequate, the scope of the taught curriculum that is assessed must be at least 70 percent.

Exhibit 4.2.4

Scope of Grades 6-8 Curricular Content Areas Formally AssessedRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Content Areas Number of Courses


Percent of Courses Formally

AssessedReading/English 6 6 100Mathematics 4 4 100Science 3 1 33Social Studies 4 0 0

Total Core Courses 17 11 65%Visual and Performing Arts 13 0 0Physical Education/Health 4 0 0Other (ESOL, Technology, Family/Work Connection, Foreign Language, Career, Reading Improvement, REACH)

20 0 0

Total Non-Core Courses 37 0 0%Total Courses 54 11 20%

Exhibit 4.2.4 illustrates that:

Only 11 of the 54 courses offered (20 percent) in the middle school level are formally assessed. • Therefore, the scope of the middle school grades assessment is inadequate to monitor achievement in the subject areas taught.

The scope of assessment for grades 6-8 is 100 percent for mathematics and language arts, and 65 • percent for all four core academic courses, but the percentage drops to 20 percent when non-core courses are considered. The percentage for core content courses is below the audit criteria of 70 percent for adequacy because of the limited assessment of science and lack of assessment of social studies. The 20 percent for all courses is well below the audit standard.

At the middle school level, the district assesses science in grade 7 with the Augmented Benchmark • exams, but does not formally assess social studies in the middle school grade levels.

None of the non-core subject areas are assessed in the middle schools.•


Exhibit 4.2.5 indicates the scope of district assessment of the high school written curriculum. To be considered adequate, the scope of the taught curriculum that is assessed must be at least 70 percent.

Exhibit 4.2.5

Scope of Grades 9-12 Curriculum Formally AssessedRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Courses Number of Courses


Percent of Courses Formally Assessed

Language Arts 12 11 92Mathematics 18 13 72Science 17 5 29Social Studies 19 7 37

Total Core Courses 66 36 55%English for Speakers of Other Languages 17 0 0Career/Technical 44 0 0Communications/Broadcasting 9 0 0Family and Consumer Science 7 0 0Health Science Technology 4 0 0Skilled and Technical Science 9 0 0Visual and Performing Arts 43 0 0Journalism 6 0 0Foreign Language 27 0 0Physical Education/Health 25 0 0Speech and Debate 5 0 0Regional Technical Center 6 0 0Miscellaneous 15 0 0

Total Non-Core Courses 217 0 0%Total of Courses 283 36 13%


Only 36 of 283 (13 percent) courses offered in grades 9-12 are formally assessed. Therefore, the scope • of assessment of high school courses is inadequate to monitor achievement in the subject areas taught.

The scope of assessment in RPS for grades 9-12 is 92 percent for language arts, 72 percent for • mathematics, and 55 percent for all four core academic courses. The percentage drops to 13 percent when non-core courses are considered.

The percentage for core content courses is below the audit criteria of 70 percent for adequacy because • of the limited assessment of science and lack of assessment of social studies.

End-of-Course exams are given in the area of geometry, algebra, and biology.•

Advanced Placement exams are given in the areas of language arts, mathematics, and science. •

Social studies are only assessed through Advanced Placement exams. •

None of the non-core subject areas are assessed in any of the high school grade levels.•


Exhibit 4.2.6 delineates a summary of the scope of district assessment of grades K-12 written curriculum in the four core course areas of language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.

Exhibit 4.2.6

Summary of the Scope of Grades K-12 Assessments in Core CoursesRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Grade Level Number of Courses

Number of Core Courses

Number of Core Courses

Assessed

Percent of Core Courses

AssessedGrades K-5 54 24 13 54Grades 6-8 54 17 11 65Grades 9-12 283 66 36 55District Total 391 107 60 56%

As Exhibit 4.2.6 shows, the scope of assessment of courses is considered inadequate since only 56 percent of core courses are formally assessed with data available for instructional and programmatic decisions.

The auditors interviewed board members, central offi ce staff, and principals regarding the scope of assessment. The following are sample comments:

“• TIA is very helpful for new teachers. We need to align TLI and TIA.” (Principal)

“The only thing that we have is the TLI assessment. It tells you exactly which SLEs are going to be • tested. It is aligned completely with what they are going to see on the test.” (Administrator)

“Once the TLI is done, then there will be full alignment with the SLEs.” (Administrator)•

“Science is coming this summer through TLI.” (Administrator)•

“I want more early assessment for kindergarten and consistent assessment for K to grade 12 so we can • really monitor the kids. Even with the state assessments, they say it is vertically aligned, but we don’t give it every year. It is grades three through eight and then grade 11 for Literacy. Then with math, it is third through eighth grade and then End-of-Course.” (Administrator)

“We rely on the state assessments.” (Administrator)•

“We don’t have consistent data collection across grade levels.” (Administrator)•

Summary

The scope of student assessment when viewed across all grade levels and curriculum offerings in Rogers Public Schools is inadequate to monitor student achievement. Only 15 percent of the content offerings in the district are formally assessed (see Exhibits 4.2.3, 4.2.4, and 4.2.5). Although 56 percent of core curriculum content is assessed, this is inadequate to monitor achievement in the subjects taught. Decision makers do not have suffi cient information about student learning to make decisions about the effectiveness of the K-12 curriculum. Formal assessments are given primarily in language arts and mathematics, with a smattering in science. Reliable measures of learning are not available in the other subjects and courses taught.


Finding 4.3: Student achievement in the aggregate is at or above state averages in all subject areas; however, a signifi cant achievement gap is evident between subgroup populations.

Comparative student assessment data enable both the board of education and district staff to determine how well the district’s students perform in comparison to students in the same state or across the nation. In effective school districts, efforts are made to promote high student achievement among all groups of students and to remove the likelihood that factors such as gender, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status can predict student achievement. Trend analysis provides information on how assessment results change over time. In a system with effective quality control, performance for all students should improve over time while achievement gaps among student groups are reduced in size. It is expected that there will be a consistent pattern of improvement over time and a reduction in any performance gaps among student subpopulations.

The auditors examined board policies, position descriptions, the website of the state of Arkansas’ assessment program (www.arkansased.org), the website for Rogers Public Schools, the NORMES website (http://normessasweb.uark.edu/prototype/), The Learning Institute website (http://www.tlionline.net), and various memos and assessment documents provided by district administrators and staff. The auditors visited most classrooms in every building in the district to collect information about district curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The auditors also conducted interviews with board members, administrators, principals, teachers, and parents.

The data were assembled into the following tables to determine the level of performance of students in the district and to compare with the state and national levels as appropriate. The auditors created trend data for these assessment results, starting with performance averages, followed by comparisons of performance to state and/or national performance where data were made available. The district has many documents showing assessment results in numeric and line chart format, some of which make direct comparisons with state results.

The audit team analyzed state and national summative tests followed by student test results on local benchmark formative assessments. Data is presented by grade levels with analysis of student progress in language arts and mathematics. Auditors then calculated the years to parity for subgroup of students to determine whether adequate progress is presently being achieved by RPS students.

The Rogers Public Schools’ mission statement states that the school district will prepare students for success in a changing world. The district’s Strategic Plan states, “Rogers has long recognized the importance of continuous self-evaluation and improvement; the rapid enrollment growth and increasing student diversity—which, in addition to the benefi ts, taxes the district’s resources and requires educators to adapt instructional strategies—as well as encouragement from parents, business leaders, and civic leaders, have motivated the district to aspire to be not just a good school district, but a great one.” It goes on further to say, “….it is intended to guide the school system in its efforts to increase student achievement, close achievement gaps, and prepare all students for college and/or successful careers.” The Strategic Plan stresses that “the district will develop strategies to address the academic and social needs of all students so that no achievement gaps exist between any groups.”

In Arkansas, schools must make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) on the state’s Benchmark and End-of-Course Exams each year. The Benchmark exams are administered to students in grades 3-8, while the End-of-Course Exams are administered for Algebra I, Biology and Geometry. A Literacy Exam is administered to students in grade 11. Arkansas’ annual AYP goals are determined by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), and are part of the state’s plan, which has been approved by the U. S. Department of Education. The federal No Child Left Behind Law mandates that schools must successfully meet AYP in categories, or subgroups. These subgroups include: all students, which is referred to as the combined population; Caucasian students; African American students; Hispanic students; students who are limited English profi cient; economically disadvantaged students; and students with disabilities.


Iowa Tests of Basic Skills

Exhibit 4.3.1. depicts progress over time on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007.

Exhibit 4.3.1

Three Year Trend on Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Grades 3 to 9


Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS)National Percentile Rank

2005 2006 2007Grade Three Reading Comprehension 68 69 69 Grade Three Math Concepts and Estimation 73 78 77Grade Three Math Problem Solving and Data Interpretation 67 76 72Grade Four Reading Comprehension 70 72 72 Grade Four Math Concepts and Estimation 80 83 84Grade Four Math Problem Solving and Data Interpretation 72 76 75Grade Five Reading Comprehension 66 70 69 Grade Five Math Concepts and Estimation 75 81 81Grade Five Math Problem Solving and Data Interpretation 69 76 73Grade Six Reading Comprehension 60 61 61 Grade Six Math Concepts and Estimation 63 69 67Grade Six Math Problem Solving and Data Interpretation 64 71 67Grade Seven Reading Comprehension 59 64 64 Grade Seven Math Concepts and Estimation 61 70 69Grade Seven Math Problem Solving and Data Interpretation 62 71 68Grade Eight Reading Comprehension 55 61 58 Grade Eight Math Concepts and Estimation 57 62 60Grade Eight Math Problem Solving and Data Interpretation 54 61 60Grade Nine Reading Comprehension 56 54 56Grade Nine Math Concepts and Problem Solving 56 59 62


All percentile scores for all grade levels and subject areas exceed the 50• th percentile.

While the test scores are relatively high, there is a slight decline over the grade levels with scores • approaching the 50th percentile by grade 9.


Stanford Achievement Test

Exhibit 4.3.2 provides the national percentile ranking on the Reading Comprehension and Mathematics Problem Solving subtests of the Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition, another norm-referenced test.

Exhibit 4.3.2

Stanford 10 Percentile Scores for 2008 Grades 1-9


Grade Reading Comprehension

Mathematics Problem Solving

1 46 542 57 653 50 664 68 725 61 726 44 627 61 638 58 669 60 70

Exhibit 4.3.2 indicates the following:

Scores in mathematics problem solving are stronger than those in reading comprehension at each grade • level.

Test scores in reading comprehension are generally above the 50• th percentile, with the exception of fi rst and sixth grades.

Grades 4, 5, and 9 demonstrate the highest levels of achievement in mathematics problem solving. • Grades 4, 5, 7, and 9 refl ect the highest levels of achievement in reading comprehension.

Rogers Public Schools’ middle school honored as Arkansas’ fi rst “Diamond School.”


Arkansas Benchmark Tests

The Arkansas Department of Education uses the state Augmented Benchmark and End-of-Course examinations to measure whether a school district is meeting the Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Student performance on the Benchmark, End-of-Course and the grade 11 Literacy Exam is reported by performance levels. Listed below are the four performance levels and a brief defi nition for each one.

Advanced: Advanced students demonstrate superior performance well beyond profi cient grade-level performance. They can apply Arkansas’ established reading, writing, and mathematics skills to solve complex problems and complete demanding tasks on their own. They can make insightful connections between abstract and concrete ideas and provide well-supported explanations and arguments.

Profi cient: Profi cient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas’ established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are connected.

Basic: Basic students show substantial skills in reading, writing, and mathematics; however, they only partially demonstrate the abilities to apply these skills. They demonstrate a need for some additional assistance, commitment, or study to reach the profi cient level.

Below Basic: Below Basic students fail to show suffi cient mastery of skills in reading, writing, and mathematics to attain the basic level.

Exhibits 4.3.3 through 4.3.8 demonstrate the overall profi ciency levels of third through eighth grade students on the Augmented Benchmark examinations in Literacy.

Exhibit 4.3.3 shows the districtwide trend in achievement levels for third grade students on the Benchmark Literacy Exam.

Exhibit 4.3.3

Benchmark District Trend Grade 3 Literacy

Rogers Public Schools2005-2008

18% 12% 12% 14%

30%

15% 20% 20%

33%

34%34% 32%

19%

40% 34% 35%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Advanced

Proficient

Basic

Below Basic

The following conclusions may be drawn from Exhibit 4.3.3:

There was a positive trend toward increased achievement from 2005 to 2006, but that growth fl attened • out over the next two years.

In 2008, 67 percent of the third grade students scored at Profi cient or Advanced.•


In 2008, 34 percent of the third grade students scored at Basic or Below Basic.•

Exhibit 4.3.4 shows the districtwide trend in achievement levels for fourth grade students on the Benchmark Literacy Exam.

Exhibit 4.3.4



12% 9% 9% 6%

30%26% 28%

22%

40%36% 37%

40%

18%29% 26% 32%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Advanced

Proficient

Basic

Below Basic

Exhibit 4.3.4 indicates that:

Achievement increased slightly from 2005 to 2006, but that growth stagnated over the next two years. •

In 2008, growth resumed with 72 percent of the fourth grade students scoring at Profi cient or Advanced • and 28 percent scoring at Basic or Below Basic.

Exhibit 4.3.5 shows the districtwide trend in achievement levels for fi fth grade students on the Benchmark Literacy Exam.

Exhibit 4.3.5



7% 9% 7%

39%28%

33% 42%

45%

45% 36% 22%

9%20% 22% 28%

8%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Advanced

Proficient

Basic

Below Basic


Exhibit 4.3.5 illustrates the following:

A positive trend existed with an increase in Profi cient and Advanced scores for the years 2005 and 2006 • and a decrease in Basic and Below Basic profi ciency levels.

Overall, 15 percent fewer fi fth grade students were Profi cient or Advanced in 2008 than in 2006. •

In the 2008 year, there was a signifi cant reduction in the percentage of fi fth grade students who • were Profi cient, compared to 2006 and 2007, and a signifi cant increase in the percentage of students performing at the Basic level.

For all four years, fewer than nine percent of the fi fth grade students scored at Below Basic.•

Exhibit 4.3.6 shows the districtwide trend in achievement levels for sixth grade students on the Benchmark Literacy Exam.

Exhibit 4.3.6



8% 7% 7%

31% 26% 26% 24%

42%39% 38% 31%

19%28% 29% 34%

10%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Advanced

Proficient

Basic

Below Basic


There is a steady increase in the percentage of students scoring at the Advanced level over the four-year • period.

Progress over time for sixth graders has been fairly slow, however, in regards to those scoring at Basic • or Below Basic.

About 33 percent of the sixth grade students scored at the Basic and Below Basic levels for three years • in a row.

For all four years, 10 percent or fewer sixth grade students scored at Below Basic.•

Exhibit 4.3.7 shows the districtwide trend in achievement levels for seventh grade students on the Benchmark Literacy Exam.


Exhibit 4.3.7



7% 5% 5%

31% 29% 27% 27%

43% 47%43% 38%

19% 19%25% 30%

6%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Advanced

Proficient

Basic

Below Basic

The following statements can be made from Exhibit 4.3.7:

A steady increase is evident in the number of students scoring at the Advanced level over the four-year • period.

Progress over time to reduce the percent of students at Basic or Below Basic has been fairly slow.•

About 33 percent of the seventh grade students scored at the Basic and Below Basic levels for three • years in a row.

For all four years, fewer than eight percent of the seventh grade students scored at Below Basic.•

Exhibit 4.3.8 shows the districtwide trend in achievement levels for eighth grade students on the Benchmark Literacy Exam.

Exhibit 4.3.8



11% 6% 11% 6%

27%18%

25%20%

47%

53%45%

46%

15% 24% 19%28%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Advanced

Proficient

Basic

Below Basic



With the exception of 2007, a steady increase is evident in the number of students scoring at the • Advanced level over the four year period.

In 2008, 74 percent of eight grade students scored at the Profi cient or Advanced level.•

Over the four year period, the number of students scoring at Basic or Below Basic has decreased by 12 • percent.

In 2008, 26 percent of eighth grade students scored at the Basic and Below Basic levels.•

Exhibit 4.3.9 summarizes the district’s Profi cient and Advanced achievement levels for third through eighth grade students on the Benchmark Literacy Exam for 2008.

Exhibit 4.3.9

Percent Profi cient and Advanced Grades 3-8 Literacy Benchmark Exam 2008


67%72%

50%

65% 68%74%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

3 4 5 6 7 8

Pro

fici

ent a

nd A

dvan

ced

Grade

Exhibit 4.3.9 demonstrates the following:

With the exception of fi fth grade students, a majority of third through eighth grade students scored at • Profi cient or Advanced levels on the Literacy Benchmark Assessment.

Only 50 percent of the fi fth grade students attained the Profi cient or Advanced level skills in literacy on • the Benchmark exams.

There is a steady increase in the percent of Profi cient and Advanced students after fi fth grade.•

In summary, the majority of the students attending Rogers Public Schools excel in the area of literacy. However, about a third of RPS students still score at Basic or Below Basic performance levels. Achievement on the Benchmark Exam for Literacy demonstrates a consistent pattern from 2005 to 2008. There has been a steady increase in the percentage of students scoring at Profi cient and Advanced levels across grades three through eight. A relatively small percentage of students still perform at Below Basic on the Benchmark Examination.

Exhibits 4.3.10 through 4.3.15 demonstrate the overall profi ciency levels of third through eighth grade students on the Augmented Benchmark Examinations in Mathematics.

Exhibit 4.3.3 shows the districtwide trend in achievement levels for third grade students on the Benchmark Mathematics Exam.


Exhibit 4.3.10

Benchmark District Trend Grade 3 MathematicsRogers Public Schools

2005-2008

7% 5% 6% 3%

27%16% 15% 14%

38%

34% 31%30%

28%46% 49% 53%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Advanced

Proficient

Basic

Below Basic

The following observations are made from Exhibit 4.3.10:

A steady increase is evident in the number of grade 3 students scoring at the Advanced level over the • four-year period, with a net gain of 25 percent in that level from 2005 to 2008..

Over the four-year period, the number of students scoring at Basic or Below Basic levels has decreased • by 17 percent.

Since 2005, there has been a 50 percent reduction in the number of students scoring Basic or Below • Basic.

Exhibit 4.3.11 shows the districtwide trend in achievement levels for fourth grade students on the Benchmark Mathematics Exam.

Exhibit 4.3.11


2005-2008

22%19% 15% 12%

37%37%

30%26%

24%34%

43%53%

17% 10% 11% 9%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Advanced

Proficient

Basic

Below Basic


The following observations may be made about Exhibit 4.3.11:

A steady increase is evident in the number of students scoring at the Advanced level over the four-year • period, with a difference of 29 percent more students achieving at that level.

In 2008, 79 percent of fourth grade students were Profi cient or Advanced in mathematics.•

Over the four year period, the number of students scoring at Basic or Below Basic dropped by 18 • percent.

Exhibit 4.3.12 shows the districtwide trend in achievement levels for fi fth grade students on the Benchmark Mathematics Exam.

Exhibit 4.3.12


2005-2008

17% 10% 11% 9%

22%19% 15% 12%

37%37%

30%26%

24%34%

43% 53%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Advanced

Proficient

Basic

Below Basic

The following conclusions can be made about Exhibit 4.3.12:

A difference of 29 percent more students scored at the Advanced level over the four-year period.•

Over the same time period, the number of students scoring at Basic or Below Basic dropped by 18 • percent.

Exhibit 4.3.13 shows the districtwide trend in achievement levels for sixth grade students on the Benchmark Mathematics Exam.


Exhibit 4.3.13


2005-2008

19% 13% 10% 9%

31%

19%14% 17%

31%

34%31% 31%

19%35%

45% 42%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Advanced

Proficient

Basic

Below Basic


The number of students scoring at the Advanced level has increased by a difference of 23 percent over • the four-year period.

The number of students scoring at Basic or Below Basic dropped by 24 percent from 2005 to 2008.•

Exhibit 4.3.14 shows the districtwide trend in achievement levels for seventh grade students on the Benchmark Mathematics Exam.

Exhibit 4.3.14


2005-2008

29%19% 16% 14%

21%

19%15% 17%

34%43%

38% 33%

16% 18%32% 36%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Advanced

Proficient

Basic

Below Basic


Exhibit 4.3.14 illustrates the following observations:

A difference of 20 percent more students scored at the Advanced performance level over the four-year • period.

Over the four-year period, the number of students scoring at Basic or Below Basic dropped by 19 • percent.

Exhibit 4.3.15 shows the districtwide trend in achievement levels for eighth grade students on the Benchmark Mathematics Exam.

Exhibit 4.3.15


2005-2008

42%27% 28% 22%

21%

20% 17%17%

30%

39% 39%37%

8%14% 16% 34%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Advanced

Proficient

Basic

Below Basic

The following observations can be made from Exhibit 4.3.15:

There has been a four-fold increase from 2005 to 2008 in the number of eighth grade students achieving • Advanced scores on the Benchmark Exam in mathematics.

A difference of 26 percent (from eight to 34 percent) more students scored at the Advanced level over • the four-year period.

Between 2005 and 2008, the number of students scoring at Basic or Below Basic has declined by 24 • percent.

In summary, mathematic achievement on the Benchmark Examinations demonstrates a dramatic increase in the number of students achieving at the Advanced levels over the four year period from 2005 to 2008. Mathematics improvement was greater than the high levels of achievement in the area of literacy.

The auditors also analyzed profi ciency levels on the Benchmark Examinations for four years (2004-2007) for subgroups of students (race/ethnicity and economically disadvantaged) to determine whether an achievement gaps exists among student groups. Auditors expected to fi nd the same levels of performance across all groups. The data are shown as percentages of students meeting Profi cient or Advanced levels between 2004 and 2007 for reading and mathematics in K-5, middle school, and high school.

Exhibit 4.3.16 displays a summary of the district scores by grade level and student sub-group populations for 2007–08 on the Benchmark Examinations for grades 3 through 11, as well as the End-of-Course Examinations in Algebra and Geometry.


Exhibit 4.3.16

2007 Benchmark & End-of-Course Results by Subpopulations Percent of Students Profi cient or Advanced


2007

B

ench

mar

k

Dis

tric

t

Stat

e

Cau

casi

an

His

pani

c

Gift

ed &

Ta

lent

ed

Eco

nom

ical

ly

Dis

adva

ntag

ed

Stud

ents

with

D

isab

ilitie

s

Lim

ited

Eng

lish

Profi

cie

nt

Dis

tric

t Im

prov

e 20

01-2

007

Stat

e Im

prov

e 20

01-2

007

LiteracyGrade 3 68 59 76 55 96 56 38 53 n/a n/aGrade 4 63 59 74 46 98 49 22 43 + 18% + 21% Grade 5 58 59 73 38 99 43 13 47 n/a n/aGrade 6 67 60 75 55 99 57 9 28 + 41% + 39% Grade 7 68 57 77 55 100 55 19 32 n/a n/aGrade 8 64 63 71 53 99 55 10 45 + 34% + 31% Grade 11 59 51 72 27 100 37 11 10 + 33% + 29% MathematicsGrade 3 80 75 87 68 100 71 59 86 n/a n/aGrade 4 73 65 82 61 100 64 37 59 + 14% + 23% Grade 5 63 61 73 50 100 52 22 45 n/a n/aGrade 6 76 68 84 64 100 66 23 33 + 56% + 54% Grade 7 70 58 78 55 100 58 28 24 n/a n/aGrade 8 55 47 62 41 99 44 15 14 + 31% + 30% Algebra 74 62 85 57 100 63 35 41 + 52% + 42% Geometry 72 59 83 50 99 58 38 23 + 49% + 40%


Rogers Public Schools student test scores consistently exceed state scores across all grade levels in • subject areas assessed by the Benchmark and End-of-Course Examinations.

District improvement over a six-year period exceeded that of the state.•

In the area of Literacy, a signifi cant achievement gap exists at all grade levels between Caucasian • and Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities, and Limited English Profi cient students.

In the area of Mathematics, a signifi cant achievement gap exists at all grade levels between Caucasian • and Hispanics, Economically Disadvantaged Students, Students with Disabilities, and Limited English Profi cient students.

A signifi cant achievement gap exists between Caucasian students and other subgroups in Algebra and • Geometry.

Exhibit 4.3.17 refl ects the achievement of the subgroups of Caucasian, Hispanic, and Economically Disadvantaged students in grades 3-8 and grade 11 who participated in the 2007 Benchmark and End-of-Course Examinations in the area of literacy.


Exhibit 4.3.17

2007 Benchmark & End-of-Course Results by Subpopulations Percent of Students Profi cient or Advanced in Literacy


76 74 75 7771

55

4638

55 55 53

27

5649

43

57 55 55

37

73 72

0

20

40

60

80

100

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 11

Caucasian

Hispanic

EconomicallyDisadvantaged


A signifi cant gap exists at every grade level between the Caucasian subgroup and the Hispanic and • Economically Disadvantaged students in the area of literacy.

The Economically Disadvantaged subgroup scored slightly higher in most grade levels than the Hispanic • subgroup.

Exhibit 4.3.18 refl ects the achievement of the subgroups of Caucasian, Hispanic, and Economically Disadvantaged students in grades 3-8 and those enrolled in Algebra and Geometry who participated in the 2007 Benchmark and End-of-Course Examinations in the area of mathematics.

Exhibit 4.3.18

2007 Benchmark & End-of-Course Results by Subpopulations Percent of Students Profi cient or Advanced in Mathematics


0

20

40

60

80

100

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Algebra Geometry

Caucasian

Hispanic

EconomicallyDisadvantaged



A signifi cant achievement gap exists at every grade level between the Caucasian subgroup and the • Hispanic and Economically Disadvantaged students in the area of mathematics.

The Economically Disadvantaged subgroup scores slightly higher in most grade levels than the Hispanic • subgroup.

Exhibit 4.3.19 compares the achievement of the subgroups of Caucasian and Hispanic students in grades 3-8 and grade11 (plus Algebra and Geometry) who participated in the 2007 Benchmark and End-of-Course Examinations in the areas of literacy and mathematics.

Exhibit 4.3.19

2007 Benchmark & End-of-Course Results for Caucasian and Hispanic Subgroups


76 74 73 75 7771 72

8782

7384

78

62

85 83

5546

38

55 55 53

27

68 6150

6455

41

5750

0

20

40

60

80

100

Lit

erac

y

Gra

de 3

Gra

de 4

Gra

de 5

Gra

de 6

Gra

de 7

Gra

de 8

Gra

de 1

1

Mat

h

Gra

de 3

Gra

de 4

Gra

de 5

Gra

de 6

Gra

de 7

Gra

de 8

Alg

ebra

Geo

met

ry

Caucasian

Hispanic

Linear(Caucasian)Linear(Hispanic )


A signifi cant, consistent gap exists at every grade level between the Caucasian subgroup and Hispanic • students in the areas of literacy and mathematics.

Both subgroups performed better in mathematics than in literacy.•

The most signifi cant achievement gaps exist in grades 5 and 11 in literacy and in Algebra and Geometry • in mathematics.

Years to Parity

In their analysis of these achievement trends, the auditors also calculated years to parity, or the amount of time needed to close the achievement gap. The rate of change of the lower performing group must be higher than the rate of change of the comparison group in order for the gap to be closed at some point in the future. If the rate of change of the lower performing group is equal to or less than the rate of change of the comparison group, then the gap will not be closed.

To calculate the rate of change for both groups, the auditors divided the net change between the fi rst year and last year by the number of years in order to derive the average rate of change. If the rate of change was higher for the lower performing group, the auditors subtracted the rate of change of the higher performing group from the lower performing group to determine the average annual gain that was being made by the lower performing group. Then the auditors divided the last year’s difference in passing rates between the lower performing group and the comparison group by the difference between the average rates of change to determine how many years it would take to close the achievement gap at the present rate of change. The lower performing group must be progressing at a faster rate of change than the comparison group to achieve parity and to close the achievement gap.


Exhibit 4.3.20 calculates the number of years it will take Hispanic students in kindergarten to fi fth grade to achieve parity with all students in mathematics using Adequate Yearly Progress results.

Exhibit 4.3.20

Years to Parity for Hispanic Students with All Students Grades K-5 Adequate Yearly Progress Profi ciency Rates in Mathematics

Rogers Public Schools2004–2007

Subject Grade 2004 2005 2006 2007 CalculationsAll Students Mathematics K-5 61.7 73 73.7 81.7Hispanic Mathematics K-5 50.2 68.6 61.4 74.2Difference 11.5 4.4 12.3 7.5Change in Difference First year difference minus fi nal year difference 4Gain by Year Change in difference/number of years 1.9Years to Parity Final year difference/gain by year 4


The achievement gap percentage difference between all students and Hispanic students has declined. • The achievement gap is diminishing over time.

At the current rate of improvement, the achievement gap on AYP rates in mathematics between all • students and Hispanic students will be eliminated in four years.

Exhibit 4.3.21 calculates the number of years it will take Hispanic students in kindergarten to grade 5 to achieve parity with all students in literacy using Adequate Yearly Progress results.

Exhibit 4.3.21

Years to Parity for Hispanic Students with All Students Grades K-5 Adequate Yearly Progress Profi ciency Rates in Literacy


Subject Grade 2004 2005 2006 2007 CalculationsAll Students Literacy K-5 58.5 65 63.9 71.4Hispanic Literacy K-5 42.9 51 47.2 59.2Difference 15.6 17 16.7 12.2Change in Difference First year difference minus fi nal year difference 3.4Gain by Year Change in difference/number of years .85Years to Parity Final year difference/gain by year 14.35

Exhibit 4.3.21 depicts the following:

The gap in the percent of profi ciency is diminishing slowly over time.•

At the current rate, the achievement gap in AYP rates in literacy between all students and Hispanic • students will require more than 14 years to achieve parity.


Exhibit 4.3.22 refl ects the number of years it will take Hispanic students in grades 6 to 8 to achieve parity with all students in mathematics on Adequate Yearly Progress results.

Exhibit 4.3.22

Years to Parity for Hispanic Students with All Students Grades 6-8 Adequate Yearly Progress Profi ciency Rates in Mathematics


Subject Grade 2004 2005 2006 2007 CalculationsAll Students Mathematics 6-8 49.7 69 74.5 74.6Hispanic Mathematics 6-8 34.4 58 60.5 64.8Difference 15.3 11 14 9.8Change in Difference First year difference minus fi nal year difference 5.5Gain by Year Change in difference/number of years 1.38Years to Parity Final year difference/gain by year 7.1


The gap in the percent of profi ciency is diminishing slowly over time. •

At the current rate, the achievement gap in AYP rates in mathematics between all students and Hispanic • students will require more than seven years to achieve parity.

Exhibit 4.3.23 calculates the number of years it will take Hispanic students in grades 6 to 8 to achieve parity with all students in literacy using Adequate Yearly Progress results.

Exhibit 4.3.23

Years to Parity for Hispanic Students with All Students Grades 6-8 Adequate Yearly Progress Profi ciency Rates in Literacy


Subject Grade 2004 2005 2006 2007 CalculationsAll Students Literacy 6-8 63.2 67.8 69.5 68.2Hispanic Literacy 6-8 55.4 55.6 55 53.2Difference 7.8 12.2 14.5 11Change in Difference First year difference minus fi nal year difference -3.2Gain by Year Change in difference/number of years -.80Years to Parity Final year difference/gain by year never


The achievement gap percentage difference between all students and Hispanic students has increased. • The achievement gap is increasing over time.

At the current rate of improvement, the achievement gap between all students and Hispanic students in • literacy will never close.


Exhibit 4.3.24 indicates the number of years it will take Hispanic students in grades 9 to 12 to achieve parity with all students in mathematics using Adequate Yearly Progress results.

Exhibit 4.3.24

Years to Parity for Hispanic Students with All Students Grades 9-12 Adequate Yearly Progress Profi ciency Rates in Mathematics


Subject Grade 2004 2005 2006 2007 CalculationsAll Students Mathematics 9-12 56.1 66.7 69.2 73.4Hispanic Mathematics 9-12 38 49.3 51.1 60.2Difference 18.1 17.4 18.1 13.2Change in Difference First year difference minus fi nal year difference 4.9Gain by Year Change in difference/number of years 1.2Years to Parity Final year difference/gain by year 10.7


The percent of profi ciency gap showed a signifi cant drop after four years. •

Nonetheless, at the current rate, the gap between all students and Hispanic students will not be eliminated • for more than ten years.

Exhibit 4.3.25 shows the number of years it will take Hispanic students in grades 9 to 12 to achieve parity with all students in literacy using Adequate Yearly Progress results.

Exhibit 4.3.25

Years to Parity for Hispanic Students with All Students Grades 9-12 Adequate Yearly Progress Profi ciency Rates in Literacy


Subject Grade 2004 2005 2006 2007 CalculationsAll Students Literacy 9-12 58 71.6 62.8 67.1Hispanic Literacy 9-12 36.2 58.5 43.8 50.1Difference 21.8 13.1 19 17Change in Difference First year difference minus fi nal year difference 4.8Gain by Year Change in difference/number of years 1.2Years to Parity Final year difference/gain by year 14


The percent of profi ciency gap shows a signifi cant reduction over time.•

At the current rate, the achievement gap in AYP rates in literacy between all students and Hispanic • students will not be eliminated for 14 years.

Summary

Overall student achievement in the Rogers Public Schools is improving on norm-referenced tests and the assessments that are part of the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) program. State assessments include the Augmented Benchmarks and End-of-Course Criterion-Referenced Examinations. The national assessments included the Iowa Test of Basic Skills Norm-Referenced Exam, but now the district uses the SAT 10th Edition.


Learning in literacy and mathematics has met or surpassed the state averages. The percentage of students achieving at the Profi cient or Advanced levels is increasing, but about one third of the student population is still achieving at Basic or Below Basic levels. Very few test scores are available in science to determine progress over time, and none exist for social studies.

A signifi cant achievement gap exists between Caucasians and other subgroups, particularly Hispanic, English Learners, Students with Disabilities, and Economically Disadvantaged students. The achievement gaps are closing in some grade levels in the area of mathematics. The narrowing of the achievement gap in literacy will take a much longer period of time, and it appears it may never be obtained for the middle school students in the area of literacy without major intervention.


STANDARD 5: The School District Has Improved Productivity.Productivity refers to the relationship between system input and output. A school system meeting this standard of the PDK-CMSi Curriculum Management Audit is able to demonstrate consistently improved pupil outcomes, even in the face of diminishing resources. Improved productivity results when a school system is able to create a consistent level of congruence between major variables in achieving enhanced results and in controlling costs.


While the attainment of improved productivity in a school system is a complex process, caused in part by the lack of a tight organizational structure (referred to as “loosely coupled”), common indicators of a school system meeting this audit standard are:

Planned and actual congruence among curricular objectives, results, and fi nancial allocations;•

A fi nancial data base and network that can track costs to results, provide suffi cient fi duciary control, and • be used as a viable data base in making policy and operational decisions;

Specifi c means that have been selected or modifi ed and implemented to attain better results in the • schools over a specifi ed time period;

A planned series of interventions that have raised pupil performance levels over time and maintained • those levels within the same cost parameters as in the past;

School facilities that are well-kept, suffi cient, safe, orderly, and conducive to effective delivery of the • instructional program; and

Support systems that function in systemic ways.•


This section is an overview of the fi ndings that follow in the area of Standard Five. Details follow within separate fi ndings.

The auditors found that Rogers Public Schools administrators are managing the district’s fi scal resources, but the budget is not adequately linked to strategic curricular goals and priorities. Decision making in the budget development process does not include cost-benefi t analysis to promote maximum educational productivity. Further, programs initiated with the intention of improving student achievement were not designed, implemented, monitored, or evaluated in ways that would provide the data necessary for the district’s leadership to make sound budget decisions.

The auditors found facilities planning to be adequate. The Facilities Master Plan (2007 Update) contains the necessary information, and a broad representation of the department’s stakeholders were involved in its preparation. The physical condition of the various facilities is good, well maintained, and supportive of a healthy teaching and learning environment.

Finding 5.1: Financial decision making and the budget development processes lack cost-benefi t analyses and are not adequately linked to curricular goals and priorities to promote maximum educational productivity.

A school system’s productivity is enhanced by budgetary decisions based on program needs, goals, and priorities. Productivity is improved when clear linkages exist between the curriculum and the budget. These increases in productivity are achieved through cost-benefi t analysis and require a clear delineation of costs compared to documented system gains, or results obtained from allocations. Such linkages provide for a budgetary process that is driven by curriculum needs, priorities, and goals.

Linkages between the budget and curriculum are critical and document how the district allocates fi scal resources to support and implement its programs. Thus, the budget is the numerical expression of the curriculum and


should mirror program priorities. When the budget does not refl ect curricular goals and priorities, it is less likely that students will receive the educational benefi ts intended by the organization’s leaders.

To determine the extent of the connection between curriculum and budget in the Rogers Public Schools, auditors interviewed board members and district employees. They also reviewed district documents including fi scal audit reports, board policies, strategic plans, and procedures used by the treasurer, principals, special education administrators, and members of the board of education. Auditors determined that fi nancial decision making and budget development processes lack cost-benefi t analyses and are not adequately linked to curricular goals and priorities.

Strong fi nancial management policies are critical in guiding the budget planning and decision-making process. To serve as an effective guide in the budget planning process, a school district’s policy framework must be specifi c so decisions can be made by referencing relevant policies. The auditors reviewed the following board policies that give direction to the district’s fi nancial management system:

Board Policy AE: Accountability Commitment to Accomplishment • describes various elements that the board will use to maintain accountability. One of the elements listed states, “Provisions for the staff, resources, and support necessary to achieve stated expectations and purposes, subject to available fi nancial resources.”

Board Policy BBA: Board Powers and Responsibilities • lists the various powers and responsibilities of the board. One of the listed categories is “Financial resources. The Board is responsible for adopting a budget that will provide the fi nancial base for staff, buildings, materials, and equipment which will enable the district to carry out the educational program. The Board is responsible for exercising control over the fi nances of the district to ensure proper use of, and accounting for, all district funds.”

Board Policy DBC: Annual Operating Budget Preparation Procedures • states that, “The Superintendent shall present the current year’s budget to the Board for its approval prior to August 28 of each year. The budget is to include the actual revenue from each and every source during the ensuing year, the actual expenditures in the district for the past year and the estimated expenditures for the year. The estimated expenditures shall not exceed the estimated income (including beginning balances). Information the State Board of Education may deem necessary shall be included with the proposed budget.”

Board Policy DBI: Expenditure of Funds• states, “The District will follow its adopted budget as closely as possible in the expenditure of funds. The Superintendent of Schools is ex-offi cio Financial Secretary and disbursing offi cer. The District Treasurer is co-custodian of all activity funds and School Food Service funds. They shall be responsible for the expenditure of funds in accordance with the annual budget. Proper documentation shall be on fi le for each check issued.”

Board policy does not direct the use of performance evaluation data to aid in budgetary decision making or in determining the cost effectiveness of district programs or operations.

District job descriptions provide some direction regarding the management of the budget process and the assignment of related fi scal responsibilities. Representative job descriptions related to budget planning, fi scal management, and decision making include the following:

Superintendent: “Oversees the preparation of the annual budget and the fi scal operations of the • district.”

Assistant Superintendent, Curriculum and Instruction: “Oversees the instructional budget.”•

Director of Career/Technical Education: “Develops and oversees the career/technical education budget, • including grant applications, expenditures, and reporting.”

Director of Gifted and Talented Program: “Manages the district GT budget.” •

Director of Technology: “Manages the technology budget.” •


Director of Early Childhood Education: “Develops the annual preschool budget; analyzes and reviews • budgetary and fi nancial data; controls and authorizes expenditures in accordance with established limitations; maintains an inventory of all equipment, furniture and costly instructional materials.”

Director of Libraries and Media Services: “Develops media budgets and oversees all monies for the • media program. “

Director of Counseling: “Assists in budget planning and approval of purchases by counselors and social • workers.”

Principal: “Prepares the school budget; maintains fi scal responsibility in budgeting/purchasing.”•

Grants Director: “Confers with personnel affected by proposed programs to develop program goals • and objectives, outlines distribution of funds, and explains procedures necessary to obtain funding, and/or provides any other technical assistance necessary.” “Works with district treasurer in preparing narrative justifi cation for purchase of new equipment and other budgetary expenditures.”

These job descriptions indicate the budgetary and fund management responsibilities assigned to various administrators. Also indicated is the expectation that these staff members work together in the planning and implementation of district fi scal operations.

The Rogers Public School Strategic Plan—From Good to Great provides Guiding Principles for Whole School Improvement. One of the Guiding Principles states that the system must “Align all resources with the instructional focus.” Two of the four objectives identifi ed by the district embrace the budgeting process:

“Objective 3: The district supports schools in providing positive and engaging learning • environments.”

“Objective 4: The district and schools operate effi ciently.”•

The Strategic Plan provides school improvement objectives for each of the three years of the plan. The identifi ed objectives that relate to the budget process are as follows:

Year One:

“Estimate the cost of implementing the Strategic plan.”•

“Include senior staff members in budget decision-making process.”•

Year Two:

“Create more opportunities for input from an expanded group of stakeholders in decision-making • process.”

“Communicate clear practices about how resources are allocated and who is accountable for expenditures • at the central offi ce and school level.”

Year Three:

“Communicate clear practices about how resources are allocated and who is accountable for expenditures • at the central offi ce and school level.”


The district board room encourages wide-spread community participation and involvement.

The auditors used the seven criteria for a curriculum-driven budget to assess the quality of the Rogers Public Schools’ budget processes. These criteria and the auditors’ assessments are presented below in Exhibit 5.1.1. To be considered adequate, the district’s budget process must meet at least 70 percent of the curriculum-driven budgeting criteria.

Exhibit 5.1.1

Components of a Curriculum-Driven Budget and the Auditors’ RatingsRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Curriculum-Driven Budgeting Criteria Adequate Partially Adequate Inadequate

Tangible, demonstrable connections are evident between assessments 1. of operational curriculum effectiveness and allocations of resources. X

An ordering of program components is provided to permit fl exibility 2. in budget expansion, reduction, or stabilization based on changing need or priorities.

X

Cost benefi ts of components in curriculum programming are 3. delineated in budget decision making. X

Each budget request or submittal is described in order to evaluate the 4. consequences of funding or non-funding in terms of performance or results.

X

Budget requests or submittals compete with each other for funding 5. based upon evaluation of criticality of need and relationship to achievement of curriculum effectiveness.

X

Priorities in the budget process are set by participation of key 6. educational staff in the decision-making process. X

Teacher and principal suggestions and ideas for budget priorities are 7. incorporated into the decision-making process. X

Exhibit 5.1.1 reveals the following:

Five of the seven criteria were rated as inadequate (71 percent), one as partially adequate (14 percent), • and one as adequate (14 percent). Therefore, the audit team judged the district’s budget process to be inadequate.


Exhibit 5.1.1 ratings are based on the following data related to the components:

Criterion 1: • The auditors found no formal process for reviewing budget requests to identify a connection between the district educational goals and strategic priorities found in board policy, or in the use of program evaluation data to support the continuation of funding for these programs. Budget allocations are not connected to assessments of program effectiveness as required by Criterion 1 primarily because a comprehensive system of program assessment does not exist in the district (see Finding 4.1). This criterion was not met.

Criterion 2: • Rank ordering of program components is not a prescribed part of the budget procedures. However, interview data indicate that the Leadership Cabinet establishes priorities and conducts deliberations concerning the consequences of funding various programs. The auditors found neither formal documented rank ordering of priorities, nor a fund allocation process used to assure fi scal support for priority goals. The budget process as described does not include a rank ordering of program efforts based on evidence of their effectiveness for use in budget decisions regarding the expansion, reduction, or stabilization of resource allocations. This criterion was not met.

Criterion 3: • Auditors determined that cost-to-benefi t analysis is not used as an essential component of the budget decision-making process. Program listings provided by building principals identifi ed a large number of separate program efforts; however, none of the programs were identifi ed for wider implementation based on cost-to-benefi t analysis. The district lacks the database to conduct meaningful cost-benefi t analyses. This criterion was not met.

Criterion 4: • Auditors were not presented with documentation demonstrating that budget requests and proposals are accompanied by an analysis of the potential consequences to students, staff, the district, and the community if those requests or proposals either do not receive funding, or receive reduced funding. A process to determine the potential impact of funding changes on performance or results was not identifi ed for the existing budget request process. The absence of a comprehensive program evaluation system restricts a description of the consequences of funding or not funding. This criterion was not met.

Criterion 5: • As described in Criterion 1, auditors did not identify a consistent approach for establishing a linkage between program funding and program effectiveness. The budget request process consists of budget managers bringing “roll-over” budget requests to the administration. The roll-over budget requests are then accommodated to the extent deemed fi scally supportable. Program performance data are not utilized by RPS for budget decisions. This criterion was not met.

Criterion 6: • The Rogers Public Schools budget process is not documented but does meet the legal requirements that govern the process. While legal compliance requirements such as budget timelines, public hearings, and opportunities for staff member input are adhered to, auditors found little evidence of a broad-based process involving key educational staff, principals, and teachers. The superintendent and the Leadership Cabinet, which represents key educational staff, establish budget priorities. This criterion is partially met.

Criterion 7: • Principal and teacher suggestions are incorporated in the budget deliberations. The teachers and principals participate in the school improvement process, and the principals, with the input of their faculties, prepare the site budgets, allocating the discretionary, per-pupil funds. Consequently, the participation criterion has been met.

In addition to reviewing pertinent documents, auditors also interviewed members of the staff. Interview comments from board members and staff portray the general perceptions of the budget process in the Rogers Public Schools.

“Recommendations on the budget come from fi nancial advisor.” (Board Member)•

“We could always use more fi nances. Often it is the 1:1 (ratio) that gets the kids to do the very best they • can. We are very proud of what we’ve done with so little. We use it to the fullest.” (Board Member)


“Budgets are tight. Right now we’ve been through a lot of growth, built facilities, and changed. Now • we can catch our breath, but the budget will be stretched to the limit without growth. We are going to be good for fi ve years with our operating budget and do new things.” (Board Member)

“The board is very aware of spending.” (Administrator)•

“The district has been more open about sharing the budget, much more transparent in the last three • years.” (Administrator)

“We have the Wal-Mart mentality—you do a lot with a little. 90 percent of budget goes to teachers.” • (Administrator)

“When we have meetings on the dropout rate and it involves money nothing happens…so when we are • asked a third and fourth time to participate on committees, why do it?” (Administrator)

“We do per-pupil [funding]—everyone gets the same for supplies and textbooks.” (Administrator)•

“[We] have no reserve funds. There is no minimum required reserve in Arkansas.” (Administrator)•

“Principals have lots of input. Eighty percent of budget is staffi ng.” (Administrator)•

“Ten percent of the budget is payment on debt.” (Administrator)•

Summary

In summary, the budget is the major fi nancial planning document for expressing in dollars the goals and priorities of the district. With school budgets based on a per-pupil allotment, Rogers Public Schools principals and site-based teams distribute site allocations based on priorities established in site plans, but without program evaluation data to guide their decisions. No procedures exist to reallocate funding to increase productivity based on a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Without the benefi t of formal evaluation to verify program effi cacy, there is not systematic linkage between funding and board-adopted priorities. Consequently, decision-makers can easily spread the district fi scal resources too thinly, stray away from the district’s mission and focus, and end up serving the students ineffectively, inequitably, or inconsistently.

Finding 5.2: Intervention programs are not systematically aligned with the curriculum and are not effectively monitored or evaluated for impact on student achievement. Feedback on program effectiveness is not available in many instances.

Several characteristics are essential for effective programs to improve staff productivity and student achievement. A common core of student learning goals and objectives must provide the framework for comprehensive curriculum design and delivery. Intervention programs are initiated to address identifi ed curricular weaknesses, serve students with special needs, and/or enrich student experiences. Clear linkages between the core curriculum and supporting programs must exist to create a coherent and focused approach to program development and implementation. Standardized procedures should guide the design, delivery, monitoring, and evaluation of all interventions. Such standards increase the likelihood that implementation of an intervention program will positively impact student learning or supporting operations. When these qualities are absent from program management, the likelihood increases that interventions will not achieve their intended goals and that decision makers may not receive the necessary data to make sound decisions about whether programs should be continued, modifi ed, or terminated.

A process for the effective planning, implementing, and integrating of interventions includes the following steps:

Assess the current situation;•

Diagnose and analyze the collected data;•

Identify the suspected problem; `•

Propose and examine alternative approaches;•


Select the alternative approach that best addresses the problem;•

Develop a formal plan, including goals and measurable objectives, to address the problem;•

Allocate the fi scal and human resources as needed by redistributing resources;•

Implement the intervention with well-defi ned mechanisms for monitoring progress;•

Evaluate the intervention using both summative and formative means;•

Adjust as needed, based on data gathered through the evaluation process;•

Implement, based on adjustments indicated; and•

Reassess and repeat the process for continued quality control.•

Interventions that do not follow this process often do not address district needs, priorities, and goals and do not sustain productivity. Implementation of an intervention is a complex process that must be managed carefully to ensure the intended outcomes.

To assess the management of program interventions in the district, the audit team reviewed board policies, job descriptions, and program documents, and interviewed staff members. School principals completed a survey identifying programs in place at their schools. The information in these surveys was reviewed to determine if the selection and implementation of programs had been effectively managed. Auditors found that programs are not assessed for their alignment with the curriculum and, in many instances, are not monitored and evaluated to provide feedback to decision makers. The auditors found no policy addressing program interventions, but several policies do address random elements.

Board Policy BBA: Board Powers and Responsibilities• provides guidance for the board in its duties. The policy outlines that the board’s most important functions fall into the listed categories: One of these categories is “Educational planning and appraisal. The Board is responsible for acquiring reliable information from responsible sources that will enable it to make the best possible decisions about the scope and nature of the district’s educational program. The Board is responsible for requiring appraisal of the results of the educational program.”

Board Policy GA: Goals and Objectives• provides a list of seven goals for the Rogers Public Schools. The second goal is “To provide a sound educational program for all groups, stressing basic subject matter areas, through innovative programs, extension courses, and special education courses on all levels.”

Board Policy IH: Curriculum Programs • states that the district will provide special services in addition to the regular curriculum: “The school district provides appropriate curriculum, at grade levels approved by the Board of Education, for the following groups:

Handicapped/disabled students1.

Gifted/talented students2.

Limited-English students3.

Homebound students4.

Other at-risk students5.

Instruction in these areas will emphasize the same knowledge, skills, and attitudes found in the basic curriculum. This instruction may be provided in a variety of ways (pull-out programs, regular classrooms, summer programs, after-school programs, tutoring, or other alternative learning environments).”

Board Policy IL: Evaluation of Instructional Programs • states, “An evaluation of the instructional program and its effectiveness shall be made periodically and reported to the Board by the Superintendent or a designee.”


Board Policy JB: Equal Educational Opportunities • maintains, “Educational programs and services will be designed to meet the varying needs of all students and will not discriminate against any individual for reasons of race, creed, color, sex, national origin, economic status, or handicap.”

These policies do not provide defi nitive guidance regarding program implementation or alignment to the curriculum. The Strategic Plan—From Good to Great contains objectives addressing interventions in each year of the three-year plan:

Year One (2006-07): “Each intervention and enrichment program in the district is evaluated on per • student investment and student achievement outcomes.”

Year Two (2007-08): “Each intervention and enrichment program shall be evaluated for effectiveness • and impact on student achievement.” “Share and duplicate proven instructional practices.”

Year Three (2008-09): “Fully implement and determine the effectiveness of each intervention and • enrichment program as measured by student achievement.”

The district and schools maintain numerous supplemental programs designed to address a wide range of student learning, growth, and development needs (see Finding 2.4). The auditors found that program interventions were generally not selected or developed based on a specifi c needs assessment. Instead, most were in response to general concerns, including compliance with escalating federal and state student performance standards, performance gaps found among student groups, or efforts to adopt “best practices” with regard to curriculum and instruction.

The auditors were not provided with an overall, districtwide plan for piloting interventions; however, there is an implementation plan for several of the computer-based programs. No criteria were provided to determine when an intervention is successful or when it would be terminated.

The criteria used by auditors that delineate the characteristics of adequate program interventions are listed in Exhibit 5.2.1.

Exhibit 5.2.1

Criteria for Program Interventions and Innovation Effi cacyRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Criteria Based on Needs Interventions relate to documented system needs, assessments of operational curriculum

effectiveness, and resource allocation.Expectations Defi nition

Documents exist to defi ne the purpose of the program intervention, why it addresses the system need, how it will impact student achievement, and plans for implementation.

Implementation Effi cacy

A detailed process for implementing the program intervention is provided, including strong communication and components for adequate and effective staff development.

Resource Support Adequate human, material, and fi scal resources needed are identifi ed to initiate the program in the short-term, and to sustain the program in the long-term.

Knowledge of Results

Formative feedback and summative evaluation criteria are identifi ed and are tied to program goals, objectives, and expenditures.

The auditors reviewed documents (including board policies, the Strategic Plan, and program implementation guidelines); interviewed administrators, teachers, and others; and observed several interventions in operation during their site visits.


The auditors identifi ed the program interventions in place in the district, the curricular area addressed, and the applicable grade levels. The most commonly identifi ed interventions are listed in Exhibit 5.2.2.

Exhibit 5.2.2

K-12 Program InterventionsRogers Public Schools

November 2008

Program Areas addressed Grade levels21st Century Learning Center Reading and Math 6–8 (9 previous years)Academic Coaches Literacy and Math K–8Accelerated Reader Reading K–6AT&T Freshmen Success Grant Student needs 9Benchmark Boot Camp Student academic needs 3–5Crossroads HS Alternative School 9–12Crossroads MS Alternative School 6–8Early Success Reading 1–2Earobics Literacy—multisensory K–3FastForWord Reading—Strengthens memory AllHigh School Academies Small Learning Communities 9–12Kids College Reading and Math K–5MPACT Physical Wellness and Health All grades and communityNovaNet Credit Recovery 9–12Project HELP© Math ELL StudentsRead 180, Scholastic Reading 3 and upReading Recovery Reading 1–3

REAP Academy Alternative School 9–12(Three districts joint program)

Soar to Success Reading Comprehension 3–5SuccessMaker Reading and Math 2–8The ROCK Student academic needs 3–5Waterford Reading Reading K–2SIOP Teaching Strategies Staff DevelopmentLeadership Academy Leadership Skills Teachers and administrators

Auditors found that system-wide and school-based intervention programs have been initiated for a variety of purposes:

Provide remedial instruction and/or accelerated learning,•

Enhance the core curriculum,•

Develop habits of good character,•

Improve study skills,•

Improve health, and•

Provide motivation.•

The auditors selected the Academic Coaches intervention to evaluate against the intervention effi cacy criteria. Academic Coaches are a recent addition to the Rogers Public Schools. They are assigned to either literacy or math and are used in several elementary schools and all middle schools. They support teachers, work with students, and facilitate the Total Instructional Alignment Process (TIA). They develop new lessons, model instruction, and share best practices. Coaches meet monthly to coordinate as a vertical and horizontal team.


The auditors use fi ve criteria to determine whether an intervention program or strategy is designed in such a way that it has a likelihood of successful implementation. Exhibit 5.2.3 lists the criteria and the auditors’ rating of the Academic Coaches program. A detailed discussion of the fi ndings follows the exhibit.

Exhibit 5.2.3

Comparison of the Academic Coaches to Audit Intervention Criteria


Intervention Criteria Evident Partially Evident

Not Evident

The intervention is related to documented district need, assessment of 1. curriculum effectiveness, and allocation of resources. X

Documents exist to defi ne the purpose of the program, how it 2. addresses the district’s needs, how it will impact student achievement, and plans for implementation.

X

A detailed process for implementing the program is provided, 3. including strong communication and staff development components. X

Human, material, and fi scal resources needed are identifi ed to initiate 4. the program in the short-term, and to sustain the program in the long-term.

X

Formative feedback and summative evaluation criteria are identifi ed 5. that are tied to program goals, objectives, and expectations. X

Exhibit 5.3.1 indicates that the district Academic Coach program met two of the audit intervention planning criteria. The other three criteria were partially met. The auditors noted the following about each criterion:

Criterion 1—District Need: District student achievement data pointed to the need for a district intervention program at all levels. The Academic Coach approach was identifi ed for the elementary and middle school levels. Although the need was evident throughout the district, all elementary schools have not implemented the Academic Coaches program.

Criterion 2—Program Purpose: The purpose of the Academic Coaches is the “improvement in test scores: To improve student performance as measured with the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing Program.” The individual school improvement plans include the responsibilities of the Academic Coaches (both literacy and math) in the school and a document giving the Literacy Coach Roles and Responsibilities was provided to the auditors. The auditors found no document giving the same information for the math coaches.

The objectives identifi ed for the literacy coaches are to:

Analyze ACTAAP and TLI assessments.•

Analyze data and formative assessments to make instructional decisions.•

Analyze student work.•

Evaluate effectiveness of interventions to determine impact on student achievement.•

Create a culture of celebration.•

Criterion 3—Implementation Process: An implementation plan for the Academic Coaches program does not exist. Implementation plans are present only for the grant-funded programs; however, there is no evidence that grant-funded programs are sustained when funding runs out. Staff development was provided for the coaches at the beginning of the program and additional staff development is planned. The Academic Coaches have requested that future staff development be focused on the coaching process.


Criterion 4—Resources Assigned: New positions were created for this intervention. The human, fi scal, and fi nancial resources needed to maintain the program are provided by the individual schools.

Criterion 5—Program Evaluation: The measurement to be used with each of the objectives on the Literacy Coach Roles and Responsibilities is specifi c and has a timeline attached to each measurement. Since no objectives are provided for the math coaches, no information is available for the formative evaluation of that portion of the intervention. The overall purpose of the Academic Coaches is to improve performance as measured by the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing Program. The results of those assessments will be available, but no information is provided that determines how test results will be used to determine the success of this intervention.

The audit team found that a number of intervention programs have been added to address students’ needs districtwide; however, auditors also noted the following fi ndings:

Many of the interventions are intended to address the same needs. •

Inadequate direction and guidelines are provided to staff in the selection of programs and the identifi cation • of the most appropriate program based on current data and needs assessment.

Principals and central offi ce staff report that there is inconsistency in oversight, monitoring, and • evaluation to ensure program effectiveness.

Management procedures for the programs are inadequate.•

During interviews with the audit team, administrators and teachers commented on the lack of direction and continuity in selection and implementation of programs. The following are representative comments:

“Reading Recovery is a great program but we are not able to implement it fully.” (Administrator)•

“For the students who need to be remediated or accelerated—we have many things in many different • buildings.” (Administrator)

“NovaNet is used in alternative education program—REAP.” (Administrator)•

“We use data for placement; we want to challenge high achieving students and provide intervention for • students failing classes, and, interventions for students at risk.” (Administrator)

“The AT&T grant at Rogers High School will be used for FastForWord, NovaNet, and credit recovery.” • (Administrator)

“We need interventions for the kids in the middle—those kids who are not special ed but are having a • hard time. Equity!” (Administrator)

“We have ALE for K-2, nothing for grades 3-5. They have to go back to the regular classroom after • grade 2. If we could target 3-5, there would be fewer problems as they get older.” (Administrator)

“We need early intervention.” (Administrator)•

“Each year we always fi nd that, year after year, a teacher with a software program may be effective. • Another teacher with that same software programs may not. We come back to, ‘It’s the teacher, it’s the teacher each year.’ And I think some people are a little frustrated with that, because we have always known that it is the teacher.” (Administrator)

“In the last couple of years we have been creating and putting things in place to meet our large district • capacity. In our department we have done a lot of things to change our structure so we could supply better services.” (Administrator)

“FastForWord—we’re getting a little closer to identifying the right kids for it.” (Administrator)•

“Also, I am concerned about the technology in each building. Each uses different programs. I have • concerns if this is the best practice. There is no data to persuade me that any of these programs are the best for students.” (Board Member)


“My dream is that we get these interventions just weeded out and really get down to ‘prescriptability’ • within our system, so you’ll know if [there is an] ELL Level 2 child, this is what will work for that child.” (Administrator)

Summary

In summary, the Rogers Public Schools and the schools within the district have implemented interventions to impact student academic or behavioral performance. However, auditors determined after staff interviews, site visits, and document review that a systematic process for the selection, development, implementation, and evaluation of interventions to improve student achievement results are lacking. The predominant component missing in most programs was an evaluation process that precludes future data-driven decisions about program effectiveness.

Finding 5.3: Facilities are well-maintained and clean and provide good space for the delivery of instruction; however, dependable access to current technology within the buildings is inconsistent, negatively impacting the utilization of available instructional resources by teachers.

In the 21st century, technology is a critical component of daily life. A school aspiring to deliver a world-class education integrates technology into all aspects of the day-to-day operation of the school, including student learning. Funding and directing the use and integration of technology throughout a school district is an essential part of effective management and control. A written plan that outlines expectations, goals, guidelines for use, and integration is an effective means of ensuring consistent implementation across the system. In order to make use of the plan, each facility must have adequate technology that is networked. A quality plan, effectively implemented, provides stakeholders not only with a clear framework for the design and objectives of a technology program, but also how program results are evaluated.

To determine the quality of technology planning and implementation in the Rogers School District, auditors reviewed board policies, job descriptions, the Strategic Plan, a sampling of the school improvement plans, the Technology Budget (2007-08), and the Rogers Technology Plan for School Years 2009-2012. Auditors visited schools and classrooms to observe the use of technology and interviewed teachers, building administrators, board members, and central offi ce staff regarding technology planning and usage.

Auditors found that the Rogers Public Schools Technology Plan states the district’s program philosophy and vision for the use of technology in the classroom, but does not include the steps and activities to be followed to achieve its goals in technology. Access to technology is inconsistent and was a common complaint from school personnel.

No board policies relating to technology were found by auditors.

The Strategic Plan, From Good to Great, contains objectives addressing interventions in each year of the three-year plan:

Year One (2006-07): “Conduct a review of the existing technology infrastructure and equipment in the • district to examine stability, connectivity of schools, access to data, speed, and interoperability and to advise the district about future confi guration options and staffi ng needs.”

Year Two (2007-08): “Produce and publish a district technology plan.” The action plan outlines the • following steps to accomplish this objective:

Write a viable technology plan.1.

Explore and implement ways to allow increased access and fl exibility to the district’s system while 2. maintaining a reasonable level of security.

Identify and implement, as appropriate, examples of successful technology plans and approaches in 3. districts with similar needs as well as from national organizations.

Conduct a review of existing technology infrastructure, security and equipment in the district to 4. examine stability, connectivity of schools, access to data speed, and interoperability and to advise the district about future confi guration options and staffi ng needs.”


Year Three (2008-09): “To become a premier school district in the use of technology to support student • learning.” The action plan from Year Two continues into Year Three.

The following job descriptions refl ect the duties and responsibilities that pertain to technology:

Assistant Superintendent, Curriculum and Instruction: “Keeps staff informed of the latest trends in • educational research and the application of new technology in curriculum and instruction.”

Director of Technology: (District personnel indicated the job description had been replaced by new • Chief Information Offi cer and System Manager positions.)

“Coordinates district administrative data network implementations. ○

Coordinates instructional hardware and network implementations. ○

Coordinates technology applications with instructional goals through a close interface with the ○appropriate administrators.

Provides consultation to district administrators and teachers regarding the integration of curriculum ○and technology.

Supports training in all areas of technology. ○

Develops consistent standards for needs assessment, acquisition, maintenance, and replacement of ○educational technologies.

Oversees acquisition and maintenance of hardware, software, and other technology-related items. ○

Manages the technology budget. ○

Establishes processes to monitor and keep interested district individuals informed of evolving ○technologies and their implications and costs.

Provides technical assistance to schools and departments as needed. ○

Works with the Technology Committee to implement, maintain, and update the district Technology ○Plan.

Assists in the selection and hiring of district technology staff. ○

Supervises and evaluates the district technology staff. ○

Manages multiple staff members in the technology department. Is responsible for the overall ○direction, coordination, and evaluation of this unit.”

Director of Libraries and Media Services• :

“Prepares and distributes needed information on media services, instructional technology and new ○media resources.”

“Keeps informed about all types of information resources, both instructional and management- ○oriented, in all media formats and remains up-to-date on trends and developments regarding their use.”

Library/Media Specialist: •

“Annually analyzes the media program to establish new policies and services as necessary and to ○determine needs to update technology.”

“Provides multi-media/technology support as applicable.” ○

Teacher:•

“Employs a variety of instructional techniques and instructional media, consistent with the physical ○limitations of the location provided and the needs and capabilities of the individuals or student groups involved.”


Fenced passageway between buildings ensures security for elementary students.

The auditors reviewed and analyzed the Rogers Public Schools Technology Plan using 14 audit quality criteria for instructional technology. A district’s technology planning is considered adequate if the Technology Plan meets 70 percent of the criteria. The results of the auditors’ analysis are provided in Exhibit 5.3.1.

Exhibit 5.3.1

Quality Criteria for Instructional Technology Programs and Auditors’ Assessment


Program Component Adequate InadequateBoard policy or administrative regulation for instructional technology 1. XClear statement of program philosophy2. /vision XComprehensive view of technology3. XNeeds assessment4. X*Measurable student goals and objectives5. XOngoing student assessment6. XOngoing program assessment7. XComprehensive staff training with measurable standards8.

Equipment• Application• Integration•

X

School site equipment standards9. XInternet access standards10. XRole of school library11. XImplementation budget12. XMaintenance budget13. XSite plans aligned with district plan14. X

*Criterion 4 is partially met. See explanation below.

Exhibit 5.3.1 shows that the auditors found the Technology Plan 2009-2012 to be adequate in six (43 percent) of the criteria and inadequate in eight; therefore, the RPS technology planning and implementation efforts are not adequate to meet the instructional and business needs of the district. Further comments regarding the ratings follow:


Criterion 1: The auditors found no board policy related to instructional technology development and implementation. The policies and procedures contained in the Technology Plan apply to the documents parents and students are required to read and sign. The Plan also states that Rogers Public Schools is in compliance with CIPA and IDEA.

Criterion 2: Within the Technology Plan 2009-2012, there is a vision and mission statement.

Criterion 3: The Technology Plan lists the uses of instructional and research technology in the classroom, teacher use of technology for teaching and for communication, parent involvement, and staff development planned for teachers to understand and better use the technology they have. Implementation and maintenance of the equipment is included.

Criterion 4: This criterion is partially met. There are no documents that informed the auditors regarding how a structured needs assessment is performed either in the spring or when meeting with the instructional leaders. The needs of each building are identifi ed by a meeting between the instructional leader and other interested staff from each building. A formal needs assessment is scheduled to be completed each April/May for the upcoming school year.

Needs assessments in the past three years show a trend toward static computer labs and increased use of LCD projectors and document cameras in the classrooms. Professional development in technology is needed for school administrators. In terms of software, a need exists to develop a process to consolidate various sources for student data into a single program. The number of data sources is continually increasing.

Criterion 5: Six goals are included in the Technology Plan 2009-2012. The goals include stated objectives and the strategies for accomplishing the objectives. The goals are for the technology program and do not include student goals.

Criterion 6: The auditors found no student assessments tied to the technology program. The assessments being used are those required by the state of Arkansas, assessments linked to various intervention programs, or teacher-made assessments.

Criterion 7: The Technology Plan delineates six goals, but includes no methods to assess the success of each goal. Annual surveys and 3-2-1 evaluations are used to evaluate the success of the program. The technology committee, central offi ce administrators, and building leaders review the results and determine future plans based on those results. Success is presently determined by evaluations indicating growth in student achievement and parental satisfaction, but no benchmarks are provided that indicate the amount of growth needed to be successful. Guidelines for the use of survey results and methods to measure the goals and objectives are needed.

Criterion 8: The Technology Plan 2009-2012 states, “Technology professional development is conducted throughout the year in individual and group sessions through the use of our two full-time technology trainers. These trainers share best practices throughout our district as well as providing just-in-time training and support to teachers who are integrating a new technology-based method of instruction.” Much of the technology training is included in the Staff Development Plan (see Finding 3.3).

The Technology Plan Goal 2 further states: “Enhanced technology integration in curriculum and instruction” includes professional development in the analysis of assessment data. Many of the administrators and teachers commented to the auditors about the value of the present training to understanding and using data and the need to increase this training. The Action Timeline based on the stated goals and objectives includes the staff development that is planned to accompany each strategy. However, the auditors found no measurable standards for the staff development; therefore, this criterion is not met.


Criterion 9: The auditors found no standards for school site equipment. The district technology committee meets on a quarterly basis to review and access emerging technologies and plan for future district and school technology. This provides a vehicle to keep technology use in the schools in concert with the district plan as well as with the overall mission of the district.

Criterion 10: All the computers in the district are networked and connected to the Internet. Buildings are connected to the Internet via individual T1 circuits.

Criterion 11: The role of school libraries is not specifi ed in the Technology Plan. The job descriptions of library personnel and the observations of the auditors indicate that school libraries are playing a substantial role in access to and student use of technology. Therefore, the role of the library must be refl ected in the Technology Plan.

Criterion 12: Auditors reviewed the Technology Budget for the 2007-08 budget year. The budget includes salaries for technology coordinators, specialists, and clerical help. The budget includes funding for training and professional development. In addition, the implementation budget contains funds for computer software and inter-program supplies. The individual site plans contain budget materials related to computerized equipment and computerized instructional material. Such budgeting varies widely from school to school.

Criterion 13: Auditors reviewed the Technology Budget for the 2007-08 budget year to analyze the level of technology maintenance funding. Funds for computer repair, new equipment, and Deep Freeze maintenance are included in the Technology Budget.

Criterion 14: Individual school site improvement plans include school goals for the use of technology. Plans vary from school to school and are not consistently aligned with the Strategic Plan. The requests for equipment and software for each school were used in developing the system technology budget. Thus, the technology budgets from the individual schools are aligned with the District Technology Plan.

The Action Plan established in the Technology Plan 2009-2012 addresses the areas of need. The loss of the staff person serving as Chief Informational Offi cer has delayed progress on the plans and placed additional responsibilities on the Director of Technology and the Technology Committee.

The Use of Instructional Technology in Schools

The Technology Plan 2009-2012 contains the following mission statement: “Rogers Public Schools believes that technology is a tool used to increase and enhance student learning. This is accomplished by using technology to improve the effectiveness of instruction and learning, to improve the effi ciency of tasks, to provide structures for continuous systemic improvement, and to support parental involvement.” The auditors found that technology is not integrated into the classroom curriculum. The Curriculum Guides do not include the technology to be used with each curriculum (see Finding 2.3).

Site visitations enabled the auditors to observe the use of technology as an instructional tool and assess the availability of classroom computers, school computer laboratories, and technology in school libraries. Auditors found two computers in most classrooms and, quite often, observed that computers had not been turned on in preparation for daily use. The most frequent use of technology by students is in the area of computerized reading intervention programs. Computer labs are well used in the schools.

During the onsite observations, the auditors noted that LCDs are located in most classrooms, but many of those are being used in the same capacity as an overhead projector. Use of instructional technology is limited. In-depth staff development on the integration of technology with instruction is offered, but all teachers do not participate (see Finding 3.3). Providing instruction and individual assistance to teachers in use of technology is an area where the Academic Coaches are playing a major role.

All students from grade 2 and above, all professional staff, and many support staff have email accounts. A common complaint from administrators and teachers is their inability to access email accounts from any location except within their building.


During the interview process, a number of comments were shared with auditors that demonstrate general attitudes toward technology in the district. Sample comments included the following:

“If our technology had kept up with the growth, we would be in a different place. If we had updated • technology we could work smarter.” (Administrator)

“There is probably a lot of technology work to do in the classroom and this building. We have good • people, but they often are not looking at the big picture.” (Board Member)

“We had made some progress and then the CIO left.” (Administrator)•

“Young people are ahead of their teachers.” (Administrator)•

“The CIO was a new hire but overwhelmed. Is the program implemented correctly and drawing the • right conclusion?” (Administrator)

“Technology is the way of the future. Kids learn in different ways. We need technology in the • classroom.” (Board Member)

“We have to be data-driven to drive decisions. We are better than we have been in the past. Internal • use is for handling test data; however, it is fragmented up to this point. If it is going to drive decisions, what is the quality, how do you draw conclusions? It has to be good data.” (Board Member)

“Vision for technology must be updated…really updated. We were hopeful with the new CIO, but he • is gone and it will take us backward.” (Administrator)

“We need a rethinking of technology.” (Administrator)•

“We have not addressed the issue of technology. In our neighboring districts every teacher has a • laptop. I don’t believe that money is the issue…but we have to have a vision for using technology.” (Administrator)

“Technology is not where we should be. We are lagging way behind. We are usually above anyone else • in the area, but in technology we are not leading.” (Administrator)

Summary

Rogers Public Schools has a long-range technology plan for instructional technology that meets state requirements. The district’s technology plan listed the use of instructional and research technology in the classroom, teacher use of technology for teaching and communication, parent involvement, and staff development for teachers to understand and better use the technology they have available. However, the plan lacked critical components that would provide clear direction for the integration of technology with instructional practices and the status of technology standards for each building. Evaluation of the effectiveness of technology use within each building needs to be clarifi ed so data can be collected and used for fi nancial planning. The use of technology varied by school and by classrooms within schools.

Technology also plays an important role in the district’s business and management functions. The most common complaint from personnel was the inability to consistently access communications through email. Appropriately funding and directing the use and integration of technology throughout the school system is part of effective management for student learning.


IV. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PDK-CMSI CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT AUDIT TEAM FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ROGERS PUBLIC SCHOOLSBased on the three streams of data derived from interviews, documents, and site visits, the PDK-CMSi Curriculum Management Audit Team has developed a set of recommendations to address its fi ndings shown under each of the standards of the audit.

In the case of the fi ndings, they have been triangulated, i.e., corroborated with one another. In the case of the recommendations, those put forth in this section are representative of the auditors’ best professional judgments regarding how to address the problems that surfaced in the audit.

The recommendations are presented in the order of their criticality for initiating system-wide improvements. The recommendations also recognize and differentiate between the policy and monitoring responsibilities of the board of education, and the operational and administrative duties of the superintendent of schools.

Where the PDK-CMSi audit team views a problem as wholly or partly a policy and monitoring matter, the recommendations are formulated for the board of education. Where the problem is distinctly an operational or administrative matter, the recommendations are directed to the superintendent of schools as the chief executive offi cer of the school system. In many cases, the PDK-CMSi audit team directs recommendations to both the board and the superintendent, because it is clear that policy and operations are related, and both entities are involved in a proposed change. In some cases, there are no recommendations to the superintendent when only policy is involved or none to the board when the recommendations deal only with administration.

Audit recommendations are presented as follows: The overarching goals for the board and/or the superintendent, followed by the specifi c objectives to carry out the overarching goals. The latter are designated “Governance Functions” and “Administrative Functions.”

Recommendation 1: Establish expectations and system guidance through updated and new board policies and administrative guidelines to support quality control of the educational program and system operations.

A comprehensive set of school board policies is necessary to guide the management of a school system and express the expectations and intentions of the elected board legally charged with governance of the school district. Current and sound policies provide updated frameworks for school district program operations and help create educational focus for ongoing decision making at school and district levels. Policies are relied upon to be a source of reference for district management in the recurring issues and operational decisions to promote consistency of administrative practices and cohesion of organizational functions.

Auditors found that the current board policies for the Rogers Public Schools do not provide adequate direction or communicate clear expectations for either educational program management or related administrative and operational functions (see Findings 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3). Some policies represent generic state-provided legal expectations without giving clear local direction. The policies require few elements of a data-driven planning function, an effective curriculum management system, a comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation system, or data-based decision making (see Findings 2.1, 3.3, 4.1, 5.1, and 5.2).

The auditors’ recommended actions address the primary needs in the area of policies as identifi ed through audit analysis. Additional recommendations in this report identify specifi c areas of policy weaknesses as well. These actions need to be addressed during the next six to 12 months to establish clear parameters for operations and job performance and to communicate expectations regarding the follow-up actions based on this report.

Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Board of Education of Rogers Public Schools:

G.1.1: Direct the superintendent to prepare and present, for review and adoption by the board, drafts of new policies or revised policies that will meet the criteria outlined in Exhibit 1.1.2 (see Finding 1.1) and address policy defi ciencies pointed out in the fi ndings and accompanying recommendations within this report. Address


these revisions as a priority in order to establish clear direction for educational program management and sound operation of the district and its schools.

G.1.2: Establish an ongoing policy review and update schedule to avoid policies becoming outdated and ignored. Incorporate district and state legal information as legislative changes occur, and include language needed to specify clearly the local board intent.

G.1.3: Direct the superintendent to establish a mechanism to ensure all administrators’ understanding of policies and the expectation that policies be followed throughout the district. Likewise, direct the superintendent to prepare administrative procedures for consistent implementation of policies.

G.1.4: Direct the superintendent to develop draft policy on employee evaluations that states clearly that only high-quality instruction is acceptable and that the primary role of the evaluator is to facilitate and improve the instructional program.

Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Superintendent of the Rogers Public Schools:

A.1.1: Assist the board in implementing G.1.1 through G.1.3 above. Provide draft policy language that offers clarity of expectations where needed to meet the audit criteria in Exhibit 1.1.2 and other fi ndings within the audit report. At a minimum, these revised or new policies should include:

A policy requiring an aligned written, taught, and tested curriculum for all subjects at all grade levels • and a multi-grade scope and sequence document covering all grade levels of the taught curriculum (see Recommendation 2);

A policy on instructional expectations that includes the types of methods and strategies expected in • classrooms and that is based on teacher appraisals and school and district priorities and goals (see Recommendations 1 and 2);

An expanded policy on planning that outlines areas of expected planning across the system (e.g., • curriculum management, staff development, student assessment and program evaluation, interventions, and budget development) and incorporates the criteria from the respective fi ndings in this report;

A policy that requires planning, monitoring, and evaluation of all programs and intervention efforts on • a systematic schedule/calendar and the use of resulting evaluation data in program and budget decisions (see Recommendations 6);

A policy requiring the presence and annual updating of job descriptions for all positions in district • employ (see Recommendation 8); and

A policy requiring annual updating of the table of organization, with job descriptions for all positions • represented on the table (see Recommendation 8).

A.1.2: Provide updated policies to all administrators, with copies available for staff at the work sites. Include policies and administrative guidelines on the district website as soon as feasible to enable ready internal and external access to the most current policies and guidelines. Destroy all policy manuals dated prior to the revised policies except for appropriate archival retention.

A.1.3: Include discussion of updated policies and guidelines in administrative meetings as revisions are completed, highlighting particular areas of policy at the regular meetings; monitor for consistent implementation at all sites.

A.1.4: Include reference to board policies when making administrative recommendations to the board.

A.1.5: Establish a system to maintain policy congruence with current state and federal laws, regulations, and other requirements as well as accuracy of local board intent.

A.1.6: Monitor progress regarding personnel evaluation actions and provide qualitative and quantitative reports to the board regarding the focus of the evaluation process.


Recommendation 2: Develop and implement a comprehensive curriculum management system that delineates short- and long-term goals, directs curriculum revision to ensure deep alignment and quality delivery, and defi nes the instructional model district leaders expect teachers to follow in delivering the curriculum.

A comprehensive curriculum management plan, coordinated with all district and site plans, enables a district to achieve and maintain a quality, aligned curriculum. Ensuring that every student has access to and is provided the very best quality instruction and learning must be purposeful and carefully planned at every level of the school system. In an effective school system, the curriculum management plan is directed by board policy and clearly communicates the curriculum development and maintenance process. When procedures and timelines of the plan are adhered to, school district personnel are able to be proactive in meeting local, state, and national challenges in providing a quality educational program for all students. A well-defi ned curriculum management plan is critical for the sound design, delivery, and evaluation of the Rogers Public Schools’ educational program.

A quality curriculum is based on the principle that the written, taught, and tested curricula are aligned. To be truly effective, not only must they be aligned in content, but also in context and cognitive types. Context refers to the way in which something is learned or practiced. The cognitive type refers to the type of cognitive functioning students engage in when accomplishing a task or practicing a skill.

The fi rst step in assuring alignment begins with a quality written curriculum guide that specifi es what content is to be taught and suggests the best ways to approach that content, as well as suggesting the contexts necessary for students to attain mastery and the desired cognitive type of student engagement.

The second step lies in ensuring that the written curriculum is delivered using the district-expected strategies and approaches described in the guide, and in a way that communicates high expectations for all students and allows for individualization of learning.

Once a district has the key components of the aligned curriculum in the design (all written aspects of the curriculum, including the expectations for what its implementation should look like), managing the delivery of that curriculum involves professional development (see Recommendation 5) and monitoring to ensure its implementation, as well as feedback to determine whether the delivery is effective. All measures of effectiveness relate to the impact on student achievement. Programs, teaching practices, student activities, and curriculum are only effective if the students experience increased academic success. In addition, such success must be sought and provided for all students according to their needs, and continuous evaluation must take place to determine if all subgroups of the student population are experiencing that success.

Rogers Public Schools has begun to lay a foundation for an effective curriculum management system. The district has written curriculum documents for 67 percent of its current coursework PreK through grade 12 (see Finding 2.2) and is developing a districtwide system of formative assessments (see Finding 4.2) but the quality of the written documents is inadequate to guide instruction, ensure horizontal coordination, and provide vertical articulation by presenting guidelines for teachers in planning their instruction. The current curriculum objectives in the TIA documents lack expected levels of performance, time estimates for teaching the content, and clear congruity of the curriculum to the assessment process. The objectives also fail to identify specifi c prerequisite skills and knowledge for each course and clear approaches for classroom use with delineation of major instructional resources (see Finding 2.3). There is no district plan in place to direct the various aspects of curriculum management across the district (see Finding 2.1). District expectations for teacher pedagogy, instructional activities, and student behaviors, while not always clearly stated or located in one document, do expect active student engagement, implementation of the SIOP model, high levels of cognitive activities in classrooms, and other meaningful student-centered activities. These expectations, however, are inconsistent with observed teacher instructional behaviors in the classrooms of Rogers Public Schools.

The nature of instruction observed by auditors in the classrooms was predominantly whole group, direct instruction. Students were primarily engaged in learning activities at the knowledge and comprehension level (see Finding 2.4).


The auditors recommend the following actions to the board of education and the superintendent to address the weaknesses in curriculum management across the district. These steps will help district leaders prioritize the work that needs to be done and focus all involved personnel on common goals, thereby making the attainment of those goals more likely. The recommended steps are organized into the following sections: Curriculum Management, Curriculum Design, and Curriculum Implementation.

Curriculum Management


G.2.1: Develop policies that defi ne the roles and responsibilities of the board of education, district administrators, and teachers regarding curriculum. Incorporate into these policies the responsibilities outlined under the Administrative Functions section of this recommendation.

G.2.2: Direct the superintendent (or designee) to defi ne a comprehensive management plan for the development, revision, delivery, monitoring, and assessment of curriculum. The plan is intended to serve many purposes: 1) to defi ne the processes surrounding the continuous evaluation and development of curriculum; 2) to provide guidelines for a fi nished curriculum product; and 3) to clarify which tasks and responsibilities are classroom-level, school-level, or district-level. The plan should include all components outlined in A.2.2.

G.2.3: Through policy, direct the superintendent to assess curriculum effectiveness by evaluating the impact on achievement of all students and to communicate this information to the board on an annual basis.

G.2.4: Commit adequate resources to the curriculum development and revision cycle, including professional development.

Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Superintendent of Rogers Public Schools:

A.2.1: Assist the board of education in developing policies that defi ne the roles of the board, district administration, and teachers regarding curriculum. For example, the board is primarily responsible for adoption of curriculum; administrators are responsible for overseeing its development, evaluation, and revision as well as monitoring its implementation; and teachers are responsible for delivering the adopted curriculum and assisting in the writing or reviewing of the curriculum, with assistance from district administrators and consultants.

A.2.2: Develop a comprehensive curriculum management plan for managing the design, delivery, monitoring, and evaluation of curriculum. The plan should address each of the following areas:

A philosophical framework for the design of the curriculum: The philosophical framework addresses the underlying beliefs of district leadership regarding how children learn, what constitutes effective teaching, what are the roles of teachers and students, and what is the district’s role in making available or ensuring a student’s education? Taking the time to defi ne the beliefs and philosophy of the district establishes the foundation of the curriculum, defi nes the roles of the district and school in providing each child with an education, and creates a picture of an effective, engaging classroom. Defi ning the philosophical framework needs to take place before defi ning an instructional model for the district.

A periodic cycle for curriculum development and review: This ensures that every content area is addressed and that the written curriculum is kept updated. It ensures that any changes in state content standards or modifi cations in testing are addressed in an effi cient manner.

Defi nition and direction of the stages of curriculum development: This allows for the stages of development to produce high quality curriculum. These stages may include time for needs assessment, research and study, curriculum writing, professional development on best practices in the content area (for all staff, not just those involved in curriculum writing), selection of materials to support the written curriculum, professional development to support implementation, and maintenance and review before beginning the cycle again.


Specifi cation of the roles and responsibilities of the board, central offi ce staff members, and school-based staff members in the design and delivery of curriculum: Lists who is responsible for what task. This aspect of the plan delineates which tasks are primarily classroom-based, which are school-based, which are district-based, and which are board-based. For example, it is the board’s responsibility to determine the content of the educational program in congruence with state law, and to approve and adopt curriculum guides. It is the teacher’s role to deliver curriculum, and the principal’s role to monitor delivery of the curriculum.

A format and components for all curriculum, assessment, and instructional guide documents: The format of a curriculum guide. Include components that are consistent for every content area and other aspects that are “fl uid.” Certain aspects of the format may be decided at the district-level (with input solicited from staff). The format should include, minimally, the criteria presented in section A.2.3.

Direction on how state and national standards will be considered in the curriculum: This includes whether or not to utilize a backloaded approach (in which the curriculum is derived from high stakes tested learnings—topological or deep alignment), or a frontloaded approach (which derives the curriculum from national, state, or local learnings).

Requirement for a reasonable number of focused, precise student objectives and expectations, and standards in every content area: Determine how much curriculum is reasonable to teach in a year, a semester, a quarter, a week, or a day. Teaching the curriculum is not about covering content and writing down every good idea for student learning, but rather about student mastery and application of the content. Time is a variable that needs to be considered carefully in the planning stages.

Direction that the curriculum must not only specify the content of the student objectives and expectations, but that multiple contexts and cognitive types will also be included: Context refers to the way in which something is learned or practiced. Cognitive type refers to the cognitive functioning that students engage in when accomplishing a task or practicing a skill. For example, we can expect that all students master a particular skill such as spelling at a recall level in the classroom, but if students do not have the experience of applying that skill in a real life setting (real writing for a purpose), it may never be learned beyond recall on the weekly spelling test.

Specifi cation of the overall beliefs and procedures governing the assessment of curriculum effectiveness: What are all the instruments that will be used to measure progress toward meeting goals, including the goal of students mastering curriculum objectives? Will they be curriculum-based assessments, diagnostic assessments, rubrics, or another format? Are they intended to direct instructional decisions regarding prerequisite knowledge, short-term acquisition, and long-term mastery of the learning?

Direction for curriculum to be designed so that it supports teachers differentiating both their instructional approaches and the selection of student objectives at the right level of diffi culty: This is to provide for an accelerated pace for students who do not have the prerequisites knowledge (are below grade level) as well as those who have already mastered the objectives and need a more challenging, rigorous pace (those above grade level).

Procedures that teachers and administrators will follow in using assessment data to strengthen curriculum and instructional decision making: How and by whom will the data be used; how will the data be collected, analyzed, and disseminated to teachers, administrators, and concerned stakeholders?

Procedures for conducting formative and summative evaluations of programs and content: How will program evaluation be used in the district to support continual improvement?

A comprehensive professional development program linked to curriculum design and its delivery: What professional development will be provided in design of curriculum, in best practices, in basic instruction in each content area, and in implementation for each new or revised content area to support teachers’ work (see Recommendation 5)?

Procedures for monitoring the delivery of curriculum: What processes will be used by principals and district administrators in monitoring curriculum delivery?


A communication plan for the process of curriculum design and delivery, as well as a celebration of progress and quality: How will the stakeholders, both internal and external, come to understand the “Roger’s Way” of curriculum design, delivery, and celebration of progress and quality?

Curriculum Design


G.2.5: Require that efforts to revise the written curriculum documents begin immediately; require that decisions regarding which content areas receive priority be data-based (Which core classes do not have curriculum documents? In which content area does the data shows students are least successful?).

G.2.6: Review and adopt curriculum prior to its implementation. The following are minimum components needed in every guide (see A.2.3):

Aligned, specifi c learner objectives (based on state content standards),•

A scope and sequence that defi nes prerequisite learnings,•

Assessment instruments and sample test items linked to the objective(s),•

Instructional resources (defi ned for each objective), and•

Suggested strategies and approaches for teaching the objectives.•

G.2.7: Direct the superintendent (or designee) to review the concepts of deep curriculum alignment and require that those concepts form the basis for curriculum design efforts across the district (English and Steffy, 2001).


A.2.3: Defi ne the format of a “model” curriculum guide. The following components are minimum requirements:

Objectives: 1. Objectives should be a “refi nement” of the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks, Student Learning Expectations: a specifi c restatement of the intended skill or knowledge to be learned, the context in which it is to be learned and practiced, and the standard of performance by which a teacher knows mastery of that skill or knowledge has been achieved. These should relate to the Student Learning Expectations (SLEs), but these give the teacher more precise information on mastery and clearly defi ne which objectives are assigned to which grade or instructional level (because the fi rst grade objective is clearly different from the second). The number of objectives included in the guide must also be manageable.

Assessment: 2. Specifi c examples of how each objective will be assessed must be included in the guide. District formative assessments need to be cross-referenced throughout. Sample Released Items from Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) can also be included, but should be deconstructed and “deepened” to provide students with a challenging level, ensuring their success on a multitude of test items related to the same content (English and Steffy, 2001).

Prerequisites/Scope and Sequence:3. Place the learner objectives (Pre K-12) within a scope and sequence document to allow teachers to easily discern student prerequisite content and skills and the learnings to be achieved by students. This facilitates articulation from one level to the next and assures greater coordination across a single level or course. The scope and sequence is a section of the written curriculum guide in hard copy for teachers and administrators.

Suggested Strategies and Approaches: 4. This item is a critical part of ensuring high expectations for students, achieving deep alignment, and providing teachers with support in deciding ways to teach the assigned objectives. Flexibility is permitted in how teachers approach a given objective, but this


component provides teachers with invaluable, research-proven suggestions if they want or need them. Suggested strategies incorporate those contexts and cognitive types known to be part of the tests in use. This is the main idea of the “doctrine of no surprises”. The student should know how to tackle the types of problems likely to be encountered on any high-stakes test (English and Steffy, 2001).

Resources and Materials: 5. Every textbook, recommended professional resource, visual aid, technological enhancement or program, and other resource is listed in the guide and referenced by objective and strategy. Suggested materials and resources have been analyzed for deep alignment to the curriculum and the tests in use; modifi cations are also included in the guide.

Beyond these components, the format for the guides should be determined. These do not necessarily need to be identical by content area, but within content areas it is recommended that a common format is selected and adhered to for consistency across the district.

A.2.4: Direct in the design of the curriculum the expectation that instruction will be differentiated to accommodate individual student academic needs and learning styles. This requires suggestions for remediation as well as enrichment within the guides themselves (see A.2.8).

A.2.5: Engage in a task analysis to ensure that the objectives, resources, and strategies included in curriculum guides are deeply aligned to the tests in use. Research the methods and ideas presented in the book Deep Curriculum Alignment, by English and Steffy (2001), or contract for deep curriculum training (contact PDK for more information) to gain the skills necessary to analyze and deconstruct released test items and to better prepare for current and future tests in use.

Curriculum Implementation

Instruction


G.2.8: Direct the superintendent (or designee) to review research-supported instructional strategies that are effective with linguistically, culturally, and economically diverse student populations. Require the review of research to focus especially on those characteristics that have been shown to decrease dropout rates and improve student attitudes regarding schooling.

G.2.9: Direct the superintendent (or designee) to develop administrative regulations that defi ne the instructional model to be adopted in classrooms throughout the district. Use the philosophical framework and results from the review of research as a foundation.

G.2.10: Direct the superintendent (or designee) to regularly evaluate the effectiveness of the delivery of curriculum across the district. Use data from multiple sources: formative assessments, summative assessments, walk-throughs, and formal teacher observations.

G.2.11: Adopt the policies and regulations described above when drafted; direct the superintendent to ensure their implementation.


A.2.6: Assist the board in developing the policies described above.

A.2.7: Defi ne the instructional model expected to be used in classrooms across the district. Include the results of the review of research on effective instruction with linguistically, economically, and culturally diverse students to inform this decision. Communicate the model to teachers and administrators. The model should accomplish the following:

Describe the ways in which district-adopted curriculum is expected to be delivered. The effective teaching 1. practices district leadership expects should be specifi cally described in writing and adopted in policy to ensure implementation. Suggested practices should be research-based, developmentally appropriate, as well as relevant, and include:


Implementing higher-order questioning that helps students see the “big picture” of the concepts, • knowledge, and skills being taught, as well as facilitating a deeper understanding on the part of students;

Differentiating instruction to meet the individual needs of all students;•

Using small group activities, paired tasks, and cooperative learning strategies;•

Comparing and contrasting new concepts, knowledge, and skills with concepts, skills, and experiences • already familiar to students;

Engaging students in experimental inquiry, problem-solving, and investigation;•

Having students set their own learning goals, develop strategies for attaining them, and monitor their • own progress toward meeting those goals;

Engaging students in meta-cognitive activities;•

Using non-linguistic means to support comprehension, identifi cation, and the retention of new concepts • or knowledge; and

Tailoring instruction to the cultural, economic, and linguistic diversity present in every classroom, • recognizing and valuing differences and similarities, and emphasizing the benefi ts of cultural pluralism.

Require monitoring of the curriculum delivery for the teaching strategies and practices expected to be used 2. in the classroom.

A.2.8: As part of the instructional model, incorporate the expectation for differentiating instruction in the classroom to meet individual student needs.

Monitoring

A.2.9: Require monitoring to be the primary responsibility of building administrators, in keeping with their role as instructional leaders. Focus on learner objectives and the expected instructional model.

A.2.10: Employ a collaborative, non-threatening observation process (in addition to walk-throughs) to specifi cally evaluate the student artifacts and objectives being used in each classroom.

The steps outlined above are intended to provide Rogers Public Schools with direction for establishing an effective system for managing curriculum to assure improved student achievement. Attention to these steps will provide greater focus on district priorities and needs and establish a greater constancy of purpose in those tasks that have the greatest impact on student learning.

Recommendation 3: Research, identify, and implement strategies to eliminate inequities and inequalities that impede opportunities for all students to succeed.

Equal access to programs and services available in schools is present in an effective school district. Program and service access should not be determined by gender, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. A well-managed school system refl ects a strong commitment to success for all learners. Decisions are made that provide students with equal opportunities and equitable support to achieve intended outcomes. Equality and fairness for all students are expected in areas such as student retention, suspensions, and graduation rates.

In examining district programs and services, the auditors expected to fi nd similar proportions of students by gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status as refl ected by the student population of the school district. No one student group should be disproportionately represented in various special programs and services.

The auditors found the number of minority teachers remains below that of the students they serve. In addition, there are still disproportional student enrollments by gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status in the special education, advanced placement, and gifted and talented programs (see Finding 3.1). Auditors also found disproportionate gender and ethnic partialities in promotion and retention rates, suspension rates, and dropout and graduation rates (see Finding 3.2).


In order to not perpetuate, but rather overcome, the relative disadvantages that some students bring to the educational system, the following recommendations are presented to the board and superintendent.


G.3.1: Through board policy, involve stakeholders in developing a defi nition of equal access and equity. Establish and communicate a commitment to provide equal access to programs and services and equitable distribution of resources.

G.3.2: Adopt board policy that directs the reduction of the high school dropout rate. Direct the superintendent to develop strategies to help students experience success in the district’s educational program.

G.3.3: Direct the superintendent to review all curriculum areas, programs, and interventions to determine equality of access and equitable distribution of resources using achievement data and cost/benefi t analyses.

G.3.4: Direct the superintendent to develop and implement a comprehensive and realistic recruiting plan to attract minority and male teachers to the district and to develop a program to retain them.

G.3.5: Direct the superintendent to provide frequent and annual updates regarding efforts and progress in eliminating inequalities and inequities within the district.


A.3.1: Assist the board in obtaining stakeholders’ commitment to equal access and equitable allocation of resources. Take steps to ensure that all students can succeed regardless of ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status. Establish connectivity to the budget process.

A.3.2: Prepare drafts of the suggested policies for board review, critique, and approval.

A.3.3: Oversee all reports, budgets, planning documents, assessments, programs, and interventions to ascertain the equitable treatment of all students at all school sites and alignment with district direction.

Require the use and analysis of disaggregated data pertaining to the needs of the current or future students • served as background information in all reports, planning documents, and programming plans.

Require that budgets refl ect the equitable distribution of resources.•

Require regular analysis of disaggregated data pertaining to all district practices in the areas of program • enrollment, disciplinary actions, and interventions to determine disparities and inequities. Use these analyses for equitable and rational program and instructional decision making.

Provide annual reports to the board that describe progress on the demonstrated equitable treatment of • all students.

A.3.4: Develop strategies to increase secondary student attendance and reduce the high school dropout rate. Include the following:

Staff training in cultural diversity and differentiated instruction,•

Ongoing administrator support and monitoring to ensure that skills presented during training are applied • in the classroom,

Evaluation of suspension and expulsion procedures, and•

Accountability for student success by administrators and teachers.•

A.3.5: Monitor placements in special programs for disparities in participation among subgroups.

A.3.6: Develop funding or other appropriate incentives to attract minority and male teachers to the district.


Recommendation 4: Establish and implement comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation plans. Support expanded skills in data use among administrators and teachers. Include data analysis in all planning processes.

A districtwide assessment process that addresses student assessment and program evaluation in a comprehensive manner provides the quality and quantity of information that district staff need to make rational decisions about the design of the curriculum, the delivery of instruction, the effectiveness of programs, and the effi ciency of all district functions. An adequate assessment program ensures that decision makers have viable information from which to initiate changes in district practices to improve student results, ultimately with the same or fewer dollars. Such a process communicates to the public the methods of measurement and accountability used by district leadership. Without good data, achievement gaps between groups of students continue, and staff and the community become discouraged. Similarly, programs are continued despite their inability to demonstrably improve the learning of students in the district.

The Rogers Public Schools Board policies provide the expectation for student assessment and program evaluation occurring with the intent to determine instructional and programmatic effectiveness and effi ciency (see Finding 4.2). Without an established process for the initiation, implementation, and evaluation of programs, district leadership lacks a framework for the development of new initiatives or elimination of unsuccessful programs (see Finding 5.2). The auditors found the scope of formal assessment inadequate to monitor student achievement and provide a seamless continuum of student performance information for curriculum management decision making (see Finding 4.2).

Analysis of achievement scores indicates improvement over time, but gaps in student achievement still exist in core content areas and among groups of students (see Finding 4.3). Rogers Public Schools is a data-rich school district with vast amounts of data available. Utilization of these data varies by school as site-based management is the organizational approach to district endeavors. Program interventions to improve student achievement are not formally planned, implemented, monitored, or evaluated for long-term effectiveness (see Finding 5.2).


G.4.1: Adopt a policy that provides a formalized framework for comprehensive, systematic student assessment that sets forth a purpose, scope, and direction for assessing curriculum at all grade levels and in all subject areas. Include in the policy the expectation that data be used for all decision making by instructional personnel.

G.4.2: Through policy, direct the superintendent to develop comprehensive, systematic student and program assessment planning to be included in an aligned curriculum and assessment management plan that is clearly linked to the mission and goals of the district (see Recommendation 2).

G.4.3: Adopt a policy that establishes a framework for program evaluation. The policy requires that the framework state the purpose, scope, direction, and accountability for evaluation of all programs. Include the requirement for cost-benefi t analysis where appropriate. Require that data be analyzed prior to the implementation of any program, utilized as a monitoring design while a program is operating, and evaluated as a major determining factor for continuation, expansion, or elimination of any program. Include in the policy the expectation that formal monitoring of the implementation of recommendations will occur with subsequent reports to the board.

G.4.4: Support the superintendent in endeavors to train all instructional staff in the collection, analysis, and utilization of data from multiple sources.

G.4.5: Support the superintendent’s efforts to provide dissemination and analysis assistance at the school sites through support personnel, such as literacy coaches, Director of Data and Accountability, and Curriculum Directors.

G.4.6: Write a policy that requires a schedule for reporting results of the effectiveness of the curriculum and program evaluations, and that expects reports be presented to the board.

G.4.7: Allocate adequate resources to support the development and management of comprehensive, systematic student and program assessment planning and interventions.



A.4.1: Assist the board in the development of the policies recommended above. Submit draft policies to the board for adoption.

A.4.2: Develop and implement administrative guidelines that provide guidance and direction to staff relative to revised or new board policies.

A.4.3: Assign the responsibility of developing and implementing formalized procedures for a comprehensive, systematic student and program assessment that is aligned with the curriculum management plan (see Recommendation 2). Procedures should incorporate the characteristics of comprehensive assessment planning (see Finding 4.2.1). Broaden the scope of student assessment to include all courses and all grades K-12.

Incorporate the following:

A system to link assessment results with curriculum revision on a continual cycle;•

A process to monitor reduction of the achievement gap between student subgroups;•

A program evaluation process that includes procedures for adopting, implementing, and monitoring • programs and interventions that are aligned to district priorities and student learning goals with a cost-benefi t analysis; and

A component to annually evaluate the assessment plan.•

A.4.4: Develop a program and intervention screening process to be used districtwide prior to the implementation of any program or intervention. Establish a clearinghouse for approval of such proposals.

Program proposals need to include:

A statement of alignment with established district mission and priorities;•

Alignment with the district’s curriculum and assessment;•

A description of the program;•

Short- and long-term goals and objectives of the program;•

Targeted students served aligned with other programs that may serve the same population;•

A list of required resources and funding sources;•

Budget ramifi cations for start-up and maintenance of the program;•

Formative and summative evaluation procedures;•

Programmatic results;•

Criteria for renewal, expansion, and continuation; and•

Monitoring procedures with reporting responsibilities.•

A.4.5: Conduct an evaluation of all existing programs to determine effectiveness using established guidelines. Modify or eliminate those programs that do not meet the criteria for increased student achievement. Maintain a current list of programs and interventions offered districtwide and by individual schools.

A.4.6: Continue data training sessions and establish short-term and long-term goals to train administrators and teachers to access student data, analyze data, and utilize data to impact teaching and learning. Require training for all teachers, instructional staff, and administrators that is aligned to districtwide efforts to increase student achievement.

A.4.7: Direct that all program evaluations provide a cost-benefi t analysis and recommendations for continuation or elimination.


Recommendation 5: Develop and implement professional development policies, rules, and plans that provide central control and coordination for consistency and continuity in student learning, professional development, and improvement of teaching.

An effective professional development program is guided by a comprehensive plan that provides all staff with the knowledge and skills to be productive and move toward the long-range goals of the district. Professional development that is centrally coordinated with other district and building plans is powerful when it is data-driven and focuses on organizational change. Effective professional development programs offer a variety of delivery models coupled with intensive follow-up and support and are inclusive of all staff. Follow-up activities include meaningful practice of what was presented. High quality programs are ongoing and utilize research-based strategies to guide improvement. Monitoring professional development strategies helps to effectively measure the success of the training in improving student achievement.

The auditors found that current professional development strategies are fragmented in design and delivery and lack a coordinated effort to support curriculum and instruction (see Finding 3.3).


G.5.1: Develop and adopt a policy that describes the district’s expectations and directs professional development efforts in relation to:

Assessing professional development needs relevant to student learning;•

Planning, coordinating, implementing, and evaluating professional development activities in relation • to student achievement; and

Tracking specifi c participation in professional development activities in relation to student • achievement.

G.5.2: Direct the superintendent to develop rules to implement the professional development policy consistently across the district.

G.5.3: Direct the superintendent to develop a comprehensive, long-range staff development plan. The plan should cover at least three years with the understanding that annual updates will ensure connectivity to system priorities. The plan should include the following elements:

Policy that directs staff development activities that are aligned to the district’s long-range plans;•

A framework that fosters the norm for continuous improvement and learning community;•

A process to provide for organizational, unit, and individual professional development in a systemic • manner;

The inclusion of all employees;•

An expectation that each supervisor is a staff developer of staff;•

An expectation that assessment of professional development learning needs be data-driven; •

A focus on proven research-based approaches and activities that have been shown to increase • productivity;

A process to provide for the three phases of the change process: initiation, implementation, and • institutionalization;

A human learning and development and adult learning approach;•

A variety of professional development approaches;•

A provision to require follow-up and on-the-job application to ensure improvement;•


An evaluation process that is ongoing, includes multiple sources of information, focuses on all levels • of the organization, and is based on actual behavior; and

A process for system-wide coordination and a process to perform clearinghouse functions.•

G.5.4: Direct the superintendent to annually report on the progress of the comprehensive staff development plan, ensuring the program meets board policy and is aligned with system-wide goals and priorities. The report should include:

An overview of the process used to assess professional development needs;•

A review of the identifi ed professional development needs, including what student learning needs were • identifi ed;

A review of the planning process used to identify and coordinate the best approaches to address the • student needs, including the process to identify what knowledge and skills are required by teachers and/or administrators to address those student needs;

A review of the major learning outcomes or specifi cally what the district and sites were striving to • accomplish during the training activities;

An overview of the major learning activities offered both at the district and site levels;•

A categorization showing the alignment of learning activities in relation to the performance goals • contained in the Strategic Plan;

An update on the percentage of targeted teachers who participated in high quality professional • development by content area; and

A review of the evaluation procedures used to measure the effectiveness of professional development • activities in relation to the planned teacher and student outcomes.


A.5.1: Assist the board of education with the development of the recommended policy that establishes district standards and expectations for professional development.

A.5.2: Develop administrative guidelines, rules, and regulations to implement the professional development policy districtwide.

A.5.3: Assign the deputy superintendent the responsibility to develop a comprehensive, long-range staff development plan, as described above, for review and approval. Particular attention should be given to establishing a feasible number of priorities within established timelines.

A.5.4: Assign the deputy superintendent the responsibility to report annually to the board of education on the comprehensive professional development plan, as described above.

A.5.5: Provide the resources and funding necessary to create a professional development data warehouse that is able to track and report both specifi c and disaggregated participation in high quality, content area professional development activities.

A.5.6: Design and conduct needs assessments to identify the strategies and skills required to ensure implementation of best practices derived from current research.

A.5.7: Develop processes to monitor implementation of a professional development program, including a coaching component to reinforce and support newly acquired skills for teachers.


Recommendation 6: Systematically evaluate and implement district programs and District Improvement Plan interventions based on reliable measures of student achievement data and other goal-related performance indicators.

Rogers Public Schools board policy does not explicitly require that all programs be evaluated, and when particular programs are evaluated, these evaluations are not driven by a formal, written plan (see Finding 4.3). The district has no formalized program evaluation procedures and requirements. Procedures exist that are specifi cally written to comply with the directives of grant or program funding entities. Such practice provides the board and administration with evaluation documents that do not meet their needs. Absent standardized program evaluation procedures, appraisal is predicated on informal, anecdotal data and testimonials from which the board makes decisions regarding whether programs are expanded, modifi ed, or eliminated. As a result, the termination of programs is most often linked to the loss of or signifi cant reduction of program funding rather than the application of evaluation criteria to measure program effectiveness.

The auditors identifi ed no district documents or plans that outline a mechanism to justify the need for creating new programs or expanding existing interventions. Board policies do not establish expectations for a comprehensive and ongoing program evaluation system or the use of evaluation data and analysis to make major programmatic decisions. RPS board policy states that instructional programs be evaluated periodically, but the policy must clarify board direction to conduct internal and external evaluations and research regarding the effi cacy of existing instructional efforts. Program assessment and monitoring constitute the board’s use of evaluation data to scrutinize program successes and continuation.

Board policies establish a general expectation for the use of student achievement data in district planning and reporting to the board, but that expectation is too broadly worded to provide adequate direction to district administration.

Rogers Public Schools needs to establish, implement, and monitor consistent protocols for using data in all areas of decision making and train staff in the skills needed to implement the protocols. The following actions are designed to establish system-wide consistency and intentionality in the use of data for making decisions in all areas. It is anticipated that these would be implemented over a three-year period and coordinated with the actions in Recommendation 4.


G.6.1: Adopt a board policy that requires that program evaluation plans be incorporated into all instructional initiatives, and that all programs undergo systematic internal or external review on a three-year evaluation cycle.

G.6.2: Adopt a board policy that requires that program evaluations go beyond compliance requirements to include linkage to district goals and evidence of effectiveness, using student achievement data and other performance indicators.

G.6.3: Direct the superintendent to require schools to monitor student achievement results as a component of establishing or continuing programs and interventions.


A.6.1: Assist the board in development of a policy that requires the linkage of instructional programs to district goals every three years.

A.6.2: Incorporate an evaluation component in any instructional program initiated by the district, and require schools to monitor student achievement results as a component of establishing, continuing, or terminating programs and interventions.

A.6.3: Develop a prioritized list of key programs requiring annual internal reviews and an external review on a three-year cycle.


A.6.4: Assign administrative responsibility for regular evaluation of district programs and initiatives. Assign administrative responsibility for implementation of recommendations resulting from program reviews.

A.6.5: Plan and implement a systematic reporting process to the board of education regarding the status and progress of district priorities, including student achievement.

A.6.6: Develop district criteria to be utilized in decision making, whether to initiate, continue, or terminate academic intervention programs.

A.6.7: Provide training for administrators and teacher leaders in facilitation skills for leading teams through the process of analyzing data and developing plans. Monitor planning documents for adherence to the specifi cations for data use.

Recommendation 7: Develop and implement a budgeting process that aligns district- and building-level resources to curricular goals and strategic priorities. Include systematic cost-benefi t analyses using assessment data to assure that expenditures are producing desired results and are directed to the areas of greatest need.

Evidence of specifi c linkage between the budget and strategies for improving student achievement is critical to a school system’s success. Intended results are lost or delayed when a system lacks a thorough, systemic process to ensure that the fi nancial plan represents the district’s student learning priorities. To allocate resources without comprehensive evaluation of results ignores the annual opportunity to strategically establish priorities and pursue intended results with new direction. Without comprehensive budgeting practices, system-wide effectiveness is a matter of chance rather than intentional design.

The auditors found that the district’s budgeting process has not implemented the critical steps and elements that provide connections between data and decisions and between allocations and results (see Finding 5.1). The auditors found that signifi cant decisions regarding the use of fi nancial resources are left to the discretion of each school.

A budget process and fi nancial standards in district planning are not evident in RPS. Financial expectations are not included in the long-range plan (see Finding 1.2). Board policies do not require the use of program-centered budgeting (see Finding 1.1). Technology planning lacks district standards to which fi nancial needs can be aligned the budgeting process (see Finding 5.3). The stability obtained through the implementation of the following functions will provide close linkage between fi nancial planning and desired student achievement results.


G.7.1: Direct the superintendent to draft a policy requiring changes to the budget development process that refl ect the criteria found in Exhibit 5.1.1.

G.7.2: Direct the superintendent to establish procedures for the correlation between the budget and the system’s goals, and require that budget and staffi ng procedures refl ect a direct connection to established data-driven priorities.

G.7.3: Require the superintendent to communicate how the proposed budget addresses goals and priorities and responds to student and program evaluation data as part of the budget development process at the district and school levels.

G.7.4: Direct the superintendent to develop a process that will direct resources at areas of greatest need based on information so that cost-benefi t analyses of results can be utilized for decision making on a continuous basis.


A.7.1: Design or revise board policies as noted above for board approval and adoption.


A.7.2: Revisit strategic and technology planning to establish short-range and long-range fi nancial obligations for the completion of action steps over an estimated time frame. Use these fi nancial estimates in the budgetary process.

A.7.3: Review and prepare to implement the components of a curriculum-driven budget presented in Exhibit 5.1.1.

A.7.4: Design strategies for making budget decisions integral to the district’s overall systematic planning process. Budget development is not an independent task performed annually. Financial planning is an ongoing process to ensure that budget allocations are based on curricular priorities and program objectives as specifi ed in the district’s planning documents.

A.7.5: Establish a communications link during regularly scheduled Cabinet meetings to enhance the sharing of budget/cost information, achievement data, and program effectiveness evaluations. Such linkages facilitate cost-benefi t analysis of programs and help inform future budgeting decisions.

A.7.6: Follow these major steps in implementing a program-based, curriculum-driven budgeting process:

Identify various educational activities or programs, and group them into broad areas of need or purpose • served. Examples include elementary instruction, middle school instruction, high school instruction, instructional support programs, professional development, and technology. Divide the organization into the most logical but fewest number of subgroups based on the existing operating structure.

Assemble all budgetary information related to each identifi ed curricular or program area. Combine • assessment information on achievement, time allocations, grouping arrangements, and similar factors. Clarify expectations for various support services (e.g., library, technology), and establish parameters to support equitable allocations in these areas.

Build budget “packages” within each of the subgroups by the priority with which they deliver the • objectives of the area of need or purpose. For example, any given program could be defi ned and packaged into units that provide programs and services at 90, 100, and 105 percent of last year’s budget level.

Assign the responsibility of preparing budget packages to specifi c administrators. Each budget package • represents a level of activity that builds sequentially on previous packages. Budget packages should be concise and meaningful and be developed with broad-based, districtwide input.

Use organizational performance data and appropriate involvement of staff (including principals and • teachers) to defi ne current and desired levels of services and program objectives.

Attach a goal statement stating the purpose of each program area or package. Each budget request • should describe the consequences of funding or non-funding in terms of performance results.

Compile goal statements and budget packages and provide to appropriate staff to gather data that best • describes service levels, program outputs, and cost benefi ts.

Compile budget packages, including costs, into a worksheet with instructions for evaluating and • ranking.

Establish a Finance Task Force Committee that includes the superintendent, treasurer, deputy • superintendent, and a principal from each grade level.

Submit budget program packages to the Finance Task Force Committee for evaluation and ranking. • Budget requests compete with each other for funding based on the evaluation or prioritization of need and relationship to achievement of program effectiveness.

Finalize budget allocations based on the revenues available, the authorized appropriation levels, and • the program funding priorities and rankings of the Finance Task Force Committee. Submit budget and recommendations to the board.


The board reviews recommendations, evaluates priorities, establishes which programs and services are • to be funded and at what level, and adopts the budget.

A.7.7: Following budget adoption by the board, require that the treasurer work in concert with the program and evaluation staff to monitor program expenditures and effectiveness as measured by completion of objectives, goal accomplishments, and cost/benefi t factors. Regular reviews of expenditures and quarterly evaluation of progress on goals and objectives should be reported to the administrators, staff, and board for program modifi cations as warranted.

A.7.8: As multi-year fi nancial plans are developed, modify those in accordance with data obtained during the monitoring of each fi scal year’s budget implementation. Consistently ensure that district and school plans are considered in the prioritization process.

A.7.9: Retain the oversight of fi nancial decision making within the roles and responsibilities of the superintendent. With a performance-based budgeting approach, both fi nances and programmatic efforts are integrated and monitored simultaneously.

A.7.10: Train administrative staff, teachers, and resource personnel in the preparation and implementation of program-based budgets on an annual basis. Train in-district personnel as trainers to ensure the broadest implementation of program-based budgeting process.

Recommendation 8: Update job descriptions to provide clear role responsibilities and expectations. Revise the organizational chart to meet audit criteria and improve clarity of functional relationships.

Job descriptions are clearly written explanations of duties and qualifi cations of persons employed by the school district. They provide employees information regarding what background is necessary to successfully prepare for the job and how positions are to function within the organization, including assignment of supervisory relationships and the critical components of the job. A clear set of job descriptions supports the district’s internal and external communications by explaining who performs what duties within the organization. To communicate graphically the responsibilities and functional relationships within a school system, a table of organization (organizational chart) and job descriptions must be current and accurate.

In the Rogers Public Schools, the organizational chart does not meet all audit criteria for sound organizational management (see Finding 1.2). Problems in meeting the characteristics outlined in Exhibit 1.2.1 result in confusion about responsibilities and vagueness in indications of the assessment, program evaluation, and school improvement functions. Scalar relationships are not accurately represented on the table of organization, with positions at different levels of responsibility and compensation depicted on the same horizontal plane.

The district’s job descriptions do not meet audit criteria for accurate and clear specifi cations of responsibilities and relationships in the district (see Finding 1.2 and Exhibit 1.2.5). Not all positions on the table of organization were found to have job descriptions. In addition, all of the job descriptions presented to the auditors were not included in the table of organization.

The auditors provide suggested steps to be taken in order to remedy the areas of defi ciency noted in the audit analysis and recommend that these be accomplished within the next year, and sooner for any positions modifi ed or added to the current administrative and staff team.

Governance Function: The following actions are recommended to the Board of Education of Rogers Public Schools:

G.8.1: Direct the superintendent to draft, for board review and adoption, a policy requiring annual reviews and updates of the district’s job descriptions and organizational chart so that all information communicated about roles, responsibilities, and functions is accurate and current.

G.8.2: Direct the superintendent to provide the board of education with an annual review of the organizational chart, and to provide assurances that all job descriptions are current.



A.8.1: Assist the board in development of the policy described in G.7.1 and present the draft policy to the board for adoption. Develop administrative procedures to keep the organizational chart and job descriptions current and consistent with the board policy.

A.8.2: Direct staff to include the essential components for all job descriptions as outlined in Finding 1.2.

A.8.3: Develop accurate and current job descriptions for all district positions; remove outdated descriptions to the archives. First, develop or update job descriptions for all positions depicted on the organizational chart. Begin review process with all other employees to verify accuracy of the responsibilities and duties. Include the date of drafting and approval for the most recent revision on all job description drafts and approved fi nal documents.

A.8.4: Update the district’s organizational chart to meet the design requirements included in Exhibit 1.2.1 and to address the defi ciencies noted in Finding 1.2.

A.8.5: Ensure that all organizational table drafts and adopted documents bear the date of drafting or adoption/approval and that the most recent revision replaces earlier versions in document collections and any other communication media.

A.8.6: Annually provide the board with a review of the organizational chart and provide assurances that all job descriptions are listed and current.


V. SUMMARYA Curriculum Management Audit is basically an “exception” report. That is, it does not give a summative, overall view of the suitability of a system. Rather, it holds the system up to scrutiny against the predetermined standards of quality, notes relevant fi ndings about the system, and cites discrepancies from audit standards. Recommendations are then provided accordingly to help the district improve its quality in the areas of noted defi ciency.

With the direction outlined in the District Strategic Plan, the school district is at a natural point for reviewing, evaluating, and affi rming or changing its practices and plans. This juncture is an ideal time to request external review such as that provided through the Curriculum Management Audit and its analysis protocol. The audit invitation also expresses the commitment to ongoing improvement on behalf of the district and school leaders.

The Rogers Public Schools faces numerous challenges, not the least of which is adapting to its changing student population and the attendant issues related to classroom instruction. Most school systems are facing a tightening of revenues, increasing requirements of the No Child Left Behind law, and an increase in the diversity of needs among students. For Rogers Public Schools the important elements of planning will be an emphasis on data-driven decisions and practices, and the commitment to professional development to help staff members meet the challenges of the decade.

The intent of this audit report is to identify areas in which the education program and supporting district operations do not meet audit criteria for effectiveness and to offer reasonable recommendations related to the identifi ed areas of need. The report contains 15 fi ndings, for which auditors have provided eight comprehensive recommendations with action steps to help bring the specifi ed conditions to a status of congruence with audit standards.

When reviewing the current status of Rogers Public Schools in relationship to the principles of Standard One, which addresses system control and oversight, the auditors found that board policies are inadequate to provide guidance for curriculum management and to establish quality control of the educational program. Board policies lack suffi cient clarity and thoroughness of content to adequately provide clear expectations in such areas of educational program management as design and delivery of the curriculum, professional development, monitoring of curriculum implementation, student assessment, program evaluation, student access to offerings, and other related aspects of policy guidance for systemic direction.

Board policy direction for district and school planning is clear and strong, leaning primarily on state requirements. However, there is little direction for planning in the areas of curriculum management, professional development, student assessment and program evaluation, instructional technology, and budget development. The required district and school improvement planning is happening, but other planning has been minimal to non-existent. Current documents do not meet audit criteria to provide quality direction for ongoing improvement efforts and to cohesively link those efforts across all units and functions within the school district.

The current table of organization does not meet all audit criteria for sound organizational management. Functions are generally grouped effectively, though a few problems were identifi ed in the logical clustering of functions. Scalar relationships are not accurately represented on the table of organization, with positions at different levels of responsibility and compensation depicted on the same horizontal plane.

The district’s job descriptions do not meet all audit criteria for accurate and clear specifi cations of responsibilities and relationships in the district. Not all positions on the table of organization have job descriptions. Auditors rated 33 percent of the job descriptions as strong, with all four audit-required critical elements receiving ratings of adequate or higher.

Under the parameters of Standard Two, the auditors examined the district’s direction for teaching and learning. Specifi cally, they looked for systematic curriculum management planning, representation of curricular offerings in high quality written curriculum guides, and clear alignment among the written, taught, and tested curriculum. The auditors found that the Rogers Public Schools does not have a comprehensive curriculum management plan to provide direction and expected processes for the design and delivery of the curriculum. Although some elements of curriculum management planning are in place, a single plan that provides a comprehensive and cohesive approach to curriculum management is not available.


The scope of the written curriculum is inadequate at the middle and high school levels. This lack of a written curriculum for all offerings impedes quality control and contributes to inconsistency in the curriculum provided to students across the schools, thereby impeding student achievement at the desired level. The auditors found that the Rogers Public Schools curriculum documents lack the basic components considered essential to quality curriculum guides. The guide inadequacy prevents connectivity with other similar curricula and grade levels, as well as articulation from one grade to another. Without these components in the written curriculum documents, aligned both vertically and horizontally, the delivery of a focused instructional program is impeded, and improving achievement for all students is seriously hampered. Further, students’ equal access to the curriculum is seriously obstructed without quality guides to provide instructional cohesion and consistency.

During brief visits to all schools and most classrooms, the auditors observed that the predominant instructional practices in the classrooms are inconsistent with the expectations outlined in the teachers’ evaluation form. The auditors observed that the predominant instructional practice was direct, whole-group instruction. Differentiation of instruction, use of best practices in instructional strategies, and effective instructional pedagogy are emphasized by district documents but were not observed in auditors’ classroom visits. Instruction is generally limited to lower level cognitive types, and lecture-type, whole-group instruction is the primary mode of instructional delivery of the curriculum.

In Standard Three analysis, the auditors study both connectivity with the system and equity. The connectivity focuses on professional development as the critical means to connecting organizational intent with worksite delivery or classroom instruction. When considering equity issues, the auditors are looking for equal opportunities being enhanced by needs-based differentiation in such areas as special programs and services, placement and instructional practices, school-based activity practices, and funding access.

The auditors found that the Rogers Public Schools professional development program is inadequate to develop the necessary professional skills for effective design and delivery of the curriculum. There is no district-level planning or coordinating framework that directs the content and methods for professional development or aligns them with district goals. Professional development decisions are largely campus-based, though there are some examples of emerging district direction for professional development. Planning for professional development content is not consistently based on data and evidence of student needs for mastery of the curriculum objectives as determined by assessment data.

The auditors’ review of comparability of student access to courses and services raised several concerns about equity and equal opportunity. Subgroups of the student population show varying results in performance on assessments in core academic areas, with Hispanic, economically disadvantaged, disabled, and English language learner students experiencing the least comparable success. Some evidence indicates that the practices in student placement have contributed to this phenomenon. One imbalance identifi ed was the placement/enrollment patterns in special programs. Hispanic and male students are underrepresented in the high school advanced courses. Another imbalance impacting students is the disproportionate racial/ethnic representation among teachers and administrators.

The auditors’ review of disciplinary action and retentions by gender and ethnicity revealed that male students are retained at a rate almost double that of female students in grades K-8. No data was provided for high school students. Dropout data indicates that male students dropped out at a rate 25 percent greater than female students in grades 7-12. Caucasian students dropped out at a rate almost double that of Hispanic students (64 percent compared to 34 percent). An inequality exists also in the suspension rates. Male students were suspended at a rate almost 2.5 times greater than female students. Proportionately, Caucasian students are suspended less often than their percentage of enrollment (52 percent suspension/60 percent enrollment) compared to Hispanic students (43 percent enrolled/37 percent enrollment). Inequalities in suspensions, retentions, and dropouts affect subgroup graduation rates.

In Standard Four the focus is on feedback of various types and how the system uses those data. Typically, the information might come from student assessments, program evaluations, surveys, or follow-up studies with former students. Auditors found that the Rogers Public Schools lacks a comprehensive student assessment system and program evaluation system to guide decision making in the district. As a result, Rogers Public


Schools does not generate all the information needed to adequately plan for the design and delivery of the curriculum to improve student learning and to achieve the district’s goals.

Most of the district’s assessment efforts are driven by state requirements. Formative assessment efforts have begun in the district but are inconsistent across various schools and do not refl ect districtwide efforts. The scope of assessment is adequate in mathematics and language arts, but inadequate in the other core subject areas of science and social studies. Many of the course offerings in other subject areas are not included in the district’s student assessment program.

Rogers Public Schools students’ performance on state assessments is generally above state and national averages. However, as scores have risen, auditors found that scores for the different campuses reveal varying achievement levels. The achievement gap between Caucasian students and Hispanic students, special education students, economically disadvantaged students, and limited English profi cient students is variable. While the gaps are narrowing between all students and Hispanic students in mathematics, years to parity calculations in K-5 literacy indicate that the gap will never narrow if today’s rate of improvement were to continue.

By analyzing the implications of the data trends reviewed, the auditors determined that educational changes are needed in order for the Rogers Public Schools to reach desired levels of excellence and competitive rankings. How a school district uses the data in making important decisions can signifi cantly affect the quality and outcomes of those decisions. Auditors found that the collection, dissemination, and application of data to inform instruction and to plan for improving student performance on local, state, and national tests is still an emerging practice. The district and school improvement plans have begun to use data in establishing goals, and have targeted the state assessment information to help improve instruction, interventions, and curriculum content.

In analyzing Standard Five, the auditors found that the Rogers Public Schools has not characteristically employed processes for budget development that meet audit criteria for a curriculum-driven, program-focused budget. Evidence did not indicate that student assessment results had infl uenced allocation decisions, and no systematic process was in place for the evaluation of discrete programs and the use of those results in budget planning. No cost-benefi t analysis is systematically incorporated into the budget planning process to force consideration of various levels of funding for existing programs and services in the budget year being planned. Absence of these systematic steps may impede results over time by not maximizing the use of data for results-based decisions.

The leadership of the Rogers Public Schools has implemented a number of interventions to support student academic achievement needs. The auditors did not fi nd a districtwide process for the selection, development, implementation, and evaluation of these interventions.

Overall, the audit team found the motivation and intent of professionals in Rogers Public Schools to be emerging into a future-oriented willingness to learn, grow, and meet the changing needs of students. There is evidence of an energetic drive to create the needed changes that will launch strong advances in student achievement. However, some visual indicators of needs for teacher support in teaching to an increasingly diverse student group were noted. Some staff opinions refl ected implicit socioeconomic partialities and resistance to the changes in the school communities, implying that these are the “excuses” for some students not learning. Research clearly shows that these circumstances are simply barriers to be overcome, and that they can be overcome with aligned curriculum, effective teaching practices, and system- and community-wide support for improved student achievement. With the professional backgrounds, experience, and commitment of so many district and school leaders and staff members, the auditors fi rmly believe that the Rogers Public Schools will move to higher levels of excellence. The district is poised to move from “Good to Great” and from “Great to Excellent.”

The PDK/CMSi audit team has suggested numerous steps for improving all areas in which the district’s current status precluded meeting audit criteria. While additional actions might be developed by the district administration and staff to implement these recommended changes, most of the recommendations that have been offered have a history of success in similar school systems. The fi rst step is for the superintendent to develop a work plan for responding to the fi ndings and recommendations. With eventual approval by the board of education and active implementation over the next three to fi ve years by the administration, this blueprint can bring organization effectiveness and student achievement to new heights.


VI. APPENDICES


Appendix A

Auditors’ Biographical Data

Roger C. Antón, Jr., M.A., Lead Auditor

Roger Antón is Superintendent of the Salinas Union High School District in Salinas, California. In his 40 years in education, he has served as Associate Superintendent—Instructional Services, a junior high/middle school principal, and assistant principal for 33 years. He was a junior high school classroom teacher and activities director for seven years. He has extensive experiences in all aspects of district operations: curriculum and instruction, budgeting, personnel, staff development, strategic planning, categorical programs, leadership

training, and pupil services. He is a certifi ed trainer in the “Downey Walk-Through” process, “Deep Alignment” of curriculum, “50 Ways to Close the Achievement Gap” (a process for school improvement), “Examining Student Work”, and “Performance-Based Budgeting.”

Roger received his B.A. in History from the University of California, Riverside, and his M.A. in Education/History from California State University, San Bernardino. He completed his Curriculum Management Audit (CMA) training in California in 1997. He has served as an auditor of school districts and an External Evaluator for the “School Review for Higher School Performance” process. He has personally experienced an audit when his district underwent a CMA audit in 1997 and a Post-Audit in 2005.

Sandra M. Blair, Ed.D.

Dr. Sandra Blair is an independent educational consultant. Most of her recent work has been as a contract consultant with the Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning. She is a regional consultant for the Georgia PreK Program. She retired as Director of Student Services and Federal Programs from Baldwin County Schools in Milledgeville, Georgia. Previously, she worked as an Education Program Specialist for Oconee RESA and in various roles at the Georgia Department of Education. The most recent position she held with GDOE

was a Team Leader for School Improvement Teams.

In over 40 years of experience, Sandy has served as an elementary teacher, an elementary counselor, a psychologist, and an administrator at both the local and state levels. She holds a B.S. in Elementary Education, an M.A. in Elementary Education and Guidance and Counseling, and an Ed.D. in Counseling Psychology from Ball State University. She received her CMSi Curriculum Management Audit training in 2000.

Kay Coleman, M.Ed.

Kay Coleman is an independent consultant and retired school administrator, having served in the roles of Assistant Superintendent for Educational Services in two urban districts in Phoenix, Arizona (Madison and Cartwright), as well as Executive Director of a BOCES in Durango, Colorado. During her 30-year career in public education, she was a classroom teacher, reading specialist, elementary principal, and Director of Curriculum in Deer Valley School District, and a principal in Tempe Schools in the suburbs of Phoenix.

Kay has served as principal investigator and co-principal investigator of several systemic change projects in mathematics through the National Science Foundation and the United States Department of Education. She is a contributing author on a number of books on teaching mathematics and literacy. Kay earned her M.Ed. from Arizona State University and completed her Curriculum Management Audit training in 1992 in San Antonio, Texas.


Appendix A (continued)

Auditors’ Biographical Data

Ronnie Thompson, M.Ed.

Ronnie Thompson is currently Assistant Superintendent for School Improvement of the Texarkana Independent School District in Texarkana, Texas. Formally, he has served as Executive Director of School Improvement, Associate Principal, Assistant Principal, and a classroom teacher. He is an experienced teacher in the Career and Technology fi eld and has served as an adjunct professor of education at Texas A&M University—Texarkana.

Ronnie is responsible for Curriculum Alignment, Assessment, Staff Development, Federal Programs, and Campus Operations. He is a graduate of Texas A&M University in Business Management and received his Masters Degree in Educational Administration from Texas A&M University—Texarkana. Ronnie completed his Curriculum Management Audit training in Phoenix, Arizona.

H. Susan Villa, Ed.D.

Dr. Susan Villa has over 30 years of service in education, ranging from being a classroom teacher to a school psychologist, administrator, and university professor. She currently serves as Deputy Superintendent for the San Benito County Offi ce of Education. Her work has revolved around assisting districts with developing standards-based curriculum, pacing calendars, aligned assessments, and staff development. Susan is also a national trainer of the program “Walk-Throughs as an Effective Coaching Strategy for Increasing Student

Achievement.” In this role, she has trained well over 1,000 administrators on strategies for observing in the classroom with a lens for providing refl ective feedback for staff.

Susan received a M.Ed. in Secondary Education/Special Education from Boston State College, a M.S. in School Psychology from San Jose State University, an Administrative Credential from San Jose State University, and an Ed.D. in Organization and Leadership from the University of San Francisco. She completed her Curriculum Management Audit training in 1997. Since that time she has served as an External Evaluator for underperforming schools, and a curriculum management auditor, has been certifi ed by the California Department of Education as a Lead School Assistance Intervention Team (SAIT) provider, and has coordinated a County Achievement Team (CAT) program working with Program Improvement schools.


Appendix B

List of Documents Reviewedby the

Rogers Public Schools Audit TeamAcademic Coaches Plan

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Reports by school 2007-08

Alternative Learning documents and reports

Arkansas State Curriculum Standards

Assessment data and formative assessment samples

Board meeting minutes (2007-08)

Board membership information 1998-2008

Board policies

Budget planning process

Class size data 2007-2009

Combined Instructional Procedures Handbook

Community information

Computer inventory information by school/district

Course offerings—student registration information

Curriculum focus group minutes

Curriculum Guides and/or course outlines

Curriculum Maps

Demographic data for 2001-2008

Directory of schools and principals

District Administrative Guidelines

District budgets 2005-2008

District Calendars 2008-09

District enrollment projections to 2019

District fi nancial procedures

District innovative programs documents

District Overview and information

District Strategic Plan 2006-2009

Enrollment data for 2001-2008

Facilities evaluation and building analysis

Facilities Plan and planning documents

Federal programs documents and budgets

Formulas for staff allocations (special programs)

Gifted and Talented demographic data, reports, and documents

High School Course Catalog 2008-09


Appendix B (continued)List of Documents Reviewed

High School Graduation Reports 2003-2007

Independent CPA audit reports 2006-2008

Instructional times allocations

Intervention programs documents

Job descriptions

My Learning Plan—Catalog of Offerings

Personnel evaluation procedures and forms

Professional Development documents

Professional Development Procedural Plan and Calendar 2008-09

Program evaluation data

Retention data 2005-2008

Rogers Public Schools Mission and Goal Statements

Rogers Table of Organization

RPS Employee Handbook

Salary schedules

Samples of employee evaluations

Samples of internal memoranda regarding curriculum, planning, testing, and evaluation

School and District Improvement Plans

Secondary course descriptions

Secondary master schedules 2008-09

Special Education demographic data, reports, and documents

Special grants documents

Special programs documents and budgets

Special programs enrollment data (AP, GT, remedial)

State testing program (requirements, schedules, accommodations)

Student assessment data (plans, analyses, schedules, other documents)

Student discipline report (referrals, suspensions, expulsions)—disaggregated

Summary of Classroom Walk-through data

Superintendent’s Annual Report to the Public—2003-2008

Teacher evaluation system

Technology Plan 2009-2012

Textbook and instructional resources documents and adoption procedures

Total Instructional Alignment documents

The Learning Institute Formative Assessment documents

Various curriculum and instruction documents

A Curriculum Management Audit - Rogers School...

Documents

Transcript of A Curriculum Management Audit - Rogers School...