A Curriculum Management Audit of the

SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

San Bernardino, California

Two young students studying math at Belvedere Elementary School

International Curriculum Management Audit Center Phi Delta Kappa International Eighth and Union Bloomington, Indiana 47404

May 2005

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page ii

A Curriculum Management Audit of the

SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

San Bernardino, California

Conducted Under the Auspices of International Curriculum Management Audit Center Phi Delta Kappa International P. 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: May 2005

Members of the San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Team:

Larry E. Frase, Ed.D, Lead Auditor San Diego State University San Diego, California Mr. Jeffrey Ellingsen, M.A., Auditor Beverly W. Nichols, Ph.D., Auditor Chino Valley Unified School District Independent Education Consultant Chino, California Shawnee Mission, Kansas Gayla Fredrickson, Ed.D., Auditor Sue Shidaker, M.Ed., Auditor Elgin Public School District Educational Consultant Elgin, Nebraska Ohio Rosalie M. Gardner, M.S.Ed., Auditor Socorro Shiels, M.A., Auditor Educational Consultant Grant Joint Union High School District Columbia, Illinois Sacramento, California Joseph M. Gasper, Ed.D., Auditor William A. Streshly, Ph.D., Auditor Newaygo County Regional Educational San Diego State University Service Agency San Diego, California Fremont, Michigan Susan N. Van Hoozer, M.A., Auditor Martha Dominguez Jonas, M.Ed., Auditor San Angelo Independent School District San Angelo Independent School District San Angelo, Texas San Angelo, Texas Olive Mc Ardle Kulas Ed. D., Auditor Napa Valley Unified School District California

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page iii San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page ii Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION...... 1 Background ...... 1 System Purpose for Conducting the Audit...... 7 Approach of the Audit...... 7 II. METHODOLOGY...... 8 The Model for the Curriculum Management Audit ...... 8 A Schematic View of Curricular Quality Control...... 8 Standards for the Auditors...... 9 Technical Expertise...... 9 The Principle of Independence ...... 9 The Principle of Objectivity ...... 9 The Principle of Consistency...... 10 The Principle of Materiality...... 10 The Principle of Full Disclosure...... 10 Data Sources of the Curriculum Management Audit ...... 11 Standards for the Curriculum Audit ...... 12 III. FINDINGS …………………………………………………………………………………..13 STANDARD 1: A School System Is Able to Demonstrate Its Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel...... 13 What the Auditors Expected to Find in the San Bernardino City Unified School District ...... 13 Overview of What the Auditors Found in the San Bernardino City Unified School District ...... 13 Finding 1.1: Board Policies Are Inadequate to Direct Effective Curriculum Management and Control...... 14 Finding 1.2: Fragmented System-Wide Planning at the District and School Site Levels Do Not Provide Focus for Sound System Management...... 34 Finding 1.3: The Table of Organization Does Not Meet Audit Criteria for Sound Management of the School District. Some Job Descriptions Are Outdated, Do Not Meet Audit Criteria and Are Not Aligned with the Table of Organization...... 44 Finding 1.4: The Teacher Appraisal System is Aligned with the California State Standards for the Teaching Profession, and Is Ineffective in Providing constructive Feedback to Many Teachers...... 60 STANDARD 2: A School System Has Established Clear and Valid Objectives for Students..... 67 What the Auditors Expected to Find in the San Bernardino City Unified School District ...... 67 Overview of What the Auditors Found in the San Bernardino City Unified School District ...... 67 Finding 2.1: The District Has No Comprehensive Curriculum Management Plan to Provide Direction for the Design, Delivery, and Evaluation of Curriculum...... 68 Finding 2.2: The Scope of the Written Curriculum Is Adequate at the Elementary Level But Inadequate at the Middle and High School Levels to Guide Teaching...... 77

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page iii Finding 2.3: The Quality of the Curriculum Guides Is Inadequate to Promote Alignment of the Written, Taught, and Tested Curriculum ...... 88 STANDARD 3: A School System Demonstrates Internal Connectivity and Rational Equity in Its Program Development and Implementation...... 99 What the Auditors Expected to Find in the San Bernardino City Unified School District ...... 99 Overview of What the Auditors Found in the San Bernardino City Unified School District ...... 99 Finding 3.1: Professional Development is Not Coordinated System-wide, and No Comprehensive Districtwide Staff Development Plan Exists...... 100 Finding 3.2: Inconsistency in the Delivery of Bilingual Programs Impedes the Mastery of Standards for Which English Learners Are Held Accountable...... 106 Finding 3.3: Guidance Regarding Expected Instructional Practices Is Implicit and Informal; Observed Practices Reflected High Reliance on Direct Instruction with Large Group Activity and Student Seatwork...... 111 Finding 3.4: Curriculum Monitoring Practices by Principals Lack Consistency for the Purpose of Aligning Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment to Improve Student Achievement...... 118 Finding 3.5: Some District and School Practices Have Created Inequalities and Inequities that Impede Attainment of Improved Student Learning and High Achievement for All Students...... 124 STANDARD 4: A School System Uses the Results from System-Designed and/or -Adopted Assessments to Adjust, Improve, or Terminate Ineffective Practices or Programs...... 161 What the Auditors Expected to Find in the San Bernardino City Unified School District ...... 161 Overview of What the Auditors Found in the San Bernardino City Unified School District .... 162 Finding 4.1: The District Lacks a Comprehensive Assessment and Evaluation Plan to Guide Curriculum and Program Decision-Making...... 162 Finding 4.2: The Scope of Assessment Meets Audit Criteria for Adequacy in English/Language Arts and Mathematics but is Inadequate to Monitor Student Achievement and Promote Achievement in Other Curricular Areas...... 164 Finding 4.3 Assessment Results Do Not Show Consistent Improvement and a Gap in Achievement Among Student Groups is Evident...... 169 STANDARD 5: A School System Has Improved Productivity...... 211 What the Auditors Expected to Find in the San Bernardino City Unified School District ...... 211 Overview of What the Auditors Found in the San Bernardino City Unified School District .... 211 Finding 5.1: Facilities Master Planning Lacks Important Design Features And Is Inadequate To Guide Facility Development. Most School Facilities Are Clean And Well Maintained But Crowded...... 212 Finding 5.2: The Fiscal Resources Are Managed Prudently; However, Budget Practices Lack Adequate Linkages To Curricular Needs And Priorities...... 222 Finding 5.3: Program Interventions To Improve Student Achievement Are Not Systematically Planned, Monitored, And Evaluated For Long-Term Effectiveness...... 225

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page iv Finding 5.4: The Technology Plan Is Inadequate To Guide Implementation Of The Technology Program. Some Computer Based Instructional Programs Are Used, But The Integration Of Technology Into The Curriculum Is Minimal...... 229 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PDK-CMSi CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT AUDIT TEAM FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT...... 235 Recommendation 1: Revise, Adopt, Implement, and Monitor the Use of Comprehensive Board Policies and Administrative Regulations to Provide Direction for Effective Curriculum Management...... 235 Recommendation 2: Develop and Implement a Curriculum Management Plan to Be Used by District Personnel to Develop, Implement, Monitor, and Assess the Curriculum, Provide Comprehensive Professional Development K-12, and Establish Consistency Among Core and Intervention Programs...... 237 Recommendation 3: Develop and Implement a District-wide Action Plan to Reduce the Inequities and Disparities in Programs and Practices and Eliminate Disparities in Student Achievement and Disciplinary Actions...... 243 Recommendation 4: Select One Program Model for Alternative Bilingual Education And Dual Immersion Programs and Implement Consistently to Provide Students Equal Access to Mastery of California Standards...... 244 Recommendation 5: Adopt a Model of Instruction that Focuses on Mastery of Curricular Objectives by All Students in Order to Improve Student Achievement and Minimize Achievement Gaps among Student Groups...... 245 Recommendation 6: Revise and Coordinate District Planning Efforts to Provide Clear and Comprehensive Direction and Focus for District Initiatives and Programs to Support the Improvement of Student Achievement...... 247 Recommendation 7: Redesign the Table of Organization to Adhere to the Audit Principles of Sound Organizational Management. Create and Maintain Current Job Descriptions that are Aligned to the Table of Organization, Accurate, Comprehensive, and Linked to Curricular Responsibilities...... 251 Recommendation 8: Design, Implement, and Monitor a Process for Principals in the Application of Teacher Evaluation Criteria and the Use of Constructive Feedback in the Teacher Appraisal System for the Purpose of Improving Teaching and Learning and Increasing Student Achievement...... 254 Recommendation 9: Design And Implement A Comprehensive, Curriculum-Driven, Program Focused, Budget Process That Emphasizes Cost-Benefit Analysis And That Links Resources To Instructional Priorities To Enhance Student Achievement...... 255 V. SUMMARY ...... 258 VI. APPENDICES ...... 261 Appendix A Auditors’ Biographical Data ...... 262 Appendix B List of Documents Reviewed ...... 266

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page v Table of Exhibits

Exhibit 0.1 School Enrollments...... 3 Exhibit 0.2 District Total Enrollments from 1999 to 2004...... 5 Exhibit 0.3 Budget Expenditures by Sources...... 5 Exhibit 0.4 Actual Budget Expenditures and Average Per Pupil Expenditure ...... 6 Exhibit 0.5 Superintendents Since 1982 ...... 6 Exhibit 0.6 Names and Dates of First Service for Current School Board Members...... 7 Exhibit 1.1.1 Board Policies and Administrative Regulations Reviewed by the Audit Team15 Exhibit 1.1.2 Curriculum-related Board Policies Reviewed by the Audit Team...... 25 Exhibit 1.1.3 Quality Criteria for Curriculum Management Policies and Auditors’ Assessment...... 27 Exhibit 1.2.1 Planning Documents Reviewed by the Auditors ...... 35 Exhibit 1.2.2 Criteria for Assessing System Planning...... 36 Exhibit 1.2.3 Adequacy of Planning Criteria...... 39 Exhibit 1.2.4 Audit Criteria for Assessing School Improvement Plans...... 41 Exhibit 1.2.5 School Improvement Plans Reviewed and Auditors’ Analysis...... 42 Exhibit 1.3.1 Principles of Sound Organizational Management ...... 45 Exhibit 1.3.2 Table of Organization for Superintendent’s Office...... 46 Exhibit 1.3.3 Curriculum Management Audit Rating Indicators for Job Descriptions .... 49 Exhibit 1.3.4 Auditor’s Assessment of Management Job Descriptions ...... 49 Exhibit 1.3.5 Positions Listed in the Table of Organization for Which There Are No Job Descriptions ...... 54 Exhibit 1.3.6 Auditor’s Assessment of Non-Management Job Descriptions...... 56 Exhibit 1.4.1 California Standards for the Teaching Profession As Adopted for the Teacher Appraisal System for ...... 61 Exhibit 1.4.2 Local Standard and Criteria as Adopted for the Teacher Appraisal System63 Exhibit 1.4.3 Percentage of Tenured and Non Tenured Teacher Appraisals Offering and Not Offering Feedback ...... 63 Exhibit 1.4.4 Percentage of Teacher Appraisals Rated As Meets or Exceeds Acceptable Performance, Improvement Needed, or Unsatisfactory...... 64 Exhibit 2.1.1 Audit Characteristics of a Comprehensive Curriculum Management Framework ...... 74 Exhibit 2.2.1 Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and by Grade Level Elementary Schools Grades K-6...... 78

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page vi Exhibit 2.2.2 Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and Grade Level Middle School Grades 6, 7, 8...... 79 Exhibit 2.2.3 Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and Grade Level...... 81 Exhibit 2.3.1 Curriculum Guides Audit Criteria...... 89 Exhibit 2.3.2 Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum Guides Grades K-12 ...... 90 Exhibit 3.1.1 Staff Development Components Present in a Random Sample of School Instructional Improvement Plans...... 102 Exhibit 3.2.1 SBCSD Bilingual Program Models Language Arts Minutes by Language 107 Exhibit 3.2.2 Alternative Bilingual Education Program Reading/Language Arts/English Language Development Minutes by Language at the Site Level...... 109 Exhibit 3.2.3 Dual Immersion Program Reading/Language Arts/English Language Development Minutes by Language at the Site Level...... 110 Exhibit 3.3.1 Teacher and Student Behaviors Observed by Auditors during Classroom Visits...... 116 Exhibit 3.4.1 School Site Visits by Department and School...... 122 Exhibit 3.5.1 Student Ethnicity by Schools and District: Percentages of Total Enrollment125 Exhibit 3.5.2 Retention at Grade Level: Summarized by Ethnicity at Elementary, Middle, and High School Levels ...... 131 Exhibit 3.5.3 High School Suspension Rate by Ethnicity –Four Year Comparison...... 132 Exhibit 3.5.4 Middle School Percentages of Suspensions by Ethnicity: Four-Year Comparison ...... 133 Exhibit 3.5.5 Student Expulsion by Ethnicity: Four-Year Comparison...... 134 Exhibit 3.5.6 Student Dropout Data by Ethnicity and Gender: Numbers and Percentage of the Group’s High School Population Compared with Numbers and Percentages in Total High School Population ...... 135 Exhibit 3.5.7 Percentage of Spring Graduates by Ethnic Group Compared with Percentage of 12th Grade Enrollment by Ethnic Group...... 136 Exhibit 3.5.8 Special Education Program Enrollment by Ethnicity and Gender...... 137 Exhibit 3.5.9 Enrollment in Gifted and Talented Education Program by Ethnicity and Gender ...... 138 Exhibit 3.5.10 Enrollment in Upper Level Science and Math Classes: by Ethnicity and Gender as a Percent of Enrollment in Grades 11 and 12 San Bernardino City Unified School District ...... 139 Exhibit 3.5.11 Advanced Placement Courses Enrollment by Gender ...... 140 Exhibit 3.5.12 International Baccalaureate Program Enrollment by Gender...... 141 Exhibit 3.5.13 Certificated Staff Ethnicity Representation by Percentage Compared with Student Ethnicity Representation by School and District...... 142 Exhibit 3.5.14 Administrative Ethnicity by School, Level, and District...... 145 Exhibit 3.5.15 Ratio of Library Books and Computers per Student per School ...... 148 San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page vii Exhibit 3.5.16 Donations of Cash, Services, or Materials from Parent Groups, Fundraisers, or Other External Sources by Schools ...... 152 Exhibit 3.5.17 Percent of School Staffs on Emergency Credential and Average Amount of Years for Teachers Being Credentialed...... 154 Exhibit 4.1.1 Characteristics of a Comprehensive Program and Student Assessment Plan and Auditors’ Assessment of the Plan...... 163 Exhibit 4.2.1 Matrix of Formal Tests Administered ...... 165 Exhibit 4.2.2 Scope of K-8 Assessments Courses Required of all K-8 Students ...... 167 Exhibit 4.2.3 Scope of 9-12 Assessments All Courses Available to High School Students168 Exhibit 4.3.1 Summary of Results for All Tested Students on California Standards Tests Percent of Students Proficient or Above San Bernardino City Unified Schools ...... 170 Exhibit 4.3.2 Percent of Enrollment by Grade Level in Selected Mathematics Courses . 172 Exhibit 4.3.3 Comparison of Cohort Groups Over Three Year Period Percent Proficient in English Language Arts and Mathematics ...... 173 Exhibit 4.3.4 Grade 5 Proficiency Levels in English Language Arts and Mathematics .. 174 Exhibit 4.3.5 Grade 8 Proficiency Levels in English Language Arts and Mathematics .. 175 Exhibit 4.3.6 Grade 11 Proficiency Levels in English Language Arts and Mathematics 176 Exhibit 4.3.7 Percent of Students at or Above Proficiency by Individual School Grade 2 English Language Arts and Mathematics—California Standards Test ..... 177 Exhibit 4.3.8 Percent of Students at or Above Proficiency by Individual School Grade 5 English Language Arts and Mathematics—California Standards Test ..... 180 Exhibit 4.3.9 Percent of Students at or Above Proficiency by Individual School Grade 7 English Language Arts and Mathematics—California Standards Test ..... 184 Exhibit 4.3.10 Percent of Students at or Above Proficiency by Individual School Grade 8 English Language Arts and Mathematics—California Standards Test ..... 185 Exhibit 4.3.11 Percent of Students at or Above Proficiency by Individual School English Language Arts at Comprehensive High Schools—California Standards Test186 Exhibit 4.3.12 Percent of Students at or Above Proficiency by Individual School Selected Mathematics Courses—California Standards Test ...... 187 Exhibit 4.3.13 Percent Proficient or Above on California Standards Tests Results Reported by Grade and Racial-Ethnic Group ...... 188 Exhibit 4.3.14 Achievement Gap Analysis in English Language Arts Years to Parity at Current Rate of Change by Grade Level for Selected Subpopulations ...... 191 Exhibit 4.3.15 Achievement Gap Analysis in Mathematics Years to Parity at Current Rate of Change by Grade Level for Selected Subpopulations...... 192 Exhibit 4.3.16 Summary of Proficiency by English Learner Classification English/Language Arts, Grades 2-11 ...... 193 Exhibit 4.3.17 Summary of Proficiency by English Learner Classification Mathematics, Grades 2-11...... 194 San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page viii Exhibit 4.3.18 Proficiency in English Language Arts at Selected Grade Levels Reported by English Language Classification...... 195 Exhibit 4.3.19 Proficiency in Mathematics at Selected Grade Levels Reported by English Language Classification ...... 195 Exhibit 4.3.20 Proficiency of All Students in English Language Arts and Mathematics at Grade 5 Reported with Percent Eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch...... 196 Exhibit 4.3.21 Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch vs. Percent Proficiency Grade 5 English Language Arts...... 198 Exhibit 4.3.22 Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch vs. Percent Proficiency Grade 5 Mathematics ...... 199 Exhibit 4.3.23 Proficiency of All Students in English Language Arts and Mathematics at Grade 8 Reported with Percent Eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch...... 200 Exhibit 4.3.24 Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch vs. Percent Proficiency Grade 8 English Language Arts...... 200 Exhibit 4.3.25 Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch vs. Percent Proficiency Grade 8 Mathematics ...... 201 Exhibit 4.3.26 Proficiency of All Students in English Language Arts and Mathematics at Grade 11 Reported with Percent Eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch...... 202 Exhibit 4.3.27 Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch vs. Percent Proficiency Grade 11 English Language Arts...... 202 Exhibit 4.3.28 Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch vs. Percent Proficiency Grade 11 English Language Arts...... 203 Exhibit 4.3.29 Summary of Academic Performance Index (API) Growth and Years to Target...... 204 Exhibit 4.3.30 Passing Rates on the California High School Exit Exam ...... 207 Exhibit 4.3.31 Scores on the SAT College Entrance Exam...... 209 Exhibit 5.1.1 Components of a Comprehensive Long-range Facilities Plan And The Auditors’ Assessment Of The District’s Facilities Planning Efforts...... 212 Exhibit 5.1.2 Auditors’ Assessments of The Condition Of School Facilities...... 215 Exhibit 5.2.1 Components Of A Curriculum-Driven Budget And The District’s Rating 224 Exhibit 5.3.1 Examples of System and School Program Interventions ...... 226 Exhibit 5.3.2 Comparison of the Read 180 Reading Intervention Program To Innovation and Intervention Design Criteria ...... 228 Exhibit 5.4.1 Quality Criteria for Instructional Technology Programs and Auditor’s Assessment...... 231 Exhibit R.7.1 Recommended Table of Organization ...... 253

Table of Photographs

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page ix Photograph 1 Two young students studying math at Belvedere Elementary School ...... i Photograph 2 San Bernardino High School has grown from it first enrollment of six2 students to its current enrollment of 2,470...... 2 Photograph 3 Parents learning English at Del Rosa Elementary School—a Title I Project at work ...... 72 Photograph 4 A student works with a workbook on words that rhyme at Landershim Elementary School ...... 75 Photograph 5 A giant chessboard at Kimbark Elementary School provides a major focal point of activity ...... 76 Photograph 6 An unused flight simulator at San Gorgonio High School...... 112 Photograph 7 An empty library at Bonnie Oehl Elementary School...... 150 Photograph 8 A well-equipped library at Davidson Elementary ...... 151 Photograph 9 The floors shine at Shandin Middle School ...... 217 Photograph 10 A maintenance worker preps a wall for new paint at Lytle Creek School . 218 Photograph 11 Restrooms are clean and functional at Riley Elementary School...... 218 Photograph 12 Portables at Lincoln Elementary—a situation similar to all schools in the District...... 219 Photograph 13 Modular buildings at Fairfax Elementary School ...... 219 Photograph 14 Random furniture and equipment storage at Shandin Middle School ...... 220 Photograph 15 Equipment storage at Cajon Middle School...... 220 Photograph 16 Construction project during school hours at Vallego Middle School ...... 222 Photograph 17 Unused computers and others needing repair at Thompson Elementary School...... 233

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page x I. INTRODUCTION This document constitutes the final report of a Curriculum Management Audit of the San Bernardino City Unified School District. The audit was commissioned by the San Bernardino City Unified School District Board of Education/Governing Authority within the scope of its policy-making authority. It was conducted during the time period of January 31-February 4. Document analysis was performed off site, as was the detailed analysis of findings and site visit data. A curriculum audit is designed to reveal the extent to which officials 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 financial resources in the education of its students. When such a system is fully operational, it assures the district taxpayers that their fiscal support is optimized under the conditions in which the school district functions.

Background The city of San Bernardino has a long and rich history. It is located in the Inland Empire region of Southern California and it is the largest city in the largest county in the continental U.S. the county government seat is less than an hour away from its recreational resources—beaches, the desert, the mountains, ski slopes, and downtown Los Angeles. San Bernardino’s modern history began in the late 18th century when Spanish missionaries began to establish missions in the region. Padre Dumetz of the San Gabriel Mission founded the Capilla at the Guachama Rancho, known to us as Old San Bernardino, on May 20, 1820. All missions were ordered closed by decree of California’s Governor Figueroa in 1834 and the mission period came to an end. The abandoned mission did not stay vacant very long and soon became an important post on the trading route known as the Spanish Trail. Pioneer trailblazers like Kit Carson and Jedediah Smith, among others, spent a good deal of time in the valley during the early to mid-nineteenth century. On April 12, 1848, a group of soldiers from the Mormon Battalion returned to Salt Lake via the Cajon Pass and Spanish Trail, taking with them the first wagon to make this trip. At this time people of the Mormon faith began settling in the San Bernardino area. Although Brigham Young recalled them to Salt Lake, they left their mark on the area by in 1852 establishing the Bowery, a one-room adobe schoolhouse with an enrollment of 125 students. Gold was discovered in 1862 in the nearby Holcomb Valley and the discovery brought many men to the area in search of treasure. As a result Belleville, located in the Holcomb Valley, became the largest city in the area at that time with 10,000 residents. Beginning with the first Mormon schools, San Bernardino has a long and distinguished history of educating children. It was in 1853 that the California Legislature officially created the position of County School Superintendent, and following that the California public school system and the San Bernardino City School District were officially created. The first public high school was built in 1885 in San Bernardino County and this later led to the creation of the San Bernardino City High School District. The first public high school was built in 1885 in San Bernardino County and four years later graduated its first class, six students. The creation of this high school later led to the creation of the San Bernardino City High School District, which, after modernization, continues in service as shown below.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 1

San Bernardino High School has grown from it first enrollment of six students to its current enrollment of 2,470. The San Bernardino City Unified School District began in 1934 when several small districts were annexed to the San Bernardino City Schools. By 1944 the San Bernardino City School District had expanded to include the city of San Bernardino and several neighboring areas. On July 1, 1964, the San Bernardino City Unified School District was born when the two existing districts, the San Bernardino City School District and the San Bernardino City High School District, were joined by mutual agreement of the respective Boards of Education. Since the year 2000, eighteen of the district’s teachers have earned National Board Certification, and since 1993, fourteen of the schools have earned the title of California Distinguished School, with two schools earning the title in multiple years. Other recent accomplishments include one of the high schools being named a National Point of Light in honor of the 32,698 hours students volunteered in the community. District background and historical information were obtained from the official SBCUSD document, “San Bernardino City Unified School District History,” and the document Historical Information, San Bernardino Area Chamber of Commerce. Student Enrollment Total preK-12 student enrollment in the San Bernardino City Unified School District in school 2003/2004 was 57,818. Enrollments at each school are presented in Exhibit 0.1.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 2 Exhibit 0.1 School Enrollments San Bernardino City Unified School District School Year 2003-2004 Elementary School Sites Enrollments Alessandro-Ramona 811 Alternative Learning Center 107 Anderson Trm 135 Arrowhead 487 Barton 588 Belvedere 856 Boys and Girls Club Academy 17 Bradley 990 Burbank 437 California 597 Carmack 98 Cole 499 Cypress 731 Davidson 650 Del Rosa 1,028 Emmerton 874 Fairfax 518 Harmon 15 Highland-Pacific 449 Hillside 714 Hunt 916 Inghram 557 Kendall 654 Kimbark 469 Lankershim 988 Lincoln 1,236 Lytle Creek 835 Marshall 676 Monterey 838 Mt. Vernon 782 Muscoy 821 Newmark 589 North Park 905 North Verdemont 550 Oehl 756 Palm 756 Parkside 751 Provisional Accelerated Learning 158 Riley 984 Rio Vista 715 E. Neal Roberts 1,011

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 3 Exhibit 0.1 (continued) School Enrollments San Bernardino City Unified School District School Year 2003-2004 Roosevelt 772 Star at Anderson Community Day 14 Thompson 816 Urbita 485 Vermont 749 Warm Springs 970 Wilson 858 Ywce Academy 36 Middle School Sites Arrowview 2,261 Curtis 1,347 Del Vallejo 1,519 Golden Valley 1,406 King 1,442 Richardson 628 Serrano 1,292 Shandin Hills 1,840 High School Sites Arroyo Valley 3,091 Cajon 2,577 Middle College High 153 Pacific 2,560 San Andreas 314 San Bernardino 2,516 San Gorgonio 3,043 Sierra 581 Total Enrollment 57,818 Source: San Bernardino County Education Office http://data1.cde.ca.gov/Dataquest/DistEnr2.asp?The Name=San+Bernardino+city_Unifi&cSelect=3667876—San+Bernardino+Cit…) The San Bernardino City Unified School District’s enrollment has grown rapidly since school year 1998-1999. The enrollment totals for school years 1999-2004 and the yearly percentage increases are presented in Exhibit 0.2

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 4 Exhibit 0.2 District Total Enrollments from 1999 to 2004 San Bernardino City Unified School District

60,000 4.9% growth 58,000 1.7% 56,000 3.9% 3.9% growth 54,000 3.4% 3.7% growth 52,000 growth Enrollment 50,000

48,000

46,000

44,000

42,000 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Sou rce: Official Fiscal Management and Advisor Services document, page 13, from the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools and San Bernardino County Education Office (http://data1.cde.ca.gov/Dataquest/DistEnr2.asp?The Name=San+Bernardino+city_Unifi&cSelect=3667876—San+Bernardino+Cit…) As Illustrated in Exhibit 0.2, student enrollments in the San Bernardino’s public schools grew steadily from school year 1998-1999 through 2002-2003. In all but one of those years the growth rate was above three percent. The percentage growth for the 2003-2004 School Year was the largest, 4.8 percent. The student enrollment growth rate from 1999 to 2004 was 19.2 percent. Financial Information Data regarding budget expenditures by sources and percent of total budget are displayed in Exhibit 0.3. Exhibit 0.3 Budget Expenditures by Sources San Bernardino City Unified School District 2003-2004 Percent of Total Budget Expenditures by Sources SY 2003/2004 1. Certificated 48% 2. Classified 15%? 3. Employee benefits 18%? 4. Services/Operating 11%? 5. Books and Supplies 6%? 6. Capitol Outlay 2%? 7. Other Outgo <.05% Key: Rounded to the nearest percentage point Source: County Department of Education Form 02, “Unaudited Actuals Financial History and Activity of the San Bernardino City Unified School District”

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 5 As can be observed in Exhibit 0.3 the major expenditure category is Certificated personnel, at 48 percent of the districts total expended budget. Exhibit 0.4 Actual Budget Expenditures and Average Per Pupil Expenditure San Bernardino City Unified School District 1999-2004

School Year Actual Budget Expenditure Per Pupil Average Expenditures 1999 281,069,064 $5,794 2000 296,510,308 5,890 2001 337,533,181* 6,487 2002 384,832,055* 7,118 2003 386,374,213 7,015 2004 403,204,869 6,822 *Note: These are unaudited expenditures. The audited expenditures were not available from the school district. Source: Official Communiqués from SBCUSD officials to Audit Team The 2004 actual budget expenditures shown in Exhibit 0.4 increased 44 percent from 1999 to 2004 while the per pupil average expenditure increased 17.7 percent during the same period and the enrollment growth from 1998 to 2004 as shown in Exhibit 0.2 was 19.2 percent. The budget expenditure increase was nearly twice that of the student enrollment growth. Exhibit 0.5 Superintendents Since 1982 San Bernardino City Unified School District School Year 2004-2005

Name of Superintendents Date of Appointment Mr. E. Neal Roberts 1982 Dr. Arturo Delgado 1999 Sources: Official SBCUSD Communiqué to Audit Team This history shown in Exhibit 0.5 indicates excellent stability at the superintendent position. The School Board has employed only two superintendents since 1982. This stability is an exception in the American public schools and gives the district excellent a history of excellent institutional knowledge. All members of the audit team interviewed the Superintendent of the San Bernardino City Unified School District, Dr. Arturo Delgado who is in his sixth year as chief executive officer of the system. The names of the School Board members and the dates of their election to the Board are provided in Exhibit 0.6.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 6 Exhibit 0.6 Names and Dates of First Service for Current School Board Members San Bernardino City Unified School District School Year 2004-2005 First Year of Service as Board Member Names School Board Member Dr. Elsa Valdez, President December 1997 Mrs. Teresa Parra, Vice-President December 2001 Dr. Marlin Brown, Member December 1983 Mr. Antonio Dupre, Member December 1997 Mrs. Judi Penman, Member December 2003 Mrs. Lynda Savage, Member December 1989 Mr. Danny Tillman, Member December 1995 Sources: Official SBUCSD Communiqué to Audit Team The Board of Education, like the superintendent position, has considerable stability. One member has served for thirty-two years, another for sixteen years, another for ten years, and two others for eight years. These years of service gives the district a strong historical knowledge of its history. All members of the audit team interviewed the Board President and members of the audit team interviewed other members of the board.

System Purpose for Conducting the Audit Over the last five years as the superintendent of an urban school district, I have learned that our district is capable of accomplishing many educational programs with great success. I have equally learned that we are also capable of allocating resources in ways to programs and aspects of programs in need of greater funding, the overall result of which minimizes gains for the district as a whole. At this point in time, I am interested in receiving a factual report on our current alignment of resources to programs relative to our stated goals in order to make timely adjustments to improve student achievement. My hope is that this information will allow those of us entrusted with the responsibility of improving the quality of life for our students to do so and create a consistent pattern of improved student learning.

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 finance, 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.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 7

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, most 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 sub-unit 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 which are 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.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 8 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 survival as publicly-supported educational organizations in the years ahead. The Curriculum Management Audit is one method for ascertaining the extent to which a school system or subunit thereof, has been responsive to these expressed expectations and requirements in its context.

Standards for the Auditors While a Curriculum Management Audit is not a financial audit, it is governed by some of the same principles. These are:

Technical Expertise PDK-CMSi certified 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 San Bernardino City Unified School District Curriculum Management Audit Team 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: Arizona, California, Michigan, Alaska, Ohio, Illinois, Nebraska, Texas, Kansas, North Carolina and South Dakota.

The Principle of Independence None of the Curriculum Management Audit Team members had any vested interest in the findings or recommendations of the San Bernardino City Unified School District Curriculum Management Audit. None of the auditors has any working relationship with the individuals that occupied top or middle management positions in the San Bernardino City Unified School District, nor with any of the past or current members of the San Bernardino City Unified School District Board of Education.

The Principle of Objectivity Events and situations which comprise the data base for the curriculum management audit are derived from documents, interviews, and site visits. Findings must be verifiable and grounded in the data base, though confidential 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 verification is self-evident. Triangulation of documents takes place when the document is requested by the auditor and is subsequently furnished. Confirmation by a system representative that the document is in fact what was requested is a form of triangulation. A final 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 provides documentation that indicates there are omissions or otherwise factual or content errors, the audit is assumed to be triangulated. The superintendent’s

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 9 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-certified Curriculum Management Auditors have used the same standards and basic methods since the initial audit was conducted by Dr. Fenwick English many years ago. 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-certified auditors have broad implied and discretionary power to focus on and select those findings which 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 re- configure various functions in order 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. Confidentiality is respected in audit interviews. In reporting data derived from site interviews, some descriptive terms are used which lack a precise quantifiable definition. 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 quantifications may be applied to the principle of full disclosure: Descriptive Term General Quantification Range Some ... or a few ... Less than a majority of the group interviewed and less than 30 percent. Many ... Less than a majority, more than 30 percent of a group or class of people interviewed. A majority ... More than 50 percent, less than 75 percent. Most ... or widespread 75-89 percent of a group or class of persons interviewed. Nearly all ... 90-99 percent of those interviewed in a specific class or group of persons. All or everyone ... 100 percent of all persons interviewed within a similar group, job, or class.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 10 It should be noted for purposes of full disclosure that some groups within a school district are almost always interviewed en 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 officers, 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 specific request in this regard. Members of the San Bernardino City Unified School District and the community interviewed by the audit teams include the following Interviewed Members of the San Bernardino City Unified School District Superintendent All School Board Members All Principals Teachers’ Organization Officers K-12 Teacher (voluntary, self-referred) Classified Organization Officers Students (during site visits and meeting with Parent/Teacher Organization Officers selected High School Student Councils. Parents )voluntary, self-referred Approximately 150 people were interviewed during the 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 San Bernardino City Unified School District. Curriculum Management Audit were: Documents These sources consisted of written board policies, administrative regulations, curriculum guides, memoranda, budgets, state reports, accreditation documents, and any other source of information which would reveal elements of the written, taught, and tested curricula and the linkages among these elements. Interviews Interviews are conducted by auditors to explain contextual variables which are 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, 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.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 11 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 briefly all classrooms, gymnasiums, labs, playgrounds, hallways, rest-rooms, offices, 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 five standards against which to compare, verify, and comment upon the San Bernardino City Unified School District’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 reflect 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 financial and human resources for the greatest benefit of its students is a district that is able to establish clear objectives, examine alternatives, select and implement alternatives, measure results as they develop against established objectives, and adjust its efforts so that it achieves a greater share of the objectives. The five standards employed in the PDK-CMSi Curriculum Management Audit in San Bernardino City Unified School District were: 1. The school district demonstrates its control of resources, programs, and personnel. 2. The school district has established clear and valid objectives for students. 3. The school district has demonstrated internal consistency and rational equity in its program development and implementation. 4. The school district has used the results from district-designed or -adopted assessments to adjust, improve, or terminate ineffective practices or programs. 5. The school district has improved its productivity. A finding 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 five audit standards. Findings in the negative represent discrepancies below the standard. Findings in the positive reflect meeting or exceeding the standard. As such, audit findings 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 sub-unit being analyzed. Audits simply report the discrepancies and formulate recommendations to ameliorate them.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 12 III. FINDINGS

STANDARD 1: A School System Is Able to Demonstrate 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 assess meaningfully 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, 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 San Bernardino City Unified School District 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 defined 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 reflects 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 office officials to principals and classroom teachers; • Organizational development efforts which are focused to improve system effectiveness; • Documentation of school board and central office planning for the attainment of goals, objectives, and mission over time; and • A clear mechanism to define 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 San Bernardino City Unified School District This section is an overview of the findings that follow in the area of Standard One. The details follow within separate findings. The auditors reviewed the board policies of the San Bernardino City Unified School District and found them to be inadequate to provide for effective curriculum management and control. Policies relating to curriculum management lacked currency with most being over 10 years old and the oldest dating back to 1969. The auditors were not presented with board policies relating to the written San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 13 curriculum (see Finding 1.1). Most of the policies reviewed lacked the necessary specificity to provide direction and consistency to the management of the curriculum and district operations. The auditor’s review of planning documents presented to the auditors by district personnel revealed the lack of a comprehensive, district, long-range plan that meets audit standards (see Finding 1.2). The Blueprint for Success is in the process of being operationalized through action plans and there are isolated plans for some district functions. Although the organizational management structure for the district has been recently revised, the auditor’s review of the current table of organization found it does not meet audit standards especially in the areas of span of control, chain of command, and full inclusion (see Finding 1.3). The auditors found job descriptions missing for some positions listed in the table of organization and job descriptions for positions that were not included in the table. The auditor’s review of written job descriptions found that most do not meet audit standards (see Finding 1.3). The teacher evaluation system is based on California standards. Actual teacher evaluations are positive in light of marginal student achievement as measured by California assessments and constructive criticism regarding how to improve instructional delivery is not consistently provided to teachers (see Finding 1.4). Finding 1.1: Board Policies Are Inadequate to Direct Effective Curriculum Management and Control.

Policy development is one of the most important roles of a board of education. Through its policies the board demonstrates leadership by communicating direction, establishing standards of quality and creating accountability throughout the school system. Policies also provide guidance to those individuals responsible for decision making within the school district. School boards are responsible for macro-management of their school district. Boards accomplish this by reviewing and adopting high quality polices developed by the administration. The administration is responsible for micromanagement of the school district. To accomplish this, the administration develops procedures and communicates them to the board, but the board does not adopt them. Curriculum management policies create a common framework for the consistent design and delivery of the written, taught and tested curriculum at all educational levels. Effective curriculum management policies are comprehensive in scope by addressing all aspects of curriculum design and delivery. High quality curriculum policies clearly communicate expectations and standards that guide elements of curriculum management. Control is clearly delineated through staff roles including accountability, decision making and planning. Direction is provided through the requirements of a written curriculum for all content areas that is periodically reviewed and integrated with program interventions. Connectivity is created through the vertical and horizontal alignment of the curriculum at all levels and the consistent delivery of the curriculum by trained staff. Equitable access to the district curriculum is mandated through specific language. Effectiveness is determined through feedback provided by a student assessment plan that provides data that can be used to determine goal attainment. Finally productivity is realized through a clear and concise expectation that resources are tied to goals and that data will be used to drive decisions related to the need for perceived change. Board policies are ineffective when they are not implemented by district staff. Lack of implementation may result in a loss of control by the board of education. Other factors such as the absence of policy or lack of clarity, specificity and currency of policy language also contribute to a lack of or inadequate control and direction. In the absence of these elements staff will be guided by a variety of thoughts as to what should be done, which may be contrary to the expectations of the board. Ultimately, the overall effectiveness of policy is determined by three major factors. The first is whether the policy exists and is clearly communicated to individuals who are expected to carry out or

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 14 abide by the content of the policy. The second involves the design of the policy in terms of the quality and scope of the content that creates a framework for quality control for all functions and at all levels of the district. Finally whether the policy is applied properly and the extent to which there is compliance with the intent of the policy by individuals within the organization. The auditors reviewed all board policies and related administrative procedures of the San Bernardino City Unified School District that were presented to them by district staff. Those policies and related procedures addressing curriculum management were selected for further analysis. The analysis included determining the currency of the policy and procedure through the date of the latest revision and assessing the quality of the documents according to audit criteria for adequate curriculum management policies. The auditors also interviewed board members, administrators, teachers and community members to determine their perceptions regarding the relationship between policy and actual practices within the school district. Overall, the auditors found the curriculum related policies and procedures to be inadequate with respect to guiding curriculum management and decision making. The auditors found the policies and procedures lacking sufficient language to provide board control and direction over processes and procedures relating to curriculum design and delivery that were currently being implemented within the district. The policies that did exist generally lacked currency and did not meet audit criteria for adequacy. The auditors reviewed 329 board policies and administrative procedures that were presented to them by district officials as all the policies and procedures of the district. The policies and procedures are presented in Exhibit 1.1.1. Exhibit 1.1.1 Board Policies and Administrative Regulations Reviewed by the Audit Team San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Date Policy Description Adopted 1100 Collective Bargaining Public Notice Policy 2/83 1232 Citizen Volunteer Reserve School Police Officer Program 8/94 1240 Volunteers 9/96 1245a-d School Site Council 10/98 1247a-e Adult School, School Site Council 1/99 1255a-c Council Media Relations Policy 10/97 1300 Community Recreation Agreement 9/72 1311 Mistreatment of Minors 1970 1320 Distribution of Materials from Community Organizations 9/93 1325 Public Records: Copies and Fees Policy 5/99 1330a-e Working with the News Media 1970 1400a-b Participation in Community Activities by District Music Groups 10/75 1405 Religious Activities on Campus 10/73 1406a Released Time for Religious Education 12/01 1406b Released Time for Religious Instruction 1975

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 15

Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued) Board Policies and Administrative Regulations Reviewed by the Audit Team San Bernardino City Unified February 2005

Date Policy Description Adopted 1410 School Visitation Policy 6/98 1411 a-b School Visitation Procedure 8/97 1415 Alcohol Beverage Licensing and Consumption 5/91 1420a-c Family Involvement Policy 8/97 1510a-b Uniform Complaint Policy 5/04 1510.1 a-1 Uniform Complaint Procedures 7/00 2001 Central Administrative Staff 10/71 2005 Repair of Employee Property (Management and Confidential) 1/81 2005.1 a-b Repair of Employee Property 1/01 Health and Welfare Benefits Policy for Management and Confidential 2006a-b 9/00 Employees 2007a-d Leaves (Management and Confidential) 8/99 2008 Personnel Files (Management and Confidential) 7/88 2010 District Management Team 2/76 2011 Management Work Year 8/94 2012 Management Salary Schedule 1/81 Participation in Civic and Professional Organizations by Management and 2013 7/88 Confidential Employees 2015 Administrator Substitute Plan 1973 2016 Management Promotion and Transfer 11/93 2017a-d Conflict of Interest Code 12/02 Reassignment, Transfer, Demotion, and Dismissal of Certificated 2018a-b 1/83 Administrative Personnel 2019a-b Evaluation Procedures for Certificated Managers 11/93 2020a-f Relationship of Administrator to the Board of Education 1976 Disturbances, Disorders, or Demonstrations--Emergency Procedures for 2120a-f 4/70 Handling Disturbances--Assignment of Central Office Personnel During Disturbances 2121 1/76 at School Locations 2122a-b Emergency Policies and Procedures 2/78 2300a-b Instructional Needs Assessment Funding Program 10/79 2301 Controversial Issues 7/91 Guidelines for Handling Complaints Concerning Educational 2301.1 a-b 7/91 Materials/Teaching Procedures 2302a-b Election Campaign Guidelines 5/72 2303 Emergency and Disaster Preparedness 11/00 2310a-c Educational Research 10/73

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 16

Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued) Board Policies and Administrative Regulations Reviewed by the Audit Team San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Date Policy Description Adopted 2320 Staff Inservice and Business Expenses 11/78 2323a-g Travel/Conference Guidelines 7/02 2329a-b Emergency Substitute Procedure 1/85 2331 a-b Immunization Requirement for School Admission 9/02 2331.1 First Grade Physical Assessment 8/01 2340 Proofs of Residence 4/91 2341 Enrollment Procedures for Homeless Children and Youth 3/02 2342 Caregivers Policy 1/95 2357 Schools with Special Needs 1/72 2359a-b Unhealthful Air Quality and Extreme Heat Policy 3/04 2360a-b Unhealthful Air Quality and Extreme Heat Plan l/04 2365a-b Pupil Records 1989 2366a-b Bomb Threat or Possible Explosive Device 10/99 2367a-c Extended Field Trips 6/01 2367.1 a-b Field Trip Guidelines 1/04 Interschool Attendance Permits for Elementary and Junior High School 2368a-i 10/74 Students 2368.1 Inter-District Permit Policy 1/02 Administration of Attendance Accounting Procedures of Interdistrict 2368.2a-e 8/89 Transfers 2369a-c School Carnivals 6/67 2371 School Contest Guidelines 3/83 2373 Guidelines for Seasonal Activities 12/80 2375 Patriotic Exercises 10/92 2380a-m Registration and Orientation Procedures for Junior to Senior High Schools 1977 2381a-g Registration--Orientation, Transmittal Procedures for Sixth Grade 1975 2382 Room Assignment--Elementary School 7/76 2385 Choice of Physician Law 5/02 2391 Controlled Open Enrollment-Guidelines for Student Participation 4/76 2392a-b Controlled Open Enrollment 1/75 2393 Controlled Open Enrollment in Special Education Classes 11/69 2420 Lost/Found Property 10/99 2425 Payment of Certificated Bargaining Unit Employees for Additional Duties 5/00 2430 Conflict of Interest Policy for External Evaluators I/01 2500a-b Districtwide Stay Well Program 1/83 2510a-e General Traffic and Parking Regulations 6/01 2600 Safety Policy 7/95 2601 a-e Injury and Illness Prevention Program 8/02

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 17 Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued) Board Policies and Administrative Regulations Reviewed by the Audit Team San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Date Policy Description Adopted 2602a-b Repetitive Motion Injury (RMI) Prevention and Control Procedure 4/03 2603 Environmental Safety Policy 9/98 2604 Hazardous Materials Handling and Disposal Policy 9/98 2605a-c Hazcom-Hazardous Materials Handling and Disposal Procedure 11/99 2610 Reporting of Industrial Accidents/Injuries 7/02 3000 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 5/00 3001 Claims for Money or Damages 1/02 3100a-d Free and Reduced Prince Meals and Free Milk Policy 6/98 3100e School Lunch Applications 9/75 3100.1 a-b Competitive Food Sales 5/84 3100.2 Infestation Control 8/74 3101 Estimating Construction and Remodeling Projects 5/82 3102 Mileage and Cellular Telephone Reimbursement 9/96 3102.1 a-b Mileage and Cellular Telephone Reimbursement Procedure 10/01 3103a-b Disposition of Obsolete and Worn Out Books 9/02 3103.1 Payment for Lost or Damaged Books 10/77 3104 Disposition of Surplus Items 11/82 3105 School Bidding for Services and Materials 3/83 3106 Custody of Monies and Securities at District Locations 9/79 3107 Vendor Procedures 2/96 3107.1 Vendor Solicitation of Employees 9/93 3107.2 Distribution of Materials and Solicitation of Funds from Students 9/93 3108a-b Forms Control 9/80 3108.1 Forms Control Guidelines 3/82 3109 Refreshments Served at Meetings 12/85 3110 Purchasing Materials Produced by District Employees 8/73 3111 Special Requisition Procedures 12/77 3111.1 a-c Revolving Cash Fund 7/94 3112 Building Security 7/00 3112.1 a-b Burglar Alarm System 7/00 3113 School Mail Facilities 1971 3113.1 US Mail and Pony Mail Guidelines 7/79 3115a-b Printing of Letterheads for Schools and Offices 1/03 3116 Business Cards 10/75 3117 Daily Attendance Reporting 1/76 3118 Music Supplies and Equipment 3/66 3119 Copyright Policy 2/84 3120 Placing School Advertising 1973

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 18

Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued) Board Policies and Administrative Regulations Reviewed by the Audit Team San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Date Policy Description Adopted Procedures for Paying District Employees for Services Rendered for Outside 3130 3/92 Organizations and Groups 3140 Video Surveillance System Policy 4/01 3141a-b Video Surveillance System Procedures 5/01 3150 Destruction of School District Records 3/84 3151a-b Records Destruction, School Police Department 3/00 3155a-b Issuing Bulletins 1975 3160a-c Use of School Facilities 1/00 3170a-b Acceptance of Gifts and Donations 12/77 3172a-c Consultant and Non-Classified Expert Services 10/01 3173a-d Board of Education Building Rules 1998 3176 Energy Conservation 9/92 3180a-m Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 1979 3200 Maintenance of Special Project Equipment 1980 3201 a Not-to-Exceed Purchase Orders 3/76 Replacement of Supplies and Equipment with District Funds in Forced 3201 b 3/76 Entries, Vandalism and Mysterious Disappearances 3202a-b Repair and Replacement of Equipment 9/76 3203 Graffiti Policy 2/93 3204 Restitution Policy 11/94 3204.1 a-c Restitution Procedures 10/80 3206 Withholding of Grades, Diploma, and Transcripts 4/99 3208 High School Activity Transportation Fees 8/81 3208.1 a-b Implementing High School Activity Transportation Fees 9/81 3210 Student Population and Site Sizes 7/66 3220 Advertising Through District-Business Partnerships 10/00 3300 Mailing of Salary Warrants 1974 3301a-b Processing Commercial Warrants 7/67 3310 Selection of Architectural and Engineering Consultants Policy 10/99 3310.1 a-c Selection of Architectural and Engineering Consultants Procedure 10/99 3311 District Revolving Cash Funds Policy 1/98 3320 Purchase of Food and Related Items 12/98 3321 Purchasing Authority Delegation Policy 7/94 3321.1 a-b Purchasing Authority Guidelines 12/94 3323 Disabled Veterans Business Enterprises (DVBE) 5/00 3324 Minority/Women Business Enterprise 4/03 3400 Bus Transportation to Devore, Waterman Canyon 2/75

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 19

Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued) Board Policies and Administrative Regulations Reviewed by the Audit Team San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Date Policy Description Adopted 3401 Transportation Schedulers' Responsibility in Regard to Mini-Bus Drivers 8/90 3401.1 Transportation--Special Education 8/90 3402 School Bus Evacuation 8/90 3403 Pupil Transportation Eligibility 8/90 3403.la-c Transportation--Eligibility 8/90 3404 Transportation--Arrival and Departure Times 8/90 3405a-b Transportation--Bus Permit Procedures 8/90 3407 Transportation--Bus Load Sizes 8/90 3408 Transportation--Parent and Employee Liability 9/03 3409 Transportation--Public 8/90 3410a-b Transportation--Special Programs 8/90 3411 Transportation--School Staff Responsibilities 11/76 3510a-c Pest Management 5/94 3517 Parking Policy 4/95 3520a-b Smoking and the Use of Tobacco at District Facilities 6/95 3550 Relocation Policy 3/01 3555 Naming of Schools and Facilities 4/96 Weight Training Equipment Acquisition, Maintenance, and Disposal 3560a-c 10/00 Program 4000 Rules and Regulations Governing School District Employees 1981 4000.10 Collective Bargaining Agreements 2/81 4001 Employee Unable to Perform Job Duties 8/01 4002.1 Recruitment (Certificated) 10/71 4002.2 Selection (Certificated) 10/71 4002.3a-b Credentials (Certificated) 10/71 4002.4a-b Classification 10/71 4003. 7a-b Duties and Rules Governing Teachers 10/99 4003:18 Disclosure of Personnel Information 10/71 4003.19 Tuberculosis Clearance 7/79 4005.15 Kindergarten Work Day 1976 4006.1 Leaves, Resignation Deadline 10/71 4006.2 Acceptance of Resignation 10/80 4006.5 Work Restrictions and Modified-Duty Program 9/92 40.06.25 Certificates and Assignments in Special Programs (Bilingual) 1978 4007a-c Instructions for Filing Leave Requests (Certificated) 9/82 4007.1 Extended Sick Leave (Certificated Employees) 9/80 4009 Probationary Certificated Employee Assistance and Training 12/99

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 20

Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued) Board Policies and Administrative Regulations Reviewed by the Audit Team San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Date Policy Description Adopted 4011 Counselor Selection Procedure 2/85 4020 Librarian Policy 9/72 4030.2 Assignments, Class 1/72 4031 Authorization to Teach in a Departmentalized Setting 9/93 4110 Inservice Education 4/74 4115 Nepotism 2/01 4116 Certificated Employee Dress Code Policy 12/94 4118 Coach's Code of Ethics Policy 3/98 4120 Critical Incident Intervention 4/96 4136 Affirmative Action Program for Equal Employment Opportunity 5/04 4136. 1 a-d Nondiscriminatory Harassment Policy 5/04 4138 Cultural Diversity Policy 1/01 4140 Employee Responsibility When Dealing with the Public 11/87 4141 Notary Public Services 4/94 4150 Industrial Accident and Illness Leave for Classified Employees 8/99 4155a-c Family Leave 7/99 4160a-b Employee Technology Use 11/01 4200a-b Certificated Rules of Conduct 7/93 4205 Drug-Free Workplace 12/97 4210a-b Alcohol and Drugs 4/92 4215 District Personnel Identification Badge 9/99 4216a-b Certificated Employee Dress Code Procedure 11/95 4221 Letters of Employment Recommendation 1/99 4500 Consolidation of Classified Personnel Management 6/73 4505 Classified Skelly Procedure 8/83 4510 Confidential Differential 7/88 4600 Rules and Policies of the Personnel Commission (Classified) 1975 4601 Overtime Authorization 1970 4602a-c Classified Employees Working Out of Classification 9/84 4603 Classified Bilingual Positions 2/84 4604 Request for Reclassification and New Classification 2/96 4610 Suspension, Demotion, or Dismissal of Classified Employees 6/93 4700a-b Employee Suggestion Policy 4/82 5110a-b Early Admission to Kindergarten and First Grade 10/94 5112a-c High School Attendance and Grading Policy 5/94

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 21

Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued) Board Policies and Administrative Regulations Reviewed by the Audit Team San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Date Policy Description Adopted Procedures and Guidelines for the Implementation of the High School 5112.1 5/94 Attendance and Grading Policy 5113.1 Attendance and Excuses 5/73 5113.2 Student School Attendance Policy . 1/02 5113.2a-b Student School Attendance Procedures 9/00 511.4a-d Verification of Student Absences 1/02 5115a-b Open Enrollment (Intradistrict) 4/94 5115.1 a-b Open Enrollment (Intradistrict) Procedures 4/94 5116a-c School Assignment and Student Transfer Policy 12/82 5116.1 a-1 Student Transfer Procedures and Guidelines 12/82 51 l 7a-e Continuation High School Involuntary Transfer Policy 1/79 5118 Look-Alike Weapons Policy 6/90 5119 Closed Campus Policy 8/90 5119.1 Closed Campus Procedure 2/91 5120 Admission Procedures for Richardson PREP HI 7/82 5122 F-l Student Visa Requirements Policy 5/97 5126 Student Reward Policy 9/97 5126.1 Reward Procedure, Student 9/97 5131 Athlete's Code of Ethics Policy 3/98 5132 School Uniform Policy (Kindergarten through Grade 8) 7/00 5133a-b Freedom of Expression--Publication/Printed Materials 3/97 5140a-ii Student Behavior Policy 3/04 5141 Independent Study for Students Referred for Expulsion Policy 1/02 5141.1 Independent Study for Students Referred for Expulsion Procedure 8/85 5143 Police Interviewing or Removing Students from School 4/96 5144 Student Search Policy 7/94 5145.1 Police Questioning and Apprehension 5/73 5146 Election Campaigns 5/72 5147a-b Student Athlete Drug Testing Policy 7/97 5148 Students Left at School After School Hours 9/91 5149a-b Administering Medication to Students 1/00 5150a-c Nondiscriminatory Harassment (Students) 12/01 5155 Possession of Self-Defense Tear Gas 4/96 5160 Student Internet Access 6/98 5200a-I Student Congress 5/79 5205 Honorary High School Diplomas for Foreign Exchange Students 5/88

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 22

Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued) Board Policies and Administrative Regulations Reviewed by the Audit Team San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Date Policy Description Adopted 5210 Commitment of Change to Middle School 6/88 5215 Educational Incentive Program for Middle Schools 9/94 5216 Educational Incentive Program for High Schools 4/04 5220 Policy on Improper Dress for Students 10/88 5300 Exclusion of Students with Communicable Diseases (AIDS) 5/86 5301 Confidential Health Information Policy 10/03 5302a-b Confidential Health Information Guidelines 10/03 5303 Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) Orders Policy 10/03 5400a-c Student Volunteer Community Services Program 4/87 5410 Work Permit Procedure 3/91 6100a-e Philosophy and Goals of Education 2/83 6101 Instructional Council 4/76 6102 Comprehensive Curriculum 11/85 6105 Middle School Course Requirements 4/00 6110a-d Standard Testing Guidelines and Practices 11/80 6120a-c Graduation Requirements 5/03 6120.1 Graduation Requirement for Special Education Students 7/82 6120.2 Adult School Graduation Requirements 8/04 6121 Criteria for Fewer than Four Periods a Day 12/74 6122a Elementary Capping Policy 3/97 6122b-d Capping Guidelines 6/90 6123a-b High School Graduation Ceremonies 2/84 Standards for Secondary School Student Eligibility for Participation in 6125a-c 1/96 Athletics and Extracurricular Activities 6125.1 Summer School--Extracurricular and Athletic Eligibility 5/85 Guidelines and Procedures for Implementing Standards for Secondary School 6125.1 a-c 8/98 Student Eligibility 6126a-b Homework Policy 7/84 6127 Credits Required to Attain 10th, 11th or 12th Grade Status 5/86 6128 Secondary School Capping Policy 4/96 6129a-b K-8 Promotion and Retention Policy 6/99 6129.1 a-e Promotion, Retention, and Acceleration Administrative Procedures 3/00 6130a-b Motion Pictures and/or Videotapes Shown to Students 9/96 6135a-b Student Transfer--International Baccalaureate 8/87 6140 School-Based Coordinated Categorical Programs 7/90 6141 Drug Education Program 1/72 6142 Health Science and Sex Education 11/69

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 23

Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued) Board Policies and Administrative Regulations Reviewed by the Audit Team San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Date Policy Description Adopted 6142a-b Health Science and Sex Education: Philosophy, Parental Consent 11/69 6143a-c Mentally Gifted Minors 10/75 6144 Career Education Curriculum 9/73 6145 Physical Education Requirements (High School) 2/76 6145.1 Physical Education Apparel 7/76 6145.2 Guidelines for Adaptive Physical Education 9/75 6145.3 Medical Exemption from Physical Education 1/00 6146a-b Vocational Education Program--Statement of Policy 4/69 6147 Music Requirement for Junior High School 6/69 6148 Driver Training Instruction 6/69 6149 Pregnant Minors Policy 3/78 6150a-b Use of Dissection in the Instructional Program 3/75 6151a-d English Learner Program Policy 5/99 6152 Standardized Testing and Reporting Accommodations for English Learners 12/00 6162 Furniture and Audiovisual Equipment 1/72 6176 Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 9/70 6177 Junior ROTC at PHS 5/74 6180 District Criteria for Annual Evaluation of Consolidated Programs Policy 8/97 6200 Elementary Instructional Day 4/74 6201 Kindergarten Instructional Day 2/89 6205 Weekly Curriculum Time Allotments 7/86 6210 Registration Fee for Adult Education 12/94 6215a-d Independent Study 1/02 6250a-h Advisory Councils 12/78 6300a-b School Improvement Program 10/78 6300.1 Master Plan for School Improvement 1/79 8310 Publication 1/72 &311 Compensation for Meetings 4/98 8312 Recognition Awards 7/83 8313a-b Board of Education Inservice and Business Expense 8/02 8,314 Health and Welfare Coverage for Former Board Members 12/85 8320 School Board Agenda Policy 8/01 8400.1-9 Rules and Regulations for the Board of Education Meetings 8/86 The auditors then identified 43 policies and procedures which related to curriculum. Exhibit 1.1.2 lists the curriculum-related policies and administrative procedures that were reviewed by the auditors including the date of board adoption or last revision.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 24 Exhibit 1.1.2 Curriculum-related Board Policies Reviewed by the Audit Team San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Date of Adoption or Policy Number Policy Last Revision 1245a-d School Site Council October 27, 1998 1247a-c Adult School, School Site Council January 12, 1999 2001 Central Administrative Staff – Superintendent October, 1971 2301 Controversial Issues July16, 1991 2010 District Management Team February 5, 1976 P# 2019a Evaluation Procedures for Certificated Managers November 1, 1993 P# 2020a-e Relationship of Administrator to the Board of Education 1976 P# 2300a-b Instructional Needs Assessment Funding Program October 4, 1979 2357 Schools with Special Needs January 6, 1972 3100a-d Free and Reduced Price Meals June 12, 1998 4003.7a-b Duties and Rules Governing Teachers October 5, 1999 P# 4003.10a-b High School Department Chairperson, Job Description April 1981 P# 4005.15 Kindergarten Work Day 1976 4020 Librarian Policy September 21, 1972 4110 Inservice Education April 18, 1974 5112a-c High School Attendance and Grading Policy May 17, 2004 6100a Philosophy of Education February 1, 1983 6100b District Goals February 1, 1983 6100c Student Achievement Goals February 1, 1983 6101 Instructional Council April 1, 1976 6102 Comprehensive Curriculum November 19, 1985 6105 Middle School Course Requirements April 18, 2000 P# 6110a-b Standard Testing Guidelines and Practices November 3, 1980 P# 6110c Standard Testing, Security Procedures November 3, 1980 6120a-c Graduation Requirements May 6, 2003 6120.1 Graduation Requirement for Special Education Students July 20, 1982 6120.2a-b Adult School Graduation Requirements August 17, 2004 6122a Elementary Capping Policy December 7, 2004 6123a-b High School Graduation Ceremonies February 21, 1984 Stands for Secondary School Student Eligibility for August 18, 1998 6125a-c Participation in Summer School 6125.1 Summer School –Extracurricular and Athletic Eligibility May 21, 1985 6126a Homework Policy July 10, 1984 Credits Required to Attain 10th, 11th or 12th Grade May 20, 1986 6127 Status 6128 Secondary Capping Policy December 7, 2004 6129 K-8 Promotion and Retention Policy June 22, 1999 6140 School-Based Coordinated Categorical Programs July 17, 1990 6144 Career Education Curriculum September 20, 1973

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 25

Exhibit 1.1.2 (continued) Curriculum-related Board Policies Reviewed by the Audit Team San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

6146a-b Vocational Education Program – Statement of Policy April 4, 1969 6149 Pregnant Minors Program March 16, 1978 6151a-d English Learner Program Policy December 19, 2000 District Criteria for Annual Evaluation of Consolidated 6180 August 1997 Programs 6300a-b School Improvement Program October 5, 1978 63001.1 Master Plan for School Improvement January 18, 1979 Note: P# = Administrative Procedure Number Policy Design The auditors assessed the quality of district policies listed in Exhibit 1.1.2 by comparing their content to audit criteria for good curriculum management policies. Twenty-six criteria were organized into five categories: control, direction, connectivity and equity, feedback, and productivity. The auditors examined each curriculum-related policy to determine whether the audit criteria were present in the policy. If a policy was adequate in providing specific guidance to the issue under consideration, the policy was judged to have met the criterion and the symbol “X” was placed in the “Adequate” column. If a policy was determined to be too weak to meet the criterion the symbol “X” was placed in the “Inadequate” column. The symbol “P” was used in cases where policies or regulations contained language which addressed the criteria but lacked the specificity needed to warrant having fully met the criteria. The auditors then reviewed the individual policy determinations to determine whether a group of policies relating to a criterion collectively contained content that met the specific criterion. If the group of policies did meet the criterion the auditors used the symbol “X” in the “Met” column entitled “Criterion” and conversely the symbol “X” was entered into the “Not Met” column for those groups of policies not meeting the criterion. In the event that no policies were available that related to the criterion the word “None” was placed into the “Policy” column and the symbol “X” was entered into the “Not Met” column. The final step in determining adequacy involved counting the number of criteria that were met by the policies. Seventy (70) percent or more of the criteria had to be met in order for the set of policies to be characterized as adequate. Overall, the policies and procedures were found to be inadequate with respect to curriculum management. Four of the possible 26 criteria were met, therefore, the policies are considered inadequate to provide for quality control in curriculum management. Exhibit 1.1.3 presents the 26 criteria and the ratings of the auditors.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 26 Exhibit 1.1.3 Quality Criteria for Curriculum Management Policies and Auditors’ Assessment San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Individual Policy Criterion Not Not Criteria Policies Met Met Met Met Provides for CONTROL – requires Procedure X X 4003.10a-b 6100c-e X a. Aligned written, taught and tested curriculum 6101 X 6105 X 6144 X b. Philosophical statement of curriculum approach 6100a X X (e.g., competency-based, outcomes-based, etc.) 6146a-b X c. Board adoption of curriculum 6102 X X 2001 X X 2010 P d. Accountability through roles and responsibilities P# 2019a P P# 2020a-e P 4003.7a-b X 1245a-d X X 6100b X e. Long-range, system-wide planning 6300a-b X 6300.1 X Provides for DIRECTION – requires: a. Written curriculum for all subject/learning areas None X b. Periodic review of the curriculum None X c. Textbook/resource alignment to curriculum and None X assessment d. Content area emphasis (i.e. time allocation) None X e. Program integration and alignment to curriculum None X Provides for CONNECTIVITY AND EQUITY – requires a. Predictability of the written curriculum from one None X level to another b. Vertical articulation and horizontal coordination of None X the curriculum c. Training for staff in the delivery of the curriculum 4110 X X d. Delivery of the adopted curriculum None X e. Monitoring of the delivery of the curriculum None X

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 27

Exhibit 1.1.3 (continued) Quality Criteria for Curriculum Management Policies and Auditors’ Assessment San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Individual Policy Criterion Not Not Criteria Policies Met met Met met Procedure # X X 2300a-b 2357 P f. Equitable student access to the curriculum 3100a-d P Procedure # X 4005.15 4020 P Provides for FEEDBACK – requires Procedure # X X 4005.15 a. Student and program assessment plan Procedure # X 6110a-c 1245 a-d X X b. Use of data from assessment to determine program/curriculum effectiveness 6151a-d X 6180 X 6140 X X c. Reports to the board about program effectiveness 6180 X d. Use of data to determine effectiveness of all 1245a-c X X district functions 6180 X Provides for PRODUCTIVITY – requires a. Program-centered budget None X Procedure # X X b. Resource allocation tied to curriculum priorities 2300a-b 2357 P c. Environment to support curriculum delivery None X d. Support systems focused on mission delivery None X e. Data-driven decisions for the purpose of 6140 P X increasing student learning 6180 X f. Change processes for long term institutionalization None X Note: An “X” in the rating column indicates either fully adequate or fully inadequate. A “P” in the rating column indicates partially adequate. The following can be noted from Exhibit 1.1.3 • Four of the 26 criteria were met by the policies. • Existing policies were rated inadequate on nine of the criteria. • There were no policies that related to 14 of the criteria. • With only 4 of the 26 criteria being met, the policies did not meet 70% threshold for adequate policies.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 28 While the board policies of the San Bernardino City Unified School District were found to be inadequate, the auditors’ general analysis of district policies and procedures indicate that some policies address issues regarding curriculum management. The following is a descriptive analysis of the policies. 1. Control a. Aligned written, taught and tested curriculum: • Procedure 4003.10a-b (1981) represents the job description for High School Department Chairpersons. It does not meet the audit standards for a job description or reference district curriculum with enough specificity to indicate evidence of control over the delivery of the written curriculum. • Board Policy 6100c-e (1983) contains a list of Student Achievement Goals that are not linked to the district curriculum or vice versa. The result is there are more than one set of student achievement goals. • Board Policy 6101 (1976) directs the superintendent to appoint an Instructional Council to advise and recommend regarding curriculum matters. The Council is charged with addressing modification, adaptation, development and monitoring the district curriculum. The policy lacks specificity regarding the makeup of the Council and is silent on the issue of curriculum alignment. • Board Policy 6105 (2000) delineates the number of subject area semesters of instruction students will be required to complete in grades seven and eight but is silent on the issue of curriculum alignment. • Board Policy 6144 (1973) is a statement of commitment to career education which urges continued development but provides no direction or criteria on by which to guide the effort. b. Philosophical statement of curriculum approach (e.g., competency-based, outcomes-based, etc.): • Board Policy 6100a (1983) contains a philosophy statement regarding education and includes a reference to curriculum but lacks a reference to a specific curriculum approach. • Board Policy 6146a-b (1969) although entitled as a philosophy the document does not mention curriculum approach. c. Board adoption of curriculum: • Board Policy 6102 (1985) is in response to SB 813 revision to Education Code Section 44662 which requires governing boards to establish standards of pupil achievement at each level and in each area of study but does not include reference to board adoption of the curriculum. d. Accountability through roles and responsibilities: • Board Policy 2001 (1971) identifies the Superintendent as the executive head of the school district, chief executive officer of the Board of Education and secretary of the Board. • Board Policy 2010 (1976) identifies the Board of Education of the San Bernardino City Unified School District as the official policy making body for all phases of school operations. It also assigns the responsibility of making policy recommendations to the district management team although it does not specifically identify the members of this team. • Procedure # 2019a (1993) describes the provisions for evaluating certificated managers on a number of factors including compliance with District policies and procedures.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 29 • Procedure # 2020a-e (1976) generally describes the roles, relationship and communication methods between the Board of Education, Superintendent and Administrators. • Board Policy 4003.7a-b (1999) describes the function of teaching in terms of instructing all pupils. The policy is silent with respect to the written curriculum and assessment. e. Long-range, system-wide planning: • Board Policy 1245c (1998) assigns the school site council the responsibility to “review the activities of the school improvement or school-based coordinated program” with staff at the school. Further the policy assigns the responsibility to the council of annually reviewing school program effectiveness using the District process. It also designates one person other than the principal to assist the leadership team in developing the Instructional Improvement Plan (IIP). • Board Policy 6100b (1983) contains a list of District Goals that are intended to articulate the philosophy found in Policy 6100a. These goals are not linked to the district plan entitled “Blueprint for Success” or vice versa. The result is that the Blueprint for Success is inconsistent with Board policy. • Board Policy 6300a-b (1978) provides direction to and acceptable administrative procedures used to develop the district master plan for school improvement. The policy acknowledges the role of the School Site Council and defines the relationships between groups and individuals within the District with respect to developing and updating the master plan. • Board Policy 6300.1(1979) verifies that the Board of Education approved the Master Plan for School Improvement January 18, 1979. This policy is clearly out of date and not applicable to current operations. 2. Direction a. Written curriculum for all subject/learning areas: None b. Periodic review of the curriculum: None c. Textbook/resource alignment to curriculum and assessment: None d. Content area emphasis (i.e. time allocation): None e. Program integration and alignment to curriculum: None 3. Connectivity and Equity a. Predictability of the written curriculum from one level to another: None b. Vertical articulation and horizontal coordination: None c. Training for staff in the delivery of the curriculum: • Board Policy 4110 (1974) affirms the commitment of the Board for “inservice education for district certificated personnel in the area of history, culture and current problems of minorities.” The scope of the policy is too narrow to be deemed adequate. d. Delivery of the adopted curriculum: None e. Monitoring of the delivery of the curriculum: None f. Equitable student access to the curriculum: • Procedure # 2300a-b (1979) indicates the Board shall budget funds which are to be distributed to all schools for the instructional program and school operation. The funds are to

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 30 be allocated per unit of ADA (average daily rate). The procedure does not include equity provisions. • Board Policy 2357(1972) states that any elementary school characterized by problems indicating a special need based on economic, low achievement, serious behaviors, etc. will be eligible for additional funds to meet the needs. The policy lacks provisions for secondary schools. • Board Policy 3100a-d (1998) directs the Superintendent to develop a plan that ensures that students eligible for meal price considerations are not treated differently or easily identified by their peers. • Procedure 4005.15(1976) addresses planning between kindergarten teaching staff and the elementary principal for individual instruction and assessment. • Board Policy 4020 (1972) specifies that each regular secondary school shall have a credentialed librarian. 4. Feedback a. Student and program assessment plan: • Procedure 4005.15(1976) addresses planning between kindergarten teaching staff and the elementary principal for individual instruction and assessment. • Procedure # 6110a-b (1980) delineates acceptable and unacceptable assessment practices by teachers. Teacher awareness of test content is referenced but not from an alignment with instruction perspective. • Procedure #6110c (1980) refers to testing security and procedures without any alignment considerations. b. Use of data from assessment to determine program/curriculum effectiveness: • Board Policy 1245c (1998) assigns the school site council the responsibility to “review the activities of the school improvement or school-based coordinated program” with staff at the school. Further the policy assigns the responsibility to the council of annually reviewing school program effectiveness using the District process. It also designates one person other than the principal to assist the leadership team in developing the Instructional Improvement Plan (IIP). • Board Policy 6151a-d(2000) provides direction and control of English Leaner and Support Programs. It represents a policy that meets audit criteria with respect to feedback. • Board Policy 6180 (1997) requires the Superintendent to review the effectiveness of District programs in meeting desired outcomes and providing regular reports to the Board. This policy meets criteria and may serve as a model for future policy development in the area of program evaluation and reporting to the board. c. Reports to the board about program effectiveness: • Board Policy 6140 (1990) provides direction to school receiving a variety of specially designated funds. These guidelines include the requirement to establish an evaluation process to evaluate program effectiveness. • Board Policy 6180 (1997) requires the Superintendent to review the effectiveness of District programs in meeting desired outcomes and providing regular reports to the Board. This policy meets criteria and may serve as a model for future policy development in the area of program evaluation and reporting to the board.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 31 d. Use of data to determine effectiveness of all district functions: • Board Policy 1245c (1998) assigns the school site council the responsibility to “review the activities of the school improvement or school-based coordinated program” with staff at the school. Further the policy assigns the responsibility to the council of annually reviewing school program effectiveness using the District process. It also designates one person other than the principal to assist the leadership team in developing the Instructional Improvement Plan (IIP). • Board Policy 6140 (1990) provides direction to school receiving a variety of specially designated funds. These guidelines include the requirement to establish an evaluation process to evaluate program effectiveness. • Board Policy 6180 (1997) requires the Superintendent to review the effectiveness of District programs in meeting desired outcomes and providing regular reports to the Board. This policy meets criteria and may serve as a model for future policy development in the area of program evaluation and reporting to the board. 5. Productivity a. Program-centered budget: None b. Resource allocation tied to curriculum priorities: • Procedure # 2300a-b indicates the Board shall budget funds which are to be distributed to all schools for the instructional program and school operation. The funds are to be allocated per unit of ADA (average daily rate). The procedure does not reference instructional priorities. • Board Policy 2357 states that any elementary school characterized by problems indicating a special need based on economic, low achievement, serious behaviors, etc. will be eligible for additional funds to meet the needs. The policy lacks provisions for secondary schools and does not reference instructional priorities. c. Support systems focused on mission delivery: None d. Supportive Curriculum Delivery Environment: None e. Data-driven decisions for the purpose of increasing student learning: • Board Policy 6140 provides direction to school receiving a variety of specially designated funds. These guidelines include the requirement to establish an evaluation process to evaluate program effectiveness. • Board Policy 6180 requires the Superintendent to review the effectiveness of District programs in meeting desired outcomes and providing regular reports to the Board. This policy meets criteria and may serve as a model for future policy development in the area of program evaluation and reporting to the board. f. Change processes for long term institutionalization: None The auditors noted that education in California is regulated heavily by the state law and Department of Education rules. As a result, policy has become a secondary consideration in the direction and control of the school district and in some cases unwritten policy emanates from conversations at board meetings and among administrative staff. This creates confusion and inconsistent practice. Effective control is also hindered by out of date policy. These issues became apparent during interviews with board members and district staff during which the following comments were recorded by the auditors: • “I can’t think of any curriculum policies other than state mandates.”

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 32 • “I know we can improve our policy-making function.” • “Schools are somewhat free to do things on their own.” • “Everyone (principals) is using the (discipline) policy differently. This is a big concern.” • “[in our] monthly management meetings information is disseminated formally and informally.” • “Various people in central give conflicting information to schools regarding program implementation.” • “We would like more information on the curriculum items in the agendas.” • “Various people in central give conflicting information to schools regarding program implementation.” • “There are no policies or written procedures for adopting interventions.” • “Sense of expectations may be verbalized but not put into action.” • “We lack a process for reviewing policy.” Policy Use and Compliance In the next phase of their policy review the auditors conducted a series of interviews with board members, administrators and teachers to determine the manner in which policies were used and the extent of compliance with district policies. The following statements were noted by the auditors regarding policy use and compliance: • “Board policies give us parameters…mostly used in student discipline, homework, personnel, etc.” • “I use my policy book a lot …student discipline and staff management…because I want to be guided and to have backup to my stances. I also use the bargained contracts.” • “We don’t all know them (policies) all, but if we have a question, we can look for policy help and then call one of the assistant superintendents we might need.” • “Helps me with personnel management, student discipline, curriculum graduation requirements, etc. – use it a lot to get a protocol for those areas.” During these interviews the auditors noted that although the number of policies needed to ensure board control is inadequate, those policies that are in place are used to guide some aspects of decision-making within the district. The auditors found a general lack of policy and procedure related to curriculum management. The auditors also reviewed Board of Education meeting agendas for the period July 2003 to December 2004. This review included the agendas for 34 board meetings held during this 18 month period. The auditors verified that four of the policies listed in Exhibit 1.1.2 were included as agenda action items during this period. A further review of the agendas did not reveal any additional items relating to board policy regarding curriculum management. In summary, district policies are inadequate to provide the direction and quality control needed for sound curriculum management. Many existing policies are out dated and irrelevant to current operations. Two of the more recently adopted policies (6151a-d & 6180) regarding evaluation and the use of data represent examples of adequate policies that could serve as models for future policy development. Generally the existing policies are not comprehensive or of sufficient quality to control and direct all facets of curriculum management.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 33 Finding 1.2: Fragmented System-Wide Planning at the District and School Site Levels Do Not Provide Focus for Sound System Management.

School systems are dynamic organizations that are subject to the changing expectations and demands of stakeholders. Meeting these challenges require school organizations and people within them to adjust to change by implementing specific strategies that can be brought about through systematic planning efforts. Effective planning supports the efforts of an organization to direct and focus its resources, and maximize results within a specific time frame. School systems develop both long range and short range plans to provide a common focus and coordination to efforts that will accommodate, anticipate, and direct change. These comprehensive, system-wide plans, therefore, create the framework for system change and ultimately improvement in student achievement. System-Wide Long Range Planning In order to determine the status of planning in the San Bernardino City Unified School District, the auditors analyzed planning processes through a review of policies, planning documents, and other resources that were provided by district officials. Interviews were conducted with members of the board, administrative and teaching staff, other staff members, and members of the community. The auditors reviewed the following board policies related to district long-range planning: • Procedure 4005.15 addresses planning between kindergarten teaching staff and the elementary principal for individual instruction and assessment. • Board Policy 6100b contains a list of district goals. • Board Policy 6100 c-e contains a list of student achievement goals. • Board Policy 6300a states that each principal will make available school improvement information including the District Master Plan for school improvement. • Board Policy 6300.1 verifies that the Board of Education approved the Master Plan for School Improvement on January 18, 1979. The auditors also reviewed a number of planning documents presented to them by district officials including two major plans: the Blueprint for Success, a locally developed planning document, was presented as the comprehensive district planning document and the Local Education Agency (LEA) Plan, which is a state legal requirement. The Blueprint for Success and the LEA Plan has been approved by the Board of Education as a plan that will be monitored and for which the district will be held accountable. The auditors were not presented with any policy or procedure that directs the design or delivery of the Blueprint for Success or LEA Plan. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires school districts to develop a Local Education Agency (LEA) Plan that describes the educational services for all students that can be used to guide implementation of federal and state-funded programs, the allocation of resources, and reporting requirements. Specific direction for the design and delivery of the LEA Plan is provided. A checklist of the required contents of the LEA Plan and the development process for the LEA Plan, which includes recommendations for monitoring progress, evaluating the effectiveness of planned activities, and modifying the plan, are available to local school districts as a planning resource. The auditors found no single, comprehensive, long-range plan that directs systemic planning or provides actions for improving student achievement. A number of planning documents exist, but are not aligned to each other or to a single, long-range district plan. Auditors found that the district does not have a comprehensive curriculum management plan (see Finding 2.1), a district-wide professional development plan (see Finding 3.1), or an assessment and evaluation plan (see Finding 4.1). The

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 34 facilities master plan is inadequate to guide facility planning and development (see Finding 5.1), and the technology plan does not meet audit criteria (see Finding 5.4). In addition, policy does not provide guidance for a long-range systemic planning process (see Finding 1.1). In order to determine the existence and adequacy of a comprehensive long-range plan the auditors reviewed a number of planning documents that were provided by district officials. Exhibit 1.2.1 includes a list of the documents that were provided by the district and reviewed by the auditors. Exhibit 1.2.1 Planning Documents Reviewed by the Auditors San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Planning Document Year(s) Developed Blueprint for Success 2004 Local Education Agency Plan 2003 - 2008 Instructional Improvement Plans 1999-2005 High Priority Plans 2001-2005 Intermediate Intervention/Underperforming 2001-2005 Schools Program Plans Special Education Local Plan 2003 Advanced Learner Programs and Services 2004-2008 Multi-Year Plan Behavior Support Plan No Date Given Technology Plan 2002-2006 WASC Accreditation Action Plans 2000-2004 After determining that the Blueprint for Success and the LEA Plan represented the most comprehensive planning documents presented to them, the auditors reviewed and analyzed the Local Education Agency Plan and the Blueprint for Success together using 13 audit criteria for system planning. The criteria used to assess school district planning are presented in Exhibit 1.2.2.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 35 Exhibit 1.2.2 Criteria for Assessing System Planning San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Setting Direction 1. Mission: General-purpose, aim of an organization. Description of expectations and requirements relative to identification of the primary client, ends and results, general approaches, and implementation personnel. Describes the reason a school system exists, and beliefs, values and expectations are clearly defined and communicated. 2. Critical Analysis: Collection and analysis of vital data about all facets of the internal and external environments of the school organization. Defines the status of a school organization and describes the future by combining forecasting results with status-check results. 3. Assumptions: Prediction of the events and conditions that are likely to influence the performance of a school organization, division, or key individuals. A form of forecasting concerned with what the future will look like. Helps bridge the gap between needs and actions in the planning process. 4. Components: Means of grouping goals for the purpose of communicating and management. All goals will be assigned to a component and each component will consist of one or more goals. 5. Objectives: Statements of results that are measurable and have time limitations. Describe the condition(s) a school organization wants to improve. Desired improvements translated into objectives are written for each goal. As objectives are met, goals are accomplished. 6. Evaluation: Statements of conditions that show evidence that an objective is satisfactorily achieved and procedures developed for completing the evaluation. Each objective must be evaluated and the evaluation procedures should be developed at the same time the objective is written. Deploying Direction 7. Action Plans: Actions to be taken that will help achieve the objectives. Each objective will have one or more activities. Significant elements of each activity include a due date, responsible person(s), and costs. 8. Plan Integration: Goals and action plans are integrated, including resources 9. Planning and Budget Timeline Relationships: Goals and action plans are in place and integrated prior to the budgeting process. 10. Multi Year Planning and Goal Feasibility: Planning extends over several years, and the number of goals and actions are feasible within the resources of the district. 11. Plans: All documents in a system are aligned to the plan. Unit and school based improvement plans are aligned to the district goal priorities. Managing Direction 12. Stakeholder Commitment: Stakeholders in a system (community, Board, administrators, staff, and students) are committed to a plan. 13. Monitoring in Design: systems for assessing the status of activities, analyzing the results, and reporting outcomes are built into the design of the plan. The following is a summary of the auditors’ analysis of the Blueprint for Success and the LEA Plan using the 13 criteria listed in Exhibit 1.2.2:

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 36 Mission: The District mission statement can be found throughout the district in various documents, but is not found in the Blueprint for Success. The mission is included in the LEA Plan. The mission states “The primary mission of the District is to provide academic instruction to each student sufficient to develop the skills, knowledge, and understanding required to promote personal development to the fullest extent of the individual’s potential.” Critical Analysis: The Blueprint for Success does not include data used to develop goals, objectives, or action plans. The LEA Plan includes a district profile that describes the school district, the community, the demographics of the community, and partnerships with local businesses. One of the goals includes a needs and strength assessment and another provides a description of how the LEA is meeting or plans to meet the goal. Although the LEA Plan includes a description of student academic assessments, it does not include an analysis of student achievement data. Assumptions: The Blueprint for Success is based on assumptions and predictions that the Superintendent believes will influence the performance of the school organization. These assumptions and predictions, however, are not specifically described in the plan and data to inform these predictions is not included. The LEA Plan does not include any assumptions or predictions about how particular activities or other conditions may affect the district in the future. Components: A clear grouping of components is included in the Blueprint for Success. Four goals are identified: smaller learning communities, bilingual/biliterate district, schools of effective instruction, and a professional development center. Strategies have been developed to address each of the four goals and for each strategy an action plan has been developed. The LEA Plan addresses five goals: all students attaining proficiency in reading and math, all limited English proficient students becoming proficient in English and attaining proficiency in reading/language arts and mathematics, all students taught by highly qualified teachers, learning environments that are safe, drug free, and conducive to learning, and all students will graduate from high school. Action steps have been identified for each goal. Objectives: The Blueprint for Success does not contain objectives, but rather action steps. There is no indication of how the action steps are to be measured, nor is a time frame for completion of the action steps provided. The LEA Plan includes objectives for each specific action listed and performance indicators are included. The time frame for completion of these actions is not specific, but rather identical to the duration of time the plan is in effect, 2003 through 2008. Evaluation: The Blueprint for Success does not identify the evidence required to indicate that action steps have been achieved and does not include any evaluation procedures. The LEA Plan includes specific performance indicators for each goal identified in the plan. One goal gives a description of how the LEA will conduct regular evaluations of the effectiveness of a particular program. Another goal indicates specific benchmarks to indicate that objectives have been achieved; however, not all objectives are evaluated. Action Plans: Action plans are included in the Blueprint for Success, but they are not complete. A separate document addresses budget considerations, but the action plans do not include a date of completion, responsible person (s), or costs.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 37 Action plans are included in the LEA Plan. Furthermore, the action plans indicate persons involved, related expenditures, estimated costs, and funding sources. No specific timelines are included other than the duration of time the plan is in effect, 2003-2008. Plan Integration: The Blueprint for Success and the LEA Plan do not integrate the goals and action plans form other planning documents as listed in Exhibit 1.2.1. The LEA Plan does, however, include goals from other programs, such as the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities program and the Tobacco Use Prevention Education program. Planning and Budget Timeline Relationships: It is evident that the strategies and action plans found in the Blueprint for Success were in place and integrated prior to the budgeting process. A separate document providing budget details was developed after the formulation of strategies and action plans. In the LEA Plan, it is evident that the related expenditures, estimated costs, and funding sources were integrated at the same time that action plans and objectives were developed. Multi-year Planning and Goal Feasibility: The professional development center summary of the Blueprint for Success states that “The Superintendent’s Blueprint for Success will serve as the District’s strategic plan for the next 5 to 10 years.” However, no other indication is included in the plan that extends planning over several years. The duration of the LEA Plan is from 2003 through 2008, but no indication of specific timelines for the completion of goals, actions, or objectives is provided. In the absence of any specific timeline in either plan, it is not possible to determine if the strategies and action plans are feasible. Connected Plans: The various planning documents provided to the auditors are listed in Exhibit 1.2.1. The auditors were not presented with any evidence in documents provided by district personnel or during interviews with district stakeholders that demonstrates these plans are aligned to the Blueprint for Success or the LEA Plan. Stakeholder Commitment: The development of the Blueprint for Success included input from a variety of district stakeholders, however, not all stakeholders are committed to the plan and many do not completely understand how the Blueprint for Success will be implemented. The LEA Plan requires that the district attest to compliance with a number of assurances, one of which states that “The LEA has consulted with teachers, school administrators, parents, and others in the development of the local consolidated application/LEA Plan to the extent required under Federal law governing each program included in the consolidated application/LEA Plan”. Monitoring In Design – The Blueprint for Success does not include a system for assessment, data analysis, or reporting of outcomes. There are no stated incremental improvement targets which can serve as key points for evaluation and modification. Although the duration of the LEA Plan is over a 5 year period, state requirements mandate that the plan must reviewed and updated annually, and the analysis of data for ongoing program monitoring and evaluation is expected. With the exception of one goal, however, no specific actions are provided that direct how regular evaluations will be conducted, how results will be analyzed, or how the LEA will publicly report progress towards attaining performance measures. Exhibit 1.2.3 shows the level of adequacy of the planning criteria based on an analysis of both the Blueprint for Success and the Local Education Agency Plan.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 38 Exhibit 1.2.3 Adequacy of Planning Criteria San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Adequacy Criteria Adequate Inadequate 1. Mission X 2. Critical Analysis P 3. Assumptions X 4. Components X 5. Objectives P 6. Evaluation X 7. Action Plans P 8. Plan Integration P 9. Planning and Budget Timeline Relationships X 10. Multi-year Planning and Goal Feasibility X 11. Connected Plans X 12. Stakeholder Commitment P 13. Monitoring in Design X Key: P = partially met The following are noted in Exhibit 1.2.3: • 3 (23%) of the 13 planning criteria are considered adequate (Mission, Components, Planning and Budget Timelines Relationships). • 5 (38%) of the 13 planning criteria have been partially met (Critical Analysis, Objectives, Action Plans, Stakeholder Commitment). • 5 (38%%) of the 13 planning criteria are considered inadequate (Assumptions, Evaluation, Plan Integration, Multi-year Planning and Goal Feasibility, Connected Plans, Monitoring in Design). To be considered adequate, the plan must meet 70% of the audit planning criteria. The Blueprint for Success and the Local Education Plan, when analyzed together, are inadequate to provide focus and direction for district planning efforts. During interviews with board members, district staff and community members the auditors noted the following comments related to a lack of a comprehensive long-range plan that directs district activities: • “It seems like we jump on everything that comes along.” • “We need to be more focused, we are spread so thin.”

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 39 • “I’m not yet convinced that the blueprint is well understood by the labor force. There has been an attempt to educate us, but we always leave wondering how it’s going to happen, when it’s going to happen, why it is happening.” • “All the plans are not together as one district plan. Plans are there, but not coordinated so they are useful to us.” • “When we sit down to plan, are we planning out 5 years or are we planning today for tomorrow?” It is evident through interviews that the Blueprint for Success is a familiar document among certain stakeholders and is considered the comprehensive, long-range planning document for the district. On the other hand, the Local Education Agency Plan, a plan required by state and No Child Left Behind regulations, approved by the Board of Education, and the document that the district will be held accountable for, is being used but is not referred to as the guiding document that directs district initiatives. The Blueprint for Success and the Local Education Agency Plan are not aligned or consistent in content. The San Bernardino City Unified School District does not have a single, comprehensive, long-range plan that integrates all existing planning documents and provides focus and direction for sound management (see Finding 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.4). School Improvement Plans School improvement plans are tools that can be used to promote and sustain improvement efforts. A clear and comprehensive plan that is linked to a district long-range plan focuses the school community on the attainment of common goals for student learning. To assess the adequacy of school improvement plans in the San Bernardino City Unified School District, the auditors examined the Instructional Improvement Plans (IIP) listed in Exhibit 1.2.1 that were presented to them by district officials. The auditors also reviewed appropriate policies, and interviewed board members, administrators, teachers, and community members regarding planning at the school level. The auditors were presented with the following policies relative to school improvement planning: • Board Policy 6300a provides direction for acceptable administrative procedures used to develop the school improvement plan. The policy acknowledges the role of the School Site Council and defines the relationships between groups and individuals within the District with respect to developing and updating the school improvement plan. • Board Policy 1245c designates one person other than the principal to assist the leadership team in developing the Instructional Improvement Plan (IIP). Education Code 64001 requires that “a single school plan for pupil achievement be developed at each school that operates any programs funded through the Consolidated Application”. The California Department of Education has provided a template for the single plan for pupil achievement that meets the requirements of Education Code 64001. The template states the following: “This template provides a single, comprehensive school plan to improve academic performance of students. In addition, if all applicable portions of the template are properly completed, school plan component requirements will be met for all programs for which the school has an allocation in the Consolidated Application. The template may also be used for the following school improvement purposes: schools operating School-Based Coordinated Programs, schools operating School-wide Programs under E.S.E.A. Title I, schools in the Immediate Intervention/Under-performing Schools Program or the High Priority Schools Grant Program for Low Performing Schools, and secondary schools preparing for the Western Association of Schools and Colleges Focus on Learning accreditation process.”

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 40 The auditors found that all schools have developed Instructional Improvement Plans (IIP) that are consistent in format. The IIP’s do not follow the format of the template provided by the California Department of Education, but the IIP’s do include all of the components of a school plan required by state regulations. Many of the IIP’s include other plans (Immediate Intervention/Under-performing Schools plan and the High Priority Schools Grant) that are not aligned to the IIP. In addition, the IIP’s are not aligned to either the Blueprint for Success or the LEA Plan. Goals from the Blueprint for Success and the LEA Plan are not integrated into the IIP’s. The auditors reviewed 61 Instructional Improvement Plans that were presented to them by district officials. The auditors evaluated the Instructional Improvement Plans based on the criteria in Exhibit 1.2.3. Exhibit 1.2.4 Audit Criteria for Assessing School Improvement Plans San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 1. Easy To Read: The plan is easy to read and understood by all constituent groups. 2. Mission Statement: The school mission statement is included. 3. Alignment: The building objectives indicate alignment with district goals and objectives. 4. Goals: The goals are listed in the plan. 5. Objectives: The objectives are listed in the plan. 6. Strategies: The strategies, activities or specific steps are listed in the plan. 7. Critical Analysis: The plan is driven by identified data. Strategies are created to solve identified problems. 8. Method of Evaluation: The method of evaluation is determined when the plan is written. 9. Measurable Evaluation: The method of evaluation is based on measurable data. 10. Responsible Person(s): The people responsible to carry out the strategies are identified in the action plan. 11. Staff Development Needs: The action plan identifies specific professional development needed to help reach each goal. 12. Reporting Progress: Space is available within the plan format to report progress annually. Exhibit 1.2.4 lists the school plans that were reviewed and the auditors’ ratings of the plans according the criteria presented in Exhibit 1.2.3.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 41 Exhibit 1.2.5 School Improvement Plans Reviewed and Auditors’ Analysis San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Staff Goals Goals Critical Mission Analysis Analysis Strategies Reporting Alignment Objectives Evaluation Evaluation Development Easy to Read Measurement School Responsibility Elementary Schools Arrowhead N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Barton N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Belvedere N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Bradley N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N Burbank N N N Y Y Y Y N N Y P N California N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Cole N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N Cypress N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Davidson N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Del Rosa N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Emmerton N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Fairfax N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Highland N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Hillside N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Hunt N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Inghram N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Kendall N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Kimbark N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Lankershim N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Lincoln N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N Lytle Creek N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Marshall N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Monterey N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Mt. Vernon N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Muscoy N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Newmark N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y North Park N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y North Verdemont N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Oehl N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Palm Avenue N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Parkside N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Ramona – Alessandro N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Riley N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Rio Vista N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Roberts N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Roosevelt N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Thompson N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Urbita N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Vermont N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 42 Exhibit 1.2.5 (continued) School Improvement Plans Reviewed and Auditors’ Analysis San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Staff Goals Goals Critical Mission Analysis Analysis Strategies Reporting Alignment Objectives Evaluation Evaluation Development Easy to Read Measurement School Responsibility Elementary Schools Warm Springs N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Wilson N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Middle Schools Arrowview N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N Curtis N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N Del Vallejo N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N Golden Valley N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N Martin Luther King N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N Richardson Prep N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N Serrano N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N Shandin Hills N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N High Schools Arroyo Valley N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N Cajon N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N Pacific N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N San Andreas N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N San Bernardino N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N San Gorgonio N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N Sierra N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N Other Schools Alternative Learning Center N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Anderson N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Middle College N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N YWCA Academy N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N Boys and Girls Academy N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P N Key: Y = Yes, criteria present, N = No, criteria not present, P = Partial evidence of criteria Based on their review of the school improvement plans, the auditors noted the following from Exhibit 1.2.5: • 10 of the 12 criteria were present in almost all of the school plans. • The middle schools and high schools were missing a method to annually report progress towards meeting school plan goals. • Most all plans include a professional development component listing professional development goals and activities, but these are not aligned to district goals and do not address each goal specified in the plan. • All of the plans were consistent in format.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 43 • The plans are not easy to read and would be difficult to understand by other constituent groups. • The plans are not aligned to any district goals and objectives. During interviews with board members, administrators, teachers and community members the auditors noted the following comments with respect to the use of Instructional Improvement Plans: • “The Instructional Improvement Plan is not a workable document. It is incredibly organized and there are a lot of documents. If I were going to implement all of the goals for even one area, it would take all of my time. It is humongous, it is unwieldy.” • “I don’t believe the school plan is a viable plan. It’s definitely workable, but I think it’s so scripted now it’s becoming something that’s just put out. The plan encompasses everything, we can’t meet every goal in our IIP.” • “I use the WASC action plan as my planning document.” • “Not every school is aligned to the blueprint goals.” Instructional Improvement Plans are used as compliance documents rather than planning guides that are aligned to district goals and that direct curriculum and student achievement improvement efforts. The final summary statement of a recent accreditation report conducted by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges included the following statement: “Overall, a lack of alignment between WASC, IIUSP, State, and Federal requirements makes it difficult to find a clear path for school improvement.” In summary, planning at the district and school levels in the San Bernardino City Unified School District are fragmented and inadequate to provide the focus needed to guide sound system management. A number of planning documents exist (Exhibit 1.2.1), but the plans that should be directing change and improvements in district operations, such as the Blueprint for Success, the Local Education Agency Plan, and the Instructional Improvement Plans, are not aligned or connected. The District has spent considerable time and energy in developing and implementing the Blue Print for Success. This represents a good beginning and if revised and updated can meeting the audit long- range planning criteria. Finding 1.3: The Table of Organization Does Not Meet Audit Criteria for Sound Management of the School District. Some Job Descriptions Are Outdated, Do Not Meet Audit Criteria and Are Not Aligned with the Table of Organization.

Administrative role relationships are important to an educational organization in the productive grouping and management of its tasks and functions. This includes assigning and arranging personnel by function to maximize productivity throughout the organization. The absence of this grouping results in the loss of an economy of scale in the administrative deployment of resources. A functional and accurate delineation of administrative relationships is generally depicted in graphic form and called the Table of Organization or TO. Job descriptions serve to opeationalize and direct the functions of the positions listed in the TO. Adequate job descriptions describe the qualifications required in terms of skills, knowledge and experience. They delineate job duties and responsibilities, define supervisory relationships and illustrate appropriate linkages to the position to the curriculum. Table of Organization The auditors reviewed the current San Bernardino City Unified School District Table of Organization, board policies and interviewed board members, administrators and other district staff regarding the table of organization. The auditors were not presented with board policies that address the table of organization. The Table of Organization provided to the auditors by district officials contained

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 44 multiple tables which included a master document that presented the board, superintendent and first line assistants. Additional documents were provided to the auditors that represented the tables for the Deputy Superintendent and one for each Assistant Superintendent. The auditors found the organizational structure and relationships delineated in the table of organization represented in the multiple documents in the San Bernardino City Unified School District did not meet audit criteria for sound management of the school district. The span of control for the Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent was excessive. School principals were not included in TO. It was verbally reported to the auditors by principals and assistant superintendents that principals reported to the Deputy Superintendent and all assistant superintendents. The result is that principals have more than one supervisor. In light of the fact that the Deputy Superintendent is being depicted on the TO as a staff position, the principals report to a staff position rather than a line position. This undocumented supervisory relationship also represents an informal TO that further illustrates the inadequacy of the written TO. The appropriate depiction of administration relationships in graphic from should follow generally accepted management principles. These principles are presented in Exhibit 1.3.1. Exhibit 1.3.1 Principles of Sound Organizational Management Principles Description The range of superiors to subordinates which should be 7-12 as a Span of Control maximum number who are supervised on a daily face-to-face basis. The principle that a person should have only one boss (superior) Chain of Command to avoid being placed in a compromised, decision-making situation. Logical Grouping of The principle of clustering similar duties/tasks in order to keep Functions supervisory needs to a minimum (ensuring economy of scale). The principle that those administrators carrying out the primary mission of the district are not confused with those supporting it. Separation of Line and Staff Line administrators only report to other line administrators, Functions never to staff administrators. This keeps the line of accountability for the primary mission of the district uncompromised. The principle that roles of the same title and remuneration should Scalar Relationships be depicted graphically on the same general horizontal plane. The principle that all persons working within the district carrying Full Inclusion out essential line and staff functions should be depicted in the table of organization. Exhibit 1.3.2 displays the current table of organization for the Superintendent’s Office of the San Bernardino City Unified School District.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 45 Exhibit 1.3.2 Table of Organization for Superintendent’s Office San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Board of Education

Superintendent

Deputy Superintendent Accountability and Continuous Improvement

Assistant Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Business and Finance Certificated Human Educational Services Student Services Resources

Assistant Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Facilities/Operations Employee Relations Classified Human Research/Systems Resources Analysis & Building Services

Director Director Communications/ School Police/ Community Relations Safety

The auditor’s reviewed the following 15 charts that taken as a whole represent the table of organization for the district. The following list includes the title and the positions listed on each chart. • Superintendent’s Office – Board of Education (7), Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, Assistant Superintendents (8), and Directors (2). • Deputy Superintendent’s Office, Accountability and Continuous Improvement – Deputy Superintendent, Director and Principal-on-Assignment • Business Services Division – Assistant Superintendent, Directors (4), Internal Auditor, Administrative Assistant • Certificated Human Resources Division – Assistant Superintendent, Director (2), Principal-on- Assignment, Training Officer, Administrative Assignment • Educational Services – Assistant Superintendent, Directors (4) o Elementary Instruction – Director, Coordinators (4) o Secondary Instruction – Director, Coordinators (5), Principal-on-Assignment o English Learners – Director, Coordinators (3)

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 46 o Special Education – Director, Coordinators (5) o Enrollment Center and Placement Services – Director, Coordinator • Student Services Division – Assistant Superintendent, Directors (3), Principal-on-Assignment, Principal (Adult School), Coordinators (10), Vice Principal (3), Administrative Assistant • Facilities and Operations Division – Assistant Superintendent, Directors (2), Facilities Administrator, Assistant Directors (2), Managers (2), Officer II, Officer I (3) • Employee Relations Division – Assistant Superintendent, Directors (3), Assistant Director (3), Assistant Manager, Officer • Classified Human Resources Division – Assistant Superintendent, Director, Assistant Director, Officer (2), Assistant Officer • Research/Systems Analysis Division – Assistant Superintendent, Director (2), Assistant Director, Coordinator (2) The auditor’s analysis of the 15 tables of organization based on these principles is as follows: 1. Span of Control: • The Superintendent’s span of control exceeds audit standards in that it includes seven board members, one Deputy Superintendent, eight Assistant Superintendents, and two Directors for a total of 18. Although the Superintendent does not supervise Board members, they are included in the span of control for the Superintendent due to the considerable amount of time spent with each board member. • The Deputy Superintendent’s reported supervisory relationship to the principals and indicated in the job description is not depicted in the table of organization subsection for Deputy Superintendent’ Office, Accountability and Continuous Improvement. The span of control for the Deputy Superintendent exceeds audit standards in light of the fact that this position is responsible for the direct supervision of 44 elementary and 15 secondary principals, along with the Director of Accountability and a Principal on Assignment for a total of 61 staff. • The GATE Director job description indicates a direct responsibility to the Assistant Superintendent, Educational Services. The table of organization for that division does not include a GATE Director. • The Director of Management Information Services job description indicates a direct responsibility to the Superintendent. In their review of the aggregate table of organization the auditors did not find this position listed in any of the documents provided by district personnel. 2. Chain of Command: • Principals are not included in the TO. During interviews with principals, the Deputy Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents the auditors noted that the Deputy Superintendent evaluated the principals in conjunction with the Assistant Superintendents. It was also reported to the auditors that the ongoing supervisory responsibility for the principals was shared by the Deputy Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents. This relationship violates the principle that an individual should be responsible to only one person. • The Classified Human Resources Division TO indicates the Assistant Superintendent Classified Human Resources and Building Services has a Director of Building Services and an Assistant Director of Building Services both answering directly to the Assistant Superintendent and the Assistant not answering to the Director.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 47 • In the Employee Relations Division TO an Assistant Director position reports directly to the Assistant Superintendent, there is no Director position. • In the Facilities/Operations Division TO the Facilities Management Director reports to the Facilities Administrator and the position of Assistant Purchasing Director reports to the Facilities Management Director. 3. Logical Grouping of Functions: The current configuration of Assistant Superintendents includes similar functions like personnel being divided between two assistants. This arrangement does not meet audit standards in that the personnel function within the district is not logically grouped and directed by a single position. 4. Separation of Line and Staff Functions: The Deputy Superintendent position is depicted in the TO as a staff position. Although not indicated on the TO, the auditors learned through interviews with district administrators and a review of documents other than the TO that the Deputy Superintendent was considered the supervisor of more than 60 building principals. 5. Scalar Relationships: On the Student Services Division chart the Administrative Assistant Position was placed on the same line as Directors. On the Classified Human Resources Division chart the Director and Assistant Director of Building Services are on the same line. The Assistant Director reports directly to the Assistant Superintendent rather than reporting to the Director. 6. Full Inclusion: The TO should include all positions in the line from Board to teachers. Building administrators and building level staff including teachers were not included in any chart. There were a number of other positions not included in any of the TOs presented to the auditors. Upper level management positions were commonly included but positions below this level were omitted. In summary the table of organization for the San Bernardino City Unified School District does not meet audit criteria for the sound general management of the school district. Some positions for which there were job descriptions were omitted from the TO. The span of control for the Superintendent exceeds and Deputy Superintendent far exceeds audit criteria for adequacy. Job Descriptions

Job descriptions describe the qualifications an individual must possess in order to perform prescribed functions within a structure of defined relationships in an organization. Accurate and current job descriptions provide employees with clear definitions of their duties, and relationships within the organization. They clarify duties and qualifications in relationship to levels of authority and responsibility. In an educational organization with an instructional purpose, nearly all functions have some connection to the design and/or delivery of curriculum unless the purpose of the role is purely logistical or supportive. In their review of the organizational structure of the San Bernardino City Unified School District the auditors reviewed board policies to determine policy direction for job descriptions. Their review of all policies provided by district officials did not reveal the existence of related policies. The auditors found the job descriptions provided to them to be inadequate in meeting audit criteria and that job descriptions did not exist for many positions. The auditors were provided with 57 management job descriptions by district officials. The auditors compared these job descriptions with the extant table of organization to determine congruence. They found that out of the 97 positions represented in the 15 tables of organization the 57 job descriptions represented 59% of the positions listed in the tables. The auditors reviewed each job description presented to them on four criteria:

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 48 • Qualifications • Links in the chain of command • Functions, duties, and responsibilities, and • Relationship to curriculum There are five possible ratings on the four criteria. They are listed in Exhibit 1.3.3. Exhibit 1.3.3 Curriculum Management Audit Rating Indicators for Job Descriptions Rating Description Missing No statement made. Inadequate A statement made but it is incomplete and missing sufficient details. Adequate The statement is more or less complete, usually missing curricular linkages or sufficient detail regarding curricular linkages/alignment. Strong A clear and complete statement including linkages to curriculum where appropriate or if not appropriate, otherwise quite complete. Exemplary A clear, complete statement with inclusive linkages to curriculum indicated in excellent scope and depth. The auditor’s assessment of the management job descriptions provided by district officials is shown in Exhibit 1.3.4. Exhibit 1.3.4 Auditor’s Assessment of Management Job Descriptions San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Chain of Curricular Title (Date) Qualifications Command Responsibilities Linkages Communications/ Community Strong Adequate Inadequate *** Missing Relations Director (11/96) School Police and Safety Strong Strong Inadequate *** Missing Director (10/01) Deputy Superintendent (no Missing Adequate Adequate Strong date) *Director, Accountability Unit Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Missing (11/03) Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance (no Missing Adequate Inadequate *** Missing date) Accounting Services Director Strong Adequate Inadequate *** Missing (11/96) Fiscal Services Director (10- Strong Adequate Inadequate *** Missing 98)

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 49

Exhibit 1.3.4 (continued) Auditor’s Assessment of Management Job Descriptions San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Chain of Curricular Title (Date) Qualifications Command Responsibilities Linkages Purchasing Services Director Strong Adequate Inadequate *** Missing (4-98) Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, Missing Adequate Adequate Missing Certificated (no date) Director of Certificated Human Resources – Strong Adequate Inadequate *** Missing Recruitment/ Employment (no date) Assistant Superintendent, Missing Adequate Adequate Adequate Educational Services (no date) * English Learner and Support Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Missing Program Director (12/95) Bilingual Education Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Missing Coordinator (no date) Elementary Instruction and Curriculum Development Strong Inadequate Inadequate *** Adequate Director (no date) * Elementary Instruction, Math and Science Coordinator Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate (7/96) Secondary Instruction and Curriculum Development Strong Inadequate Inadequate *** Adequate Director (no date) * Secondary Education, Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Coordinator (Math) * Secondary Fine Arts Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Coordinator (10/97) Special Education Programs Strong Inadequate Inadequate *** Inadequate Director (no date) Psychological Services Strong Inadequate Inadequate *** Missing Coordinator (no date) * Bilingual Assessment Center Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Missing Coordinator (no date) * Alternative Education and Support Program Director Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Missing (10/95) * Alternative Programs Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Missing Coordinator (no date) * Middle College High School Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Missing Coordinator (7/01)

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 50 Exhibit 1.3.4 (continued) Auditor’s Assessment of Management Job Descriptions San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Chain of Curricular Title (Date) Qualifications Command Responsibilities Linkages * Director, School-Linked Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Missing Services (8-03) Child Development Strong Inadequate Inadequate*** Adequate Coordinator (no date) Youth Services Director (no Strong Inadequate Inadequate *** Missing date) Assistant Superintendent of Missing Inadequate Inadequate Missing Facilities Operations (no date) Nutrition Services Director Strong Inadequate Inadequate *** Missing (11/96) Assistant Superintendent of Missing Inadequate Adequate Missing Employee Relations (no date) Risk Management/Employee Strong Inadequate Inadequate *** Missing Benefits Director (12/02) Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, Classified Missing Inadequate Adequate Missing and Building Services (no date) Building Services Director Strong Inadequate Inadequate *** Missing (11/96) Assistant Superintendent of Research and Systems Missing Inadequate Adequate Missing Analysis (no date) * Director of Research (3/04) Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Missing ** Adult Education Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate *** Missing Coordinator (no date) ** Assistant Administrator of Instructional Improvement and Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Academic Coaching (no date) **Bilingual Education Strong Inadequate Inadequate *** Missing Director (no date) */** Coordinator, English/Language Arts – Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Missing Secondary (5/04) ** Communicatively Handicapped Coordinator (no Strong Inadequate Inadequate *** Missing date) ** Desegregation and Strong Inadequate Inadequate *** Missing Integration Director (no date) ** Director of Management Strong Inadequate Inadequate *** Missing Information Services (8-00)

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 51 Exhibit 1.3.4 (continued) Auditor’s Assessment of Management Job Descriptions San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Chain of Curricular Title (Date) Qualifications Command Responsibilities Linkages ** Elementary/Middle School Vice Principal/Assistant Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Missing Administrator for Instructional Improvement (no date) ** Facilities Planning and Strong Inadequate Inadequate *** Missing Development Director (12/02) ** GATE Director (no date) Strong Inadequate Inadequate *** Missing ** Health Services Strong Inadequate Inadequate *** Missing Coordinator (no date) ** Learning Handicapped Strong Inadequate Inadequate Missing Coordinator (no date) ** Personnel Commission Adequate Inadequate Inadequate *** Missing Director (12/01) ** Reading First Coordinator Adequate Inadequate Inadequate *** Adequate (no date) */** Student Services Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Coordinator (1/98) */** Technology Coordinator Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate (no date) ** VEA/ROP Coordinator (no Strong Inadequate Inadequate *** Missing date) High School Principal (no Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate date) High School Principal (no Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate date) Middle School Principal (no Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate date) *Elementary School Principal Missing Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate (no date) Adult Education Principal (no Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate date) * Indicates positions for which employment vacancy posting documents were presented as job descriptions. ** Indicates job descriptions for positions not included in the table of organization. *** Job descriptions including a section heading “EXAMPLES OF DUTIES.”

The following are noted from Exhibit 1.3.4: • The Qualifications ratings were the strongest with the remaining factors being equally weak. • Ratings on the Qualification criteria for job descriptions included: Strong-24, Adequate-8, Inadequate-16, Missing-9.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 52 • Ratings on the Chain of Command criteria for job descriptions included: Strong-1, • Adequate-9, Inadequate-47, Missing-0. • Ratings on the Responsibilities criteria for job descriptions included: Strong-0, Adequate-8, Inadequate-49, Missing-0. • Ratings on the Curricular Linkages criteria for job descriptions included: Strong-1, • Adequate-7, Inadequate-10, Missing-39. • 30 out of the 57 job descriptions lacked a date on the document. The oldest job description dated back to 1995. • There is a general lack of reference to the curriculum in job descriptions. Although certain positions may be considered support versus instructional in nature these functions exist to provide support systems to the primary purpose of the district related to student learning. • There is a general lack of specificity in job descriptions regarding the subordinate supervisory authority and responsibility of Directors characterized by vague references to certified and classified personnel. • Qualifications are missing from Deputy Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent job descriptions. • The supervisory relationship stated in the job description of the Deputy Superintendent to principals and other programs (Supplemental Services and Choice Programs) is not clearly delineated on the table of organization. • The Assistant Superintendent, Educational Services job description does not contain specific language relating to directly reporting to the superintendent as compared to the job description for other Assistant Superintendents. It lacks specificity and clarity regarding the role of the Assistant Superintendent in curriculum design and development. There is only a vague reference to this function, “Provides for the coordination of curriculum offerings of the schools.” • The Director of Building Services job description indicates that the Director “receives administrative direction from the Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services.” The auditors noted that this position was included in the Classified Human Resources Division table of organization. • The Nutrition Services Director job description indicates that the Director “receives administrative direction from the Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services.” The auditors noted that this position was not included in the Facilities/Operations Division table of organization. • Director job descriptions delineate a specific relationship to an Assistant Superintendent but lack specificity regarding staff to be supervised. • The GATE Director, Alternative Education and Support Program Director, Bilingual Education Director job descriptions indicate a direct responsibility to the Assistant Superintendent, Educational Services. The table of organization for that division does not include a GATE Director, Alternative Education and Support Program Director, Bilingual Education Director • The Director of Management Information Services job description indicates a direct responsibility to the Superintendent. In their review of the aggregate table of organization the auditors did not find this position listed in any of the documents provided by district personnel.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 53 • The Personnel Commission Director position is not included in the table of organization and the job description indicates the position “receives administrative direction from the Personnel Commission Chair.” • Many job descriptions include a section heading “EXAMPLES OF DUTIES – Duties may include, but are not limited to, the following;” resulting in a lack of clarity with respect to actual duties. • The auditors were presented with employment vacancy posting documents as job descriptions for 13 positions. • The job description in the form of a position vacancy posting indicated the title of Secondary Fine Arts Coordinator. The table of organization referred to this position as Coordinator Visual and Performing Arts. • The job description in the form a position vacancy posting indicated the title of Coordinator, English/ Language Arts – Secondary. The table of organization referred to this position as Coordinator English/ Language Arts/PE/Social Studies/World Language. • The position described in the job description for the Communicatively Handicapped Coordinator was not included in the table of organization. The closest reference to this position in the table of organization was Coordinator DIS, Speech, Home & Hospital. • The VEP/ROP Coordinator job description indicates that this position “receives direction from an administrator.” This position is not listed in the table of organization and the exact title of the administrator who provides direction to this position is missing. • 17 job descriptions were not represented in the table of organization. The auditors found a number of management positions listed for which they were not presented with job descriptions. These are listed by the table of organization of which they were depicted in Exhibit 1.3.5. Exhibit 1.3.5 Positions Listed in the Table of Organization for Which There Are No Job Descriptions San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Division/Department Position Business Services Division Director, Administrative Support Internal Auditor Administrative Assistant Principal-on-Assignment Certificated Human Resources Director, Recruitment Division Administrative Assistant Training Officer Principal-on-Assignment Educational Services Elementary Instruction Coordinator Language Arts Coordinator Categorical Programs, Physical Education Coordinator BTSA/New Teacher Support, History/ Social Science/VA

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 54

Exhibit 1.3.5 (continued) Positions Listed in the Table of Organization for Which There Are No Job Descriptions San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Secondary Education Coordinator Career Development Coordinator English/Language Arts/PE/Social Studies/World Language Coordinator Intensive Instruction Principal-on-Assignment ALPS English Learners Coordinator Elementary SEI Mainstream Programs Coordinator Secondary SEI Mainstream Programs Special Education Coordinator Non-Public, ED/SH, SDC Programs Coordinator DIS, Speech, Home & Hospital Coordinator Elementary Programs Coordinator Secondary Programs Enrollment Center and Placement Director Services Student Services Division Assistant Superintendent Administrative Assistant Alternative Programs Coordinator Community Day School Leadership Skills Academy Coordinator Independent Study Principal-on-Assignment CAPS Adult School Principal Vice Principal (3) Coordinator ABE/GED Classes Resource Center School Linked Services Coordinator State Preschool Coordinator Health Service, Home & Hospital, HIV Prevention Coordinator Medi-Cal Billing, Healthy Start Healthy Families, Homeless Coordinator Student Assistance Programs Case Management Facilities/Operations Division Nutrition Services Assistant Director Transportation Transportation Director Assistant Transportation Manager Facilities Facilities Administrator Facilities Management Director Facilities Management Assistant Director (2) Assistant Purchasing Director Facilities Officer Employee Relations Division Assistant Director Affirmative Action Officer Assistant Affirmative Action Officer Environmental Safety Officer

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 55

Exhibit 1.3.5 (continued) Positions Listed in the Table of Organization for Which There Are No Job Descriptions San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Classified Human Resources Division Director, Classified Assistant Director, Classified Humans Resources Officer II Humans Resources Officer I (3) Building Services Assistant Director, Building Services Manager, Operations Manager, Maintenance Research/Systems Analysis Division Director of IT Assistant Director IT Coordinator Research Coordinator Inst. Tech. The auditors noted that they were not presented with job descriptions for 56 positions listed on the aggregate organizational charts from the various divisions. After reviewing the job descriptions of management positions included in the tables of organizations, the auditor’s reviewed non-management job descriptions provided by district officials. The auditors rated each job descriptions on the criteria of qualifications, chain of command, responsibilities and curricular linkages using the four ratings of Strong, Adequate, Inadequate, and Missing. The results of this review and ratings are depicted in Exhibit 1.3.6. Exhibit 1.3.6 Auditor’s Assessment of Non-Management Job Descriptions San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Chain of Curricular Title (Date) Qualifications Command Responsibilities Linkages Adapted Physical Education Specialist Elementary, Itinerant Inadequate Missing Adequate Missing (no date) Athletic Director (DRAFT) Strong Inadequate Adequate Missing (no date) Full-Time Special Education Adequate Missing Inadequate Inadequate Support Provider (no date) *Mild/Moderate Special Education Teacher-Designated Instructional Adequate Missing Adequate Inadequate Services/Individual Small Group Instruction Teacher (no date) Elementary Music Specialist (no Adequate Missing Inadequate Inadequate date) Elementary Physical Education Inadequate Missing Inadequate Missing Teacher (no date) Hearing Panel Member (no date) Inadequate Adequate Adequate Missing Independent Study Teacher (no Adequate Missing Inadequate Missing date)

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 56 Exhibit 1.3.6 (continued) Auditor’s Assessment of Non-Management Job Descriptions San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Language Speech Specialist (LSS) Inadequate Missing Inadequate Missing (Speech Pathologist) (no date) Learning Handicapped Special Day Strong Missing Strong Adequate class Teacher (no date) Miller-Unruh Reading Specialist Strong Adequate Adequate Strong (no date) Program Facilitator (no date) Inadequate Adequate Strong Adequate Teacher Orientation and Mobility Inadequate Missing Inadequate Missing (no date) Preschool & Child Development Nurse/Health Educator-Screener Missing Adequate Strong Strong (no date) Teacher – Pregnant Minor Program Inadequate Missing Inadequate Missing (no date) Full-Time BTSA Science Support Inadequate Missing Adequate Missing Provider (no date) Program Specialist – Math/Elementary Physical Inadequate Missing Adequate Inadequate Education (no date) Program Specialist (Reading First Strong Missing Strong Strong Coach) (no date) Program Specialist – GATE Adequate Adequate Inadequate Missing Program (no date) Program Specialist – English Learners and Support Programs Bilingual Program Specialist – Strong Strong Strong Strong Alternative Bilingual Education Program (no date) Program Specialist ROTC (no Inadequate Missing Inadequate Missing date) *Program Specialist/Academic Coach Elementary Instruction (no Strong Adequate Strong Strong date) Program Specialist (Bilingual Strong Missing Strong Strong Reading First Coach) (no date) Program Specialist – Visual and Performing Arts Staff Developer Strong Missing Strong Strong (no date) Program Specialist – Language Arts Early Literacy Staff Strong Missing Strong Strong Developer (no date) Program Specialist – Secondary English Learners and Support Strong Strong Strong Strong Programs (no date) Program Specialist – Curriculum and Staff Development for English Missing Adequate Strong Strong Language Learners (no date)

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 57

Exhibit 1.3.6 (continued) Auditor’s Assessment of Non-Management Job Descriptions San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Program Specialist Student Adequate Adequate Adequate Missing Interventions DRAFT (no date) Program Specialist, Secondary Strong Adequate Adequate Adequate Education (no date) Program Specialist Secondary Adequate Adequate Strong Adequate Categorical Programs (no date) Program Specialist, Student Assistance Programs (SAP) (no Adequate Missing Strong Adequate date) Program Facilitator – Secondary Adequate Missing Adequate Adequate (no date) Program Facilitator – Elementary Missing Adequate Adequate Inadequate (no date) Program Specialist – Secondary Instruction/Curriculum Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Development and Categorical Programs (no date) Program Specialist – Healthy Start Strong Adequate Strong Missing (no date) Program Specialist - Special Strong Missing Inadequate Adequate Education (no date) Resource Teacher (no date) Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Resource Specialist Program Adequate Missing Adequate Adequate Teacher (no date) Resource Teacher Categorical Adequate Strong Adequate Adequate Programs (no date) School Psychologist (no date) Strong Missing Strong Missing Special Day Class Teacher – Communicatively Handicapped Inadequate Missing Inadequate Inadequate Program (no date) Special Day Class Teacher – Inadequate Missing Inadequate Inadequate Aurally Handicapped (no date) State Preschool Teacher (no date) Adequate Missing Inadequate Inadequate Support Teacher (High Point Alternative Core Reading Teacher) Adequate Missing Adequate Adequate (no date) Support Teacher - Elementary (no Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate date) Secondary English Language Development (ELD) Teacher (no Adequate Missing Adequate Adequate date) Secondary Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English Adequate Missing Adequate Adequate (SDAIE) Teacher (no date) Teacher Emotionally Disturbed (no Strong Missing Inadequate Adequate date)

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 58

Exhibit 1.3.6 (continued) Auditor’s Assessment of Non-Management Job Descriptions San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Teacher-on-Assignment – Office Strong Adequate Adequate Adequate of Technology (no date) Teacher Severely Handicapped (no Adequate Missing Adequate Inadequate date) Itinerant, Visually Impaired (no Strong Missing Adequate Inadequate date) Classroom Teacher (no date) Inadequate Missing Adequate Adequate Cal SAFE Teacher (no date) Inadequate Missing Inadequate Inadequate Career Development Resource Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Teacher (no date) Case Management Nurse (no date) Strong Adequate Strong Adequate Elementary School Counselor (no Inadequate Adequate Strong Adequate date) Middle School Counselor (no date) Inadequate Adequate Strong Adequate Counselor Cluster Leader (no date) Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate High School Counselor (no date) Inadequate Adequate Strong Adequate Alternative Programs Counselor Inadequate Adequate Strong Adequate (no date) Case Management Counselor (no Strong Adequate Strong Adequate date) Career Development Program Adequate Missing Inadequate Adequate Resource Teacher Child Development Center Teacher Inadequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate (no date) Child Development Head Teacher Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate (no date)_ Teacher-on-Assignment – Career Development Program Coach/Staff Developer, Liaison to County Strong Missing Inadequate Inadequate Schools Community Coalition Project (no date) Community Day School Teacher Inadequate Missing Inadequate Inadequate (no date) * Indicates positions for which employment vacancy posting documents were presented as job descriptions. The following are noted from Exhibit 1.3.6: • The ratings for the Qualifications, Responsibilities and Linkages were rated strongest, the Chain of Command the weakest. • Ratings on the Qualification criteria for job descriptions included: Strong-20, Adequate-21, Inadequate-22, Missing-3. • Ratings on the Chain of Command criteria for job descriptions included: Strong-3, Adequate-25, Inadequate-2, Missing-36. • Ratings on the Responsibilities criteria for job descriptions included: Strong-21, Adequate-26, Inadequate-19, Missing-0.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 59 • Ratings on the Curricular Linkages criteria for job descriptions included: Strong-10, Adequate-27, Inadequate-15, Missing-14. • All of the job descriptions lacked a date on the document. • Out of the 66 documents reviewed in Exhibit 1.3.6, four were job postings rather than job descriptions and none of the positions described in these documents were included in any of the 15 tables of organization. During interviews with board members and district staff the auditor’s noted a number of comments regarding the volatile nature of staff roles and responsibilities that are not being accounted for by specific language found in adequate job descriptions. • “It’s changed from management to instructional leader. (Talking about the principal’s role.)” • “We just restructured the Superintendent’s cabinet because we didn’t have enough accountability.” • “We had other districts recruiting our Assistants- to-the-Superintendent so we changed to Assistant Superintendents and redistributed the work load.” • “There is not an understanding of the greater demands on principals. We need an honest conversation to understand needs of principals and help them manage the demands so they focus on instruction.” • “The principal’s role is flexible. If it’s an IIUSP school or it’s not progressing, the district office takes a more aggressive role.” Generally the auditors found the job descriptions in the San Bernardino City Unified School District to not meet audit standards for job descriptions. In summary, the table of organization does not meet audit criteria for sound organizational management. Span of control for the Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent exceed standard ranges and building principals have multiple supervisors. Job descriptions for positions reflected on the 15 tables of organization are not aligned with the positions on the chart. There are positions indicated on the chart that lack job descriptions and positions defined by job descriptions that are not included on the tables of organization. Extant job descriptions do not meet audit criteria for adequacy and many job descriptions lack a date on which to determine currency. On the chain of command criterion the job descriptions commonly included only generic reference to certificated and classified personnel and vague examples of duties rather than precise language relating to responsibilities. In some cases district personnel presented job postings to the auditors as job descriptions, most job descriptions lacked currency and language related to the relationship to curriculum. Generally, roles and responsibilities are not adequately documented to direct the behavior of management and instructional staff within the district. Finding 1.4: The Teacher Appraisal System is Aligned with the California State Standards for the Teaching Profession, and Is Ineffective in Providing constructive Feedback to Many Teachers

Quality instruction in the classroom is directly related to student achievement. Teacher evaluation systems that are well designed and implemented provide teachers with feedback to aide in improving instruction in the classroom. An effective system recognizes that administrators are essential to the appraisal process through formal classroom observations, informal classroom walk-throughs, data analysis, and providing constructive feedback to teachers to enable growth. Constructive feedback is defined as provision of specific teaching instructional and curriculum management strategies designed to improve the delivery of curriculum and student achievement.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 60 The auditors reviewed board policies in the San Bernardino City Unified School District, the California Education Code, and the San Bernardino City Unified School District and San Bernardino Teachers Association AGREEMENT (July 1, 2003-June 30, 2006). The auditors reviewed a ten percent random sample of teacher appraisals for the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 school years for ratings and constructive feedback. Interviews were conducted with board members, teachers, and administrators regarding the appraisal system. The auditors found that the San Bernardino City Unified School District teacher evaluation system is based on the California Education Code and utilizes the California Standards for the Teaching Profession as criteria for assessment. The California Education Code, Section 44664 states, “(b) The evaluation shall include recommendations, if necessary, as to areas of improvement in the performance of the employee.” The evaluation system meets the guidelines set forth in Article XVI – Evaluation Procedure of the San Bernardino City Unified School District and San Bernardino Teachers Association AGREEMENT. While the teacher appraisal system requires constructive feedback for the improvement of classroom teaching and student learning in the Observation Conference Summary section and includes an assistance plan for teachers in need of improvement, review of the appraisals indicates that constructive feedback is not provided to many teachers. The auditors further found teacher ratings had little variance within the appraisal system. The California Standards for the Teaching Profession provides the framework upon which the San Bernardino City Unified School District teacher appraisal system is based as illustrated in Exhibit 1.4.1. The state standards and criteria are as follows: Exhibit 1.4.1 California Standards for the Teaching Profession As Adopted for the Teacher Appraisal System for San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Teaching Standard Specific Criteria 1.1 Connecting students’ prior knowledge, life experience and interests with learning goals 1.2 Using a variety of instructional strategies and resources to respond to students’ diverse needs I. Engaging and Supporting all 1.3 Facilitating learning experiences that promote autonomy, Student in Learning interaction, and choice 1.4 Engaging students in problem solving, critical thinking, and other activities that make subject matter meaningful 1.5 Promoting self-directed, reflective learning for all students 2.1 Creating a physical environment that engages all students 2.2 Establishing a climate that promotes fairness and respect II. Creating and Maintaining an 2.3 Promoting social development and group responsibility Effective Environment for 2.4 Establishing and maintaining standards for students Student Learning 2.5 Planning and implementing classroom procedures and routines that support student learning 2.6 Using instructional time effectively

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 61 Exhibit 1.4.1 (continued) California Standards for the Teaching Profession As Adopted for the Teacher Appraisal System for San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

3.1 Demonstrating knowledge of subject matter content and student development 3.2 Organizing curriculum to support student understanding of subject matter III. Understanding and 3.3 Interrelating ideas and information within and across subject Organizing Subject Matter for matter areas Student Learning 3.4 Developing student understanding through instructional strategies that are appropriate to the subject matter 3.5 Using materials, resources, and technologies to make subject matter accessible to students 4.1 Drawing on and valuing students’ backgrounds, interests, and developmental learning needs 4.2 Establishing and articulating goals for student learning IV. Planning Instruction and 4.3 Developing and sequencing instructional activities and materials Designing Learning Experiences for student learning for all Students 4.4 Designing short-term and long-term plans to foster student learning 4.5 Modifying instructional plans to adjust for students 6.1 Reflecting on professional practices and planning professional development 6.2 Establishing professional goals and pursuing opportunities to VI. Developing as a Professional grow professionally Educator 6.3 Working with communities to improve professional practice 6.4 Working with families to improve professional practice 6.5 Working with colleagues to improve professional practice The following is noted: • Within each Standard, the teacher is rated as “Meets or Exceeds Acceptable Performance”, “Improvement Needed”, or “Unsatisfactory”. • A comment section is not included in this portion of the Classroom Teacher Evaluation, but does appear in the Observation Conference Summary. The San Bernardino City Unified School District added an additional standard to the local appraisal instrument as noted in Exhibit 1.4.2:

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 62 Exhibit 1.4.2 Local Standard and Criteria as Adopted for the Teacher Appraisal System San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

7.1 Establishes rapport and maintains timely communication with students, parents, staff, and administrators on the status of VII. Professional Work Habits assigned students 7.2 Attendance and punctuality 7.3 Judgment

The auditors’ review of the teacher evaluation documents for the previous two years indicates that constructive feedback for the purpose of improved teaching and increased student learning was not provided for many tenured and non-tenured teachers. Exhibit 1.4.3 shows the following: Exhibit 1.4.3 Percentage of Tenured and Non Tenured Teacher Appraisals Offering and Not Offering Feedback San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Percent Offering Percent Not Offering School Year Constructive Feedback Constructive Feedback Non Tenured Teachers 2002-2003 68.5% 31.5% 2003-2004 74% 26% Tenured Teachers 2002-2003 69% 31% 2003-2004 67% 33% As noted from Exhibit 1.4.3: • In 2002-2003, 31.5% of the non tenured teachers did not receive constructive feedback on the appraisal instrument. • In 2002-2003, 31% of the tenured teachers did not receive constructive feedback on the appraisal instrument. • In 2003-2004, 26% of non tenured teachers did not receive constructive feedback on the appraisal instrument. • In 2003-2004, 33% of tenured teachers did not receive constructive feedback on the appraisal instrument. • The average percentage of teachers not receiving constructive feedback on the appraisal instrument was 28.8% in 2002-2003 and 32% in 2003-2004. The auditors found little variance with regard to ratings within the appraisal system. A teacher is evaluated using three rating standards which include, “Meets or Exceeds Acceptable Performance”,

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 63 “Improvement Needed”, and “Unsatisfactory”. In accordance with Article XVI, Section 7, of the San Bernardino City Unified School District and San Bernardino Teachers Association AGREEMENT, an Assistance Plan must be completed for a teacher receiving one or more unsatisfactory and/or three or more improvement needed ratings, but may be completed for any deficiency. The California Education Code, Article 44662, links student achievement and teacher appraisals as noted, “(a) The governing board of each school district shall establish standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study. (b) The governing board of each school district shall evaluate and assess certificated employee performance as it reasonably relates to: (1) The progress of pupils toward the standards established pursuant to subdivision (a) and, if applicable, the state adopted academic content standards as measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments.” As presented in Finding 4.3, student achievement in the San Bernardino City Unified School District is frequently below desired levels and that there are serious student achievement gaps between racial groups. These indicate that constructive feedback is necessary for the improvement of teaching and learning in the classroom. Exhibit 1.4.4 shows the distribution of teacher ratings on the Classroom Teacher Evaluation form. Exhibit 1.4.4 Percentage of Teacher Appraisals Rated As Meets or Exceeds Acceptable Performance, Improvement Needed, or Unsatisfactory San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Percentage Rated Meets or Exceeds Percentage Rated Acceptable Improvement Percentage Rated School Year Performance Needed Unsatisfactory Non Tenured Teachers 2002-2003 97.2% 2.8% 0% 2003-2004 98.8% 1.2% 0% Tenured Teachers 2002-2003 97.3% 1.8% 0.9% 2003-2004 96.6% 1.7% 1.7% As noted from Exhibit 1.4.4: • Over 96% of all reviewed teacher appraisals received ratings of meets or exceeds acceptable performance for both school years. • Less than three percent of all reviewed teacher appraisals received ratings of improvement needed. • None of the non-tenured teacher appraisal documents reviewed by the auditors received ratings of unsatisfactory for school years 2002-2003 or 2003-2004. • Less than two percent of the reviewed tenured teacher appraisals contained a rating of unsatisfactory both school years. In summary, the teacher appraisal system in the San Bernardino City Public School District is ineffective in providing adequate constructive feedback to teachers for the purpose of improving

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 64 instruction and thereby improving student achievement scores. The high performance ratings of classroom teachers as reflected by the appraisal system do not correlate closely with the current level of student achievement in the district.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 65 San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 66 STANDARD 2: A School System 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.

What the Auditors Expected to Find in the San Bernardino City Unified School District Common indicators the PDK-CMSi auditors expected to find are: • A clearly established, system-wide set of goals and objectives adopted by the board of education that addresses 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.

Overview of What the Auditors Found in the San Bernardino City Unified School District This section is an overview of the findings that follow in the area of Standard Two. The details follow within separate findings. The auditors found various documents that represent elements normally included in a curriculum management plan, but the information presented does not provide clear direction for comprehensive curriculum design and delivery. San Bernardino City Unified School Board policies include references to what an educational program should provide for student learning, but no policy articulates the Board’s direction for the management of curriculum. Roles and responsibilities of individuals within departments in terms of curriculum management are not articulated. The audit team found the scope of the written curriculum to be adequate at the elementary level, but inadequate at the secondary level to provide a work plan for teachers. The SBCUSD High School Course Catalog revised in December 2004 lists courses no longer offered and does not list some current offerings. No catalog was presented for middle school courses. Auditors noted courses in master schedules for both middle schools and high schools that were not supported by district course outlines.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 67 Curriculum guides did not contain adequate information to provide direction for teachers to facilitate a common and rigorous teaching of the district academic standards. Guides lacked sufficient direction in terms of prerequisite skills, teaching strategies, alignment to instructional resources, and linkages to assessment to promote alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum. The lack of a systematic approach to the design and delivery of the district curriculum has resulted in unclear direction to teachers and the lack of alignment between district and site outcomes for student learning. Current practices for directing curriculum design and delivery within the district are fragmented among departments, so site level administrators and teachers receive multiple directions that are sometimes contradictory. Finding 2.1: The District Has No Comprehensive Curriculum Management Plan to Provide Direction for the Design, Delivery, and Evaluation of Curriculum.

A school district 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 provides for an ongoing cycle of curriculum examination as well as a process to upgrade the curriculum to meet the needs of students and in response to state and federal guidelines. A plan that is well designed and consistently implemented provides a system of quality control. When this plan is coordinated with other plans (e.g., Local Education Agency [LEA] Plan, professional development plan, budget plan) it increases the opportunity to impact the effective delivery of the district curriculum. The auditors examined board policies, administrative regulations, the LEA plan, school site plans, and curriculum-related documents to determine if the San Bernardino City Unified School District has a sound curriculum management plan in place. Auditors interviewed district and site personnel and board members regarding curriculum management. The auditors found that a comprehensive curriculum management plan is not in place (see also Finding 1.1). However, several components of curriculum planning were found in board policies, department letters to teachers, action steps in the LEA plan and site plans, program guidelines for English Learner Programs, professional development documents, and job descriptions. Board policy does not require the development of a comprehensive curriculum management plan (see Finding 1.1), and board policies presented to auditors that reference curriculum planning are out of date with current state and federal legislation, and current district practice. Board policies in SBCUSD regarding curriculum are more than 20 years old. These policies do not represent the current direction for curriculum design in the district. The following board policies referencing curriculum management were presented: Board Policy 6100a: Philosophy of Education (February 1983) states: “The major concerns of the public system of education are: b) To provide a curriculum that develops specific knowledge, skills and appreciations in each child which may be used in a manner beneficial to the individual and society.” In the same policy under district goals there are the following statements: 1. “The schools in the district will provide an academic program that will offer an opportunity for each student to learn as much as he or she can and will learn. 2. The school will teach subjects that will provide skills and knowledge that individual students will need for a productive adult life and the knowledge and skills needed in society for a strong, humane, and efficient community and nation.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 68 3. Students not proficient in English shall have an opportunity to have instruction in their primary language until completely proficient in English. For those students who are able and desire to do so, the school shall provide an opportunity to develop proficiency in another language as well as English. Students from various linguistic backgrounds will have opportunities to receive instruction and develop skills in their primary language and a secondary language.” This policy continues to delineate basic skills for expression (written and oral), mathematics, fine arts, career preparation, health habits, citizenship, social science, and natural and physical sciences. Since the policy was written prior to the state adopting academic standards, the basic skills identified are not as rigorous as current state expectations. Board Policy 6101: Instructional Council (1976) sets the expectation that the Instructional Council “shall research and review curricular concerns utilizing all available resources for continual modification, adaptation and development of the District’s curriculum.” Board Policy 6102: Comprehensive Curriculum (1985) indicates that the “Board of Education has adopted Courses of Study and Curriculum, Guides to Comprehensive Curriculum for the curriculum areas listed below to satisfy the mandate of the SB813 revision to Education Code Section 344662 which states, ‘The governing board of each school district shall establish standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study: • Elementary Language Arts, Grades K-6 • Elementary Mathematics, Grades K-6 • Secondary Social Studies, Grades 7-12.’ Board Policy 6141: Drug Education Program (1972) states that drug abuse education is part of instruction in elementary and secondary classrooms. Board Policy 6142: Health Science and Sex Education “authorizes studies in Health, Science, and Sex Education…” Board Policy 6142a: Health Science and Sex Education (1969) provides a philosophy for health education and guidelines for use of instructional material. Board Policy 6144: Career Education Curriculum (1973) affirms the Board of Education’s commitment to “career education as an important facet of the curriculum, Kindergarten through Grade 12 and Adult School” and “urges continued development of a career education program, including further refinement and implementation of the stated goals and objectives…” In addition to board policy, auditors looked for direction for curriculum management in current communications to sites. Auditors examined curriculum-related documents provided with current curriculum guides for grades K-6. These documents spell out for teachers the philosophy and direction provided in state frameworks for each subject. Curriculum-Related Documents: Course of Study: Letter to Educators from the Director of Elementary Instruction and Curriculum Development states: “The Office of Elementary Instruction has a firm commitment to a non-static curriculum that depends on continuous review and change in response to new research, educational trends, legal requirements, frameworks, and State and District standards. The educational and learning needs of our students are paramount. The complexity of the content is addressed through the standards or essential learnings for each grade level. The principles of effective teaching practices direct the design, delivery, and evaluation of instruction.”

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 69 This letter continues to address a program that ensures “all students develop proficiency in State and District standards” and explains that: “A comprehensive program provides a balance between skill emphasis and practical application as well as appropriate assessment of the learning. The standards provide us with a way of defining what all students should know and be able to do at the end of each year in each subject. This Course of Study with its companion Quick Glance to the Standards, has been developed to provide a framework for implementing District and State standards within the structure of classroom instruction.” Course of Study: District Core Reading/Language Arts Program K-6 outlines the approach to language arts instruction, the components of an effective language arts program, assessment purpose and use, instructional strategies and concepts of instruction, the expected time allocated to language arts instruction daily in grades K-8, instructional programs and materials, instructional resources/core program, instructional grouping and scheduling, differentiated instruction, professional development, and language arts goals for teachers and students. Course of Study: District Core Mathematics Program K-6 spells out the components of a balanced mathematics program, components of balanced instruction, elements of basic computational and procedural skills, conceptual understanding, problem solving, and key components of effective instruction. Course of Study: District Core Science/Health Grades K-6 provides a philosophical approach to the teaching of science, identifies the key components of an effective science program including: purposes and use of assessments, classroom instruction and management, instructional resources/core program, instructional grouping and scheduling, and professional development. Course of Study: District Core History Social Science K-6 establishes a purpose for instruction in history/social science, identifies curriculum strands, describes course content topics by grade level, spells out historical and social science analysis skills to be learned, identifies the use of research, evidence, and point of view, provides historical interpretation strategies, and explains the key components of an effective history social studies program including instructional resources and professional development. Course of Study: District Physical Education K-60 provides a statement of philosophy regarding physical education instruction. Course of Study: District Core Visual and Performing Arts K-6 provides a description of the district visual and performing arts program: guidelines for instruction, goals, program structure, program components, instructional focus per grades span K-2, 3-4, 5-6, description of instructional content by strand, and key components of an effective visual and performing arts program. No documents were presented providing direction to secondary education courses of study. Curriculum-Related Documents Specific to Program Design for English Learners: Auditors were presented with several documents providing guidance for programs for English language learners. The direction provided in these documents lack clarity regarding the design of programs for English learners. In some cases, the directives within the same document are contradictory. The concept of English Language Development (ELD) is not clearly defined and differentiated from Specially Designed Academic Instruction In English (SDAIE). A written policy or curriculum plan that establishes a continuum of instruction for students as they acquire proficiency in English is not articulated. The auditors examined the following documents that represent communication to sites from the English Learners and Support Programs Department A memo to all principals from the English Learners and Support Programs Department (April 26, 2002) regarding dual immersion articulates the Board of Education’s resolution to support

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 70 bilingualism for all students. This memo states: “The goal is to strengthen our current Alternative Bilingual Education program as well as to plan and implement more Dual Language Immersion programs (K-12).” Included with this memo is a description of dual immersion programs. The definition states the “target language (Spanish) [is] used a minimum of 50% of the time; English used a minimum of 10% of the time.” The section titled, “Researched Based Dual Immersion Programs: 90/10; 50/50; 70/30” states “Instruction in Spanish 90% of the day. Instruction in English 10% of the day.” The auditors found through site visits and interviews that the variation in percentage of language mix for English and Spanish instruction in this memo has created confusion at the site level and is interpreted differently across schools. Another memo from the English Learner department describes the Structured English Immersion (SEI) program: • “The Structured English Immersion (SEI) program is for English learners in the three proficiency levels (Beginning [B], Early Intermediate [EI], and Intermediate [I]. • English Learners in the Early Advanced [EA] and Advanced [A] categories may be placed in the mainstream classes. However, parents of English learners in B, EI, and I categories may choose to place their students in mainstream classes. • All English learners, regardless of program, must receive ELD until redesignated to fluent English proficient.” In a draft curriculum guide currently under development by the English Learner department there is an interpretation of what constitutes English Language Development (ELD). The description of ELD states, “In the District, ELD is taught simultaneously with grade level academic content in all programs.” This statement demonstrated a misunderstanding of the nature of ELD as a curriculum designed to teach the structure of the English language and cannot be “taught simultaneously with grade level content”. In a document titled, “English Placement Guide 2003-2004 for 6th-8th Grade Students,” direction is provided for the placement of students in English courses. In this directive course names are listed for ELD 1, 2, 3, English SDAIE, and English only/mainstream along with teachers suggested recommendation guidelines. The directive states, “Placement in English class should be made based on students’ proficiency level and teacher judgment.” Recommendations for placement indicate that students at Beginning proficiency level are required to be placed in ELD 1, Early Intermediate in ELD 2, Intermediate in ELD 3. The directive for the placement of Early Advanced and Advanced students states in one place that they “may be placed” in English SDAIE and in another place it states they “should be placed in English only/mainstream” which is a course based on the English language arts standards. A footnote states “ALL English learners must be provided ELD instruction, using unique SDAIE features until redesignated.” This final statement contradicts the placement directive for Early Advanced and Advanced students since there is no provision for ELD in English SDAIE or English mainstream classes. The lack of a clear program design for English learners was also noted in a Mini-Audit Report prepared by Principal’s Exchange, an external evaluation group working with underperforming schools designated as Program Improvement schools under state and federal accountability guidelines. The report states, “Currently, a great deal of confusion exists regarding requirements of the various EL program options. The implementation of programs with the same title is very different at each school. Program design at the schools do (sic) not tend to necessarily align well with key factors, including student mobility and attrition over historical patterns in student achievement profiles over time.” A curriculum review by the San Bernadino County Superintendent of Schools identifies a district barrier as: “English Language Learner program needs to be focused.” In a recent state Coordinated

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 71 Compliance Review (January 2005) the SBCUSD was found noncompliant in “Provisions of ELD and Access to the District’s Core Curriculum”: “The district and schools need to ensure that all English learners, including students in Special Education, receive an appropriate program of English language development to ensure the acquisition of English language, as well as educational services that will enable students to overcome language barriers until they can demonstrate English-language proficiency comparable to the district’s native- English speaking students, and recoup any academic deficits incurred. English learners in mainstream classrooms need a comprehensive course of instruction with a course of study in ELD aligned to state standards (e.g., ELA and ELD).”

Parents learning English at Del Rosa Elementary School—a Title I Project at work

Curriculum-Related Roles in Job Descriptions:

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 72 The auditors examined job descriptions to determine if roles and responsibilities for the management of curriculum were articulated for the San Bernardino City Unified School District. The following references were included in job descriptions: • Assistant Superintendent, Educational Services “…assists the Superintendent in directing the instructional program of the District.” Duties and responsibilities include: “Provides leadership in determining goals and objectives related to student achievement. Provides for the coordination of curriculum offerings of the schools. Provides for significant involvement of teachers, administrators and other staff members in the development of new curricular offerings. Examines student achievement data and prescribes improvement initiatives for both individual school sites and the District in general. Coordinates and facilitates the planning and implementation of professional development programs on a Districtwide basis.” • Assistant Administrator of Instructional Improvement And Academic Coaching: The definition for this positions states, “To assist the Site Principal in providing instructional leadership to ensure that all students are provided a challenging core curriculum and meet state and district standards and expectations… A major focus will be to ensure that all students receive the school district’s core curriculum through the instructional delivery system supported by district funds….” Duties and responsibilities include the “Ability to Assist in the Implementation of: Standards, Assessments, and Accountability; Teaching and Learning; Opportunity (equal educational access); Staffing and Professional Growth.” • Director of English Learners and Support Programs job is “directly responsible for coordinating district activities related to bilingual education and English learners K-12. The duties and responsibilities include: “directing, coordinating and supervising programs for English Learners including Structured English Immersion (SEI), Alternative Bilingual Education (ABE) and Dual Immersion; developing baseline data and establishing goals for English Learner programs; implementing board policies and procedures; developing curriculum support materials for teacher/student use; planning, coordinating and implementing professional development (K-12) activities for program teachers; working in concert with the Directors of elementary and secondary instruction and special education to ensure program implementation and consistency; working collaboratively with school sites K-12 to ensure program implementation of programs for English learners; evaluating the effectiveness of department and site programs and making recommendations for program modifications.” • Classroom Teachers duties and responsibilities include: “Determines objectives for students in the class in the specific area of study. Plans and implements an instructional program which results in individual student achievement. Follows course of study and/or continuums and maintains a balanced instructional program utilizing District-approved textbooks. Supports curricular objectives with lesson plans.” The documents examined above provide several elements of curriculum management, but they are not used in concert with each other nor related to a single comprehensive plan that addresses all elements of managing the design, delivery, and evaluation of the district curriculum. The auditors use a set of criteria that describe the characteristics of a comprehensive curriculum management plan. These characteristics are shown in Exhibit 2.1.1.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 73

Exhibit 2.1.1 Audit Characteristics of a Comprehensive Curriculum Management Framework San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Characteristic Design and Delivery: 1. Describes the philosophical framework for the design of the curriculum (e.g., standards-based, results-based, competency-based) 2. Specifies the roles and responsibilities of the district and campus staff as they relate to the design and delivery of curriculum. 3. Presents the format and components of alignment for the curriculum. 4. Directs how national standards will be included in the curriculum. 5. Identifies the design of a comprehensive professional development program linked to curriculum design and delivery. Review: 6. Identifies a periodic cycle of curriculum review for all grades and subject area courses. 7. Describes the timing, scope, and procedures for curricular review 8. Presents procedures for monitoring curriculum implementation and effectiveness. Assessment: 9. Specifies overall assessment procedures to determine curriculum effectiveness. 10. Describes the approaches by which tests and assessment data will be used to strengthen curriculum and instruction. Dissemination: 11. Establishes a communication plan for the process of curriculum design and delivery, as well as celebration of progress and quality. Curriculum management planning in San Bernardino City Unified School District is inadequate when measured against audit criteria. Information is provided to administrators and teachers from multiple sources (board policies, department letters, job descriptions) and do not provide a coherent or cohesive focus on consistent practices for curriculum management.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 74

A student works with a workbook on words that rhyme at Landershim Elementary School

A student uses a computer to study graphs and charts at San Gorgonio High School Through interviews auditors were told that curriculum courses of study are “adopted” by the board. Auditors were presented with documentation that verified board adoption of texts and programs of instructional materials, but found no board minutes showing board action on the adoption of the district written curriculum.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 75

A giant chessboard at Kimbark Elementary School provides a major focal point of activity Through examining curriculum design documents, directives to sites, and interviewing administrators and teachers, the auditors’ assessment of current curriculum management practices is that district organizational structures create a system where sites are receiving multiple directives regarding curriculum from departments that operate independently. Several individual departments are involved in developing curriculum, providing professional development, directing program design and identifying instructional materials. Site personnel report that different departments articulate different philosophies and different expectations for program design and instructional delivery. The most frequently noted lack of direction and consistency was in program design for English learners. Without a district plan that articulates the district philosophy for curriculum design and delivery, this multi-layered approach to curriculum management may continue to foster confusion and lack of student access to a common district curriculum. Interview comments illustrate perceptions regarding the lack of comprehensive curriculum planning: • “A huge issue is inconsistency [among programs]”. • “Various people in central office give conflicting information to schools regarding program implementation.” • “Curriculum and programs are inconsistently implemented across schools.” • “One of the main problems we have is the principals are hearing two messages---the bilingual [district Blueprint] versus test scores.” • “ABE [alternate bilingual education] is a very strong personal agenda that is not in concert with PSAA [California Public School Accountability Act] or NCLB [No Child Left Behind]. I believe it is a misinterpretation of the Blueprint.” • “If we are going to do the bilingual programs, our schools are going to take a hit in test scores. That is a conflicting message.” • “One of the ways we were going to get to biliteracy was dual immersion. There was no formal professional development, so now we are all across the board. There is no consistency.” • We don’t have a standards-based ELD curriculum yet; nothing has been adopted.”

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 76 • “Teachers base their lesson plans on Houghton Mifflin. It is aligned to the standards so they do not need to use the district guides.” In summary, the auditors found that the San Bernardino City Unified School District lacks a comprehensive curriculum management plan that provides direction and designates roles and responsibilities for the design and delivery of the district curriculum. Various elements exist in isolation, but no cohesive approach exists that provides direction for comprehensive curriculum management. Finding 2.2: The Scope of the Written Curriculum Is Adequate at the Elementary Level But Inadequate at the Middle and High School Levels to Guide Teaching.

Clear, comprehensive, and current curriculum guides give direction for teachers concerning objectives, assessment methods, prerequisite skills, instructional materials and resources, and classroom strategies. A complete set of curriculum documents includes guides for all grade levels and courses taught in the district. This is known as the scope of the written curriculum. The lack of a curriculum guide for a subject or course causes teachers to rely on other resources in planning and delivering instruction. These other resources may not be in alignment with the instructional goals of the district and/or the state. In addition, they may not provide consistency and focus across grades, courses, and schools. Focus and connectivity by the administration and Board is greatly reduced when decisions involving content and delivery are left to school sites and classrooms functioning in isolation. Fragmentation of the taught curriculum can lead to poor student achievement. The auditors reviewed documents presented by the San Bernardino City Unified School District personnel as curriculum guides. Information from the High School Course Catalog, the District website, and master schedules were used to determine elementary and secondary school subject areas taught and courses offered. The auditors reviewed district policies to determine if the courses required by state statue, State Board of Education, and local board policy are being taught. The auditors found policies related to curriculum that were 20 years old and no longer reflect the current scope of curriculum that is based on state academic standards. The following policies address the Board’s goals for student achievement and expectations for curriculum: • Board Policy 6100c Student Achievement Goals (1983) provides an outline of learning goals in the areas of Reading/Language Arts, Mathematics, Fine Arts, Career Training, Health, citizenship, Social Science, and Natural and Physical Science. • Board Policy 6102 Comprehensive Curriculum (1985) states, “The Board of Education has adopted Courses of Study and Curriculum, Guides to Comprehensive Curriculum, for the curricular areas listed below to satisfy the mandate of the SB 813 revision to Education Code Section 44662 which states, ‘The governing board of each school district shall establish standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study: Elementary Language Arts, Grades K-6 Elementary Mathematics, Grades K-6 Secondary Social Studies, Grades 7-12.’ Copies of these guides shall be on file in the Educational Services Division.” Curriculum guides were requested from the San Bernardino City Unified School District for each course or subject offered. Auditors expect to find guides for all subjects and courses taught. Auditors determine that if 70 percent or more of the courses offered have curriculum documents, the scope of the written curriculum is considered adequate. The auditors found the scope of the curriculum at the

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 77 elementary level, K-6, adequate, but the scope of curriculum for grade 7-12 as inadequate. This finding deals only with the scope or coverage of the written curriculum. The quality of the curriculum guides is addressed in Finding 2.3. Exhibit 2.2.1 indicates whether guides are available for each of the curriculum areas and grade levels for kindergarten through grade six. Exhibit 2.2.1 Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and by Grade Level Elementary Schools Grades K-6 San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Courses Guides Subject K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Offered Available Visual & Performing Arts 3-6 X X X X 4 4 LA Guides K-6 X X X X X X X 7 7 Math Guide K-6 X X X X X X X 7 7 Science Guide K-6 X X X X X X X 7 7 History Social Studies K-6 X X X X X X X 7 7 Positive Action K-6 X X X X X X X 7 7 PE K-6 X X X X X X X 7 7 Cesar Chavez K-6 Curriculum X X X X X X X 7 7 ELD Beginning X X X X X X X 2 2 ELD Early Intermediate X X X X X X X 2 2 ELD Intermediate X X X X X X X 2 2 ELD Early Advanced X X X X X X X 2 2 ELD Advanced X X X X X X X 2 2 Structured English Immersion X X X X X X X 7 7 Alternative Bilingual Ed K X X X X X X 7 7 Total 77 77 Percentage 100% Key: X = Guide Available; 0 = Guide Not Provided/Available The data in Exhibit 2.2.1 show that all fifteen areas, or 100 percent, of curriculum areas that are identified at the elementary level have curriculum guides. Auditors concluded that the scope of the elementary curriculum is adequate. Board policies provide direction for the scope of the current educational program in grades 7-12. The following board policies cite the subjects and expectations at the middle and high school levels: • Board Policy 6105 Middle School Course Requirements (2000) requires, “During the two years students are enrolled in the seventh and eighth grades, they will be required to complete four semesters of reading/language arts, four semesters of physical education, four semesters of mathematics, four semesters of social studies, four semesters of science, and four semesters of electives.” • Board Policy 6120a Graduation Requirements (2003) identifies, “Effective with the graduation class of 2004, the requirements for graduation from San Bernardino high schools are specified as: English, 4 years, 40 credits; Mathematics, 3 years, 30 credits; Science, 3 years, 30 credits; Social

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 78 Studies, 4 years, 40 credits; Physical Education, 2 years, 20 credits; Career Development, 2 years, 20 credits; Electives, 4 years, 40 credits; Computer Literacy/Competency; and students must pass the California High School Exit Examination as enforced by the State Board of Education.” Elective courses at the middle schools are offered by the individual schools to meet student, parent, and community needs. Their availability coincides with staffing. They vary from year to year, program to program, and school to school. Courses that are included in the scope Exhibit 2.2.2 are those that are offered during the 2004-2005 school year. Exhibit 2.2.2 indicates whether guides are available for each of the curriculum areas, course offerings, and grade levels for middle school grades 6, 7, and 8. Exhibit 2.2.2 Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and Grade Level Middle School Grades 6, 7, 8 San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Courses Curriculum Course 6 7 8 Offered Guides Presented ELD Beginning X X X 1 1 ELD Early Intermediate X X X 1 1 ELD Intermediate X X X 1 1 ELD Early Advanced X X X 1 1 ELD Advanced X X X 1 1 Beginning Band X X 1 1 Advanced Band X X 1 1 Advanced Orchestra X X 1 1 African Drums X 1 0 Algebra X 1 1 Algebraic Standards X 1 1 Beginning Art X X X 1 1 Intermediate Art X X 1 1 Advanced Art X 1 1 Art Appreciation X X X 1 0 ASB 6 X 1 0 ASB 7 1 0 ASB 8 1 0 Beginning Orchestra X X X 1 1 Cadet Corps 1 0 Beginning Choir X X X 1 1 Intermediate Choir X X X 1 1 Advanced Choir X X X 1 1 Communications Video 1 0 Computer 1 0 Explore 3 0 Family Life X X X 1 1 Guitar 1 0 Habits 1 0

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 79 Exhibit 2.2.2 (continued) Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and Grade Level Middle School Grades 6, 7, 8 San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Health/Health Science 1 0 IIP Reading 1 0 Intermediate Band 1 0 Keyboarding 1 0 Language Arts X X X 3 3 Life Skills 1 0 Math X X 2 2 General Music X X X 3 3 Music Appreciation X X X 1 1 Music Enrichment 1 0 Newspaper 1 0 Advanced Orchestra X X X 1 1 Publications 1 0 Reading X X X 3 3 Reading Science 1 0 Reading SH 1 0 SC 1 0 SCD Math 1 0 Science X X X 3 3 SDC 5 0 SED 1 0 Social Studies X X X 3 3 Spanish Explore 1 1 0 Stomp 1 0 Strings 1 0 Study Skills 1 0 Support Lab 1 0 Technology 1 0 Voc Ed 1 0 Writing Support 1 0 Beginning Dance X 1 1 Intermediate Dance X 1 1 Advanced Dance X 1 1 Beginning Theatre (9 wks) X X X 1 1 Beginning Theatre (12 wks) X X X 1 1 Beginning Theatre (semester) X X X 1 1 Beginning Theatre (year wheel) X X X 1 1 Intermediate Theatre (trimester) X X X 1 1 Intermediate Theatre (semester) X X X 1 1 Advanced Theatre X X X 1 1 Total 86 47 Percentage 55% Key: X = Guide Available; 0 = Guide Not provided/Available As can be noted in Exhibit 2.2.2, 47 of the 86 middle school course offerings at grades 6, 7, and 8 have curriculum guides, or 55 percent. Auditors concluded the scope of the middle school curriculum

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 80 does not meet the minimum audit standard of 70 percent and is inadequate to provide direction for instructional planning. Exhibit 2.2.3 shows whether guides are available for each of the curriculum areas and course offerings at the high school level. Exhibit 2.2.3 Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and Grade Level High Schools Grades 9-12 San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Curriculum Guides Course 9 10 11 12 Courses Offered Presented Film/Video 1 X X X 1 1 Video Documentary X X 1 1 Video Electronic News Gathering 1 0 Film/Video Integrated Studies X 1 1 Film Appreciation X X X X 1 1 Visual Art IB II X 1 1 Visual Art IB I X 1 1 Art Survey X X X X 1 1 Drawing and Painting X X X 1 1 Art Appreciation X X X X 1 1 Art History X X X X 1 1 Art History AP X X 1 1 Animation 1 X X X 1 1 Animation 2 X X 1 1 Art X X X X 3 3 Ceramics X X X 3 2 Ceramics 3 Adv. Studio X X 1 1 Advanced Ceramics X X 1 1 Studio Art X X X 1 1 Advanced Studio Art X 1 1 Digital Technology X X X 3 3 Sculpture/Form and Process X X X X 1 1 Sculpture II X X X 1 1 Sculpture III X X X 1 1 Art Design 1 0 Business I, II 1 0 Business Tech 1 0 Business Core X X 1 1 Business Module 1 X X X 1 1 Business Module 2 X X X 1 1 Career Business X X X X 1 1 Computer Literacy 1 0 MOUS Certification: Microsoft Word X X X X 1 1 MOUS Certification: Excel X X X X 1 1

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 81 Exhibit 2.2.3 (continued) Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and Grade Level High Schools Grades 9-12 San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Curriculum Guides Course 9 10 11 12 Courses Offered Presented MOUS Certification: PowerPoint X X X X 1 1 MOUS Certification: Access 1 0 E-Commerce/ Business Marketing X X X 1 1 Accounting and Finance X X X 2 1 Computer Accounting 1 0 Intro to Psychology 1 0 Psychology AP 1 0 World Geography X 1 1 World Geography H 1 0 World Geography IB 1 0 World Geography AP 1 0 Advanced Geography IB 1 0 Renaissance 1 0 European History AP 1 0 World History X 1 1 World History H 1 0 World History AP 1 0 World History PIB 1 0 Social Studies ED 1 0 US History X 1 1 US History AP 1 0 US History IB 1 0 Law and Justice (9-12) 1 0 American Government X 1 1 American Government AP 1 0 American Government IB 1 0 Econ 1 0 Econ H 1 0 International Econ IB 1 0 English Language Dev 3 0 SDC English 1 0 Written Communication 1 0 English 1 X 1 1 English 1 H 1 0 English 1 PIB 1 0 English 2 X 1 1 English 2 H 1 0 English 2 PIB 1 0 English 3 X 1 1 English 3 H 1 0

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 82 Exhibit 2.2.3 (continued) Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and Grade Level High Schools Grades 9-12 San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Curriculum Guides Course 9 10 11 12 Courses Offered Presented English 3 IB 1 0 English 4 X 1 1 English 4 AP 1 0 English 4 IB 1 0 Competitive Speech and Debate 1, 2, 3, 4 X X X X 1 1 French 1 X 1 1 French 1 H X 1 1 French 1 PIB 1 0 French 2 1 0 French 2 H X 1 1 French 2 PIB 1 0 French 3 X 1 1 French 3 H 1 0 French 3 IB 1 0 French 4 1 0 French 4 AP 1 0 French 4 IB 1 0 German 1 X 1 1 German 1H X 1 1 German 2 X 1 1 German 2H X 1 1 German 3 X 1 1 German 3 H X 1 1 German 4 1 0 German 4 AP 1 0 Japanese 3 0 Russian 1 1 0 Russian 1 H 1 0 Russian 2 1 0 Russian 2H 1 0 Russian 3 1 0 Russian 3 H 1 0 Russian 4 H 1 0 Spanish 1 X 1 1 Spanish 1 H 1 0 Spanish 1 PIB 1 0 Spanish 2 X 1 1 Spanish 2 H 1 0 Spanish 2 PIB 1 0 Spanish 3 X 1 1

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 83 Exhibit 2.2.3 (continued) Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and Grade Level High Schools Grades 9-12 San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Curriculum Guides Course 9 10 11 12 Courses Offered Presented Spanish 3 H 1 0 Spanish 3 IB 1 0 Spanish 3 AP 1 0 Spanish 4 AP X 1 1 Spanish 4 IB 1 0 Spanish 5 AP X 1 1 Spanish 5 IB 1 0 Spanish for Native Speakers X X X X 2 2 Human Growth and Development X X X X 1 1 Human Growth and Development Internship 1 0 Foods and Nutrition X X X X 1 1 Vocational Day Care Center X X 1 1 Hotel/Hospitality Management/Food Sanitation X X 1 1 Math SDC Ed 1 0 Math Education 1 0 Algebra Standards 1 X 1 1 Algebra Standards 2 X X 1 1 Algebra 1 X X X X 1 1 Algebra 2 X X X 1 1 Algebra 2 H X X X 1 1 Algebra 2 PIB X X X 1 0 Geometry Standards 1 X X 1 1 Geometry Standards 2 X X 1 1 Geometry X X X X 1 1 Geometry H X X X X 1 1 Geometry PIB 1 0 Integrated Math X X 1 1 Statistics X X 1 1 Statistics AP 1 0 Trigonometry/Pre-Calculus X X 1 1 Trigonometry/Pre-Calculus IB 1 0 Trigonometry/Pre-Calculus AP 1 0 Trigonometry/Math Analysis 1 0 Trigonometry/Math Analysis IB 1 0 Calculus AP X 1 1 Calculus IB 1 0 Calculus BC AP 1 0 Mathematics Studies IB 1 0 Audio Visual 1 0 Driver Education 1 0

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 84 Exhibit 2.2.3 (continued) Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and Grade Level High Schools Grades 9-12 San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Curriculum Guides Course 9 10 11 12 Courses Offered Presented American Sign Language 1 0 Theory of Knowledge IB 1 0 IC Cert. Internet and Computing X X X X 1 1 Adobe Certified Expert, Prep X X X 1 1 Cadet Corps 1 0 Peer Leadership Skills 1 0 Peer Leadership 1 0 Teacher Training X X 2 1 Journalism 2 0 Ballet Folklorico 1 0 A+ Certification, Prep X X X 1 1 Cisco Certified Network Associate X X X 4 4 Web/Cisco 2 1 0 Fundamental Tech 1 1 0 Aerobics 1 0 PE X X X X 1 1 PE/Flags Band 1 0 PE Tall Flags 1 0 PE Band 1 0 PE Survey 1 X 1 1 PE Survey 2 X X X 1 1 Girls PE 1 0 Adv. PE 1 0 Co-ed PE 1 0 Competitive PE 1 0 Weight Training, Beginning/Advanced 1 0 Bowling 1 0 Team Sports Beginning 1 0 Team Sports Advanced 1 0 ROP Product Preparation 1, 2 X X X X 1 1 ROP Culinary Arts X X X X 1 1 ROP Construction Occupations X X X X 1 1 ROP A+ Certification X X X X 1 1 ROP Computer Assisted Drafting 1,2 1 0 ROP Printing/Graphic Arts Occupations 1, 2 X X X X 1 1 ROP CAD Drafting/Design X X X X 1 1 ROP Office Operations Phase X X X X 2 2 ROP Banking and Finance Occupations X X X X 1 1 ROP Medical Assistant X X X X 2 2 ROP Restaurant Occupations X X X X 1 1

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 85 Exhibit 2.2.3 (continued) Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and Grade Level High Schools Grades 9-12 San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Curriculum Guides Course 9 10 11 12 Courses Offered Presented ROP Intro to Health Care Careers/Health Care X X X X 1 1 Occupations ROP Child Care Occupations 1 0 ROP Adv. Child Care Occupations X X X X 1 1 ROP Nurse Assistant Home Health Aide X X X X 1 1 ROP Intro to Vocational Nursing X X X X 1 1 ROP Health Occupations X X X X 1 1 ROP Medical Terminology X X X X 1 1 ROP Intro to Fire Technology 1 0 ROP Welding X X X X 1 1 ROP Diversified Occupations X X X X 1 1 Computer Maintenance & Repair X X X X 1 1 Child Development Aide X X X X 1 1 Physical Science 1 X 1 1 Biology 1 X 2 2 Biology H 1 1 Biology PIB X 1 1 Biology 2 AP X X 1 1 Biology 2 IB X X 1 1 Biology 2 H 1 0 Integrated Science 1 0 Health Science X X 1 1 Science SDC Ed 1 0 Chemistry 1 X X 1 1 Chemistry 1H X X X 1 1 Chemistry 1 PIB X X X 1 1 Chemistry 2 AP 1 0 Chemistry 2 IB X X 1 1 Biotechnology 1 0 Environmental Science X X 1 1 Environmental Science AP 1 0 Physiology X X X 1 1 Physiology AP 1 0 Physiology H 1 0 Physics X X 1 1 Physics H X X 1 1 Physics AP 1 0 Physics IB 1 0 Earth Science 1 0 Aerospace Science 1 4 0

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 86 Exhibit 2.2.3 (continued) Scope of the Written Curriculum by Subject Area and Grade Level High Schools Grades 9-12 San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Curriculum Guides Course 9 10 11 12 Courses Offered Presented Marching Band 1, 2, 3, 4 X X X X 1 1 Symphonic Band X X X X 4 2 Wind Ensemble 1, 2, 3, 4 X X X X 1 1 String Ensemble X X X X 2 2 Chamber Orchestra 1, 2 X X X X 1 1 Jazz Band X X X X 1 1 Hand Bell Choir 1, 2, 3, 4 X X X X 1 1 Guitar X X X X 2 2 Piano X X X X 2 2 Music Appreciation X X X X 1 1 Music Theory X X X X 1 1 Music IB X X X X 1 1 Concert Choir X X X X 2 2 Music Composition X X X X 1 1 Adv. Choir 1, 2, 3, 4 X X X X 1 1 Vocal Ensemble X X X X 1 1 Dance X X X X 4 4 Theatre X X X X 4 3 Theatre Arts IB X X 1 1 Theatre Arts IB 2 1 0 Drama 2 0 Play Production 1 0 Film Appreciation X X X X 1 1 Technical Theatre X X X X 4 4 Manufacturing Tech 1, 2 X X X X 1 1 Automotive Tech X X X 5 5 Automotive Tech NATEF/AYES X X 1 1 Vocational Automotive 1 0 Industrial Arts 1 0 Cabinet/Carpentry X X X X 5 5 Construction Occupations 1, 2 X X X X 1 1 Construction 1 0 Graphic Arts/Print Occupations X X X X 3 2 Certified Internet Webmaster Associate X X X 1 1 Drafting X X X X 5 4 Public Safety X X X X 3 3 Intro TV/Broadcasting 1 0 Sign Language 1 0 Total 327 186 Percentage 57% Key: X = Guide Available; 0 = Guide Not provided/Available

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 87

As evidenced in Exhibit 2.2.3, there were more courses offered than the number of curriculum guides made available to the auditors for grades 9-12. Of the high school courses, 186 of the 327 have curriculum guides, or 57%. Auditors noted that several courses had no guides in business, psychology, social science, honors and International Baccalaureate courses, world languages, special education, physical education, upper level math courses and electives. The percentage of guides available is below the 70 percent minimum audit standard and the auditors found the scope of the high school curriculum to be inadequate to provide direction for instructional planning. Overall, the scope of the written curriculum in the San Bernardino Unified School District is adequate for grades kindergarten through grade six, but inadequate for grades 7-12 to enable the Board to establish local control. Without a written curriculum to guide teachers, inconsistency in the taught curriculum hinders student achievement. Curriculum guides for all subjects and at all grade levels serve as work plans for teachers and support the alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum. Finding 2.3: The Quality of the Curriculum Guides Is Inadequate to Promote Alignment of the Written, Taught, and Tested Curriculum

Quality curriculum guides connect the written, taught and tested curriculum. They support instruction so the efforts of teachers are guided in achieving the educational priorities of the system. Curriculum guides provide direction and communication of instructional objectives, align objectives to the tested curriculum, specify prerequisite skills, list instructional materials, and provide teachers with instructional approaches. They provide connectivity vertically and horizontally within the school system. When guides are incomplete or nonexistent, teachers must make many instructional decisions using whatever resources they have. Instruction is more likely to be inconsistent and not aligned to the written curriculum. To determine if San Bernardino City Unified School District (SBCUSD) had quality curriculum guides the auditors evaluated guides presented against the CMSi audit criteria. The auditors reviewed 268 curriculum guides provided by district personnel according to the criteria presented in Exhibit 2.3.1:

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 88 Exhibit 2.3.1 Curriculum Guides Audit Criteria February 2005

Criteria Description One Clarity and validity of objectives 0 = no goals/objectives present 1 = vague delineation of goals/learner objectives 2= states task to be performed or skills to be learned 3 = states for each objective the what, when (sequence within course/grade), how actual standard is performed, and amount of time to be spent learning Two Congruity of the curriculum to testing/evaluation 0 = no goals/objectives present 1 = vague delineation of goals/learner objectives 2= states task to be performed or skills to be learned 3 = states for each objective the what, when (sequence within course/grade), how actual standard is performed, and amount of time to be spent learning. Three Delineation of the prerequisite essential skills, knowledge, and attitudes 0 = no goals/objectives present 1 = vague delineation of goals/learner objectives 2= states task to be performed or skills to be learned 3 = states for each objective the what, when (sequence within course/grade), how actual standard is performed, and amount of time to be spent learning. Four Delineation of the major instructional tools 0 = no goals/objectives present 1 = vague delineation of goals/learner objectives 2= states task to be performed or skills to be learned 3 = states for each objective the what, when (sequence within course/grade), how actual standard is performed, and amount of time to be spent learning. Five Clear Linkages (strategies) for classroom use 0 = no goals/objectives present 1 = vague delineation of goals/learner objectives 2= states task to be performed or skills to be learned 3 = states for each objective the what, when (sequence within course/grade), how actual standard is performed, and amount of time to be spent learning.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 89 The guides were assigned values of 0-3 for each criterion, with 3 representing the highest level of quality with respect to the five criteria. A total score for each guide was determined by adding the ratings for each criterion. The evaluation of the curriculum guides is presented in Exhibit 2.3.2. Exhibit 2.3.2 Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum Guides Grades K-12 San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Grade One Two Three Four Five Total Curriculum Guide Level Date Written (Obj) (Assess) (Pre) (Res) (App) Rating Visual & Performing Arts K-6 Jul-02 2 2 0 3 0 7 L A Guide K-6 2004 2 2 2 2 2 10 Math Guide K-6 2004 2 2 2 2 2 10 Science Guide K-6 2004 2 2 2 2 2 10 Social Studies K-6 2004 2 2 2 2 2 10 Positive Action K-6 No Date 2 0 0 2 2 6 PE K 2000 3 2 3 2 3 13 PE 1,2 2000 3 2 3 2 3 13 PE 3,4 2000 3 2 3 2 3 13 PE 5,6 2000 3 2 3 2 3 13 Ceasar Chavez Curriculum K-6 2002 2 0 0 2 3 7 ELD Beginning K-2 No Date 2 2 0 0 3 7 ELD Early Intermediate K-2 No Date 2 2 0 0 3 7 ELD Intermediate K-2 No Date 2 2 0 0 3 7 ELD Early Advanced K-2 No Date 2 2 0 0 3 7 ELD Advanced K-2 No Date 2 2 0 0 3 7 ELD Beginning 3 to5 No Date 2 2 0 0 3 7 ELD Early Intermediate 3 to5 No Date 2 2 0 0 3 7 ELD Intermediate 3 to5 No Date 2 2 0 0 3 7 ELD Early Advanced 3 to5 No Date 2 2 0 0 3 7 ELD Advanced 3 to5 No Date 2 2 0 0 3 7 Structured English Immersion K 1999 1 0 0 2 0 3 Structured English Immersion 1 1999 1 0 0 2 0 3 Structured English Immersion 2 1999 1 0 0 2 0 3 Structured English Immersion 3 1999 1 0 0 2 0 3 Structured English Immersion 4 1999 1 0 0 2 0 3 Structured English Immersion 5 1999 1 0 0 2 0 3 Alternative Bilingual Ed K 2000 2 0 0 1 0 3 Alternative Bilingual Ed 1 2000 2 0 0 1 0 3 Alternative Bilingual Ed 2 2000 2 0 0 1 0 3 Alternative Bilingual Ed 3 2000 2 0 0 1 0 3 Alternative Bilingual Ed 4 2000 2 0 0 1 0 3

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 90 Exhibit 2.3.2 (continued) Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum Guides Grades K-12 San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Grade One Two Three Four Five Total Curriculum Guide Level Date Written (Obj) (Assess) (Pre) (Res) (App) Rating Alternative Bilingual Ed 5 2000 2 0 0 1 0 3 Alternative Bilingual Ed 6 2000 2 0 0 1 0 3 Structured English Immersion 6 1999 1 0 0 2 0 3 ELD Beginning 6 to 8 No Date 2 2 0 0 3 7 ELD Early Intermediate 6 to 8 No Date 2 2 0 0 3 7 ELD Intermediate 6 to 8 No Date 2 2 0 0 3 7 ELD Early Advanced 6 to 8 No Date 2 2 0 0 3 7 ELD Advanced 6 to 8 No Date 2 2 0 0 3 7 Beginning Band 6,7,8 2004 2 0 0 0 0 2 Advanced Band 6, 7, 8 Jul-02 2 0 0 0 0 2 Advanced Orchestra 6,7,8 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2 Algebra 8 2004 2 2 0 3 0 7 Algebraic Standards 8 2004 2 2 O 3 0 7 Beginning Art 6,7,8 Nov-04 2 0 0 0 0 2 Intermediate Art 7,8 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2 Advanced Art 8 Sep-02 2 0 0 0 0 2 Beginning Orchestra 6,7,8 2004 2 0 0 0 0 2 Beginning Choir 6,7,8 2004 2 0 0 0 0 2 Intermediate Choir 6,7,8 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2 Advanced Choir 6,7,8 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2 Language Arts 7 Apr-03 2 2 2 3 1 10 Language Arts 8 No Date 2 2 2 3 1 10 Reading/LA 6 2001 2 1 2 1 2 8 Math 6 2004 2 2 0 3 0 7 Math 7 2004 2 2 0 3 0 7 General Music 8 May-01 2 0 0 0 0 2 General Music 7 May-02 2 0 0 0 0 2 General Music 6 Jul-02 2 0 0 0 0 2 Music Appreciation 6,7,8 Jul-02 2 0 0 0 0 2 Advanced Orchestra 6,7,8 Jul-02 2 0 0 0 0 2 Reading 6 2001 2 1 2 1 2 8 Reading 7 Apr-03 2 2 2 3 1 10 Reading 8 2 2 2 3 1 10 Science 6 2004 2 2 0 3 0 7 Science 7 2004 2 2 0 3 0 7 Science 8 2004 2 2 0 3 0 7 Social Studies 6 1999 2 3 1 3 3 12 Social Studies 7 1999 2 3 1 3 3 12 Social Studies 8 1999 2 3 1 3 3 12 Beginning Dance 6 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2 Intermediate Dance 7 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2 Advanced Dance 8 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 91 Exhibit 2.3.2 (continued) Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum Guides Grades K-12 San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Grade One Two Three Four Five Total Curriculum Guide Level Date Written (Obj) (Assess) (Pre) (Res) (App) Rating Beginning Theatre (9 wks) 6,7,8 2001 2 2 0 0 2 6 Beginning Theatre (12 wks) 6,7,8 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2 Beginning Theatre (semester) 6,7,8 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2 Beginning Theatre (year wheel) 6,7,8 2000 2 0 0 0 0 2 Intermediate Theatre (trimester) 7,8 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2 Intermediate Theatre (semester) 6,7,8 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2 Advanced Theatre 8 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2 Film/Video 1 10 to 12 2003 1 2 0 0 2 5 Video Documentary 11,12 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2 Film/Video Integrated Studies 12 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2 Film Appreciation 9,10,11,12 2003 2 0 0 0 0 2 Visual Art IB II 12 2000 2 0 0 0 0 2 Visual Art IB I 11 2000 2 3 2 2 2 11 Art Survey 9 to 12 2002 2 0 2 0 0 4 Drawing and Painting 10 to 12 2003 1 1 1 0 2 5 Art Appreciation 9 to 12 2000 2 0 2 0 0 4 Art History 9 to 12 2000 2 0 2 0 0 4 Art History AP 11, 12 2000 2 0 2 0 0 4 Animation 1 10 to 12 2003 2 2 0 0 2 6 Animation 2 11,12 2004 2 2 1 0 2 7 Art 1 9 to 12 2002 2 0 2 0 0 4 Art 2 10 to 12 2003 2 2 2 1 2 9 Art 3 11,12 2004 2 2 2 1 2 9 Ceramics 1 10 to 12 2002 2 2 2 1 2 9 Ceramics 2 10 to 12 2001 2 1 0 0 1 4 Ceramics 3 Adv. Studio 11,12 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2 Advanced Ceramics 11,12 2000 2 0 0 0 0 2 Studio Art 10 to 12 2001 2 0 2 0 0 4 Advanced Studio Art 12 2001 2 0 2 0 0 4 Digi Tech I 10 to 12 2003 2 1 2 1 2 8 Digi Tech II 11, 12 2000 2 1 2 1 2 8 Digi Tech III 11, 12 2000 2 0 2 0 0 4 Sculpture/Form and Process 9 to 12 2002 2 2 2 1 2 9 Sculpture II 10 to 12 2003 2 2 2 1 2 9 Sculpture III D 10 to 12 2000 2 0 2 0 0 4 Business Core 9, 10 No Date 2 0 0 2 1 5 Business Module 1 10 to 12 No Date 2 0 0 2 1 5 Business Module 2 10 to 12 No Date 2 0 0 2 1 5 Career Business 9 to 12 No Date 2 0 0 2 1 5 Computer Literacy No Date MOUS Certification: Microsoft 9 to 12 No Date 2 0 0 2 1 5 Word

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 92 Exhibit 2.3.2 (continued) Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum Guides Grades K-12 San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Grade One Two Three Four Five Total Curriculum Guide Level Date Written (Obj) (Assess) (Pre) (Res) (App) Rating MOUS Certification: Excel 9 to 12 No Date 2 0 0 2 1 5 MOUS Certification: PowerPoint 9 to 12 No Date 2 0 0 2 1 5 E-Commerce/ Business 10 to 12 No Date 2 0 0 2 1 5 Marketing Accounting and Finance 1 10 to 12 No Date 2 0 0 2 1 5 Accounting and Finance 2 No Date Computer Accounting 11, 12 No Date 2 0 0 2 1 5 World Geography 9 No Date 2 2 1 2 2 9 World History 10 2000 2 3 1 3 3 12 US History 11 1999 2 3 1 3 3 12 American Government 12 No Date 2 3 1 3 3 12 Econ 12 1999 2 3 1 3 3 12 English 1 9 2003 2 2 2 1 0 7 English 2 10 2003 2 2 2 1 0 7 English 3 11 2003 2 2 2 1 0 7 English 4 12 2003 2 2 2 1 0 7 French 1 No Grade No Date 2 1 0 1 1 5 French 1 H No Grade No Date 2 1 0 1 1 5 French 2 H No Grade No Date 2 1 0 1 1 5 French 3 No Grade No Date 2 1 0 1 1 5 German 1 No Grade No Date 2 0 0 1 0 3 German 1H No Grade No Date 2 0 0 1 0 3 German 2 No Grade No Date 2 0 0 1 0 3 German 2H No Grade No Date 2 0 0 1 0 3 German 3 No Grade No Date 2 0 0 1 0 3 German 3 H No Grade No Date 2 0 0 1 0 3 Spanish 1 No Grade No Date 2 0 0 1 0 3 Spanish 2 No Grade No Date 2 0 0 1 0 3 Spanish 3 No Grade No Date 2 0 0 1 0 3 Spanish 4 AP No Grade No Date 2 0 0 1 0 3 Spanish 5 AP No Grade No Date 2 0 0 1 0 3 Spanish for Native Speakers 1 No Grade No Date 2 0 0 1 0 3 Spanish for Native Speakers 2 No Grade No Date 2 0 0 1 0 3 Human Growth and Development 9 to 12 No Date 2 0 0 2 1 5 Foods and Nutrition 9 to 12 No Date 2 0 0 2 1 5 Vocational Day Care Center 11.12 No Date 2 0 0 2 1 5 Hotel/Hospitality 11, 12 No Date 2 0 0 2 1 5 Management/Food Sanitation Algebra Standards 1 9 2004 2 1 0 3 0 6 Algebra Standards 2 9, 10 2004 2 0 0 3 0 6 Algebra 1 9 to 12 2004 2 1 0 3 0 6 Algebra 2 10 to 12 2004 2 0 0 3 0 5

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 93 Algebra 2 H 10 to 12 2004 2 0 0 3 0 5 Exhibit 2.3.2 (continued) Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum Guides Grades K-12 San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Grade One Two Three Four Five Total Curriculum Guide Level Date Written (Obj) (Assess) (Pre) (Res) (App) Rating Geometry Standards 1 9, 10 2004 2 0 0 3 0 5 Geometry Standards 2 10, 11 2004 2 0 0 3 0 5 Geometry 9 to 12 2004 2 0 0 3 0 6 Geometry H 9 to 12 2004 2 0 0 3 0 5 Integrated Math 11, 12 2003 1 0 0 1 0 2 Statistics 11, 12 1997 1 0 0 0 0 1 Statistics AP No Date Trigonometry/Pre-Calculus 11, 12 2003 2 0 0 0 0 2 Calculus AP 12 2003 2 0 0 0 0 2 IC Cert. Internet and Computing 9 to 12 No Date 2 2 3 2 2 11 Adobe Certified Expert, Prep 10 to 12 No Date 2 2 3 2 2 11 Teacher Training 1 11, 12 No Date 2 0 0 2 1 5 A+ Certification, Prep 10 to 12 No Date 2 0 0 2 1 5 Cisco Certified Network No Grade No Date 3 3 3 3 3 15 Associate 1 Cisco Certified Network No Grade No Date 3 3 3 3 3 15 Associate 2 Cisco Certified Network No Grade No Date 3 3 3 3 3 15 Associate 3 Cisco Certified Network No Grade No Date 3 3 3 3 3 15 Associate 4 PE 6 to 12 No Date 3 2 2 2 2 11 PE Survey 1 9 No Date 2 0 2 3 3 10 PE Survey 2 10 to 12 No Date 2 0 2 3 3 10 ROP Product Preparation 1, 2 9 to 12 No Date 2 1 2 2 0 7 ROP Culinary Arts 9 to 12 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2 ROP Construction Occupations 9 to 12 No Date 1 0 0 0 0 1 ROP A+ Certification 9 to 12 2004 2 2 2 2 2 10 ROP Printing/Graphic Arts 9 to 12 No Date 1 0 0 0 0 1 Occupations 1, 2 ROP CAD Drafting/Design 9 to 12 2003 2 1 2 2 2 9 ROP Office Operations Phase 1 9 to 12 2 2 2 2 2 10 ROP Office Operations Phase 2 9 to 12 2004 2 2 2 2 2 10 ROP Banking and Finance 9 to 12 2004 2 2 2 2 2 10 Occupations ROP Medical Assistant Front 9 to 12 2004 2 2 2 2 2 10 Office ROP Restaurant Occupations 9 to 12 2004 2 2 2 2 2 10 ROP Medical Assistant Back 9 to 12 No Date 2 0 0 0 0 2 Office ROP Intro to Health Care 9 to 12 No Date 2 2 2 2 2 10

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 94 Careers/Health Care Occupations Exhibit 2.3.2 (continued) Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum Guides Grades K-12 San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Grade One Two Three Four Five Total Curriculum Guide Level Date Written (Obj) (Assess) (Pre) (Res) (App) Rating ROP Adv. Child Care 9 to 12 No Date 1 0 0 0 0 1 Occupations ROP Nurse Assistant Home 9 to 12 No Date 1 0 0 0 0 1 Health Aide ROP Intro to Voc Nursing 9 to 12 2004 2 2 2 2 2 10 ROP Health Occupations 9 to 12 2 0 0 0 0 2 ROP Medical Terminology 9 to 12 2004 2 2 2 2 2 10 ROP Welding 9 to 12 No Date 1 0 0 0 0 1 ROP Diversified Occupations 9 to 12 No Date 1 0 0 0 0 1 Computer Maintenance & Repair 9 to 12 No Date 2 2 2 2 2 10 Child Development Aide 9 to 12 No Date 1 0 0 0 0 1 Physical Science 1 9 2004 2 2 2 1 1 8 Biology 1 10 2004 2 2 2 1 1 8 Biology 1C 10 2000 2 1 0 3 0 6 Biology H 9 No Date 3 3 2 2 3 13 Biology PIB 9 No Date 3 3 2 2 3 13 Biology 2 AP 11,12 No Date 3 3 2 1 3 12 Biology 2 IB 11,12 No Date 3 3 2 1 3 12 Health Science 11,12 2003 2 0 2 2 0 6 Chemistry 1 11,12 2001 2 0 2 2 0 6 Chemistry 1H 10 to 12 1994 3 2 2 2 2 11 Chemistry 1 PIB 10 to 12 1994 3 2 2 2 2 11 Chemistry 2 IB 11,12 1994 3 3 2 2 2 12 Environmental Science 11,12 2003 3 3 2 3 3 14 Physiology 10 to 12 2002 2 0 2 2 2 8 Physics 11,12 2000 2 0 2 2 0 6 Physics H 11,12 No Date 3 3 2 3 3 14 Marching Band 1, 2, 3, 4 9,10, 11, 12 2000 2 0 0 0 0 2 Symphonic Band 1 9,10, 11, 12 2002 2 2 0 1 0 5 Symphonic Band 2 10,11, 12 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2 Wind Ensemble 1, 2, 3, 4 9 to 12 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2 String Ensemble 1 9 to 12 2001 2 1 0 0 0 3 String Ensemble 2 10 to 12 2004 2 1 0 0 0 3 Chamber Orchestra 1, 2 9 to 12 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2 Jazz Band 9 to 12 2001 2 1 0 0 0 3 Hand Bell Choir 1, 2, 3, 4 9 to 12 2000 2 0 0 0 0 2 Guitar 1 9 to 12 2003 2 0 0 0 0 2 Piano 1 9 to 12 2003 2 0 0 0 0 2 Guitar 2 10 to 12 2004 2 0 0 0 0 2 Piano 2 10 to 12 2004 2 2 1 0 0 5

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 95 Exhibit 2.3.2 (continued) Auditors’ Rating of Curriculum Guides Grades K-12 San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Grade One Two Three Four Five Total Curriculum Guide Level Date Written (Obj) (Assess) (Pre) (Res) (App) Rating Music Appreciation 9 to 12 2002 2 2 0 0 0 4 Music Theory 9 to 12 2001 2 2 0 0 0 4 Music IB 9 to 12 2002 3 3 0 0 2 8 Concert Choir 1 9 to 12 2002 2 2 0 0 0 4 Music Composition 9 to 12 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2 Concert Choir 2 9 to 12 2002 2 2 0 0 0 4 Adv. Choir 1, 2, 3, 4 9 to 12 2001 2 2 1 0 1 6 Vocal Ensemble 9 to 12 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2 Dance 1 9 to 12 2003 2 2 0 0 2 6 Dance 2 10 to 12 2003 2 2 0 0 2 6 Dance 3 11,12 2002 2 2 0 0 2 6 Dance 4 12 2002 2 0 0 0 0 Theatre 1 9 to 12 2002 2 2 0 0 2 6 Theatre 2 9 to 12 2003 2 2 0 0 2 6 Theatre 3 9 to 12 2001 2 2 0 0 2 6 Theatre Arts IB 11,12 2001 3 3 0 0 3 9 Film Appreciation 9 to 12 2002 2 2 1 0 2 7 Technical Theatre 1 9 to 12 2003 2 2 0 0 2 6 Technical Theatre 2 9 to 12 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2 Technical Theatre 3 9 to 12 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2 Technical Theatre 4 9 to 12 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2 Manufacturing Tech 1, 2 9 to 12 1998 3 2 2 2 1 10 Automotive Tech 1 9 to 12 2002 3 2 2 2 1 10 Automotive Tech 2 9 to 12 2002 3 2 2 2 1 10 Automotive Tech 3 10 to 12 2002 3 2 2 2 1 10 Automotive Tech NATEF/AYES No Grade 2000 3 3 3 3 3 15 Automotive Tech V 11, 12 2002 3 2 2 2 1 10 Automotive Tech VI 11, 12 2002 3 2 2 2 1 10 Cabinet/Carpentry 1 9 to 12 No Date 2 2 2 2 3 11 Cabinet/Carpentry 2 9 to 12 No Date 2 2 2 2 3 11 Cabinet/Carpentry 3 & 4 11, 12 No Date 2 2 3 2 2 11 Cabinet/Carpentry V 11, 12 No Date 2 2 2 2 3 11 Cabinet/Carpentry VI 11, 12 No Date 2 2 2 2 3 11 Construction Occup. 1, 2 9 to 12 No Date 2 2 3 2 2 11 Graphic Arts/Print Occupations 1 9 to 12 2002 2 2 3 2 2 11 Graphic Arts/Print Occupations 2 9 to 12 2002 2 2 3 2 2 11 Cert. Internet Webmaster Assoc. 10 to 12 No Date 2 0 0 2 1 5 Drafting 1, 2 9 to 12 No Date 2 2 2 3 2 11 Drafting 3 10 to 12 No Date 2 2 2 3 2 11 Drafting 4 10 to 12 No Date 2 2 2 3 2 11 Drafting V, VI 11, 12 No Date 2 2 3 2 2 11 Totals 539 282 209 316 282 1621 Average 2.0 1.1 0.8 1.2 1.2 6.2

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 96 As can be noted in Exhibit 2.3.2: • The guides ranged in quality from a high of 15 to a low of 1 point. • Of the 268 guides evaluated, 23 or 9%, rated 12 or higher, the rating necessary to be considered a strong guide. • Of the 23 guides scoring 12 and above, 5 received a perfect score of 15. Of these 5, 4 were for Cisco certification courses and one was automotive technology. Of the other 18 guides in the strong scoring range, 7 were in science, 7 in social science, and 4 in physical education. • The average rating of guides was 6.2 on a scale of 0 to 15. • 22 percent of the guides did not have a publish date. The auditors determined the following regarding the five criteria for rating the curriculum guides in Exhibit 2.3.2: Criterion One- Clarity and Validity of Objectives: Criterion One, clarity and validity of objectives, was the strongest element in the San Bernardino City Unified School District curriculum guides earning 2.0 of a possible 3.0 points. Twenty two (8 Percent) of 268 guides scored “3”, indicating that information was provided as to what (content objective), when (sequence), how actual standards would be performed, and the amount of time to be spent in learning each objective. A majority of guides stated tasks to be performed and scored “2.” Criterion Two – Congruity of the Curriculum to Assessment: Criterion Two was a weaker area for the guides earning an average of 1.1 of a possible 3.0. Objectives were keyed to performance evaluation and district tests in use in 20 of 268 (8 percent) of the guides earning them a rating of “3.” A rating of “2” was given to 99 of 268 (37 percent) of the guides which stated those skills/ concepts to be assessed. Where some evaluative approach was stated, a rating of “1” was given. Eight percent of the guides fall in the rating of “1.” Forty-seven percent do not state any evaluative approach. Criterion Three- Delineation of the Prerequisite Skills, Knowledge, and Attitudes: The curriculum guides were weakest on Criterion Three earning an average of 0.8 points out of a possible 3.0 points. Sixteen guides (6 percent) earned a perfect score of “3” by documenting prerequisite knowledge or describing required discrete skills. Thirteen (5 percent) of the guides were rated “1.” One hundred sixty five (66 percent) were rated “0” because no mention was made of prerequisite skills and knowledge. Of 268 guides, 74 received a “2” rating in this criterion. Criterion Four-Delineation of Major Instructional Resources: Criterion Four, delineation of the major instructional tools in the form of textbooks and supplementary materials, earned an average of 1.2 out of a possible “3.” Thirty nine (15 percent) of guides earned a rating of “3.” Seventy four guides (27 percent) were rated a “2” and 13 guides (5 percent) were rated “1.” Of the 268 guides 165 (62 percent) failed to mention a textbook or any resource and earned a rating of “0.” Criterion Five- Clear Linkages to Instructional Strategies: Criterion Five earned an average of 1.1 out of a possible “3”. Forty four guides (16 percent) were rated “3” providing specific examples on how to approach key concepts or skills in classroom practice. Seventy five (29 percent) were rated “2” for providing general statements of work for teachers in the delivery of instruction. Forty three of the guides (16 percent) earned ratings of “1” and 111(41 percent) were rated a “0” indicating no direct links for classroom usage. Overall, curriculum guides in the San Bernardino City Unified School District are inadequate to drive instruction and promote alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum. Auditors concluded that curriculum guides and courses of study do not contain enough information to provide teachers with complete and comprehensive work plans to guide their teaching.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 97 In summary, the auditors found that direction for the design and delivery of curriculum is lacking in the San Bernardino City Unified School District. Board policies are out of date and do not reflect current direction from state and federal governments, or current practices within the district. The management of curriculum in the district is fragmented among departments and is inconsistently implemented across schools and programs. The efforts of district educators in accomplishing high student achievement is impeded by the lack of board direction through policy and the lack of a workable curriculum management plan that establishes clear, specific, and valid objectives for student learning, identifies a periodic review cycle, articulates how the implemented curriculum will be assessed, and communicates how curriculum design and delivery will be managed within the district.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 98 STANDARD 3: A School System Demonstrates Internal Connectivity 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 identification of deficiencies 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 defining 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 benefits 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.

What the Auditors Expected to Find in the San Bernardino City Unified School District The PDK-CMSi auditors expected to find 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 flow 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; • Specific professional development programs to enhance curricular design and delivery; • A curriculum that is monitored by central office and site supervisory personnel; and • Teacher and administrator responsiveness to school board policies, currently and over time.

Overview of What the Auditors Found in the San Bernardino City Unified School District This section is an overview of the findings that follow in the area of Standard Three. The details follow within separate findings. The auditors found that professional development is not coordinated system-wide, and no comprehensive professional development plan (identified as such) currently exists. While professional development is organized and coordinated within departmental units of the district organization and at individual school sites, there is no districtwide coordination or clearinghouse operation that provides centralized guidance to the selection, implementation, or evaluation of offerings across departments and schools. The auditors found confusion in the direction provided to schools regarding delivery of the English Language Development program. Inconsistencies exist in services provided to students across the district. Where the services provided are not equal, auditors found the variations not linked to student needs. The lack of equal access was, therefore, considered inequitable.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 99 Some congruence was observed between teaching practices in use during auditor visits to classroom and the few explicitly or implicitly stated district or school expectations for classroom instruction. However, most observed instruction included teacher-directed activities or lectures with students sitting in their seats listening, taking notes, or engaging in discussion. Few interactive experiences, lab/hands-on experiences, or individualized and small-group learning strategies were evident, and available classroom computers were rarely observed to be in use. The auditors found a lack of written direction regarding curriculum monitoring and inconsistencies in monitoring practices. Classroom walk-throughs are practiced in most schools, but there is not a common understanding of the time commitment to classroom visitations, observational emphasis, walk-through practices expected, or the information gathered. Elements of monitoring (i.e. time in classrooms, feedback practices and documents, and improvement strategies that aide in the alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum) vary greatly from school to school within the San Bernardino City Unified School District. Several gaps in student achievement are evident, and auditors noted disproportional representation of some student population subgroups in retentions, disciplinary actions, high school dropout statistics, and participation in various educational programs. African American students are experiencing a repeated disproportionate percentage of academic and disciplinary problems. Access to the curriculum to attain mastery of state standards is impaired by inconsistent delivery of the English learner program and services. Proportional ethnic representation among staff as compared with the student population has improved in recent years but is not yet at comparability, particularly with African American and Hispanic students. Availability of library and computer resources is inconsistent across schools, as is receipt of external fundraising resources. Finding 3.1: Professional Development is Not Coordinated System-wide, and No Comprehensive Districtwide Staff Development Plan Exists.

A comprehensive professional development program is one of the critical factors in achieving a school district’s goals. Such a plan provides connectivity between curriculum design and classroom delivery and identifies the training and development needs in order to optimize that connectivity. An effective professional development program is guided by a plan that is aligned with the district’s strategic or comprehensive long-range plan and supports other expectations such as state and national standards. Staff development should be based on the identified needs of the personnel and should include a feedback mechanism to evaluate effectiveness of the developmental activities. Provisions for continuous follow-up and support should be incorporated into the plan. The auditors reviewed board policies and administrative procedures, district and school planning documents, professional development information regarding offerings and schedules, job descriptions, and other relevant documents to determine the content and quality of the professional development program and to identify roles and responsibilities related to the program. Interviews with board members, central office administrators, building administrators, and teachers also were conducted. Additionally, school visits provided brief observation time in classrooms. The audit team found that no comprehensive professional development plan exists. Professional development is now designed and managed within departmental units of the district organization and at school sites. There is no centralized coordination across departments that provides a clearinghouse function or guides the selection, implementation or evaluation of offerings at the district and school levels. The only coordination across schools that occurs is that of district’s departmental managing the logistics and recordkeeping related to mandated training (e.g., SB75, SB466) and the development of offerings within individual departments such as English Language Learners, Elementary Curriculum, Secondary Curriculum, and Special Education. School administrators and staffs select

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 100 the professional development and in-service offerings for their schools. Calendars of some offerings are posted on the district’s website. No board policy providing direction for professional development was present. The current management of districtwide professional development is conducted by the various departments: E.g., Elementary Instruction, Secondary Instruction, English Language Learners, and Special Education Departments. Evidence of formal guidance or coordination across the departments or among the schools was presented to the auditors. School-based planning of professional development and in- service activities occurs, for the most part, at the sites with minimal shared research, selection, implementation, or evaluation among the school sites’ leaders. Some informal sharing of information occurs in principals’ meetings or in cluster-group discussions. No comprehensive professional development plan was presented to auditors. However, the Blueprint for Success, the Superintendent’s initiative “to provide a strategic focus” over the next five to ten years, addresses conceptual plans for a Professional Development Center (PDC). The proposed center was recommended by a task force that focused on training and development necessary to carry out the mission, to increase student achievement, and to provide quality professional development that will help the district meet state and federal mandates while “maximizing the use of expertise within the District.” The strategic focus is outlined in the document as threefold: Development that contributes to the District focus (goals and objectives), Targeted Assistance for individual schools with specific professional development needs based on student achievement, and Elective Offerings for areas of interest among individual staff members after the District and Targeted Assistance needs have been met. Proposals and estimated funding requirements for staffing and operating the PDC are also included in the proposed actions. Follow-up coaching is also proposed, as is partnership with other agencies at the state and area levels. The Blueprint for Success has not yet been formally adopted by the Board, though authorization for continued work on the initiative was communicated by the Board to the administration, and further information regarding implementation is being added to the funding and operational components of the “plan.” The document closest to a current comprehensive professional development plan is contained within the Local Education Agency (LEA) Instructional Improvement Plan and targets implementation for the 2005-06 year. The LEA plan summarizes the needs and strengths for professional development based on specific student achievement data and information regarding staff status in regard to “highly qualified teachers.” This document indicates that “…professional development will: • Address research-based practices • Emphasize formative assessment practices in academic content areas • Help teachers understand how to accelerate student learning • Be tied to the district’s adopted standards-based materials • Include collaborative and individual support • Focus on student work and achievement.” Additional information outlines how the district will coordinate activities among the various federal, state, and local sources and how the focus of professional development will be achieved – i.e., based on student data and related measures of program effectiveness. Focus is included for new and experienced teachers and for all administrators. The plan’s components show considerable reliance on and congruence with state required training, though there is generally clear linkage to local needs. An emphasis on training in instructional technology, differentiated instruction, and effective instruction for English learners is also contained in this plan section.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 101 Auditors reviewed a sample of nine schools’ Instructional Improvement Plans (IIP) -- two high schools, two middle schools, and five elementary schools. A summary of the three factors noted (presence of a professional development component, linkage of the component to the plan goals, and linkage of the component to the LEA plan) is provided in Exhibit 3.1.1. Exhibit 3.1.1 Staff Development Components Present in a Random Sample of School Instructional Improvement Plans San Bernardino City Unified School District 2000-01 through 2004-2005

Linkage of SD

Staff Dev Component to Linkage of SD Plan Component School Plan Component to School/Level Year Present Goals LEA Plan Elementary Schools Burbank 2004-05 Yes Yes Yes, generally Davidson 2002-06 Yes Yes Yes, generally Hillside 2001-05 Yes Yes Yes, generally Lankershim 2003-07 Yes Yes Yes, generally Mt. Vernon 2001-04 Yes Yes Yes, generally Oehl 2000-04 Yes Yes Yes, generally Roberts 2001-04 Yes Yes Yes, generally Urbita 2001-05 Yes Yes Yes, generally Sample Total Elementary All All All, generally Middle Schools Arrowview 2003-04 Yes Yes Minimally implicit Golden Valley 2004-08 Yes Yes Minimally implicit Serrano 2004-08 Yes Yes Minimally, implicit All, Minimally and Sample Total Middle All All Implicitly High Schools 2003-04 Pacific Yes Yes Yes Amended San Gorgonio 2004-08 Yes Yes Yes Sample Total High Yes Yes Yes The plans contained components related to professional development for implementing actions designed to meet the deficiencies in student achievement. All plans in the sample showed implicit and general linkage to the plan goals and areas of improvement needed, but specificity of that linkage was missing in most documents. More details were present in the professional development components of the high school plans when reviewed for linkage to the LEA plan. No evaluation of professional development was included in the plans. Although submission of school-based professional development plans was indicated in documents as “optional,” the auditors were provided with some sites’ information in conjunction with the LEA plan and some within the schools’

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 102 Instructional Improvement Plans (e.g., Newmark Elementary, which included a summary of both site professional development and district in-service offerings). Auditors noted from documents and interviews that the evaluation of professional development tends to focus most on participant responses to specific sessions and does not consistently include results- based follow-up evaluations. The district and school IIP components can provide data subsequent to targeted professional development to enhance evaluation of the impact of offerings, but the auditors did not discern that such an approach was formalized. The district website includes calendars of professional development (required and optional) and information regarding meetings of groups who have had particular trainings and/or are using the information and materials from the trainings. The calendars are communicated by elementary, secondary, English learners, and similar areas of offerings from district departments. Job descriptions were reviewed to identify roles and responsibilities related to comprehensive professional development leadership and coordination. No specific information contained in the descriptions indicated roles in comprehensive coordination of professional development, though some related to director and coordinator positions loosely referred to roles in designing training programs and providing professional development. The teacher evaluation form includes one standard and five indicators related to professional growth and development. VI. Developing as a professional educator Reflecting on professional practices and planning professional development Establishing professional goals and pursuing opportunities to grow professionally Working with communities to improve professional practice Working with families to improve professional practice Working with colleagues to improve professional practice Indicators 6.1, 6.2, and 6.5 were evident in the period of the on-site audit visit. School staff meeting agendas, minutes, and memoranda included various references to school-based professional development activities: E.g., mini-sessions during staff meetings, team activities as follow-up to previous trainings, and discussions of staff and student needs in relationship to professional development and/or in-service planning. However, these topics were not consistently evident in handbooks and files, and except for the offerings noted in the district’s secondary calendar of professional development, few documents reflected professional development work at the high schools. In general, information from the school sites reflected a decrease in emphasis on professional development and training to help improve student achievement at the middle and high schools compared with the emphasis at the elementary schools. Other documents from some schools included lists of offerings and/or proposed calendars for the year’s offerings. The professional development components of a sampling of schools’ IIP documents and the other documents were generally linked with the improvement goals and needs, but most linkages were vaguely delineated and general in their information. Auditors also were given two reports from studies conducted by the Principals’ Exchange and the San Bernardino County Superintendent’s Office. The Principals Exchange review considered district systems and three schools (Riley, Parkside, and Kendall). The focus was on English language arts and mathematics curriculum implementation, English Learner programs, and extra professional development:

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 103 • Language arts and math instructional practices were primarily whole group, with varied degrees and types of student engagement. Recommendations included professional development for teachers related to strategies for increasing student engagement, differentiating instruction, increasing Universal Access time, and using appropriate and disaggregated assessment data to plan instruction. The San Bernardino County review focused on review of strengths and barriers identified by all the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) for the past three years and eight additional schools to “form a composite picture of the strengths and barriers at the district and school levels… [and] to set base data on which to build a professional development program to increase student achievement.” Among the areas of comment in that review that also related to this finding in the PDK/CMSi audit were: • Consideration of professional development opportunities and the BTSA/Mentor program as district strengths. • Noting among the barriers at the district level “professional development supporting textbook adoptions not provided in a timely manner, lack of substitutes limit[ing] professional development….” • At the site level, a barrier noted was that “professional development…[was] not focused on student achievement….” • Among the observations by that team was the need for placing increased emphasis on instruction and curriculum implementation at the secondary level, comparable to what has been done at the elementary level. • Among the recommended actions was for the district to provide “coaching and modeling for the teaching staff.” During the school visits by auditors, the team noted evidence of application of some professional development training. This particularly included implementation of the Houghton Mifflin instructional materials and activities with the curriculum, use of the Waterford and High Point programs, a few examples of differentiated instruction, and application of some of the instructional strategies from Marzano’s work. The auditors conducted interviews with district and school administrators and staff to ascertain roles, responsibilities, and practices in professional development as well as to gather perceptions about the congruence of the professional development function with identified staff needs. Most interviewees spoke favorably of the availability of professional development opportunities and follow-up assistance as requested. Training for implementation of specific programs (e.g., Reading First, Waterford Reading Program, Math Happens, High Point) and use of adopted instructional materials (e.g., Houghton-Mifflin materials) were generally considered responsive to teacher needs. Concerns expressed focused on the need for teachers to be absent from their classes for some of the activities, thus creating some negative impact on continuity of instruction for their students. Another concern commonly voiced was related to the need to create a balance between (a) training offered or mandated to establish a common framework of programs and instruction, and (b) developmental activities focused on specific needs of teachers in particular areas of instruction and levels of current competencies. A dominant perspective by administrators was that training for school administrators in curriculum and program implementation needed to occur before teacher implementation and needed to include all vice-principals, as well as the academic coaches, to optimize the quality of their supervision and coaching at the school sites. The following are representative interview comments regarding several aspects of the professional development function in the district and at schools:

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 104 Quality and quantity of professional development offered: • “Professional development opportunities are a real strength [in this district].” • “A district strength is the amount of training provided to all personnel and the support given to new teachers.” • “There are various types of meetings and trainings. Administrators are also getting a bit more than we used to in order to be prepared for the curriculum.” • “Most of my staff say they really appreciate the various professional development and in-service offerings…except when they seem not to meet their individual needs or help them instructionally.” • “The district has unparalleled professional development, from new teachers to veteran teachers.” Weaknesses in consistency and follow-through to district and site-based professional development: • “We had training by the district office staff for Reading First, including modeling of lessons in site classrooms. [There’s] not as much follow-up with other training.” • “There is no follow-up to professional development. The departments can provide a lot, but the sites don’t follow up. Sometimes the principal...does not know the training and so does not follow through.” • “Staff development is a strength, but follow-up is missing.” • “There is little to no professional development at the middle school to support [curriculum] content delivery.” • “Sometimes I think what we choose at the site might not be what we need most.” Problems with attendance at professional development during instructional time: • “Teachers are out of the classroom too much…most absences are due to professional development. Teachers feel it is hard to be out of the classroom.” • “The pull-out for professional development for some teachers can be as much as 30 days. This impacts kids.” • “I really value the professional development I get here, but I hate being out of my classes often to attend.” • “Too many teachers are out for professional development, meaning students have subs.” • “[Teachers] explode when they are told they have to go to professional development because [it is mandated].” Secondary level professional development concerns: • “At the middle school level, I am relieved of AP work and I spend my time focusing on professional development and coaching….has made a difference in scores at my site.” • “Elementary assistant principals get a lot of training. Middle school APs…not enough.” • “There is a big difference in professional development at the secondary level. There is very little of it at the middle school level. There are new initiatives such as the standards-based report card and the ELD progress report and no professional development.” • “I am an academic coach, but the AP [part of the] job takes up so much time, I don’t get time to coach. In theory, the academic coach [position] is a great idea, but in practice there is not time to do what I’m trained to do.”

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 105 • “Not all principals encourage AP training, so we don’t have equal access [to the professional development].” Perspectives on progress in providing professional development for administrators: • “Professional development for assistant superintendents and other administrators is now more available than it used to be.” • “Administrators have been on the tail end of training and are behind…comes too late. We need training before the teachers get it…. We’re not quite able to help them and look competent [to do so]. • “SB75 has helped administrators, but these are the folks who need more advanced training on curriculum and programs in order to do their jobs well.” Lack of coordination and organization of professional development: • “Professional development is not well coordinated among departments.” • “[Staff development] is coordinated at the district level by various departments for the areas of focus within their purview….no single coordinating center.” • “With our turnover, we need to figure out how to ensure newcomers are brought up to speed as soon as possible in the training and coaching.” In summary, professional development is not coordinated system-wide, and no comprehensive professional development plan (identified as such) currently exists. Some professional development direction is included in the LEA and school IIP plans, and the Blueprint for Success includes conceptual frameworks for a professional development center. While professional development is organized and coordinated within departmental units of the district organization and at individual school sites, there is no districtwide coordination or clearinghouse operation that provides centralized guidance to the selection, implementation, or evaluation of offerings across departments and schools. Some evidence of implementation of specific professional development training was evident during school visits. Most feedback showed that professional development is appreciated for its quality but that follow-through is a weakness. Teachers’ absence from classes for professional development is considered a problem at school sites. Finding 3.2: Inconsistency in the Delivery of Bilingual Programs Impedes the Mastery of Standards for Which English Learners Are Held Accountable

Consistency in the delivery of the curriculum for English Learners across schools is an important element in providing equal educational opportunity. Achieving the goal of success for EL students requires that educational opportunities and resources within the system are provided in a uniform manner with consistent instructional minutes throughout the district so that all students are prepared for accountability on assessments in English as soon as possible. Auditors found that bilingual programs were inconsistently delivered across the district. The absence of consistent direction from the Board and district administration allowed for varied implementation at the site level (see also Finding 2.1). These variations fail to provide English learners equal access to the core curriculum across the system. The auditors reviewed board policy, district planning documents, and program documents and conducted interviews with board members, administrators, teachers, and parents. Auditors also conducted classroom visitations to determine the extent to which EL bilingual programs were delivered consistently.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 106 Board policies and other applicable documents guiding the English Language Learners programs were also reviewed. Policies and guidelines relating to the education of English learners are listed below: • Board Policy 6151a states that “…the San Bernardino City Unified School District will provide English Learner program options as directed by and coordinated through the English Learners and Support Program Department.” The policy continues with “…the primary goal of the program is to promote academic learning and equal access to the core curriculum while learning English in accordance with the current federal and state law and regulations.” The policy also states about alternative programs: “English learners will be taught English and other subjects through bilingual education techniques in accordance with sound educational theories recognized by research, as determined by assessment and permitted by federal and state law. Students will gain literacy skills and access to the complete core curriculum in their primary language” • Alternative Courses of Study Program Guidelines Draft (December 2004) states that the ABE program “offers students the opportunity to learn language arts in their primary language while acquiring English language skills in a simultaneous, sequential and sustained structure.” The draft continues saying that “in order to gradually acquire English, students receive intense English Language Development (ELD) Instruction.” Regarding ABE, it further says that “instruction is delivered in and through two languages with time blocks in which only one language at a time is used.” Regarding Dual Immersion Programs, the draft states, “As research as shown, the highest level of proficiency in both languages is achieved through the 90:10 dual immersion model. Therefore, the EL Department strongly recommends implementation of the 90:10 model.” It continues, “Instruction is delivered in and through two languages with periods in which only one language at a time is used. Languages must be kept separate. Students help each other to speak, read, write, and understand one another’s language.” It also states that “during the Dual Immersion planning year, a program model must be submitted to the English Learners and Support Programs Director for final approval.” • Blueprint for Success states that “the SBCUSD’s vision includes the development of a well- implemented bilingual education program offering all students the opportunity of being immersed in a dual linguistic environment, which includes learning a second language and reaching high achievement levels in order to prepare them for life and success in the twenty–first century.” This document continues to say that “students will experience a rigorous bilingual/biliterate program that is scientifically research-based and aligned to the state standards.” San Bernardino City School District has two bilingual programs to meet the identified needs of English Learners, the Alternative Bilingual Education (ABE) program and the Dual Immersion (DI) program. The ABE program is for English Learner students. The Dual Immersion program is for both English only students and second language learners. Exhibit 3.2.1 demonstrates the minutes prescribed in each of the bilingual program models as defined by the Alternative Courses of Study Program Guidelines DRAFT developed by the department of English Learners and Support Programs. Exhibit 3.2.1 SBCSD Bilingual Program Models Language Arts Minutes by Language San Bernardino City School District February 2005 Alternative Bilingual Program Dual Immersion Program Grade Language Arts Language Arts (90:10)

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 107 Spanish English/ELD Spanish English/ELD Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes K 110 30 110 30 1 150 60 150 60 2 150 60 140 60 3 150 60 130 60 4 105 105 80 75 5 105 105 80 75 6 105 105 80 75 Data source: Alternative Courses of Study Program Guidelines DRAFT December 2004 Exhibit 3.2.1 demonstrates: • Language Arts instructional minutes in the ABE and DI programs are the same in kindergarten and first grade. • Language Arts instructional minutes in the district draft document are greater in the ABE program beginning in second grade and continuing through sixth grade. • The English/ELD minutes are greater in fourth through sixth grades. • In the second grade the ABE program has 10 more minutes in Language Arts instruction. • In the third grade the ABE program has 20 more instructional minutes in Language Arts. • In grades four through six, the ABE program has 55 more instructional Language Arts minutes than the Dual Immersion program by district documents. Exhibit 3.2.2 displays the varied instructional minutes in Language Arts of the Alternative Bilingual Education program at the site level.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 108 Exhibit 3.2.2 Alternative Bilingual Education Program Reading/Language Arts/English Language Development Minutes by Language at the Site Level San Bernardino City School District February 2005

School Spanish Minutes English Minutes K 1 2 3 4 5 6 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dist. Model 110 150 150 150 105 105 105 30 60 60 60 105 105 105 Alessandro 110 150 150 150 105 105 - 30 60 60 60 105 105 - 180 30- 30- 30- 30- 30- Bradley 140 210 210 210 180 - 30 - * 45 45 45 45 45 Luther 170 170 90 170 170 170 - 30 45 45 45 45 45 - Burbank * * 105 Cypress 140 210 210 210 0 - 30 60 60 60 60 130 - * 180 180 Hillside N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A N/A N/A N/A 30 30 - * * Jefferson 65 90 90 N/A N/A N/A - 30 30 45 N/A N/A N/A - Hunt Inghram 110 150 150 150 150 - - 30 65 60 120 120 - - Kendall 110 150 150 150 120 120 - 30 60 60 60 60 60 - Lankershim 90 180 180 180 180 - - 30 45 45 45 45 - - Lincoln 110 150 150 150 105 105 - 30 60 60 60 105 105 - Lytle Creek 110 150 150 150 105 105 - 30 60 60 60 105 105 - 120 120 Monterey 85 150 210 210 - 30 45 45 45 45 45 - * * 105 105 Mt. Vernon 110 150 150 150 150 150 - 30 60 (Sp) (Sp) * * Muscoy 110 150 150 150 150 - - 30 60 60 60 60 - - Oehl 110 150 150 150 105 105 105 30 60 60 60 105 105 105 Riley 140 210 210 210 180 180 - 30 45 45 45 45 45 - E Neal 125 190 190 190 180 180 - 30 45 45 45 45 45 - Roberts Roosevelt 110 150 150 150 105 105 - 30 60 60 60 105 105 - Vermont 125 190 190 190 180 180 - 30 45 45 45 45 45 - Warm 90 170 170 170 170 170 170 30 45 45 45 45 45 45 Springs Wilson 110 150 150 150 0 0 0 30 60 60 60 105 105 105 Data Source: Audit Data Collection: Site Alternative Bilingual Education Program, February, 2005 *= site indicated Spanish/English as the language (Sp) indicates information give in Spanish language N/A=not available at that grade level at that site As can be seen from Exhibit 3.2.2, • Five of the 21 schools submitting information, 24 percent, follow the district model of Alternative Bilingual Education Language Arts Minutes as described in the guidelines draft. (Alessandro, Lincoln, Lytle Creek, Oehl, and Roosevelt Elementary Schools) • Sixteen of the 21 schools submitting information, 76 percent do not follow the district model of Alternative Bilingual Education Language Arts Minutes as described in the guidelines draft.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 109 Exhibit 3.2.3 demonstrates the inconsistent implementation of the Dual Immersion program at the site level. Exhibit 3.2.3 Dual Immersion Program Reading/Language Arts/English Language Development Minutes by Language at the Site Level San Bernardino City School District February 2005

School Spanish Minutes English Minutes K 1 2 3 4 5 6 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 District 110 150 140 130 80 80 80 30 60 60 60 75 75 75 Model Belvedere 120 40* * Unknown 90 180 180 180 30 35 35 35 * * * Lincoln 110 150 140 130 80 80 30 60 60 60 75 75 Urbita 200 200 200 200 - - - 20* 30* 30* 30* - - - * * * * Data Source: Audit Data Collection: Site Dual Immersion Program, February, 2005 *=site indicated Spanish and English As noted in Exhibit 3.2.3, • One of the four schools with the dual immersion program (Belvedere), 25 percent, follows the district model of implementation. • The other three of the four schools, 75 percent, do not follow the district model of Dual Immersion Language Arts Minutes as described. Through interviews with parents, site principals and district administration, auditors found that the delivery of the Alternative Bilingual Education (ABE) programs and the Dual Immersion (DI) programs vary across the schools in the district. Sample comments include: • “ESL, EL, and ELL programs all the same but are implemented differently, and they are not systematic.” • “There is much controversy and confusion about our EL program. There is a power struggle between board members, directors, and parents. There is no single voice from the district.” • “Bilingual and EL problems are very evident. This is an area of major need.” • “The bilingual/biliterate agenda is good but political. There is a greater movement to dual immersion. Sites were not given clear direction regarding late exit.” • “The dual immersion model of the district is 50/50; the 90/10 is a grant at one school. The secondary level is not defined” • “The consistency [is] still not there. Four schools that have dual immersion- Lincoln [implements a] 90/10 [model while] others are 50/50[model]. • “[The] bilingual department was to be supporting a 50/50 implementation model, [but] the bilingual department will verbally support 90/10.”

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 110 An effective school system provides consistent and equitable access to instructional program delivery, including programs for English learners. The auditors found that the school district does not provide equitable delivery of the instructional program of the various bilingual language programs for English learners. These choices impede the students’ equal access to mastery of the standards and curriculum for which they are held accountable. Finding 3.3: Guidance Regarding Expected Instructional Practices Is Implicit and Informal; Observed Practices Reflected High Reliance on Direct Instruction with Large Group Activity and Student Seatwork.

Effective teaching strategies are essential to reaching the goal of every school district: improved student achievement. Quality strategies motivate students, encourage them to think critically, and facilitate challenging learning situations. The greater the variety of proven, effective strategies used, the greater the chance that those strategies will appeal to the various learning styles and different needs of students and thus improve student learning. The “one size fits all” approach is not adequate to meet the different learning styles of an entire student population. School districts often provide clarification of the instructional philosophy in board policy and through professional development. No matter what variety of strategies is employed, the intent behind all strategies is to deliver the curriculum effectively. The auditors reviewed the school district’s board policies, planning documents, state professional teaching standards, professional development offerings, job descriptions, and personnel evaluation forms to determine local expectations regarding instructional practices. They also interviewed board members, administrators, and teachers regarding expectations and approaches to classroom instruction. Teams of auditors visited all the schools in the district and the classrooms in which instruction was occurring during the time of the site visits. No board policies clearly expressed the philosophy or expectations regarding instruction in the San Bernardino City Unified School District. The Local Education Agency (LEA)and school-based Instructional Improvement Plans included expectations of application of methods incorporated in the professional development regarding the instructional materials adopted (e.g., the Houghton Mifflin training) and of the use of technology in the classroom for teaching the curriculum, integrating it within the lessons. Additional professional development offerings at the district and site levels indicated some implicit direction for instructional methods as well. The California Standards for the Teaching Profession, which are now the foundation for local performance evaluations of teachers, include a few further expectations of quality teaching, though job descriptions did not address instructional expectations in significant measure. Some informal direction is occasionally included in school staff meetings and team meetings. The auditors found that there is little explicit expression of a philosophy of instruction or expectations for instructional practices. They found a lack of clarity across the schools about desired instructional practices beyond the uses of technology and a variety of teaching strategies to meet individual needs. Expectations were clear regarding specific programs and use of specific instructional materials, but not regarding overall instructional practices. However, other messages to communicate expectations were either informal (verbal) or implicit (contained by reference and implication in documents or practices). Observed teaching methods reflected high reliance on direction instruction with large group activity and student seatwork. Professional development is often the district function through which many expectations of teachers and administrators are communicated, along with the training necessary to meet those expectations. Recently SBCUSD professional development offerings have included specific program training (Waterford, High Point, et. al.), some training for teaching English learners, and other SB466 and SB75 offerings. Most other trainings related to instructional strategies have occurred at the school

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 111 sites, but the primary district focus as been on implementation of the curriculum and programs. A few schools had also focused on differentiated instruction and use of technology to support curriculum and classroom instruction.

An unused flight simulator at San Gorgonio High School The district mission statement included in the Local Education Agency Instructional Improvement Plan stated in broad terms a focus on academic instruction: “The primary mission of the District is to provide academic instruction to each student sufficient to develop the skills knowledge, and understanding required to promote personal development to the fullest extent of the individual’s potential.” Further, the LEA and school-based Instructional Improvement Plans included professional development actions to develop specific skills and program implementation methods (e.g., using technology in the delivery of curriculum, implementing the adopted instructional materials, teaching English learners effectively, using assessment information to design instruction). Several school plans included differentiated instruction as a practice to promote through professional development. Technology components of these plans and the district Technology Plan indicated an expectation that there be classroom use of technology-assisted instruction and use of computers within the delivery of curriculum. The staff meeting minutes or agendas from some schools referred to staff shared readings and collaboration to implement practices from the works of Robert Marzano (Classroom Instruction that Works) and Carol Ann Tomlinson (The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the needs of All Learners). The presence of these references provides an implicit message that the strategies incorporated therein are valued in the district and schools. The auditors, therefore, considered these references to be “implicit messages.” A few schools had staff handbooks that incorporated some expectations. For example, one elementary school’s expectations regarding the teaching of literacy were spelled out clearly: “Teachers are expected to use test results (district benchmark tests, standardized tests, Houghton- Mifflin theme tests, etc) to determine which skills and concepts have been mastered, and which need to be re-taught.” and “Teachers are expected to use various techniques and strategies, included Reading Counts….” Another elementary school’s staff handbook also included expectations: “Teachers are expected to use a variety of instructional strategies within their classrooms. Direct

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 112 Instruction and Small Group Instruction are the two most valuable instructional strategies. These need to be incorporate in your daily schedule. Grouping of students needs to remain flexible.” Further, the school-based administrators’ walk-through Palm-Pilot printouts (the district’s Talk the Walk forms) included topics such as alignment of the taught objective with a standard, cognitive types, differentiation, and technology use (see Finding 3.4). Other walk-through forms included student involvement in “assessment and refinement of their work,” and “evidence of a variety of learning strategies to meet the needs of diverse learners (e.g., small group instruction, reciprocal teaching, graphic organizers, manipulatives).” These latter indicators were considered as “implicit messages” regarding instructional expectations as well. Among the performance responsibilities in the job description for the position of teacher is “Utilizes a variety of appropriate teaching strategies and techniques to facilitate learning. Maintains and monitors time on task.” The district evaluation form for teachers, which is based on the California Professional Standards for the Teaching Profession, includes several components related to instructional practices (see also Finding 1.4). For example: I. Engaging and supporting all students in learning 1.1 Connecting students’ prior knowledge, life experience and interests with learning goals Using a variety of instructional strategies and resources to respond to students’ diverse needs Facilitating learning experiences that promote autonomy, interaction, and choice Engaging students in problem solving, critical thinking, and other activities that make subject matter meaningful Promoting self-directed, reflective learning for all students … III. Understanding and organizing subject matter for student learning … Using materials, resources, and technologies to make subject matter accessible to students … IV. Planning instruction and designing learning experiences for all students 4.1 Drawing out an valuing students’ backgrounds, interests, and developmental learning needs …Modifying instructional plans to adjust for students V. Assessing student learning … 5.3 Involving and guiding all students in assessing their own learning The observation conference summary form prepared by the district human resources department refers to “engaging and supporting all students in learning” and “planning instruction and designing learning experiences for all students,” both of which imply an expectation of planned and implemented differentiation. Other documents reviewed that indicated some expectations for instructional practices were the following: • California Standards for the Teaching Profession – Adapted for the Math Classroom: This document included six standards edited to refer specifically to the teaching of math. • Handouts from various professional development offerings and school-based training or mini-sessions. (E.g., “Levels of Student Engagement,” “Differentiation Techniques,” and “Observing Your Own Instruction.”) The auditors were also provided two reports of recent external reviews:

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 113 • San Bernardino City School District Mini-Audit Report (Principals’ Exchange; summary) • Curriculum Review, San Bernardino City Unified School District (San Bernardino County Superintendent’s Office; summary and PowerPoint presentation) The Principals Exchange review considered district systems and three schools. The focus was on English language arts and mathematics curriculum implementation, English Learner programs, and Extra Support. This review noted the following particularly related to areas of this finding on instructional practices: • Language arts instructional practices primarily whole group • Three to 3 ½ hours daily in language arts “implementing lessons according to the district pacing plan” • Math instruction of “at least one hour daily in most grade” • Use of direction instruction “predominantly in whole-group settings” The conclusion was that the use of “whole group instruction for extended periods of time” was “likely influencing achievement results in a negative way.” The recommended actions included inclusion of daily Universal Access (small group) time according to district pacing guide maximums, formal “use of common assessment data to inform instruction by holding structured reflection sessions after each assessment round and developing plans for differentiation based on those [disaggregated] results.” The Exchange group recommended that “district and school leaders launch a campaign that emphasizes the delivery of lessons that promote engaging and active teaching and learning, while adhering to the district pacing plans in language arts and mathematics.” The San Bernardino County review focused on review of strengths and barriers identified by all the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) for the past three years and eight additional schools to “form a composite picture of the strengths and barriers at the district and school levels… [and] to set base data on which to build a professional development program to increase student achievement.” Among the areas of study in that review that also related to this finding in the PDK/CMSi audit were specific site-level factors such as state standards, use of lesson plans, differentiated instruction, and use of pacing schedules. Among the observations by that team were: “Differentiated instructional strategies [were] not in place at all schools” and the appearance of “low expectations for students.” Noting that progress in curricular areas had been made at the elementary level, their recommended actions stated that “emphasis now needs to be placed at the secondary level, using similar energy and expertise.” The audit team visited every campus in the district and made observations in nearly every classroom in which instruction was taking place at the time of the visit. Each classroom was visited approximately two to four minutes. During this time, team members were observing the teacher behaviors, the student behaviors, and the overall learning environment. The auditors were aware these structured visitations may also capture transitions, and that many types of instructional situations may occur during a period or the day. The purpose is not to present an in-depth portrait of every instructional situation or practice by school or teacher, but to capture broad bands of normal pedagogical patterns at a point in time across the District. The data collected reflect this slice of time in the schools of the San Bernardino City Unified School District. Conclusions must be carefully drawn and couched within a number of caveats, not the least of which is that the broad overview of activities are “typical” of activities going on the schools daily or weekly. This premise could be tested in a time-series observational design, but would fall out of the scope of work of the audit as it would require more than one site visitation. If district or site-leadership is interested, the snapshot observational protocol could be easily replicated by using a time-series observational design.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 114 The snapshot data for the schools in the San Bernardino City Unified School District are shown in Exhibit 3.3.1. These data were collected by the auditors during the school visits and are presented using the following definitions when categorizing: Teacher Instructional Behaviors: At Desk refers to a teacher sitting in a chair at his or her desk and not assisting students. Small Group refers to a teacher working with a group of students that is less than approximately one third of the number of students in the classroom. Examples include: reading groups, centers where the teacher is assisting in one or more, or tutoring a small group. Assisting refers to a teacher working one-on-one with a student. Direct Instruction is when the teacher is verbally leading the entire class through a learning activity (without the use of audio visual aids) or lecturing to the class. Monitoring refers to the teacher circulating about the classroom visually monitoring the students as they work. A-V Presentation is when the teacher is using some type of audio/video aid while instructing the class. Examples include: using an overhead projector, a computer with a projection monitor, a projection microscope, or a slide projector. Student Learning Behaviors: Seatwork refers to students working at their desks doing some type of paper and pencil exercise or worksheet, or when students are taking a quiz or test. Large Group Passive is when at least two-thirds of the students are sitting and listening without any active participation while the teacher or another student addresses the class. Silent Reading is when at least two-thirds of the students in the class are reading silently. Quite often the teacher is also reading silently during this activity. Large Group Active is when at least two-thirds of the students in the class are actively involved in the instructional activity. Examples include: laboratory experiments, demonstrations, or role-playing. Small Group Work refers to students working in a group that is less than approximately one third of the total number of students in the classroom. Examples include: reading groups, centers where the teacher assists the students, or problem-solving as a small group. A-V Presentation is when students are involved in presenting or receiving some type of audio/video instruction. Examples include: viewing or giving reports with an overhead projector presentation, a computer with a projection monitor, a projection microscope, or a slide projector.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 115 Exhibit 3.3.1 Teacher and Student Behaviors Observed by Auditors during Classroom Visits San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Percentage Percentage of Total of Total Teacher Behaviors Observed Student Behaviors Observed Direct Instruction 49.9% Large Group Active 43.8% Assisting Students 17.0% Seat Work 27.6% Monitoring 12.1% Large Group Passive 13.3% Small Group Work 9.7% Small Group Work 12.3% At Desk 6.9% Silent Reading 1.9% Using AV Presentation 4.6% Audio Visual Presentation 1.0% Source: Auditors’ visits to classrooms N=1,683 classrooms The visit observations summarized in Exhibit 3.3.1 were categorized according to the dominant type of instructional practice observed during the brief visit, as well as the dominant student learning behavior. For student behavior to be considered “dominant,” the audit had to observe at least half of the students in the room demonstrating that behavior during most of the time period of the visit. Those classrooms in which there were no students present, as well as classrooms where students were transitioning from one activity to the next, were excluded. Although the auditors visited the campus libraries, these were also excluded from the analysis. Most (49.9 percent) of the teacher behaviors included teachers lecturing or directing instruction from the front of the classroom with varying degrees of student engagement. Active involvement by students in the large group was noted in 43.8 percent of the classrooms, and passive large-group response was observed in 13.3 percent. Seat work, which included a range of individual paper-work activities, was the second most common student behavior observed with 27.6 percent. While students were working in small groups in 12.3 percent of the classrooms, only 9.7 percent of the teachers were engaged in the small-group activities. Of the teachers observed sitting at their desks, most were in high school classrooms and few were in elementary classrooms. Active student engagement in general was noticeably less at the high school and middle school levels. Auditors observed several high school and middle school classrooms in which no instruction or student learning activities were occurring at the time of the visits. The general inference from the snapshot data was that there were minimal interactive activities, and that little use of technology was being experienced by the students. Comparatively few interactive experiences, lab/hands-on experiences, or individualized and small-group learning strategies were seen, and computers were rarely observed to be in use in the classrooms. Only 13.6 percent of the computers noted in classrooms visited were in use during the auditors’ visits (see Finding 5.4). Exceptions were labs for program-specific use, such as the Waterford Reading Program, a few secondary computer labs in which students were developing reports or presentations related to specific classes, and similar situations. A few elementary classrooms had students engaged in math programs at the computers.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 116 Although the expectation messages were not explicit and clear regarding system-wide instructional practices, there was evidence of the application of some of the professional development training, particularly that related to the various reading programs and use of the Houghton Mifflin materials. For the schools that communicated site-specific messages regarding expectations, some of those were evident. (For example, in accordance with stated expectations, direct instruction and small-group instruction would be expected to be evident and predominant at the first elementary school referred to above. A variety of strategies would be expected to be seen in an overview of visits at the second school.) For those schools focusing on the Marzano work, evidence of the nine practices presented in his book should be evident. Not all of the “Marzano nine” were in evidence across the schools, though several were observed and were in use during direct, large-group instruction as well as small- group instruction (e.g., identifying similarities and differences, summarizing and note taking, and the use of cues, questions, and advance organizers.) Principals, teachers, and central office administrators shared the following relevant comments related to instructional practices. They are presented in approximate proportion to the degree of representative relevance. Instructional practices related to specific training (Houghton Mifflin implementation, Marzano’s classroom practices, or differentiated instruction) • “A lot of the classroom teaching is linked directly to the Houghton Mifflin training the staff has received. There are different areas of focus in delivery of the curriculum and use of those instructional materials.” • “Some teachers don’t implement what strategies they have learned in professional development…so hard to change habits of many years.” • “We have teachers who use [mostly] direct instruction but have nearly every child engaged in the activity of learning because of the specific methods…questioning techniques, for example.” • “We do need to standardize districtwide training on the elements of [effective] instruction.” Instructional practices congruent with expectations stated in plans or other district/school documents • “Yes, we expect teachers to be integrating technology with the curriculum…. Some do not have adequate software knowledge or feel that other materials are more relevant to the curriculum.” • “We all do the same thing. Where do we deal with student differences?” Lack of clarity about some instructional practices • “Four schools have dual immersion programs and are expected to follow the 90/10 balance of Spanish to English…. Others are doing it because they say they have been told to do that instead of 50/50. The expectations for this instruction are not clear to all staffs.” • “We’re told to use a variety of teaching strategies, but then we are trained in very specific methods for some programs that lean heavily on just direct instruction.” • “The district does not have a clear instructional focus.” In summary, the auditors found minimal guidance system-wide to communicate expectations regarding classroom instructional practices. They noted some congruence between observed teaching practices and learning experiences and the few explicitly or implicitly stated district or school expectations for classroom instruction found in Instructional Improvement Plans or other documents. Most observed instruction included teacher-directed activities or lectures with students sitting in their seats listening, taking notes, or engaging in discussion. Few interactive experiences, lab/hands-on experiences, or individualized and small-group learning strategies espoused in some of the

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 117 professional development resources were evident. Available classroom computers were rarely observed to be in use. Finding 3.4: Curriculum Monitoring Practices by Principals Lack Consistency for the Purpose of Aligning Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment to Improve Student Achievement.

Successful management of the written, taught, and tested curriculum is a key component to ensuring student achievement. The principal’s role as instructional leader is crucial to the management and implementation of the curriculum. District-wide curriculum monitoring practices provide a systematic method to oversee implementation and evaluate the effectiveness of the adopted curriculum. Board policy does not address curriculum monitoring, while the California Education Code, Article 44681 notes only, “The Legislature recognizes that the principal plays a pivotal role in the life of a school. Research indicates that at schools where pupil achievement is higher than might be expected, principals provide strong leadership and support…Other studies show that the principal is the most effective agent for bringing about educational improvement.” In order to assess the use of curriculum monitoring as an instructional strategy to ensure the effective use of the adopted curriculum, the auditors reviewed job descriptions and appraisal documents for references to curriculum monitoring. They visited all schools within the San Bernardino City Unified School District. The auditors conducted interviews with central office administrators, campus principals, assistant principals, directors, coordinators, and various teachers, program specialists, and facilitators. Relevant documents were also examined for information related to curriculum monitoring. The auditors found that of the approximately 120 job descriptions reviewed, 40 positions in the San Bernardino City Unified School District have a link to instructional supervision. Twenty-three of the 40 job descriptions make some reference to supervision of personnel and/or curriculum monitoring. The campus principal has the greatest responsibility to ensure that instructional strategies are sound and that the curriculum is monitored on a regular basis. The duties outlined in the campus principal job descriptions vary from level to level and are vague on the topic of curriculum monitoring: • The high school principal job description says, “supervise and train assigned staff.” • The middle school principal job description says, “visits classrooms on a regular basis to observe student and teaching behavior.” • The elementary principal job description says, “conducting orientation meetings and performing observations, conferences and summaries as necessary.” • The adult education principal and the special education job descriptions say, “selects, trains, motivates and evaluates assigned certificated and classified personnel.” The Principal Evaluation Document refers to curriculum management in one of seven objectives under the Academic Excellence section. Objective #7 reads, “Expertise is demonstrated in all aspects of student accountability through the implementation of strategies that result in a pattern of improved student performance (walk-throughs, honest teacher evaluations, test data interpretation, problem- solving strategies).” A principal may elect to respond to Objective #7 or not. The auditors visited each school and nearly all classrooms within the district and inquired about the monitoring of district curriculum. Principals and district administrators indicated the use of one or more methods to manage the implementation of curriculum. The most commonly noted strategy for monitoring the curriculum is the use of classroom walk-throughs by principals, assistant principals,

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 118 and central office personnel. Other methods were mentioned but not discussed in detail. Those included the review of lesson plans, test score analysis, grade level and department meetings, and use of a curriculum pacing chart. As noted, the use of walk-throughs is the most consistently utilized strategy for curriculum monitoring. Interviews with central office administrators, campus principals, assistant principals, and teachers indicate an inconsistency in the use of the walk-through. The inconsistencies contribute to a loss of curriculum focus during the classroom walk-throughs. Many of the principals use the Palm Pilot program during classroom visits. Other principals use campus developed charts or checklists. Illustrative of the variations of focus reflected in the forms used are the following examples: San Gorgonio High School • Standard for current lesson was posted • Activity is aligned with grade level standards and objectives • Evidence of clearly communicated expectations and timely feedback • Computer use to facilitate learning • Recent examples of exemplary work representing standards were posted Arroyo Valley High School Department Activity Sheet • Standards posted • Lesson plans available • Authentic, ritual, or passive engagement • Understanding by design • Peer assessment • Use of rubric • Student work posted Talk the Walk Form (Palm Pilot form; no definitions available on form) • Standard • Objective • Alignment • Planning • Content – what is being taught? • Context – how is it being learned? • Cognitive level • Differentiation • Evidence of Writing • Learning Environment • Student work • Technology

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 119 The following interview comments reflect the wide variation in how the walk-through technique is practiced and the attitudes of principals regarding walk-throughs: • “We do walk-throughs daily, and use PDAs to record what we see.” • “The Palm Pilot form was too general to address the specifics of the high school. We changed the form to reflect the professional development we have given our staff. We include our department chairs in the walk-throughs so that they can then work with their staff.” • “We have Palm Pilot walk-throughs. They gave all the principals the palms. I thought this was great, but the thing is that it’s written in such a way that it’s almost negative. My teachers hate it. Walk-throughs are important. But the feedback they get is so negative…we need to redo what we put on the palm.” • “The walk-through using the Palm Pilot is not effective. It has a checklist and is non personal.” • “We do walk-throughs and have had professional development in tracking the curriculum; most of us use a hard copy of the lists of ‘look for(s)’.” • “Principals have Palms and some assistant principals have them but not all. We hope to get one soon.” The auditors were provided with three walk-through feedback forms. Interviews with principals indicate that others exist but were not available for review. The available forms were examined with regard to criteria and format. The auditors found a variation among the three forms utilized. The Talk the Walk Form is used with the Palm Pilot provided to principals. The form can be filled in as the principal walks from classroom to classroom, noting curriculum standard, objective, content, context, and cognitive level. Additionally, student and teacher activities are noted on the form. The form provides for narrative notes and comments for the teacher. Some principals indicate that the form is shared with the teacher the same day, while others indicate that the form may or may not be shared. The Department Activity Sheet, another feedback form utilized in the district is a checklist format and documented by departments. The principal checks for posted standards, available lesson plans, student activity, understanding of the learning, use of a rubric, and student work. The form is shared with the department chair, who then shares with teachers, and may have strengths and areas of improvement noted. The San Gorgonio High School Walk-Thru form is a checklist to examine rigor, relevance, and relationships. Rigor is related to standards and cognitive levels. Relevance is related to objectives, purpose of the lesson, student engagement, and use of technology. Relationships relates to posting of student work, instructional setting, and learning environment. Comments may also be noted. Interviews with campus principals indicate that an unwritten policy exists regarding classroom visitation and curriculum monitoring. While all principals and assistant principals agree that principals are to be in the classrooms daily, some stated that it is not always possible due to other duties. As indicated by the following comments, a question exists as to the expectation regarding the amount of time spent in classroom visitation: • “I’m in the classroom two to three hours a week…would like more.” • “…At least one hour a day in classrooms.” • “Administrators have a lot on their plate. So many demands don’t allow them to be instructional leaders they feel they need to be.” • “As a principal I am in every classroom every day.” • “Every administrator at [my school] spends one hour a day in the classroom.”

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 120 • “Principals are expected to monitor curriculum one hour a day.” • “I do one hour a day of walking through classrooms; and use the Palm Pilot for recording notes.” • “Assistant principals are to be in classrooms for one hour per day and principals are supposed to be in classrooms two hours per day. • “We are expected to be in classrooms two hours per day.” Through the review of job descriptions, school staff meeting minutes, and during the interview process, the auditors also found that central office administration shares in classroom visitations to support effective curriculum management. The following comments were made by Central Office Administrators: • “Schools are somewhat free to do things on their own.” • “Principals are expected to monitor curriculum one hour a day. Walk through is a more collegial way to support good teaching.” • “Principals are doing walk-throughs and district administrators are visiting with principals at sites. It’s usually a whole morning with follow-up…offering recommendations.” The Deputy Superintendent who serves as the principal supervisor shared minimum expectations for observations with a list of things to look for during a classroom visit in a memo dated September 8, 2004. A few of the minimum expectations for observation noted in the memo included: • Standards posted • Objectives and agendas • Student work labeled with a standard • Use of rubrics • Teacher and student engagement • Authentic engagement • Differentiated instruction The expectation for in-depth walk-throughs was also noted with no mention of time allocation or requirement. Exhibit 3.4.1 indicates the visits to sites by the Deputy Superintendent and other central office administrators by department during the 2003-2004 school year. Current year data are not yet available. Wide variation exists in the number of visits per year to each campus by department and as a total. The visits included classroom walk-throughs for the purpose of curriculum management by the principal and the central office administrator.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 121 Exhibit 3.4.1 School Site Visits by Department and School San Bernardino City Unified School District 2003-2004 Deputy English Secondary Special Elementary Total Visits School Sites Supt. Learners Instruction Education Instruction by Admin. Elem. Schools Alessandro 2 15 0 5 13 35 Anderson 3 0 1 26 9 39 Arrowhead 1 4 0 8 79 92 Barton 1 2 4 10 23 40 Belvedere 2 7 0 4 4 17 Bradley 2 10 0 2 13 27 Burbank 3 22 0 6 53 84 California 2 1 0 1 6 10 Carmack 4 0 0 10 4 18 Cole 6 0 0 6 223 235 Cypress 2 3 0 7 8 20 Davidson 2 2 0 1 9 14 Del Rosa 1 2 0 4 11 18 Emmerton 2 2 0 0 23 27 Fairfax 2 2 1 13 13 31 Harmon 4 0 0 18 3 25 Highland-Pacific 0 0 1 3 8 12 Hillside 3 7 0 1 10 21 Hunt 3 3 1 2 9 18 Inghram 2 5 0 4 79 90 Kendall 4 25 2 4 7 42 Kimbark 1 4 0 13 15 33 Lankershim 2 3 0 2 52 59 Lincoln 2 20 0 3 19 44 Lytle Creek 1 1 0 0 10 12 Marshall 2 1 0 1 6 10 Monterey 2 10 0 2 9 23 Mt. Vernon 1 10 0 1 23 35 Muscoy 2 2 1 1 13 19 Newmark 3 1 0 7 20 31 North Park 1 7 0 3 11 22 North 1 0 0 13 4 18 Verdemont

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 122

Exhibit 3.4.1 (continued) School Site Visits by Department and School San Bernardino City Unified School District 2003-2004 Deputy English Secondary Special Elementary Total Visits School Sites Supt. Learners Instruction Education Instruction by Admin. Elem. Schools Oehl 4 1 0 6 9 20 Palm 1 2 0 6 16 25 Parkside 2 0 1 9 22 34 Riley 3 34 0 1 12 50 Rio Vista 2 7 0 2 212 223 E. Neal Roberts 0 4 0 1 10 15 Roosevelt 1 5 0 4 11 21 Thompson 1 1 1 5 7 15 Urbita 2 0 0 18 10 30 Vermont 1 11 0 2 8 22 Warm Springs 2 5 1 8 35 51 Wilson 1 3 1 3 38 46 Middle Schools Arrowview 3 25 116 29 2 175 Curtis 14 32 72 35 1 154 Del Vallejo 4 11 70 47 25 157 Golden Valley 2 5 17 11 1 36 King 3 9 66 14 1 93 Richardson 3 8 13 3 0 27 Serrano 4 16 114 24 8 166 Shandin Hills 2 4 24 13 1 44 High Schools Arroyo Valley 8 18 83 39 14 162 Cajon 5 8 84 17 49 163 Pacific 2 34 108 31 0 175 San Andreas 4 2 14 4 0 24 SBHS 7 15 102 24 2 150 San Gorgonio 8 13 104 23 1 149 Sierra 5 7 21 4 0 37 The following are noted from Exhibit 3.4.1: • The total number of elementary campus visits range from 10 at California Elementary to 235 at Cole Elementary.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 123 • The total number of middle school campus visits range from 27 at Richardson Middle School to 175 at Arrowview Middle School. • The total number of high school campus visits range from 24 at San Andreas High School to 175 at Pacific High School. In summary, the auditors found a lack of direction from board policy regarding curriculum monitoring and inconsistencies in monitoring practices. Elements of monitoring (time in classrooms, feedback documents and improvement strategies that aide in the alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum) vary greatly from school to school within the San Bernardino City Unified School District. Finding 3.5: Some District and School Practices Have Created Inequalities and Inequities that Impede Attainment of Improved Student Learning and High Achievement for All Students.

Effective school districts establish policies and practices that promote equal access to the educational programs and equitable learning experiences for students. Access to district programs and services should not depend upon the student’s residential location, family economics, ethnicity, or other social factors. Where differences in programs or services exist, they should be clearly based on need in order to enhance the equal opportunity for student access to the intended curriculum and for academic success. The auditors studied a wide range of practices, services, and student information to identify possible areas of inequality. Where they found inequality, they then pursued the extent to which the differences were based on student needs and on data-driven decisions. When they could not identify the differences as needs-driven, they considered the result to be an inequity. The auditors reviewed documentation related to enrollment, programs and services, disciplinary actions, grade distribution patterns, student retention practices, student attendance and dropout data, graduation data, staffing formulae and patterns, school-based revenues from non-district sources, instructional time at schools, and availability of computers and library books. They also interviewed board members, administrators, several staff members, and students regarding several of these topics. School visits provided additional data in some areas of interest. Board policies provided no guidance to establish direction for equity-based, equal educational opportunities for all students. The district’s mission statement, articulated in the Local Education Agency Instructional (LEA) Improvement Plan, addressed the needs of all students generally in describing the primary mission as “to provide academic instruction to each student sufficient to develop the skills knowledge, and understanding required to promote personal development to the fullest extent of the individual’s potential.” The state and federal requirements to meet the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act include several actions and measurements that either explicitly or implicitly direct that data-based needs of subgroups of the student population will be addressed in such a way that all students can achieve. The audit team found that several inequalities and inequities exist within some district practices and programs. Disparities in achievement existed between subgroups (see Finding 4.3). Students eligible for free or reduced lunches, English learners, African American, and Hispanic students attain proficiency on assessments at a lower rate than others. A disproportionate percent of African American students have been retained at grade level, have experienced suspensions or expulsions from school, or have dropped out of high school. African American and Hispanic students are disproportionately over-represented in special education and under-represented in Gifted and Talented placements. Some gender disparities exist: males were enrolled at a disproportionately lower percentage of upper level, Advanced Placement, and International Baccalaureate classes. The district has reduced the disproportionate ratios by ethnicity in staff/student enrollment by ethnicity,

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 124 though disproportionate ratios still exist in some schools. Fundraising and donations for schools are widely disparate, and often the schools with lower socio-economic neighborhoods receive the least amount of external support. Improvements have occurred in the numbers of credentialed teachers and the reduction of teachers on emergency credentials. However, the presence of experienced, credentialed teachers varies widely among schools and frequently results in less experienced teachers serving schools and students of highest needs. Board policies typically provide some direction to decision-making that affects equal access for all students and communicate expectations regarding practices that promote equal opportunities for students across the system. However, no SBCUSD policies were presented that meet those intentions, although policies do exist related to other areas of specific concern and will be discussed in the relevant sections of this finding. In reviewing district services and programs initiated in recent years, the auditors found that, even without such policy direction, several specific steps have been authorized by the Board to address needs of specific student groups, such as homeless students, English learners, and Gifted and Talented or advanced learners. Alternative programs and schools and an International Baccalaureate program are specific examples of these actions. Most of these programs and services are described in district publications. The LEA Plan incorporates intent from the mission statement to address unique needs of students to enhance individual potential. Several components of the plan speak to needs that have been identified by student data analysis and actions proposed to meet those needs: For example, increasing student achievement in math and reading/language arts, targeting professional development to enhance teacher skills in meeting the needs identified by student data, and improving student attendance and discipline. Other sources communicating intent or direction were found in some school plans and related documents and are incorporated into discussion of the following areas of concern identified by the audit team. For several of the paths of analysis undertaken in evaluating equality and rational equity within this finding, the auditors used the baseline enrollment data of 2003-04 to identify the percentages of representation by various ethnic groups within the student population. These are summarized in Exhibit 3.5.1. As other factors such as Free/Reduced Lunch eligibility or gender are considered, or if different years for baseline data are used, the relevant information is included with the analysis. Exhibit 3.5.1 Student Ethnicity by Schools and District: Percentages of Total Enrollment San Bernardino City Unified School District 2003-04

African Am. Indian/ School/Level American AK Native Asian Caucasian Hispanic Other District 19.8 1.0 2.0 15.9 59.9 1.4 Elementary Schools Alessandro 12.5 .1 .7 7.2 78.7 .5 Arrowhead 27.9 2.5 13.8 17.7 35.7 1.6 Barton 36.9 .9 1.7 13.8 43.7 1.6 Belvedere 10.4 1.6 2.8 29 54.8 .3 Bradley 13.4 .3 1.3 7 77.4 .4

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 125

Exhibit 3.5.1 (continued) Student Ethnicity by Schools and District: Percentages of Total Enrollment San Bernardino City Unified School District 2003-04

African Am. Indian/ School/Level American AK Native Asian Caucasian Hispanic Other District 19.8 1.0 2.0 15.9 59.9 1.4 Elementary Schools Burbank 15.3 .5 .5 6.4 75 .7 California 17.3 .8 2.3 12.2 66 .5 Cole 22 1.2 .4 15.2 58.9 .6 Cypress 21.1 .5 1.1 11.1 61.4 1.6 Davidson 61.5 1.1 .5 15.2 61.5 1.4 Del Rosa 21.7 1.0 1.6 20.4 53.9 1.9 Emmerton 54.2 .3 2.5 9.5 54.2 1.5 Fairfax 25.9 1.2 1.9 12.5 57.1 1.4 Highland-Pacific 21.4 1.8 1.6 30.5 41.2 2.0 Hillside 11.8 1.0 .6 29.6 55.2 1.8 Hunt 30.8 1.3 .4 13.5 51.7 1.4 Inghram 35.9 .4 .2 4.3 57.8 1.3 Kendall 18.5 1.8 1.5 24.3 51.2 1.2 Kimbark 14.1 1.9 .9 32.4 49.7 .2 Lankershim 18 .9 3.6 10.5 65.3 .8 Lincoln 21.1 .5 .3 4.8 72.2 .4 Lytle Creek 5.4 .6 .2 3.4 90.2 .1 Marshall 13.2 1.3 1.0 18.9 63.3 .6 Monterey 19.5 .2 2.6 11 65.9 .7 Mt. Vernon 6.6 1.2 .1 1.4 89.8 .7 Muscoy 5.2 .9 2.6 7.6 82.7 .7 Newmark 21.2 1.7 2 23.6 49.1 2.0 North Park 28.8 1.3 2.3 25.1 40.4 .6 No. Verdemont 23.5 .7 .9 26.5 46.4 1.1 Oehl 18.7 1.1 1.3 21 54.9 1.6 Palm Avenue 16.1 1.7 3 41.9 34.4 1.5 Parkside 17.7 1.1 1.7 29.6 48.3 .8 Riley 16.8 .8 .8 16.8 75.3 .6 E. Neal Roberts 16.1 .4 1.7 8 72.9 1.8 Rio Vista 39.9 .4 1.1 2.4 54.1 1.4 Roosevelt 11.5 .5 .8 3.8 82.8 .2 Thompson 18.6 1.2 2.9 31.4 42.9 1.3 Urbita 6.8 .8 .6 11.8 79 1.0 Vermont 5.2 .4 .8 9.7 83.2 0

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 126

Exhibit 3.5.1 (continued) Student Ethnicity by Schools and District: Percentages of Total Enrollment San Bernardino City Unified School District 2003-04

Warm Springs 25.5 1.1 2.6 7.6 61.8 .9 Wilson 16 1.6 .3 11.7 68.6 1.0 Total Elementary 20.6 1 1.7 15.6 61.2 1 African Am. Indian/ School/Level American AK Native Asian Caucasian Hispanic Other District 19.8 1.0 2.0 15.9 59.9 1.4 Middle Schools Arrowview 18.5 1.2 .6 8.8 69.7 .9 Curtis 20 1.2 2.7 9.4 65.9 .7 Del Vallejo 27.6 .8 2.4 16.5 51.2 1.4 Golden Valley 18.7 1.4 .7 21.2 57.1 .8 King 30.2 .6 2.8 5.4 59.5 1.3 Richardson 1.9 1.6 3.8 25.6 55.6 1.1 Serrano 20.7 1.5 2.3 23.8 50.5 .7 Shandin Hills 14 1.5 1.8 20.9 60.6 .9 Total Middle School 19 1.3 2.1 16.5 58.8 .98 High Schools Arroyo Valley 23.7 .6 2.3 7.8 64.3 1.2 Cajon 19.5 1.4 2.6 36.3 38.4 1.5 Middle College 15.7 .7 1.3 30.1 50.3 2.0 Pacific 23 1.1 3.1 16.6 54.8 .9 San Andreas 29.3 1.3 1.0 26.1 42 0 San Bernardino 17.5 .7 1.8 13.5 65.9 .5 San Gorgonio 20.53 1.0 4.1 21 52 1.5 Sierra 21 .9 2.2 8.8 66.6 0 Total High School 21.8 .96 2.3 20 54.3 .95 Source: District data reports. Note: Auditors included Pacific Islanders, Filipinos, and Multiple/Non-Response data in the category of Other. Disparities in Achievement Data Auditors reviewed the achievement data by school and the disaggregation of those data by ethnicity, gender, English learners, and students eligible for free or reduced lunches, the indicator of economic disadvantage (See Finding 4.3, Exhibits 4.3.13 through 4.3.28). They identified the disparities in student achievement among the student population subgroups, three of which are discussed in the following sections. English Learners The auditors found that English learners comprised 30 percent of the students tested (see Exhibit 4.3.17). The gap in proficiency rates in English Language Arts between English Learners and Fluent- English Proficient and English Only students ranged from a low of 11 percent at Grade 2 to a high of

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 127 24 percent at Grades 9 and 10. Further, the percent of tested English learners attaining proficiency in English Language Arts was below ten percent at every grade level. The gap in proficiency rates in Mathematics between the same groups of students ranged from a low of one percent in Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 to a high of 20 percent at Grade 7. In mathematics, the difference was greatest at Grades 6 and 7 and smallest at Grades 9-12. Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Lunches As discussed in detail under Finding 4.3, the auditors found that there was a general correlation between the high percentage of a school’s students eligible for free or reduced lunch and the low percentage of proficiency attainment. In examining the Grade 5 proficiencies outlined in Exhibits 4.3.20, for example: • Twenty-six of the 41 elementary schools have 85 percent to 100 percent of the students eligible for free or reduced lunch. Of those, only two schools (Muscoy and Newmark) attained proficiency rates of over 20 percent or higher in the English language arts assessment. • On the other hand, of the six schools with 65 percent or fewer students eligible for free or reduced lunch, all but one school attained proficiency rates of 25 percent or higher in English language arts assessment. • Of the 26 elementary schools with 85 percent to 100 percent of the students eligible for free or reduced lunch, 15 (over half) attained proficiency rates of 20 percent or higher in the mathematics assessment. • of the six schools with 65 percent or fewer students eligible for free or reduced lunch, all attained proficiency rates of 25 percent or higher in mathematics assessment. • Additionally, of the nine schools with 66 to 85 percent of the students eligible for free or reduced lunch, all but two attained the 25 percent proficiency level in mathematics; conversely on the English language arts assessment, only three of those same schools attained proficiency levels of 25 percent. According to Exhibit 4.3.23, at the middle school level, evaluation of the Grade 8 assessment data showed that: • The school with the highest percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch (Curtis) had the lowest percent of students attaining proficiency in English language arts assessment. • The school with the lowest percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch (Richardson) had the highest percentage of students attaining proficiency in English language arts assessment. • Among the other schools, variations in the pattern of correlation between eligibility for free or reduced lunch and proficiency in English language arts assessment were noted; only two middle schools had 20 percent or more students attaining ELA proficiency. • Only one middle school (Golden Valley) attained over 20 percent proficiency in mathematics; that school had the fifth highest percent (78 percent) of students eligible for free or reduced lunch. In analyzing the Grade 11 proficiency data related to students eligible for free or reduced lunch in Exhibit 4.3.26, auditors noted that: • The two high schools with the highest percentages of students eligible for free or reduced lunch had the lowest percent (12 percent each) of proficiency in English language arts assessment.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 128 • The two high schools with the lowest percentages of students eligible for free or reduced lunch had the highest percent (30 and 60 percent) of students attaining proficiency in English language arts assessment. • A progression of high percent eligibility for free or reduced lunch and low percent of proficiency attainment in ELA assessment was clearly evident. • In mathematics assessment, no high school attained over 7 percent proficiency, and that high school had the lowest percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch. With few exceptions, a correlation exists between the socio-economic level of students at a school and the level of proficiency attainment in English language arts and math, with the correlation tighter at the secondary level than at the elementary level. Students in Ethnic Subgroups The auditors reviewed data related to proficiency based on the Spring 2003 and 2004 California Standards Tests and analyzed the performance by student population subgroups on those assessments (see Finding 4.3, Exhibit 4.3.13). The data disaggregated by grade level and ethnicity of the students taking the tests showed several conditions regarding disparity in student achievement between African Americans and Caucasian students and between Hispanic and Caucasian students. • On English language arts and mathematics assessments, African American and Hispanic students at all grade levels through grade 8 had lower percentages of students scoring at the proficient level or above both years of testing. • On English language arts assessments in grades 9-11, the same pattern of disparity continued. In mathematics the percentages dropped dramatically for all student groups with none attaining over three percent in proficiency or above categories. • In English language arts, the gap analysis varied somewhat, with African American students attaining higher proficiency than Hispanic students at some grade levels, and the gap pattern reversing at other grade levels. • In mathematics, Hispanic students consistently attained a higher proficiency rate, and African American students experienced the largest gap between their group and Caucasian students. • When analyzing the data to determine how many years it would take to reach achievement parity among the groups in elementary grades, in only 10 instances out of a possible 30 areas and grades analyzed would it be possible to ever remove the disparities if the current rate of achievement continues. In five instances (all in mathematics) parity could be achieved in one year; in one instance, in two years; in two situations, five years; in one, 11 years; and in another, 20 years. Equal or Equitable Access to Curriculum, Programs, and Services In reviewing program and service access, the auditors considered student achievement data and other student information to identify the areas of need among student subgroups and/or students with particular sets of needs. They then reviewed the programs and services in place to address the identified needs and the availability of those to the specific students in need, based on the data. The areas of concern that surfaced in this analysis were: • Availability of curriculum support and related to services to address unique needs of African American students (achievement, suspensions and expulsions, attendance) • Impacts of track grouping on ELL student access to programs or services • International Baccalaureate access limitations

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 129 • Alternative program limitations at the secondary level, particularly middle schools • Access to common strategies for serving EL students (see Findings 3.2 and 2.1) Student achievement among African American students has consistently shown a low percentage of this subgroup meeting proficiency or higher standards. These students are also involved in suspensions and expulsions at a percentage rate disproportionate to their representation in the student population. The attendance rate of African American students is lower than the rates for other ethnic groups. No aggressive systemic effort considering the African American cultural or related needs has been undertaken by the school district, although these problems have existed for this group of students for several years (at least four). While a few African American students are enrolled in alternative programs or schools, the majority of students in this group remain in the regular schools with continuing records of minimal success in attaining proficiency on state assessments. Only recently have some targeted assistance and service initiatives begun, and these are on a pilot effort, appearing in only five schools. These efforts are addressed in minutes from an October 2004 elementary principals’ meeting and were discussed further in several interviews. A few school-based efforts have occurred, but these are neither systematically applied at all relevant schools nor highlighted districtwide to encourage more schools to engage in such initiatives. An example of one of the most systematically organized of these efforts is the M. L. King Middle School “Equity Intervention Plan for Reducing Suspensions/Expulsions for the 200402005 School Year.” This action plan includes participation by administrators, counselors, teachers, an intervention specialist, and community members On the other hand, extensive efforts have been undertaken to support the needs of English learners, homeless students, and other students needing alternative learning models. Interviews indicated that the lack of advocacy leadership on behalf of the African American students is perceived to have led to the inaction by the system, a type of “setting these students on the back burner for a long time.” Additionally, document and interview data also allude to the unmet needs of non-ELL Hispanic students as noted in both academic achievement and in expulsion data. Another area of inequality and potential inequity occurs by virtue of the grouping of students by attendance/year-round tracks. For example, ABE students are enrolled on a designated attendance track that precludes their having access to the Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) program services, which are offered in a different attendance track. Since language is not a factor of giftedness or talent, the lack of their equal access to the GATE program (if determined eligible) becomes an inequity. Another inequity is a practice related to the International Baccalaureate (IB) program. The program is offered at Cajon high school and permits only ten students not attending that high school as their attendance area school to be admitted. Additionally, the students seeking admission are held to higher eligibility/admission standards than the requirements applied in admission consideration for Cajon students. In this instance, a program that could well serve the needs of other students is limited to one school and treats external students differently than applicants from within the home school, both unequal and inequitable treatment since the lack of equality is not needs based. Access to an alternative high school is limited even though several smaller alternative programs (San Andreas, Sierra, and Middle College high schools) have been implemented in addition to the Alternative Learning Center, which serves students on independent study in a program similar to home schooling. Auditors learned that there are typically waiting lists for the secondary alternative schools. That information, coupled with a calculated dropout rate of over six percent in 2002-03 (the year used in dropout analysis) suggests that offerings of alternative or intervening services based on need are not consistently available across the secondary schools to students needing different learning models.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 130 In addition to the remaining needs at the high school level, minimal access to alternative learning options within the middle schools or in separate programs or schools is available for students at that level who are identified as at-risk of failure and in need of a different learning environments. All in all, what has been a data-driven effort by the district to meet unique student needs has hit the brick wall of unequal access and inequitable program services based on the numbers of students whose current needs are not being met in the regular schools. The fact that middle school achievement, attendance, and disciplinary data reflect clearly the presence of unmet needs raises the problem to a high level of urgency for system-wide action by the district leadership. Another area of concern related to equal or equitable access to programs and services is found in the programs and services for English language learners (see Findings 2.1 and 3.2). The inconsistency in program design and delivery across the schools and the minimal services available at the secondary level have created a situation in which English learners do not have equal access to research-based, commonly available programs to meet their language acquisition needs and to enhance their abilities to attain proficiency on the high-stakes assessments. Limitations in the students’ access to early and timely acquisition of English language skills place the students in a position of unsuccessful performance on the state assessments for which they are held accountable in English. Though each of these five areas of unequal or inequitable program/service access is important, the most critical inequities noted in this analysis were: (1) the failure to aggressively address the problems facing African American students (20 percent of the district student population) at all grade levels, and (2) the lack of equal access to English-learner support resulting from confusion in program direction (see Findings 2.2 and 3.2), as well as inconsistent program delivery across the schools (see Finding 3.2). Retention at Grade Level The auditors reviewed retention data for all school levels with attention to ethnicity. The data are summarized in Exhibit 3.5.2 by those factors and by elementary, middle, and high school levels. Exhibit 3.5.2 Retention at Grade Level: Summarized by Ethnicity at Elementary, Middle, and High School Levels San Bernardino City Unified School District 2003-04 Total African Native Level Retained Am. Amer. Asian Caucasian Hispanic Other Elementary 252 11 6 133 562 22 986 25.6% 1.1% .6% 13.5% 57% 2.2% Middle 9 0 0 5 28 0 42 21.4% 11.9% 66.7% Sr. High 288 10 39 194 1,123 16 1,670 17.2% .6% 2.3% 11.6% 67.2% 1% 549 21 45 332 1,713 38 District 2,698 20.3% .8% 1.7% 12.3% 63.5% 1.4% Source: District data reports Note: Auditors included Filipino, Multiple, and Other in the Other category for this exhibit. Using the baseline data from Exhibit 3.5.1, the auditors identified under/over representation by ethnicity in the districtwide retention percentages by ethnicity. They considered variations of 1.5 percent or more to be disproportional. The following were noted:

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 131 • African American students were over-represented in retentions districtwide by 5.8 percent compared with their representation in the district student population. • Caucasian students were under-represented in retentions districtwide by 2.4 percent compared with their representation in the district student population. • Hispanic students were under-represented in retentions districtwide by 2.9 percent compared with their representation in the district student population. Suspensions and Expulsions The audit team reviewed data regarding suspensions and expulsions. These data are summarized in Exhibits 3.5.3 through 3.5.5 below, with auditors’ comments following each exhibit. Exhibit 3.5.3 High School Suspension Rate by Ethnicity –Four Year Comparison San Bernardino City Unified School District 2001-2004

30

27.3 25 26.3 25.4

20

18.8

16.5 15 13.1 13 14.9 12.9 African American 14 10.5 Hispanic White 10 10.4

5 2 0.9

0 -0.2

-5 2001 2002 2003 2004 change

Data source: District Four-Year Summary Comparison of SBCUSD Incident Suspensions Rate Exhibit 3.5.3 shows that: • In the high schools, African American student incident suspension rates are increasing at a greater rate than the rates of Caucasian and Hispanic students in the past four years. • In 2004, African American students were involved in incidents for which they were suspended more than twice the rate of Caucasian students and nearly double that of Hispanic students at the high schools and in a disproportionate ratio to their representation in the student population.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 132 Exhibit 3.5.4 Middle School Percentages of Suspensions by Ethnicity: Four-Year Comparison San Bernardino City Unified School District 2001-2004

30

28.9 27.4 28 25

20 21.3

14.6 14.3 13.8 15 15.8 12.3 14.3 14.3 African American Hispanic 12.2 White 10

5

0.8

0 -0.8 -1.5

-5 2001 2002 2003 2004 change

Data source: District Four Year Summary Comparison of SBCUSD Incident Suspensions Rate Exhibit 3.5.4 reveals: • Of the three major ethnicities in the district, only African American students are being suspended at an increasing rate over the last four years at the middle school level. • In the middle schools in 2004, African American middle school students were suspended at a rate double both Caucasian and Hispanic students and in a disproportionate ratio to their percentage of the student population.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 133 Exhibit 3.5.5 Student Expulsion by Ethnicity: Four-Year Comparison San Bernardino City Unified School District 2001-2004

100 97 99 94 96 90 91 87 80

75 70 73 73

60

African American 50 Hispanic White 44 40

30 23 22

18 19 20 13

10

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 average

Data source: District Student Expulsion Rates by Ethnicity 1996/1997-2003/2004 Exhibit 3.5.5 demonstrates: • In the past four years, African American and Hispanic students have been expelled over three times as frequently as white students. • Expulsion rates for both African American and Hispanic students have risen since 2002, with African American students dropping only slightly in the 2004 rate and Hispanic students nearly doubling their rate between 2002 and 2003. Dropout Rates No dropout statistics were provided by the district. The auditors used the 2003 data on the Department of Education website for their analysis of dropout data by ethnicity and gender since no 2004 data had been posted there. For that year there were a total of 14,508 students at the high school level. A total of 903 (6.2 percent) were reported as dropouts. Exhibit 3.5.6 summarizes the information by ethnicity and gender:

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 134 Exhibit 3.5.6 Student Dropout Data by Ethnicity and Gender: Numbers and Percentage of the Group’s High School Population Compared with Numbers and Percentages in Total High School Population San Bernardino City Unified School District 2002-03

Dropouts by Ethnicity Dropouts by Gender Am.Ind./ Pacific Afr. Caucasia Othe AK Native Asian Islander Filipino Hispanic Amer. n r Male Female 16 10 5 0 504 240 125 3 504 399 1.8% 1.1% In Other 0 55.8% 26.6% 13.8% .9% 55.8% 44.2% Total High Total High School Population: Percentage by Ethnicity School Population by Gender Am.Ind./ Pacific Afr. Caucasia Othe AK Native Asian Islander Filipino Hispanic Amer. n r Male Female 1% 2% In Other In Other 59.9% 19.8% 15.9% 1.4% 50.4% 49.6% Source: California Department of Education website. Note: Auditors included Pacific Islander, Filipino, and multiple/non response in percentages for the Other category. The auditors considered comparisons with variance of 1.5 percent or more to be disproportional representation. In comparing the dropout data to those of the total high school population, auditors noted: • African American students were over-represented in the dropout group by 6.8 percent compared with their representation in the total high school student population. • Hispanic students were under-represented in the dropout group by 4.1 percent compared with their representation in the total high school student population. • Caucasian students were under-represented in the dropout group by 2.1 percent compared with their representation in the total high school student population. • Male students were over-represented in the dropout group by 5.4 percent. Rates of Graduation The auditors reviewed data presented to them reflecting the graduation rates. Exhibit 3.5.7 presents the graduates for 2002-03, the most recent year for which data were provided to the audit team. The first data present the percentages of the spring graduates represented by each ethnic group. The second set represents the percentage represented in the total 12th grade enrollment that year by each ethnic group, as reported on the Department of Education website.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 135 Exhibit 3.5.7 Percentage of Spring Graduates by Ethnic Group Compared with Percentage of 12th Grade Enrollment by Ethnic Group San Bernardino City Unified School District 2002-03

Percentage of Spring Graduates by Ethnic Group African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Caucasian Total Number 19.1 1.1 7.8 47.8 24.2 1,949 Percentage of 12th Grade Enrollment by Ethnic Group African American Asian Hispanic Caucasian Total Number American Indian 18.5% 1.2% 5.6% 46.1% 24.7% 2,216 Source: District data provided to audit team and California Department of Education website. Comparing the data for graduates from spring 2003 and the grade 12 total enrollment for the same year, auditors noted that: • A total of 267 (12 percent) seniors were not eligible for graduation in spring 2003. • Of those who graduated, Asian students were represented in the graduate class at a higher rate than their percentage in the senior class by 2.2 percent, and Hispanic students were represented in the graduating group at a rate 1.7 percent higher than in the full class enrollment. • Other groups were represented in the graduating group at percentage rates close to those of their percentage rates in the senior class enrollment. Proportionality of Representation by Ethnicity and Gender in Programs Auditors reviewed the student enrollment data for the Special Education and Gifted and Talented programs to determine whether enrollment included proportional representation compared with the District enrollment representation. They also considered the comparison of staff and student representation by ethnicity and gender. Student retention and disciplinary data were also reviewed through this same lens. The baseline demographic data in Exhibit 3.5.1 was used for determining the percentage of representation by ethnicity for the District student population in reviewing proportional representation in the programs. Special Education Auditors analyzed the program enrollment for Special Education to identify possible disproportional representation by ethnicity and gender between program placements and total student population. The team received no current data on Special Education enrollment and, therefore, used data reported for the 2002-03 year on the Department of Education website. Exhibit 3.5.9 presents that summary.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 136 Exhibit 3.5.8 Special Education Program Enrollment by Ethnicity and Gender San Bernardino City Unified School District 2002-03

% in District Under/Over Ethnicity/Gender # in Program % in Program Enrollment Representation* Native American 96 1.5% 1.2% Proportional African/American 1,688 26.2% 18.5% Over: 7.7% Asian 84 1.3% 5.6% Under: 4.3% Hispanic 3,327 51.5% 46.1% Over: 5.4% Caucasian 1,235 19.1% 24.7% Under: 5.6% Other 24 .4% .7% Proportional Total Program 6,454 Sources: District data reports for Special Education and for District enrollment 2002-03. Notes: For the purposes of this analysis, auditors considered a variation of + or – 1.5 percent to be within range for proportional representation. From the data in Exhibit 3.5.8, auditors noted: • Within the Special Education program African American and Hispanic students are over- represented by 7.7 and 5.4 percent respectively in comparison with their percentage in the total student enrollment. • Within the Special Education program Asian and Caucasian students are under represented by 4.3 and 5.6 percent respectively in comparison with their percentage in the total student enrollment. • Native American and students included in the Other category were proportionally represented in the Special Education program. Gifted Education Auditors also reviewed the enrollment data for the Gifted and Talented Education Program (GATE). Exhibit 3.5.9 summarizes that information.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 137 Exhibit 3.5.9 Enrollment in Gifted and Talented Education Program by Ethnicity and Gender San Bernardino City Unified School District 2003-04

% in District Under/Over Ethnicity/Gender # in Program % in Program Enrollment Representation* Native American Female 18 .5 .5 Proportional Male 26 .8 .5 Proportional Total 44 1.3 1 Proportional African American Female 235 7.0 9.9 Under: 2.9% Male 170 5.1 9.9 Under: 4.8% Total 405 12.1 19.8 Under: 7.7% Asian Female 76 2.3 .9 Proportional Male 90 2.7 1 Over: 1.6% Total 166 5.0 1.9 Over: 3.1% Hispanic Female 760 22.7 29.4 Under: 6.7% Male 809 24.2 30.5 Under: 6.3% Total 1,569 46.9 59.9 Under: 13% Caucasian Female 565 16.9 7.8 Over: 9.1% Male 531 15.9 8.1 Over: 7.8% Total 1,096 32.8 15.9 Over: 16.9% Other Female 42 1.3 .7 Proportional Male 19 .6 .7 Proportional Total 61 1.4 Proportional Total Program Female 1,696 50.8 48.8 Over: 2% Male 1,645 49.2 50.8 Under: 1.6% Total 3,341 Sources: District 2003-04 data reports for Special Education and for District enrollment and Department of Education website. Notes: For the purposes of this analysis, auditors considered a variation of + or –1.5 percent to be within range for representational proportion. Ethnicity categories for the total student population differed from those used in the Special Education reports because the data are from different years. From the data in Exhibit 3.5.9 auditors noted that: • African American females and males are both under-represented in the GATE program compared with their representation by gender and ethnicity in the total enrollment.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 138 • Hispanic females and males are both under-represented in the GATE program compared with their representation by gender and ethnicity in the total enrollment. Hispanic students are the most under-represented ethnic group in the GATE program. • Caucasian female and male students are over-represented in the program by compared with their representation in the total student population. Caucasian students are over-represented by 16.9 percent, which is the largest disparity in proportional representation within the GATE program. The second largest disparity is the 13 percent under-representation of Hispanic students. • Within the Gifted program in general, females are slightly over-represented and males slightly under-represented in comparison with their proportion of the total enrollment. Upper Level Classes The auditors reviewed enrollment data for students enrolled in upper level math and science courses to determine any disparities by gender or ethnicity in these typically more challenging academic classes. The data are summarized in Exhibit 3.5.10.

Exhibit 3.5.10 Enrollment in Upper Level Science and Math Classes: by Ethnicity and Gender as a Percent of Enrollment in Grades 11 and 12 San Bernardino City Unified School District 2003-04 African Amer. Ind./ American AK Native Asian Caucasian Hispanic Other

Courses F M F M F M F M F M F M Int. Algebra 30.3 23 55.6 42.1 51.7 42.9 42.8 38 35.1 29.6 62.2 51.4 Adv. Math 15.2 9.1 16.7 5.3 36.8 35.7 22.5 21.6 15.4 12 21.6 27 Chemistry I 26.3 24.7 61.1 52.6 44.8 43.9 34.3 34 31.4 28.2 48.6 54.1 Physics I 6.6 4.4 11.1 0 17.2 10.2 4.1 9.3 4.9 5.9 5.4 10.8 Source: California Department of Education Data Quest The data in Exhibit 3.5.10 show that: • Percentage representation of the grade 11 and 12 students in the upper level science and math classes was mixed among the courses for all ethnic groups and both genders. • In Intermediate Algebra, females were consistently represented at higher percentages of their enrollment than were males. The highest percentages of representation by ethnic group were American Indians and Asian students. • In Advanced Math, females in all groups had higher percentage representation except for the males in the “Other” category (Pacific Islander, Filipino, and Multiple or No Response). The highest percentages of representation by ethnic group were Asian, Caucasian, and Other students. • In First Year Chemistry, females had higher percentage representation except for students in the “Other” category and a difference of only .3 percent among Caucasian students. • In Physics I, females had higher percentage representation among African American, American Indian, and Asian students but lower percentages among Caucasian, Hispanic, and Other students.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 139 Advanced Placement Courses Advanced Placement courses are offered in more than one school, but different courses are available at each campus, reportedly depending on student registration interest. Auditors reviewed the enrollment data available to them for advanced placement courses. Disaggregated data were available only by gender. Exhibit 3.5.11 summarizes those data. Exhibit 3.5.11 Advanced Placement Courses Enrollment by Gender San Bernardino City Unified School District 2003-04 Number of Number of Male Female Total Course Schools Classes Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment English Lang./Comp. 3 7 66 123 189 English Lit./Comp. 5 9 103 186 289 Foreign Lang., 3 3 26 46 72 Span.Lang. Foreign Lang., Span. Lit. 4 4 37 78 115 Math, Calculus AB 5 7 76 101 177 Math, Statistics 2 2 15 20 35 Science, Gen. Biology 4 5 32 65 97 Science, Gen. Chemistry 2 2 19 16 35 Science, Environ. Science 1 2 18 14 32 Soc. Science, US History 5 12 134 239 373 Soc. Science, Psychology 1 1 6 6 12 Total 1 to 5 54 532 894 1,426 Percentage of Enrollment 37.3% 62.7% Data Source: California Department of Education Data Quest In reviewing the data from Exhibit 3.5.11, auditors noted the following: • In all AP courses except three (General Chemistry, Environmental Science, and Psychology), female students outnumbered the males. • Male students were under-represented in the overall enrollment for AP courses by 13.2 percent compared to their representation (50.5 percent) in the district high school enrollment for the same year. International Baccalaureate Program The auditors sought to analyze the International Baccalaureate program data regarding any enrollment disparities by gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic factors; however, disaggregated data were available only by gender. Exhibit 3.5.12 summarizes those data, along with information regarding the number of classes offered in the program.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 140 Exhibit 3.5.12 International Baccalaureate Program Enrollment by Gender San Bernardino City Unified School District 2003-04

Number of Male Female Total Course Classes Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment English 9 117 201 318 Music 2 6 5 11 Theater Arts 2 17 30 47 Foreign Language 4 23 37 60 Humanities: Theory of Knowledge 1 18 21 39 Biology 5 43 89 132 Physics 1 7 7 14 Total 24 231 390 621 Percentage of Enrollment 37% 63% Source: California Department of Education Data Quest Auditors noted from Exhibit 3.5.12 : • In all courses except music and physics, female students outnumbered males. • In Biology the females had double the enrollment of males. • Overall, males are under-represented in the program by 13.8 percent compared with their representation in Cajon High School enrollment for that year. Proportional Ethnic Representation among School Staff and Administrators Compared with Representation among Students The auditors reviewed the district’s staffing data to determine the extent to which the ethnic percentages of staff and administrators at the schools mirrored the student population at the respective schools. Exhibit 3.5.13 presents the data for certificated staff compared with the ethnic representation among the student enrollment data at the schools. Because the 2004-05 data for students had not been provided by the time the audit report development began, the data for students is from the year 2003- 04 and the data for staff is for the year 2004-05.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 141 Exhibit 3.5.13 Certificated Staff Ethnicity Representation by Percentage Compared with Student Ethnicity Representation by School and District San Bernardino City Unified School District 2004 and 2005 School/Level African Am. Indian/ Asian Caucasian Hispanic Other American AK Native District 10.3 1.2 2.6 62.8 21.2 2.5 Students 19.8 1 2 15.9 61.1 1.4 Elementary Schools Alessandro 2 0 2 50 41 5 Students 12.5 .1 .7 7.2 78.7 .9 Arrowhead 10 4 4 68 18 1 Students 27.9 2.5 13.8 17.7 35.7 2.4 Barton 3 0 0 77 13 6 Students 36.9 .9 1.7 13.8 43.7 3.1 Belvedere 7 5 2 66 20 0 Students 10.4 1.6 2.8 29 54.8 1.4 Bradley 4 2 0 56 34 4 Students 13.4 .3 1.3 7 77.4 .6 Burbank 8 4 4 42 33 8 Students 15.3 .5 .5 6.4 75.5 1.8 California 5 0 3 78 14 0 Students 17.3 .8 2.3 12.2 66 1.3 Cole 29 0 8 54 11 0 Students 22 1.2 .4 15.2 58.9 2.2 Cypress 7 0 2 60 29 2 Students 21.1 .5 1.1 11.1 64.6 1.6 Davidson 9 0 79 9 3 Students 20 1.1 .5 15.2 61.5 1.7 Del Rosa 4 0 2 73 19 2 Students 21.7 1 1.6 20.4 53.9 1.5 Emmerton 11 0 0 68 16 4 Students 30.8 .3 2.5 9.5 54.2 2.6 Fairfax 15 4 4 78 0 0 Students 25.9 1.2 1.9 2.5 57.1 1.4 Highland-Pacific 15 0 0 73 8 4 Students 21.4 1.8 1.6 30.5 41.2 3.6 Hillside 5 0 0 60 30 6 Students 11.8 1 .6 29.6 55.2 1.9 Hunt 9 0 0 68 23 0 Students 30.8 1.3 .4 13.5 51.7 2.2 Inghram 28 0 0 55 17 0 Students 35.9 .4 .2 4.3 57.8 1.5 Kendall 12 0 0 61 27 0 Students 18.5 1.8 1.5 24.3 51.2 2.6 Kimbark 16 64 20 Students 14.1 1.9 .9 32.4 49.7 1.1 Lankershim 10 59 31 Students 18 .9 3.6 10.5 65.3 1.6

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 142

Exhibit 3.5.13 (continued) Certificated Staff Ethnicity Representation by Percentage Compared with Student Ethnicity Representation by School and District San Bernardino City Unified School District 2004 and 2005 School/Level African Am. Indian/ Asian Caucasian Hispanic Other American AK Native Lincoln 11 2 4 45 38 2 Students 21.1 .5 .3 4.8 72.2 1.1 Lytle Creek 9 0 0 35 52 4 Students 5.4 .6 .2 3.4 90.2 .2 Marshall 0 3 3 76 19 0 Students 13.2 1.3 1 18.9 63.3 2.2 Monterey 5 0 0 50 45 0 Students 19.5 .2 2.6 11 65.9 .8 Mt. Vernon 3 0 53 43 3 Students 6.6 1.2 .1 1.4 89.8 .8 Muscoy 5 2 0 43 48 2 Students 5.2 .9 2.6 7.6 82.7 1.1 Newmark 3 0 9 75 9 3 Students 21.2 1.7 2 23.6 49.1 2.3 North Park 7 0 2 77 7 7 Students 28.8 1.3 2.3 25.1 40.4 1.9 No. Verdemont 9 3 78 9 0 Students 23.5 .7 .9 26.5 46.4 2 Oehl 0 0 3 78 18 3 Students 18.7 1.1 1.3 21 54.9 3.1 Palm Avenue 8 0 0 78 14 0 Students 16.1 1.7 3 41.9 34.4 2.8 Parkside 17 0 0 69 11 3 Students 17.7 1.1 1.7 29.6 48.3 1.6 Riley 7 2 4 44 39 4 Students 16.8 .8 .8 5.3 75.3 1 Rio Vista 26 0 12 39 18 5 Students 39.9 .4 1.1 2.4 54.1 2.1 E. N. Roberts 9 4 2 45 40 0 Students 16.1 .4 1.7 8 72.9 .9 Roosevelt 2 2 0 63 32 0 Students 11.5 .5 .8 3.8 82.8 .6 Thompson 4 2 6 80 2 4 Students 18.6 1.2 2.9 31.4 42.9 2.9 Urbita 0 0 0 56 36 8 Students 6.8 .8 .6 11.8 79 1 Vermont 15 0 6 44 32 2 Students 5.2 .4 .8 9.7 83.2 .7 Warm Springs 10 0 6 49 35 0 Students 25.5 1.1 2.6 7.6 61.8 1.4 Wilson 2 0 2 64 31 0 Students 16 1.6 .3 11.7 68.6 1.7

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 143 Exhibit 3.5.13 (continued) Certificated Staff Ethnicity Representation by Percentage Compared with Student Ethnicity Representation by School and District San Bernardino City Unified School District 2004 and 2005 Middle Schools Arrowview 10 1 1 68 18 2 Students 18.5 1.2 .6 8.8 69.7 1.1 Curtis 15 0 1 61 19 2 Students 20 1.2 2.7 9.4 65.9 .8 Del Vallejo 15 2 0 64 19 0 Students 27.6 .8 2.4 16.5 51.2 1.5 Golden Valley 9 3 2 73 9 5 Students 18.7 1.4 .7 21.2 57.1 .9 King 25 0 2 46 22 2 Students 30.2 .6 2.9 5.5 59.5 1.4 Richardson 11 4 0 67 19 0 Students 11.9 1.6 3.8 25.6 55.6 1.4 Serrano 13 0 4 66 19 0 Students 20.7 1.5 2.3 23.8 50.5 1 Shandin Hills 11 0 2 68 17 1 Students 14 1.5 1.8 20..9 60.6 1.1 High Schools Arroyo Valley 19 1 2 53 21 3 Students 23.7 .6 2.3 7.8 64.3 1.3 Cajon 11 1 5 74 6 4 Students 19.5 1.4 2.6 36.3 38.4 1.8 Pacific 15 2 3 66 13 2 Students 23 1.1 3.1 16.6 54.8 1.3 San Bernardino 16 3 4 58 16 4 Students 17.5 .7 1.8 13.5 65.9 .6 San Gorgonio 9 1 2 70 15 2 Students 20.5 1 4.1 21 52 1.6 Small Schools and Alternatives School/Level African Am. Indian/ Asian Caucasian Hispanic Other American AK Native Anderson 0 0 0 77 15 0 Students 22.2 .7 5.9 20.7 50.4 0 Carmack 11 11 0 44 22 11 Students 22.4 1 1 24.5 50 1 Harmon 6 0 0 82 12 0 Students 20 0 0 26.7 53.3 0 Middle College 13 0 0 75 13 0 Students 15.7 .7 1.3 30.1 50.3 2 San Andreas 32 5 0 55 5 5 Students 29.3 1.3 1 26.1 42 .3 Sierra High 16 0 0 68 16 0 Students 21.3 .9 2.2 8.8 66.6 .2 Source: District data reports Key: Not provided because of small numbers: Alternative Learning Center, Boys/Girls’ Club, PAL Academy, and the Y Academy.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 144 In considering the proportional representation by ethnicity for staff members and students, the auditors considered ratios within five percent to be proportional. From the data in Exhibit 3.5.13, the auditors noted: • The percentage of African American staff members was proportional at five elementary schools, three middles schools, two high schools, and two small/alternative schools. Two additional schools were within less than one percent of proportionality. • The ratios for American Indians/Alaska Natives were all proportional. • The ratios for Asians were generally within proportional range, though three middle schools and one small/alternative school was slightly over the five percent margin for proportionality; one elementary school had nearly 11 percent more Asian staff members than students. • The percentage of Caucasian staff members exceeded the percentage of Caucasian students at all schools. • The percentage of Hispanic staff members were proportionally lower compared to the student representation in all school enrollments. • Districtwide, the ratios of staff members to students were proportional for American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians, and groups in the “Other” category. African Americans and Hispanics are still under-represented among the teaching staff compared to their representation among the district students. Caucasians are proportionally over-represented among school-based staff members. Ethnic Representation among School Administrators Because of the small numbers of administrators at schools compared with staff, the auditors did not convert the numbers to percentages by individual school, but rather simply identified the numbers of administrators at each school by ethnicity. Their purposes was to review the availability of a diverse school-based leadership team, particularly in the schools with most diverse student populations or high percentages of particular ethnic groups. Therefore, the percentages were calculated and compared at the levels and for the district-wide base of school administrators. The data are summarized in Exhibit 3.5.14. Exhibit 3.5.14 Administrative Ethnicity by School, Level, and District San Bernardino City Unified School District January 2005 African Am. Indian/ Caucasia Hispani School/Level American AK Native Asian n c Totals Elementary Schools Alessandro 1 1 2 Arrowhead 2 2 Barton 1 1 Belvedere 1 1 2 Bradley 1 1 2 Burbank 1 1 2 California 1 1 2 Cole 1 1 2 Cypress 1 1 2 Davidson 2 2 Del Rosa 2 2

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 145 Exhibit 3.5.14 (continued) Administrative Ethnicity by School, Level, and District San Bernardino City Unified School District January 2005 African Am. Indian/ Caucasia Hispani School/Level American AK Native Asian n c Totals Elementary Schools Emmerton 1 1 2 Fairfax 1 1 Highland-Pacific 1 1 Hillside 1 1 2 Hunt 1 1 Inghram 1 1 2 Kendall 2 2 Kimbark 1 1 Lankershim 1 1 2 Lincoln 1 1 1 3 Lytle Creek 1 1 2 Marshall 1 1 2 Monterey 1 1 2 Mt. Vernon 1 1 2 Muscoy 1 1 2 Newmark 2 2 North Park 2 2 No. Verdemont 1 1 2 Oehl 1 1 2 Palm Avenue 1 1 2 Parkside 1 1 2 Riley 2 2 Rio Vista 1 1 2 E. Neal Roberts 1 1 2 Roosevelt 2 2 Thompson 1 1 2 Urbita 1 1 Vermont 1 1 2 Warm Springs 1 1 2 Wilson 1 1 2 Total Elementary 13 2 0 37 25 77 Percent of Elementary 16.9 2.6 0 48.1 32.5 School Administrators Middle Schools Arrowview 3 1 4 Curtis 3 1 4 Del Vallejo 1 2 3 Golden Valley 3 3 King 1 1 2 4 Richardson Prep 1 1 Serrano 2 1 3 Shandin Hills 1 2 1 4 Total Middle 3 0 0 16 7 26 Percent of Middle School 11.5 0 0 61.5 26.9 Administrators

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 146 Exhibit 3.5.14 (continued) Administrative Ethnicity by School, Level, and District San Bernardino City Unified School District January 2005 High Schools Arroyo Valley 2 2 1 5 Cajon 1 3 4 Pacific 2 2 1 5 San Andreas 1 1 San Bernardino 1 1 1 3 San Gorgonio 1 2 2 5 Sierra 2 2 Total High 8 0 0 12 5 25 Percent of High School 32 0 0 48 20 Administrators Total All School Levels 24 2 0 65 37 128 Percent of All School 18.8 1.6 0 50.8 28.9 Administrators Note: Administrative positions included school-based administrators most visible in staff-student relations: Principals, Vice-Principals, and Assistant Administrators for Instructional Improvement and Academic Coaching. Multi-level small schools and programs were not included in the exhibit. According to the data provided, Harmon was reported to have one Caucasian administrator, Richardson to have one Hispanic administrator, and Anderson to have two Caucasian administrators. The auditors considered a difference focus in looking at proportionality at each school due to the low numbers involved with administrative positions compared with staff members and students. They focused specifically on the ethnic groups in which under-representation was most notable (African Americans and Hispanics) and looked at how many schools had at least one administrator of both those ethnic groups on the administrative team. The auditors calculated percentages by levels of schools but focused on the districtwide percentages in looking at proportional a (within five percent) representation. Considering those parameters and the student data in Exhibit 3.5.13, auditors noted the following related to the administrative data in Exhibit 3.5.14: • Five elementary schools have at least one African American and one Hispanic on the administrative team. • Two middle schools have at least one representative of the two ethnic groups on their teams. • Four high schools have at least one representative of the two ethnic groups on their teams. • Districtwide, the percentage of school-based administrators was found to be proportional for African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians, and the group identified as “Other” ethnicities. Caucasians are proportionally over-represented among school-based administrators; Hispanics are proportionally under-represented among school-based administrators. Resource Allocations An area of further analysis for inequities was that of resource allocation. The auditors focused on library and computer resources, credentialed staffing, and revenues from fundraising and external (non-state or federal-grant) sources. Areas of budgeting and technology resources are addressed also in Findings 5.2 and 5.4 respectively.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 147 Comparability of Library and Technological Resources The audit team reviewed the data regarding volumes of library books available in each school and computers available at each site. They then determined the ratios based on enrollment data to derive the numbers on comparability of these resources among the schools. Exhibit 3.5.15 shows the ratio of books to student and students per computer at each school site. Exhibit 3.5.15 Ratio of Library Books and Computers per Student per School San Bernardino City Unified school District 2003-2004 Number of Books Computers Students Number of Enrollmen per for Enrollmen per Books in the t Studen Instructiona t 2001- compute School School library 2003-2004 t l Use 2002 r Alessandro 9,999 836 11.96 116 824 7.1 Arrowhead 4,999 487 10.26 97 465 4.8 Barton 9,999 588 17.01 104 554 5.3 Belvedere 12,999 856 15.19 144 864 6 Bradley 14,999 990 15.15 116 996 8.6 Burbank 9,999 437 22.88 63 425 6.7 California 7,499 597 12.56 71 589 8.3 Cole 7,499 499 15.03 125 573 4.6 Cypress 14,999 731 20.52 116 799 6.9 Davidson 9,999 650 15.38 N/A 599 N/A Del Rosa 14,999 1028 14.59 N/A 97 N/A E.Neal Robert 50,001 1011 494.56 194 1040 5.7 Emmerton 17,499 874 20.02 115 857 7.5 Fairfax 7,499 518 14.48 74 433 5.6 Highland Pacific 7,499 449 16.70 142 477 3.4 Hillside 9,999 714 14.00 170 794 4.7 Hunt 12,499 915 13.66 118 870 7.4 Ingram 9,999 557 17.95 111 566 5.1 Kendall 4,999 654 7.64 90 620 6.7 Kimbark 12,999 469 27.72 124 435 3.5 Lankershim 12,499 988 12.65 185 953 5.2 Lincoln 19,999 1235 16.19 104 1184 11.4 Lytle Creek 12,499 835 14.97 124 795 6.4 Marshall 19,999 676 29.58 221 652 3.0 Monterey 12,499 837 14.93 68 798 11.8 Mt. Vernon 12,999 782 16.62 130 751 5.8 Muscoy 9,999 821 12.18 137 640 4.7 Newmark 12,499 589 21.22 122 563 4.6 North Park 12,499 905 13.81 48 890 18.5

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 148 Exhibit 3.5.15 (continued) Ratio of Library Books and Computers per Student per School San Bernardino City Unified School District 2003-2004 Number of Books Computers Students Number of Enrollmen per for Enrollmen per Books in the t Studen Instructiona t 2001- compute School School library 2003-2004 t l Use 2002 r North Verdemont 9,999 550 18.18 138 578 4.2 Oehl 14,999 756 19.84 223 771 3.5 Palm Avenue 9,999 756 13.22 155 727 4.7 Parkside 9,999 751 13.31 181 719 4.0 Riley 12,499 984 12.70 152 947 6.2 Rio Vista 4,999 715 6.99 106 690 6.5 Roosevelt 9,999 772 12.95 140 704 5.0 Thompson 14,999 816 18.38 285 836 2.9 Urbita 4,999 485 10.31 73 470 6.4 Vermont 42,499 749 56.74 141 722 5.1 Warm Spring 7,499 970 7.73 N/A 930 N/A Wilson 12,499 858 14.57 300 745 2.5 Elementary 27.9 6.1 School Average Arrowview 12,499 2261 5.53 600 1773 3.0 Curtis 1347 518 1227 2.4 Del Vallejo 14,999 1519 9.87 215 1599 7.4 Golden Valley 12,499 1406 8.89 502 1309 2.6 King 14,999 1442 10.40 347 1316 3.8 Richardson 12,499 628 19.90 273 579 2.1 Serrano 12,499 1292 9.67 440 1206 2.7 Shandin Hill 17,499 1840 9.51 295 1676 5.7 Middle School 10.54 3.8 Average Arroyo Valley 17,499 3091 5.66 192 1704 8.9 Cajon 22,499 2577 8.73 831 2609 3.1 Pacific 29,999 2560 11.72 813 2472 3.0 San Andreas 4,999 314 15.92 119 318 2.8 San Bernardino 29,999 2516 11.92 635 2596 4.1 San Gorgonio 19,999 3043 6.57 872 2874 3.3 Sierra 7,499 581 12.91 215 478 2.22 High School Ave. 9.78 3.9 Data Source: 2003-2004 School Library survey, 2001-2002 California School Technology survey, District Free and Reduced Lunch Data Key: N/A-Information not available to auditors.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 149

Exhibit 3.5.15 indicates the following: Library books • The average books-per-student ratio in the elementary schools is 27.9 to one. • Three elementary schools, Rio Vista, Warm Spring, and Kendall have fewer than eight books per student. • The middle school with the lowest ratio of books to students is Arrowview Middle School with 5.53 books per student. • The middle school with the highest ratio of books to students is Richardson Middle School with 19.90 books per student. • Of the seven middle schools with student populations over 1000, the average ratio of books to students is 8.98 books per student. • Of the seven middle schools with student populations over 1000, only two schools (Arrowview and Golden Valley) have lower than the district average of comparably sized schools. • Only one school, Richardson Middle School, has a books-per-student ratio higher than the district middle school average of 10.54 books per student. • The high school with the lowest ratio of books to students is Arroyo Valley High School with 5.66 books per student. • The high school with the highest ratio of books to students is San Andreas with 15.92 books per student. • Of five high schools with student populations over 2500, the books-per-student ratio is 8.92 books per student. • Of five high schools with student populations over 2500, three schools (Arroyo Valley, Cajon, and San Gorgonio) have a books-per-student ratio lower than the district average of comparable sized schools.

An empty library at Bonnie Oehl Elementary School

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 150

A well-equipped library at Davidson Elementary Computers • In the elementary schools, the average number of students per computer is 6 students for every computer. • In the elementary schools, only three schools (Lincoln, Monterey, and North Park) have more than 11 students per computer. • Wilson elementary school has the lowest number of students per computer, 2.5 per computer. • The middle school with the lowest number of students per computer is Richardson with 2.1 students for every computer. • Del Vallejo Middle School has the highest number of students per computer at the middle school level with 7.4 students for each computer. • Of the seven middle schools with student populations over 1000, the average number of students per computer is 4.1. • Of the seven middle schools with student populations over 1000, two middle schools (Del Vallejo Middle School and Shandin Hills) have a higher number of students to computers than the district number of comparable sized schools. • The high school with the highest number of students per computer is Arroyo Valley with 8.9 students per computer. • Of five high schools with student populations over 2500, the average number of students per computer is 4.5. • Of all the high schools in the district, Arroyo Valley High School has both the lowest number of library books and highest number of students per computer.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 151 • Of all the middle schools, Richardson Middle School has both the lowest number of students per computer and the highest number of library books per student. Access to Fundraising Support Access to external donations, PTA/PTO contributions, and various fundraisers by boosters and similar groups can enhance a school’s fiscal capacity for supporting programs and instruction with materials, experiences such as field trips and science camps, and similar advantageous supplemental support. The auditors reviewed information provided by the school administrators regarding the estimated total revenues or “in-kind” values of such contributions during the 2003-04 school year. They looked for comparability in such access and for possibilities of additional support beyond the average for schools with high percentages of low-income families. Exhibit 3.5.16 summarizes the estimated amount provided by the schools for the audit review. Exhibit 3.5.16 Donations of Cash, Services, or Materials from Parent Groups, Fundraisers, or Other External Sources by Schools San Bernardino City Unified School District 2003-04 2003-04 Estimated Total of Cash and Other School/Level Donations Elementary Schools Alessandro $17,750 Arrowhead $840 Barton N/A Belvedere $6,400 Bradley $1,597 Burbank $8,050 California $1,800 Cole $3,051 Cypress N/A Davidson $2,522 Del Rosa N/A Emmerton $29,192 Fairfax $13,300 Highland-Pacific $6,510 Hillside $3,500 Hunt 0 Inghram $3,856 Kendall $2,500 Kimbark $12,800 Lankershim 0 Lincoln <$100 Lytle Creek $3,161 Marshall $16,662

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 152 Exhibit 3.5.16 (continued) Donations of Cash, Services, or Materials from Parent Groups, Fundraisers, or Other External Sources by Schools San Bernardino City Unified School District 2003-04 2003-04 Estimated Total of Cash and Other School/Level Donations Monterey $37,025 Mt. Vernon $5,041 Muscoy 0 Newmark $5,700 North Park $12,600 No. Verdemont $5,000 Oehl $20,938 Palm Avenue $12,103 Parkside $53,792 Riley $2,400 Rio Vista $1,100 Roberts $33,071 Roosevelt $2,137 Thompson $22,300 Urbita $2,500 Vermont $1,816 Warm Springs $15,129 Wilson <$1,000 Middle Schools Arrowview $5,750 Curtis $8,100 Del Vallejo $0 Golden Valley $1,371 King N/A Richardson N/A Serrano $5,160 Shandin Hills $0 High Schools Arroyo Valley $2,400 Cajon $2,300 Pacific $4,300 San Bernardino N/A San Gordonio $3,612 Source: Information provided by school principals. Note: Alternatives and small schools or programs were not included in the analysis of fundraising/donation resources because of so many variables making comparisons inappropriate. A few revenues were results of contests, though none over $4,000. Key: N/A=No data were provided.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 153 The auditors observed that: • At the elementary level, external contributions ranged from a low of no receipts at five schools to a high of $53,792 at Parkside Elementary School. • At the middle level, the contributions ranged from a low of no receipts at Del Vallejo to and estimated $8,100 at Curtis. • Among the six elementary schools receiving over $20,000 in funds (Emmerton, Monterey, Oehl, Parkside, Roberts, and Thompson), two (Parkside and Thompson) were among the seven schools with 70 percent or fewer students eligible for free or reduced lunch. Oehl had 81 percent of the students eligible, and the other three schools all had more than 90 percent of the students eligible for free or reduced lunch. • At the middle level donations and funds raised ranged from zero at Del Vallejo and Shandin Hills to $8,100 at Curtis. • At the high school level the receipts ranged from $2,300 at Cajon to $4,300. • In several instances, the receipts were material items instead of cash. While several of the schools with highest percentages of students eligible for free or reduced lunches often received more than $8,000 in donations, not all were able to raise that level of funding through their parents, community, and other sources. Schools with higher affluence in their neighborhoods tended to raise more funds successfully. No information coordination or fundraising assistance was reportedly available to all schools, and no documents regarding equitable distribution of external resources were provided. Board policy provides only guidance related to the process and obtaining principals’ approvals. A third area of resource availability analysis was that of distribution of credentialed teachers among the schools. Based on school needs, effective schools manage to assign fully credentialed, and where possible, experienced teachers to the schools with the most challenging student populations and highest needs in terms of achievement proficiencies. The auditors reviewed the data summarized in Exhibit 3.5.17. Exhibit 3.5.17 Percent of School Staffs on Emergency Credential and Average Amount of Years for Teachers Being Credentialed San Bernardino City School District February 2005 Percent of Staff on Emergency Average Amount of Years School Credential Credentialed Alessandro 2.27 8.9 Arrowhead 0 12.5 Barton 0 10.8 Belvedere 0 12.9 Bradley 0 4.8 Burbank 4.17 6.3 California 5.56 10.3 Cole 0 7.2 Cypress 2.38 8.8 Davidson 0 7 Del Rosa 0 8.9 E.Neal Robert 5.45 6.4 Emmerton 0 5.8 Fairfax 10.71 6.3

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 154 Exhibit 3.5.17 (continued) Percent of School Staffs on Emergency Credential and Average Amount of Years for Teachers Being Credentialed San Bernardino City School District School % of Staff on Emergency Credential Ave. Amount of Yrs. Credentialed Highland Pacific 0 10.8 Hillside 0 8.8 Hunt 2.08 8 Ingram 0 6.3 Kendall 0 13.8 Kimbark 0 11.8 Lankershim 1.96 9.6 Lincoln 1.61 6.6 Lytle Creek 0 7.7 Marshall 0 N/A Monterey 2.33 N/A Mt. Vernon 2.44 N/A Muscoy 2.22 N/A Newmark 3.23 N/A North Park 4.44 N/A North Verdemont 3.23 N/A Oehl 2.50 N/A Palm Avenue 0 N/A Parkside 2.70 1.6 Riley 1.85 7.3 Rio Vista 5.26 3.5 Roosevelt 2.38 8.5 Thompson 0 9.8 Urbita 8 6.2 Vermont 0 8.7 Warm Spring 0 5 Wilson 0 8.1 Elementary School Ave. 1.87 8.10 Arrowview 5.15 3.5 Curtis 10.29 4.4 Del Vallejo 8.54 6.2 Golden Valley 4.55 10.3 King 14.29 5.6 Richardson 0 15.4 Serrano 4.55 7.5 Shandin Hill 1.14 6.6 Middle School Average 6.06 7.44 Arroyo Valley 11.94 6.1 Cajon 4 16.5 Pacific 3.36 8.9 San Andreas 0 10.1 San Bernardino 2.42 10.7 San Gorgonio 5.93 9.4 Sierra 10.34 10.6 High School Average 5.43 9.04 Data Source: 2003-2004 School site Credential Summary, 2003-2004 Staff Credentials, Educ., Degree, Years Analysis Key: N/A=No data provided. Averages were calculated without these data.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 155 As can be seen in Exhibit 3.5.17: • Twenty elementary schools have no teachers on staff with an Emergency Credential. • Nineteen elementary schools have a higher percent of staff with an Emergency Credential than the district elementary average. • Fairfax Elementary has the highest percent of staff, 10.71 percent, with an emergency credential. • Richardson Middle School is the only middle school with no teachers with an emergency credential. • King Middle School has the highest percentage of teachers with emergency credentials in the entire district, 14.29 percent. • Arrowview Middle School teachers average the least amount of years credentialed of the junior high schools with 3.5 years. • Of the seven middle schools with student populations over 1000, the average teacher years credentialed is 6.3 years. • Of the seven middle schools with student populations over 1000, four middle schools have a lower average of teacher years credentialed than the district ratio of comparable sized schools (Arrowview, Curtis,Del Vallejo, and King). • San Andreas High School is the only high school with no teachers with an emergency credential. • Arroyo Valley High School is the high school site with the highest percent of teachers with an emergency credential, 11.94 percent. • Arroyo Valley High School teachers average the least amount of years credentialed at the high schools with 6.1 years. • Of five high schools with student populations over 2,500, the average amount of years credentialed is 10.32. • Of the five high schools with student populations over 2500, only Arroyo Valley, Pacific, and San Gorgonio have lower than the district average of comparable sized schools. Additionally, auditors found that the district has decreased the number of teachers on emergency credential by 65 percent from March 2003 until March 2004. In reviewing the achievement and socio-economic data for schools, the auditors found that a correlation existed in most instances (but not 100%) between the credential and experience levels of teaching staff and greater needs of the school population; i.e., the less experienced and credentialed teachers are most likely to be at the high-needs schools. Some incentives to assist in placing more experienced teachers in schools of high needs have been offered, but auditors were told that the funding had diminished and that funding restrictions and contract provisions have, as one administrator described it, “minimized the potential for redistributing experienced teachers as widely among high-needs schools as had been hoped for.” Other data regarding equal opportunities and equity were derived from auditors’ interviews with board members, parents, administrators, and staff. Several representative comments related to the aspects of this finding are included here. Achievement Disparities • “[Some do] not want our bilingual students to transition. This is a huge concern for us…who want our scores to improve.”

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 156 • “The board does not support addressing the underperformance of African American students to the extent they address the English learners…not willing to recognize them as a subgroup even though the state and federal government hold us accountable for them as a subgroup.” • “Our African American students continue to fall far, far behind.” • “Our African American students need much more attention…discipline, attendance, and achievement challenges [for them].” • “Our most at-risk subgroup is our African American subgroup. Every subgroup has shown growth, including African American, but the gap is not closing.” Expectations of Student Achievement • “Expectations tend to be a little lower than I expect to see.” • “Staff didn’t think our kids could make progress… are surprised when it happens, and it does.” • “Not all staff or board [members] believe we are here to educate all the kids, not just the ones who follow our rules.” • “The biggest challenge we have here is to change the culture in the expectations we have for our students.” • “The culture is changing [as] we realize kids can do more than we thought.” • “The commitment to student achievement is a strength. Our teachers and administrators work hard to get students to succeed.’ • “It has been very difficult for our schools to meet the standards and the goals when we look at the students and the demographics we work with.” General Equity Concerns • “I’ve read a lot of literature on what a multi-cultural curriculum is. We don’t look like that at all.” • “The board doesn’t seem to want to take action to intervene for the underperforming and troubled African American students.” • “Our African American students are fighting for survival, and many have given up. We are not addressing those needs and disparities.” • “For children of color, our curriculum may lack materials [and] … interest.” • “Those in most need are clearly our African American students, but they don’t get the attention needed by district leaders. The data say it all…suspensions, attendance, and achievement.” • “We are just starting to take baby steps to address the needs of African American students.” • “It’s not that they (African American students) are second in line; they aren’t even in the line.” Access to programs and services, intervening assistance in response to needs • “There is an International Baccalaureate program at Cajon, but not at other high schools…. The requirements for students to go over there for IB are more stringent than those for the Cajon students.” • “We know our clientele well. We dealt with ELL before our neighboring districts did.” • “Some of us have had training in equity-based strategies…not nearly enough of us, though.” • “We don’t intervene early.”

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 157 • “There is a gap of non-transferable skills [tested in the STAR system] because they are taught in Spanish, not English.” • “We have pretty good alternative programs…wish we had more facilities for increased options.” Suspensions and Expulsions • “The most effective strategies are to give more attention to literacy, academics, parent involvement, and interventions with students.” • “We have a higher expulsion rate among African Americans and Latinos.” Proportional representation • “We are getting better at having our teaching staff match the demographics of our schools. We want to get quality and we want to hire more minorities.” • “Ethnic representation of administration is equitable, even gender.” • “A challenge is the variety of ethnic groups to get involved together.” Human and financial resource distribution • “[Our board members] would not want to give more money to one group.” • “We had an incentive program for placement at the most challenging schools. Now the incentives are not meaningful amounts. We face contract issues when we address involuntary transfers or similar placement issues. • “Some of our schools had had so much turnover that the staff can’t even get to know each other, let alone develop cohesion.” • “…some schools that don’t have a lot of experience….these teachers shouldn’t be placed in high- needs schools. We do a disservice to both teachers and students.” • “Our neediest kids are not getting an adequate share of experienced teachers.” • “Our most challenging students have our most inexperienced teachers.” • “We have a high number of inexperienced teachers in schools with highest needs. We are not matching experienced teachers with at-risk kids.” • “We need to keep experienced credentialed teachers in schools where they are most needed.” • “We are supposed to do 22 labs in AP chemistry. We haven’t done one this year because we don’t have the supplies.” • “In physiology we had to raise money to buy specimens to dissect.” • “We can’t even get a parent organization going, so fundraising is not in our lifestyle here.” In summary, the audit team identified several areas of inequalities or inequities in program services or practices. The student population subgroups affected varied slightly among the areas reviewed; however, the following were focal points of this finding: • African American students surfaced as the group particularly affected by inequities, particularly in achievement gaps and disproportionate representation in retentions, suspensions, expulsions, and dropouts. • African American and Hispanic students were disproportionately represented in the special education program enrollment.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 158 • English learners also were impacted in achievement gaps, by inconsistent delivery of English learning program services, and in program access due to attendance track blocking of programs for those learners. • Male students in general were identified as under-represented in advanced courses. • Gaps in the proportional ethnic representation between staff and student populations have been narrowed in recent years; however, African American and Hispanic representation among school- based staff members is still proportionally lower than their representation among the student populations in the schools. Among school-based administrators, the Hispanic ethnicity group is under-represented. The audit recognizes that it is difficult to create equal ethnicity ratios between teachers, administrators, and students in that the number of teachers and administrators representing minority groups are not equal. However, creating equal ratios is crucial. • Schools face unequal and, in some instances, inequitable access to external funding resources. • The distribution of credentialed experienced teachers often finds least experienced teachers in the schools with highest needs.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 159 San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 160 STANDARD 4: A School System 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 which 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 specific 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-benefit analysis; and • Organizational data gathered and used to continually improve system functions. A school system 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. What the Auditors Expected to Find in the San Bernardino City Unified School District The auditors expected to find a comprehensive assessment program for all aspects of the curriculum, pre-K through the twelfth grade, which: • Was keyed to a valid, officially 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 specific policy review for validity and accuracy; • Became the foci and basis of formulating short- and long-range plans for continual improvement; • Was used to establish cost and select needed curriculum alternatives; and • Was publicly reported on a regular basis in terms that were understood by the key stakeholders in the community.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 161 Overview of What the Auditors Found in the San Bernardino City Unified School District This section is an overview of the findings that follow in the area of Standard Four. The details follow within the separate sections. 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 there was a lack of a comprehensive district plan for student assessment and program evaluation to guide decision making in the San Bernardino City Unified School District (see Finding 4.1). They also found a lack of adequate board policy designed to guide student assessment (see Finding 1.1). Further, the existing assessment and evaluation system lacks quality in design (see Findings 4.1 and 4.2). The current scope of assessment is adequate in mathematics and language arts, but inadequate in the other areas. However, the overall scope of assessment is inadequate at both the elementary and secondary levels. (see Finding 4.2). There is a lack of consistency in improvement across grades for the subject areas of Math and English Language Arts at the district level. Results are very mixed at the various campus sites, with some making improvement, others not and large gaps in achievement are evident among student ethnic groups. Some existing gaps may never close unless there is a reversal in current negative trends (see Finding 4.3) Finding 4.1: The District Lacks a Comprehensive Assessment and Evaluation Plan to Guide Curriculum and Program Decision-Making

In an effective school system Board policy directs planning and operations. Sound planning provides direction to the management of the written, taught and tested curriculum. An evaluation plan delineates not only the processes for assessment but also data collection and ultimately the use of data. These data are used to determine whether student achievement goals are being met and if programs that are designed to enhance student achievement are meeting established goals. Ultimately evaluation data at the district and school level are used in the decision making process regarding the necessary changes needed in the design and delivery of the curriculum. They are also used to make decisions regarding the funding of programs that are intended to improve student achievement. In the absence of the collection, analysis and use of the data in the decision making processes at the district and school level, ineffective practices and programs continue to produce undesirable results. The auditors examined documents and conducted interviews to determine the extent to which the San Bernardino City Unified School District has an adequate comprehensive assessment plan to support informed decision making. In reviewing district policies, auditors found Board of Education policy related to program evaluation but an absence of policy regarding a student assessment plan (see Finding 1.1). Although there were a variety of assessment efforts underway these were not guided by a comprehensive written assessment plan. The following documents specific to assessment, assessment procedures, and program evaluation were reviewed by the auditors: • San Bernardino City Unified Benchmark Assessment Implementation Plan • District Test Schedule – Elementary 2004-2005 • District Test Schedule – Secondary 2004-2005

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 162 • Local Education Agency Plan – Part II (State of California requirement in response to NCLB Section 1112) • Assessment Plan: Reading K-3 (from federal grant application) • Memoranda and correspondence (in and out of district) related to assessments The auditors evaluated these documents, as a whole, to determine the extent to which they contained the characteristics of sound assessment planning. The audit standards for characteristics of a comprehensive student and program assessment and the auditor’s ratings are presented in Exhibit 4.1.1. Exhibit 4.1.1 Characteristics of a Comprehensive Program and Student Assessment Plan and Auditors’ Assessment of the Plan San Bernardino City Unified School District January 2005

Not Characteristic Met Met 1. Describes the philosophical framework for the design of the program and student X assessment plan (formative, alignment, all subjects, all grades, link to mission). 2. Gives appropriate direction through policy and administrative regulations. X 3. Provides ongoing needs assessment to establish goals of student assessment and X program assessment. 4. Provides for assessment at all levels of the system (organization, program, student). X 5. Identifies the multi-purposes of assessment, types of assessment, appropriate data X sources. 6. Provides a matrix of assessment tools, purpose, subjects, types of student tested, X timelines, etc. 7. Controls for bias, culture, etc. X 8. Specifies the roles and responsibilities of the board, central office staff, and school- X based staff. 9. Directs the relationship between district and state assessments. X 10. Specifies overall assessment procedures to determine curriculum effectiveness and X specifications for analysis. 11. Directs the feedback process; assures proper use of data. X 12. Specifies how assessment tools will be placed in curriculum guides. X 13. Specifies equity issues and data sources. X 14. Identifies the parameters of a program assessment. X 15. Provides on-going training plan for various audiences on assessment. X 16. Presents procedures for monitoring assessment design and use. X 17. Establishes a communication plan for the process of student and program X assessment. 18. Provides on-going evaluation of the assessment plan. X 19. Specifies facility and housing requirements. X 20. Describes budget ramifications, connections to resource allocations. X

The auditors noted the following from Exhibit 4.1.1:

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 163 • Three of the 20 characteristics were met by the aggregate documents. • Directions related to test administration as outlined in Characteristic #2 were reported to be conveyed both verbally and in correspondence with building personnel, however there are no formally adopted policies or district administrative regulations in place to guide these activities. • A list of assessment tools as described in Characteristic #6 above was available. • Varying responsibilities for assessment and program evaluation are included in job descriptions for personnel at the central office and the building level but overall the responsibilities are fragmented and not contained within a comprehensive plan document. • Characteristic #9 requires that a comprehensive assessment plan will direct the relationship between district and state assessments. State requirements for local districts are delineated in state legislation and Department of Education communications. The assessments administered in San Bernardino City Unified School District meet these expectations. During interviews with board members, district staff and community members the auditors noted the following comments regarding program and student assessment planning in the San Bernardino City Unified School District: • “Successful programs can be thrown out based on a principal’s decision.” • “We’re engaging in things that have been shown to be effective in terms of increasing student achievement.” • “We do quite a bit of monitoring, if programs are not effective we don’t stay with the program.” • “I cannot think of any program that was eliminated.” • Results from the Assessment Center regarding the type of class students should be placed in sometimes conflict with placement by the enrollment officer.” • “As a body, middle school principals have let central administration know that this data is not as good as what we had in the past.” • “District puts out a lot of data, too much, people don’t know how to use it” • “We don’t have a process for taking research-based information to site administrators and on to teachers.” The auditors noted during interviews that comments regarding the collection and use of data are mixed and sometimes contradictory. District personnel report the collection and use of student achievement data. However the comments of district staff represent general rather than specific examples of data collection and use in the improvement of the design and delivery of the curriculum. In summary, the auditors found the San Bernardino City Unified School District lacks a comprehensive plan for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data that will foster informed decision-making regarding improvement in the design and delivery of the curriculum.

Finding 4.2: The Scope of Assessment Meets Audit Criteria for Adequacy in English/Language Arts and Mathematics but is Inadequate to Monitor Student Achievement and Promote Achievement in Other Curricular Areas.

Informed curricular decisions become possible when decision-makers can review and analyze data from student assessments. Systematic analysis leads to identification of strengths and weaknesses in the curriculum. Just as having a complete set of written curriculum documents in each subject area is

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 164 important, having data from each area to make objective decisions about programs is also necessary. Without specific information on how students are performing, district policy-makers rely on anecdotal, hearsay and random evidence concerning the most essential components of schooling. A comprehensive set of assessments administered across all grade levels and all content areas is needed to provide this information. To determine the scope of formal assessment in San Bernardino City Unified School District, the auditors reviewed district policies, the list of tests to be administered, and the list of courses taught in the district. Auditors found there was no policy related to the scope of assessments to be administered to students in San Bernardino schools. The district assessment program is in compliance with state requirements for assessments that are to be administered. In addition, the district’s Local Education Agency Plan lists local assessments that are administered across the district. Assessments required by the state as well as local assessments included in the district list of tests are summarized by grade level in Exhibit 4.2.1 below. Exhibit 4.2.1 Matrix of Formal Tests Administered San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 STAR1 English Language Arts X X X X X X X X X X Writing X X X Mathematics X X X X X X X X X X Science X X X X Social Science X X X CELDT2 X X X X X X X X X X X X State Physical Fitness X X District English/Language Arts3 S S S S S S S S S S S S S District Mathematics4 S S S S S S S S S S S S District Science S S S District Social Studies5 S S S S S S Advanced Placement Tests6 O O Computer Literacy Challenge7 S S S S S S

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 165

Exhibit 4.2.1 (continued) Matrix of Formal Tests Administered San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Notes: 1Required state assessments in the STAR assessment program include the California Standards Test, CAT 6, Writing Assessment, California High School Exit Exam, and SABE 2. 2The California English Language Development Test is given as appropriate to English language learners to determine initial placement and to measure progress. 3In addition to district assessments in reading and writing that provide formative assessment data for each student, diagnostic assessments are given as appropriate in these two areas. 4High school benchmark tests are given in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2. These were counted as the assessments in Grades 9-11. 5Assessments in World Geography, World History, and U.S. History were counted as the three social studies assessments at Grades 9-11. 6Advanced Placement Tests were not included on the district’s list of assessments; however they are available to all students enrolled in an AP course. 7The Computer Literacy Challenge is the name of a project funded through a grant to secondary schools in the district. Assessment is a required component of the grant. Key: X Required by the State of California S Required by San Bernardino City Unified School District O Optional Source of data: List of Tests Administered in San Bernardino City Unified School District 2004-2005, and Secondary Benchmarks 2004-05. Both were provided for auditors by district staff. Audit expectations are that data from assessments will be systematically collected and analyzed so that programmatic and instructional decisions can be made. To determine the extent to which data were collected for review and analysis, auditors matched the courses available to students in San Bernardino City Unified School District with district assessments required of all students and for which data are available. That information is summarized in Exhibit 4.2.2 for Grades K-8 and Exhibit 4.2.3 for all courses offered at the high school level.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 166 Exhibit 4.2.2 Scope of K-8 Assessments Courses Required of all K-8 Students San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 # of Courses % of Courses with with Subject # of Courses Assessment Assessment Reading/ Language Arts 9 9 100% Mathematics 9 9 100% Science 9 3 33% Social Studies 9 3 33% TOTAL for Core Content 36 24 67% Visual and Performing Arts 9 0 0% Physical Education 9 0 0% TOTAL for All 54 24 44% Note: The scope of assessment was calculated at Grades K-8 on those courses required for all students. Sources of data: • Information on courses with assessments was taken from the list of Tests Administered in San Bernardino City Unified School District, 2004-2005, and Secondary Benchmarks 2004-05. Both were provided for auditors by district staff. • It should be noted that English/Language Arts benchmarks were included in the count for district assessments, but auditors were told in conversation that those assessments were not administered in the current school year. The scope of assessment is considered adequate by audit standards if 70% of courses are formally assessed with data available for instructional and programmatic decisions. The scope of assessment in San Bernardino City Unified Schools for Grades K-8 is 100% for Mathematics and English Language Arts and 67% for all four core academic courses. The percentage drops to 44% when the arts and physical education are considered. The percentage for core content courses is close to the audit criteria of 70% for adequacy; the 44% for all courses is well below the standard.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 167 Exhibit 4.2.3 Scope of 9-12 Assessments All Courses Available to High School Students San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 # of Courses with % of Courses with Subject # of Courses Assessment Assessment Business 17 0 0% English/Speech (includes ELD courses) 29 21 72% Visual Arts 23 0 0% Performing Arts 58 0 0% Foreign Language 47 11 23% Home Economics/FACS 8 0 0% Career/Technical Education 14 0 0% Mathematics 35 29 83% Miscellaneous* 45 8 18% Physical Education** 30 0 0% Science 27 5 19% History/Social Sciences 37 27 73% Total 370 101 27% In determining the number of courses available to high school students, courses were counted by the code numbers assigned to them. That is, if a course had both an AP number and an IB number assigned to it, it was counted twice. Similarly, if a course had different numbers for first and second semesters, the course was counted twice. Regional Occupation Programs (ROP) included in the course description catalogue were not included in the course counts above. The following were considered in determining the number of high school courses with standardized assessments and feedback available to building and district staff: • The required STAR and CELDT tests required at the junior level were counted as assessing courses in English through Grade 11. • All Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses in any content area were included in the count. While not all students in the classes take AP or IB tests, those assessments are available with feedback for students who complete the tests. • In the Miscellaneous category, certification tests such as A+ were counted as course assessments. • The state physical fitness assessments were not counted as assessments for specific physical education courses. Sources of data: • Number of courses was derived from subject-area listings in the High School Course Catalogue for San Bernardino City Unified School District, December 2004 revision. (Note: There are some courses on the master schedule that are not included in the course catalogue.) • Information on courses with assessments was taken from the list of Tests Administered in San Bernardino City Unified School District, 2004-2005, and Secondary Benchmarks 2004-05. Both were provided for auditors by district staff. • It should be noted that English/Language Arts benchmarks were included in the count for district assessments, but auditors were told in conversation that those assessments were not administered in the current school year.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 168 As noted earlier, scope of assessment is considered adequate by audit standards if 70% of courses are formally assessed with data available for instructional and programmatic decisions. The scope of assessment for all courses offered to high school students in high schools in San Bernardino City Unified Schools is only 27%. These numbers are considerably below the 70% audit standard. The benchmark assessment system was described to auditors as a formative assessment system, rather than a summative one. The purpose of the benchmarks is to provide information for classroom teachers related to student progress and to guide instruction, rather than to compare. For this reason none of the benchmark data was included in Finding 4.3. District personnel at both the central office and at building sites told auditors that the benchmark tests and the scoring and reporting system were undergoing change. Validity questions related to the English Language Arts benchmarks resulted in those assessments being put on hold for the current school year. The following comments related to the benchmark system and the data available from that system were made to auditors during interviews: • “The district benchmarks are not good tools.” • “Reports that were generated showed comparison data [prior to this year]. On Edusoft we don’t have any of that.” • “As a body, middle school principals have let central administration know that this [available data] is not as good as what we had in the past.” • “We really have to work at getting the data [from the benchmarks] and putting it in a user friendly format.” In summary, the scope of assessment across all subjects and all grade levels in San Bernardino City Unified Schools is not adequate to provide feedback related to student learning, and there is no assessment plan in place to address this inadequacy (see Finding 4.1). One of the audit criteria for curriculum guides sets forth the expectation that each guide will specify ways in which data can be accurately collected for feedback on student learning. There is no curriculum management plan in use in the district that delineates requirements for assessments in curriculum documents (see Finding 2.1). The curriculum guides currently in use in vary in their references to assessment (see Finding 2.3). Where references are included they are very general, do not tie assessment to specific learning objectives, and do not provide a mechanism for specific feedback. Without data related to specific content objectives for each course, decision-makers are left without information they need to improve student achievement (see Finding 4.3). Finding 4.3 Assessment Results Do Not Show Consistent Improvement and a Gap in Achievement Among Student Groups is Evident.

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. A balanced assessment system provides information about students from a variety of instruments, including norm-referenced and criterion referenced tests and authentic assessments such as performance tasks or portfolios.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 169 The auditors reviewed data available on the California State Department of Education website as well as district documents and Powerpoint presentations to determine performance trends and patterns across buildings, grades, and demographic groups. Auditors also conducted interviews with board members, district and building administrators, and classroom teachers. District Results on California Standards Tests Exhibit 4.3.1 below provides a three-year summary of students across the district scoring at a proficient or above level on the California Standards Test. While the STAR assessment system has been in place for more than three years, the system has changed over time. Because data are comparable for the same courses in English Language Arts and Mathematics for the time frame from 2002 through 2004, auditors have included data from those years in the exhibits contained in Finding 4.3. Performance results in high school mathematics have been reported for Grade 8 and 9 students in Algebra 1, Grade 9 and 10 students in Geometry, and Grade 10 and 11 students in Algebra 2. Exhibit 4.3.1 Summary of Results for All Tested Students on California Standards Tests Percent of Students Proficient or Above San Bernardino City Unified Schools 2002-2004

English Change Change Language 2002 to 2002 to Arts 2002 2003 2004 2004 Mathematics 2002 2003 2004 2004 Grade 2 16% 20% 15% -1% Grade 2 27% 34% 28% +1% Grade 3 18% 17% 15% -3% Grade 3 24% 32% 31% +7% Grade 4 16% 23% 20% +4% Grade 4 23% 34% 29% +6% Grade 5 13% 18% 23% +10% Grade 5 15% 19% 19% +4% Grade 6 16% 20% 20% +4% Grade 6 20% 20% 20% 0% Grade 7 19% 20% 22% +3% Grade 7 16% 17% 22% +6% Grade 8 18% 17% 19% +1% Grade 8 9% 13% 14% +5% Grade 9 15% 24% 23% +8% Gr. 8 Alg. 1 13% 32% 28% +15% Gr. 9 Alg. 1 3% 5% 2% -1% Grade 10 19% 19% 21% +2% Gr. 9 Geom. 24% 28% 25% +1% Gr. 10 Geom. 5% 7% 3% -2% Grade 11 21% 18% 19% -2% Gr. 10 Alg. 2 15% 19% 19% +4% Gr. 11 Alg. 2 3% 3% 3% 0% Data Source: California Department of Education, STAR reports 2002-2004 In making comparisons based on the data above, it must be noted that the students being compared by grade level each year are different groups of students. This is the comparison made when Adequate Yearly Progress, as required by No Child Left Behind legislation is determined. This type of comparison focuses on program improvements, which in turn contribute to improved student achievement. With these constraints in mind, the following observations are made relative to the above exhibit:

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 170 • In English Language Arts, gains were made at seven grades while three grade levels saw declines from 2002 to 2004. • The largest gains in English Language Arts occurred at Grades 5 and 9. • The highest proficiency rate in English Language Arts for some grade levels occurred in 2003, with declines in proficiency rates from 2003 to 2004. This was true at Grades 2, 4, and 9. • Gains have been made in Mathematics at six grade levels, while two grades have declined and two more have seen no change. • Proficiency by grade level in English Language Arts has shown little variation across the grade levels. In 2004 the lowest results were at Grades 2 and 3, with 15% proficient or above. From Grades 4 through 11 the proficiency rates ranged from 19% to 23%. • In mathematics, the highest proficiency rates in 2004 were at Grades 2, 3, and 4, where the rates hovered around 30%. From Grades 5-7, the proficiency rates dropped to close to 20% at all three grades, with another drop at Grade 8. • The percent of Grade 8 Algebra 1 students who were proficient on the California Standards Test in any year 2002 through 2004 was considerably larger than the percent proficient in Algebra 1 at Grade 9, as shown in Exhibit 4.3.1. The district-wide percent proficient at Grade 9 in 2004 was 2%, compared with 28% at Grade 8. • The percent of students demonstrating proficiency in mathematics at the high school level in 2002 through 2004 was much lower than elementary and middle school grades, with rates of just 2% and 3% in the high school courses taken by non-accelerated students. Proficiency rates for accelerated students (those who completed Algebra 1 in Grade 8) were comparable to proficiency rates at the elementary level. As shown in Exhibit 4.3.1, proficiency rates in Grade 9 Algebra 1 and Grade 10 Geometry were lower in 2004 than in 2002. A change in enrollment patterns may partially account for this decline. The percent of students at each grade level enrolled in three high school mathematics courses is shown in Exhibit 4.3.2.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 171 Exhibit 4.3.2 Percent of Enrollment by Grade Level in Selected Mathematics Courses San Bernardino City Unified Schools 2002-2004 2001-2002 Percent of Enrollment Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Algebra 1 16% 37% 27% 13% Geometry 10% 30% 14% Algebra 2 13% 30% 2002-2003 Percent of Enrollment Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Algebra 1 18% 40% 32% 14% Geometry 14% 27% 15% Algebra 2 12% 22% 2003-2004 Percent of Enrollment Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Algebra 1 26% 75% 45% 23% Geometry 15% 32% 32% Algebra 2 14% 23% Data Source: California Department of Education, STAR reports 2002-2004

The following observations can be made from Exhibit 4.3.2: • The proportion of students taking Algebra 1 at Grade 8 has increased from 16% to 26% over the three-year period. The proportion of students enrolled in Geometry at Grade 9 has increased from 10% to 15% in the same time frame. These changes decrease the number of high-achieving students who are included in the Grade 9 Algebra 1 and Grade 10 Geometry results shown in Exhibit 4.3.1. This change may account, in part, for lower proficiency results. • The percent of Grade 9 students enrolled in Algebra 1 has increased from 37% to 75% between 2002 and 2004. Students who were once enrolled in courses below Algebra 1 are now taking Algebra 1; this change results in a greater concentration of students who have had traditionally been low achievers in mathematics. This increased concentration of students who have traditionally been low achievers in mathematics may have had a negative impact on the Grade 9 Algebra 1 scores on the California Standards Test, as shown in Exhibit 4.3.1. Because the history of comparable data is short, trends for cohort groups are limited. Exhibit 4.3.3 shows results for eight groups of students as those groups progressed through three years of school. Because of mobility within the district and drop-outs at the upper grades, these groups consisted of a large group of the same students but were not identical groups.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 172 Exhibit 4.3.3 Comparison of Cohort Groups Over Three Year Period Percent Proficient in English Language Arts and Mathematics San Bernardino City Unified Schools 2002-2004

Cohort English Language Arts Mathematics Group 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 1 16% 17% 20% 27% 32% 29% Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 2 18% 23% 23% 24% 34% 19% Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 3 16% 18% 20% 23% 19% 20% Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 4 13% 20% 22% 15% 20% 22% Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 5 16% 20% 19% 20% 17% 14% 6 Grade 9 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 7 Grade 8 Algebra 1 19% 17% 23% 16% 13% 2% 7 Grade 9 Grade10 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade10 Grade 8 Algebra 1 Geometry 18% 24% 21% 9% 5% 3% 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Algebra 1 Geometry Algebra 2 15% 19% 19% 3% 7% 3% Data Source: California Department of Education, STAR reports 2002-2004 The following observations can be made relative to cohort groups from the data shown above: • In English Language Arts the percent of students performing at the proficient level or above was higher in 2004 than in 2002 for every one of the eight cohort groups. Gains ranged from 3% to 9%. • In Mathematics, just two cohort groups (Group 1 and Group 4) showed an increase in the percent of students at the proficient level or above. Five groups saw declines over the three-year period, with the decreases ranging between 4% and 14%. Group 8 had a spike in Geometry at Grade 10, but the proficiency rate at Grade 11 was unchanged from Grade 9. The percent of students who score at the proficient or above level is one of the major considerations in determining whether or not a district or an individual school makes Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under the No Child Left Behind legislation. Exhibit 4.3.l has summarized this data for the district, while Exhibits 4.3.7 through 4.3.12 that appear later in this finding summarize the same information for individual schools.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 173 The percentage of students scoring at each of five levels—Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Below Basic, and Far Below Basic—are key components of the Academic Performance Index (API). While AYP scores are more important at the federal level, API scores are more important at the state level. Exhibits 4.3.4 through Exhibit 4.3.6 graphically compare district performance at these five levels on the California Standards Test in English Language Arts and Mathematics at selected grade levels over the last three years. Further discussion of the Academic Performance Index is found in conjunction with Exhibit 4.3.29. Exhibit 4.3.4 Grade 5 Proficiency Levels in English Language Arts and Mathematics San Bernardino City Unified Schools 2002-2004

Percent of Grade 5 Students at Each Proficiency Level

2 3 100% 2 3 6 3 11 13 15 17 16 16 80% Advanced 28 41 37 26 28 Proficient 60% 35 Basic 40% 42 34 36 Below Basic 31 27 23 20% Far Below Basic 15 18 17 15 21 17 0% ELA-2002 ELA-2003 ELA-2004 Math-2002 Math-2003 Math-2004

The following observations can be made about proficiency levels at Grade 5: • As noted in the comments after Exhibit 4.3.1 and further illustrated in the graphic in this exhibit, the percent of students who are Proficient or above in English Language Arts has increased 10% from 2002 to 2004. • The percent of students who are below Basic in English Language Arts decreased from 48% to 40%, a change of 8%, in the same time frame. The percent in the Basic category has also decreased. • The percent of students who are Proficient of above in Mathematics increased by 4% from 2002 to 2004, while the percent below Basic decreased by 4%. The proportion classified as Basic remained unchanged.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 174 Exhibit 4.3.5 Grade 8 Proficiency Levels in English Language Arts and Mathematics San Bernardino City Unified Schools 2002-2004

Percent of Grade 8 Students at Each Proficiency Level 1 2 100% 3 3 5 1 14 8 12 12 15 14 Advanc ed 80% 26 32 33 31 32 Proficient 60% 35 43 Bas ic 40% 26 29 35 34 26 Below Bas ic 20% 25 21 20 22 21 21 Far Below Bas ic 0% ELA-2002 ELA-2003 ELA-2004 Math- Math- Math- 2002 2003 2004

The following observations regarding Grade 8 are based on Exhibit 4.3.5: • The percent of students who are Proficient or above in English Language Arts has increased 1% from 2002 to 2004. • The percent of students who are below Basic in English Language Arts decreased from 51% to 46%, a change of 5%, in the same time frame. The percent in the Basic category has increased by 3% • The percent of students who are Proficient of above in Mathematics increased by 5% from 2002 to 2004, while the percent below Basic decreased by 4%. The proportion classified as Basic increased by 6%.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 175 Exhibit 4.3.6 Grade 11 Proficiency Levels in English Language Arts and Mathematics San Bernardino City Unified Schools 2002-2004

Percent of Grade 11 Students at Each Proficiency Level

4 4 0 0 0 100% 6 333 15 14 15 16 14 13 80% Advanced 28 30 33 35 Proficient 60% 46 47 Basic 40% 27 27 23 Below Basic 48 Far Below Basic 20% 35 38 25 24 25 0% ELA-2002 ELA-2003 ELA-2004 Alg2-2002 Alg2-2003 Alg2-2004

The following observations regarding Grade 11 proficiency follow from on Exhibit 4.3.5: • The percent of students who are Proficient or above in English Language Arts has declined by 2% from 2002 to 2004. • The percent of students who are below Basic in English Language Arts decreased from 52% to 51%, a change of 1%, in the same time frame. The biggest change was in the Basic category, which increased by 5%. • The percent of students who are Proficient or above in Algebra 2 remained unchanged over the three-year period at 3%, while the percent below Basic increased by 4%. The percent of Grade 11 students below basic in Algebra 2 for each of the three years has exceeded 80%. Individual School Results on California Standards Tests at Selected Grade Levels Auditors also analyzed performance results at the individual school level as well as the district level. Exhibits 4.3.7 through 4.3.12 summarize performance on California Standards Tests at selected grade levels.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 176 Exhibit 4.3.7 Percent of Students at or Above Proficiency by Individual School Grade 2 English Language Arts and Mathematics—California Standards Test San Bernardino City Unified Schools 2002-2004 Spring Spring Spring 2-Year Change School/Level 2002 2003 2004 2002 to 2004 District English Language Arts 16% 20% 15% -1% Mathematics 27% 34% 28% +1% Alessandro English Language Arts 20% 37% 20% 0% Mathematics 27% 35% 38% +11% Arrowhead English Language Arts 8% 24% 18% +10% Mathematics 22% 29% 32% +10% Barton English Language Arts 16% 19% 8% -8% Mathematics 24% 30% 18% -6% Belvedere English Language Arts 42% 45% 40% -2% Mathematics 52% 54% 57% +5% Bradley English Language Arts 16% 12% 5% -11% Mathematics 37% 32% 19% -18% Burbank English Language Arts 3% 16% 12% +9% Mathematics 16% 47% 50% +34% California English Language Arts 12% 35% 14% +2% Mathematics 19% 39% 23% +4% Cole English Language Arts 12% 19% 18% +6% Mathematics 22% 31% 33% +11% Cypress English Language Arts 13% 13% 11% -2% Mathematics 26% 27% 23% -3% Davidson English Language Arts 17% 21% 7% -10% Mathematics 30% 40% 27% -3% Del Rosa English Language Arts 31% 30% 33% +2% Mathematics 52% 50% 44% -8% Emmerton English Language Arts 13% 13% 8% -5% Mathematics 24% 19% 13% -11% Fairfax English Language Arts 7% 9% 3% -4% Mathematics 21% 25% 14% -7%

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 177

Exhibit 4.3.7 (continued) Percent of Students at or Above Proficiency by Individual School Grade 2 English Language Arts and Mathematics—California Standards Test San Bernardino City Unified Schools 2002-2004 Spring Spring Spring 2-Year Change School/Level 2002 2003 2004 2002 to 2004 Highland-Pacific English Language Arts 18% 21% 29% +11% Mathematics 9% 30% 33% +24% Hillside English Language Arts 28% 37% 39% +11% Mathematics 39% 56% 50% +11% Hunt English Language Arts 16% 25% 15% -1% Mathematics 23% 44% 29% +6% Inghram English Language Arts 8% 10% 2% -6% Mathematics 22% 20% 19% -3% Kendall English Language Arts 20% 21% 17% -3% Mathematics 25% 42% 24% -1% Kimbark English Language Arts 17% 13% 17% 0% Mathematics 30% 32% 15% -15% Lankershim English Language Arts 14% 15% 12% -2% Mathematics 32% 27% 25% -7% Lincoln English Language Arts 9% 10% 3% -6% Mathematics 26% 23% 12% -14% Lytle Creek English Language Arts 3% 7% 8% +5% Mathematics 11% 21% 17% +6% Marshall English Language Arts 9% 14% 16% +7% Mathematics 15% 30% 27% +12% Monterey English Language Arts 11% 10% 6% -5% Mathematics 29% 33% 19% -10% Mt. Vernon English Language Arts 5% 7% 6% +1% Mathematics 35% 33% 23% -12% Muscoy English Language Arts 16% 14% 22% +6% Mathematics 20% 30% 28% +8% Newmark English Language Arts 19% 28% 33% +14% Mathematics 12% 41% 43% +29%

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 178 Exhibit 4.3.7 (continued) Percent of Students at or Above Proficiency by Individual School Grade 2 English Language Arts and Mathematics—California Standards Test San Bernardino City Unified Schools 2002-2004 Spring Spring Spring 2-Year Change School/Level 2002 2003 2004 2002 to 2004 North Park English Language Arts 35% 46% 39% +4% Mathematics 39% 63% 49% +10% No. Verdemont English Language Arts 26% 30% 15% -11% Mathematics 32% 45% 27% -5% Oehl English Language Arts 22% 27% 21% -1% Mathematics 28% 37% 35% +5% Palm Avenue English Language Arts 32% 41% 31% -1% Mathematics 60% 65% 69% +9% Parkside English Language Arts 27% 36% 30% +3% Mathematics 40% 34% 32% -8% Riley English Language Arts 9% 6% 4% -5% Mathematics 23% 23% 15% -8% Rio Vista English Language Arts 8% 15% 7% -1% Mathematics 10% 22% 13% +3% Roberts English Language Arts 9% 20% 10% +1% Mathematics 13% 36% 22% +9% Roosevelt English Language Arts 11% 16% 13% +2% Mathematics 22% 25% 21% -1% Thompson English Language Arts 27% 35% 28% +1% Mathematics 52% 55% 36% -16% Urbita English Language Arts 21% 13% 10% -11% Mathematics 29% 23% 22% -7% Vermont English Language Arts 21% 35% 5% -16% Mathematics 29% 55% 18% -11% Warm Springs English Language Arts 4% 7% 15% +11% Mathematics 8% 16% 28% +20% Wilson English Language Arts 7% 17% 19% +12% Mathematics 5% 30% 31% +16% Data Source: California Department of Education, STAR reports 2002-2004

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 179 The following observations can be made from Exhibit 4.3.7: • At the district level, proficiency rates changed very little between 2002 and 2004. The English Language Arts rate declined by 1% while Mathematics increased by 1%. • Of the 41 elementary schools, 14 schools (34%) showed gains in both English Language Arts and Mathematics. Of those, only 4 made consistent gains (i.e. 2002 to 2003, 2003 to 2004). Others had a spike in 2003 and a decline in 2004—with spike outweighing decline, or a decline in 2003 with an overriding rebound in 2004. Twelve of the 14 schools made greater gains in Mathematics than in English Language Arts. • Fifteen of the 41 schools (37%) had lower scores in both content areas in 2004 than in 2002. The remaining 12 schools had mixed results, with scores up in one area and down in the other, or no change in one area. Exhibit 4.3.8 Percent of Students at or Above Proficiency by Individual School Grade 5 English Language Arts and Mathematics—California Standards Test San Bernardino City Unified Schools 2002-2004 2-Year Change School/Level Spring 2002 Spring 2003 Spring 2004 2002 to 2004 District English Language Arts 13% 18% 23% +10% Mathematics 15% 19% 19% +4% Alessandro English Language Arts 15% 31% 30% +15% Mathematics 14% 27% 27% +13% Arrowhead English Language Arts 16% 25% 25% +9% Mathematics 16% 11% 15% -1% Barton English Language Arts 14% 12% 28% +14% Mathematics 9% 20% 17% +8% Belvedere English Language Arts 18% 24% 39% +21% Mathematics 27% 20% 37% +10% Bradley English Language Arts 5% 14% 15% +10% Mathematics 7% 8% 6% -1% Burbank English Language Arts 2% 3% 8% +6% Mathematics 4% 5% 0% -4% California English Language Arts 20% 26% 22% +2% Mathematics 17% 24% 15% -2% Cole English Language Arts 13% 19% 30% +17% Mathematics 9% 17% 20% +11% Cypress English Language Arts 8% 13% 9% +1% Mathematics 4% 13% 7% +3%

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 180 Exhibit 4.3.8 (continued) Percent of Students at or Above Proficiency by Individual School Grade 5 English Language Arts and Mathematics—California Standards Test San Bernardino City Unified Schools 2002-2004 2-Year Change School/Level Spring 2002 Spring 2003 Spring 2004 2002 to 2004 Davidson English Language Arts 17% 7% 22% +5% Mathematics 15% 15% 14% -1% Del Rosa English Language Arts 11% 23% 22% +11% Mathematics 17% 22% 14% -3% Emmerton English Language Arts 8% 16% 17% +9% Mathematics 15% 17% 12% -3% Fairfax English Language Arts 10% 13% 19% +9% Mathematics 10% 18% 15% +5% Highland-Pacific English Language Arts 13% 15% 29% +16% Mathematics 7% 4% 19% +12% Hillside English Language Arts 20% 39% 39% +19% Mathematics 35% 58% 44% +9% Hunt English Language Arts 7% 13% 14% +7% Mathematics 8% 15% 7% -1% Inghram English Language Arts 8% 13% 15% +7% Mathematics 15% 19% 13% -2% Kendall English Language Arts 19% 18% 19% 0% Mathematics 8% 9% 6% -2% Kimbark English Language Arts 10% 21% 18% +8% Mathematics 21% 12% 21% 0% Lankershim English Language Arts 11% 16% 25% +14% Mathematics 24% 31% 34% +10% Lincoln English Language Arts 6% 11% 19% +13% Mathematics 17% 12% 5% -8% Lytle Creek English Language Arts 8% 6% 13% +5% Mathematics 11% 7% 8% -3% Marshall English Language Arts 14% 32% 25% +11% Mathematics 21% 31% 25% +4%

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 181

Exhibit 4.3.8 (continued) Percent of Students at or Above Proficiency by Individual School Grade 5 English Language Arts and Mathematics—California Standards Test San Bernardino City Unified Schools 2002-2004 2-Year Change School/Level Spring 2002 Spring 2003 Spring 2004 2002 to 2004 Monterey English Language Arts 6% 10% 16% +10% Mathematics 3% 5% 18% +15% Mt. Vernon English Language Arts 10% 8% 20% +10% Mathematics 18% 25% 22% +4% Muscoy English Language Arts 4% 17% 20% +16% Mathematics 11% 29% 13% +2% Newmark English Language Arts 9% 20% 27% +18% Mathematics 5% 10% 27% +22% North Park English Language Arts 27% 30% 41% +14% Mathematics 35% 40% 39% +4% No. Verdemont English Language Arts 15% 33% 20% +5% Mathematics 29% 26% 34% +5% Oehl English Language Arts 11% 18% 20% +9% Mathematics 8% 32% 16% +8% Palm Avenue English Language Arts 31% 35% 50% +19% Mathematics 27% 33% 30% +3% Parkside English Language Arts 28% 36% 37% +9% Mathematics 36% 30% 40% +4% Riley English Language Arts 5% 5% 20% +15% Mathematics 8% 7% 14% +6% Rio Vista English Language Arts 9% 5% 17% +9% Mathematics 4% 5% 12% +8% Roberts English Language Arts 8% 14% 16% +8% Mathematics 1% 13% 14% +13% Roosevelt English Language Arts 16% 23% 25% +9% Mathematics 26% 30% 32% +6% Thompson English Language Arts 29% 31% 46% +17% Mathematics 43% 49% 45% +2%

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 182 Exhibit 4.3.8 (continued) Percent of Students at or Above Proficiency by Individual School Grade 5 English Language Arts and Mathematics—California Standards Test San Bernardino City Unified Schools 2002-2004 2-Year Change School/Level Spring 2002 Spring 2003 Spring 2004 2002 to 2004 Urbita English Language Arts 19% 13% 32% +13% Mathematics 19% 7% 27% +8% Vermont English Language Arts 8% 14% 12% +4% Mathematics 14% 16% 17% +3% Warm Springs English Language Arts 5% 10% 14% +9% Mathematics 4% 13% 13% +9% Wilson English Language Arts 11% 10% 15% +4% Mathematics 7% 19% 13% +6% Data Source: California Department of Education, STAR reports 2002-2004 The following observations can be made from Exhibit 4.3.8: • At the district level, proficiency rates increased in both content areas. The percent proficient or above in English Language Arts was greater by 10% in 2004 than in 2002. The Mathematics proficiency rate increased by 4%. • Of the 41 elementary schools, 29 schools (71%) showed gains in both English Language Arts and Mathematics. • Twelve of the 41 schools (29%) had mixed results, with an increased percentage in one area and a decrease in the other. • None of the elementary schools showed a decline in both areas. • Of the 41 elementary schools, 35 showed a greater increase in the percent of students proficient in English Language Arts than in Mathematics. The increase was greater in Mathematics at four schools, while the improvement was the same at two additional schools. Exhibits 4.3.9 and 4.3.10 summarize performance in English Language Arts and Mathematics in San Bernardino middle schools at Grades 7 and 8.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 183 Exhibit 4.3.9 Percent of Students at or Above Proficiency by Individual School Grade 7 English Language Arts and Mathematics—California Standards Test San Bernardino City Unified Schools 2002-2004

2-Year Change Spring 2002 Spring 2003 Spring 2004 (2004-2002) District English Language Arts 19% 20% 22% +3% Mathematics 16% 17% 22% +6% Arrowview English Language Arts 6% 12% 13% +7% Mathematics 8% 9% 10% +1% Curtis English Language Arts 6% 10% 16% +10% Mathematics 4% 9% 18% +14% Del Vallejo English Language Arts 16% 11% 16% 0% Mathematics 15% 9% 12% -3% Golden Valley English Language Arts 29% 24% 25% -4% Mathematics 22% 26% 32% +10% King English Language Arts 19% 21% 15% -4% Mathematics 15% 15% 14% -1% Richardson English Language Arts 69% 74% 69% 0% Mathematics 66% 78% 70% +4% Serrano English Language Arts 19% 22% 23% +4% Mathematics 14% 17% 19% +5% Shandin Hills English Language Arts 18% 17% 25% +7% Mathematics 17% 14% 33% +16% Data Source: California Department of Education, STAR reports 2002-2004 The following observations are based on Exhibit 4.3.9 and compare Grade 7 performance in English Language Arts and Mathematics in 2004 with that of 2002: • At the district level, proficiency rates increased in both content areas. The percent proficient or above in English Language Arts was greater by 3% in 2004 than in 2002. The Mathematics proficiency rate increased by 6%. • Of the eight middle schools, four schools (50%) showed gains in both English Language Arts and Mathematics. • Two of the middle schools (25%) showed a decline in both areas, while two more (another 25%) had mixed results.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 184 • Three of the four middle schools that had gains in both areas showed a greater increase in Grade 7 Mathematics than in English Language Arts. At Grade 8, results for two levels of Mathematics are included in Exhibit 4.3.10. These are Grade 8 General Mathematics and Algebra 1. Approximately 18% of students across the district take Algebra 1 at Grade 8; the proportion varies across middle schools. Exhibit 4.3.10 Percent of Students at or Above Proficiency by Individual School Grade 8 English Language Arts and Mathematics—California Standards Test San Bernardino City Unified Schools 2002-2004 2-Year Change Spring 2002 Spring 2003 Spring 2004 (2004-2002) District English Language Arts 18% 17% 19% +1% General Mathematics 9% 13% 14% +5% Algebra 1 13% 32% 28% +15% Arrowview English Language Arts 9% 7% 11% +4% General Mathematics 6% 12% 14% +8% Algebra 1 - 9% 14% +5% (1 year) Curtis English Language Arts 4% 8% 9% +5% General Mathematics 5% 5% 13% +8% Algebra 1 1% 5% 30% +29% Del Vallejo English Language Arts 17% 15% 14% -3% General Mathematics 4% 16% 13% +9% Algebra 1 7% 32% 47% +40% Golden Valley English Language Arts 23% 22% 22% -1% General Mathematics 14% 24% 24% +10% Algebra 1 13% 27% 47% +34% King English Language Arts 20% 17% 19% -1% General Mathematics 22% 8% 11% -11% Algebra 1 - 35% 35% 0 %(1 year) Richardson English Language Arts 75% 71% 74% -1% General Mathematics 13% 22% - - Algebra 1 37% 54% 56% +19% Serrano English Language Arts 18% 19% 19% +1% General Mathematics 7% 13% 11% +4% Algebra 1 3% 31% 17% +14% Shandin Hills English Language Arts 18% 17% 17% -1% General Mathematics 4% 7% 4% 0% Algebra 1 7% 22% 15% +8% Data Source: California Department of Education, STAR reports 2002-2004

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 185 The following observations can be made relative to Grade 8 performance: • Proficiency rates in Algebra 1 increased at the district level and at seven of eight middle schools between 2002 and 2004. • Proficiency in both Grade 8 General Mathematics and English Language Arts increased at three of the eight middle schools, declined in both courses at one school, and showed mixed results at the remaining four. Exhibits 4.3.11 and 4.3.12 contain proficiency summaries for students in the six comprehensive high schools. Exhibit 4.3.11 Percent of Students at or Above Proficiency by Individual School English Language Arts at Comprehensive High Schools—California Standards Test San Bernardino City Unified Schools 2002-2004 2-Year Change Spring 2002 Spring 2003 Spring 2004 (2004-2002) District Grade 9 15% 24% 23% +8% Grade 10 19% 19% 21% +2% Grade 11 21% 18% 19% -2% Arroyo Valley Grade 9 17% 24% 18% +1% Grade 10 14% 21% 19% +5% Grade 11 - 17% 21% +4% (1 year) Cajon Grade 9 28% 37% 38% +10% Grade 10 30% 32% 33% +3% Grade 11 23% 29% 30% +7% Middle College* Grade 9 72% - - - Grade 10 64% 78% 84% +20% Grade 11 - 70% 60% -10% (1 year) Pacific Grade 9 7% 17% 18% +11% Grade 10 19% 9% 16% -3% Grade 11 19% 15% 12% -7% San Bernardino (9-12) Grade 9 9% 20% 13% +4% Grade 10 20% 11% 13% -7% Grade 11 23% 19% 12% -11% San Gorgonio (9-12) Grade 9 18% 24% 24% +6% Grade 10 15% 21% 23% +8% Grade 11 13% 17% 22% +9% *Note: Middle College results were reported for Grade 9 English Language Arts only in 2002; no Grade 11 results were reported that year. Data Source: California Department of Education, STAR reports 2002-2004

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 186 The following observations are based on Exhibit 4.3.11: • District proficiency rates in English Language Arts increased at Grades 9 and 10 but decreased at Grade 11 between 2002 and 2004. • Proficiency rates at three of the high schools increased at all three grade levels. • Proficiency rates declined in two of the three grade levels at two of the high schools. Exhibit 4.3.12 Percent of Students at or Above Proficiency by Individual School Selected Mathematics Courses—California Standards Test San Bernardino City Unified Schools 2002-2004

2-Year Change Spring 2002 Spring 2003 Spring 2004 (2004-2002) District Grade 9 (Algebra 1) 3% 5% 2% -1% Grade 10 (Geometry) 5% 7% 3% -2% Grade 11 (Algebra 2) 3% 3% 3% 0% Arroyo Valley Grade 9 (Algebra 1) 2% 4% 1% -1% Grade 10 (Geometry) 3% 4% 3% 0% Grade 11 (Algebra 2) - 4% 2% -2% Cajon Grade 9 (Algebra 1) 4% 4% 3% -1% Grade 10 (Geometry) 6% 8% 2% -4% Grade 11 (Algebra 2) 6% 4% 4% -2% Middle College* Grade 9 (Algebra 1) - - - - Grade 10 (Geometry) 23% 34% 25% +2% Grade 11 (Algebra 2) - 9% 7% -2% Pacific Grade 9 (Algebra 1) 1% 1% 1% 0% Grade 10 (Geometry) 3% 6% 0% -3% Grade 11 (Algebra 2) 2% 1% 3% +1% San Bernardino Grade 9 (Algebra 1) 1% 5% 2% +1% Grade 10 (Geometry) 5% 2% 3% -2% Grade 11 (Algebra 2) 1% 2% 1% 0% San Gorgonio Grade 9 (Algebra 1) 6% 13% 3% -3% Grade 10 (Geometry) 3% 8% 2% -1% Grade 11 (Algebra 2) 1% 2% 4% +3% *Note: Middle College scores for Algebra 1 are not reported, either Data Source: California Department of Education, STAR reports 2002-2004

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 187 The following observations pertain to changes in high school mathematics proficiency rates as reported in Exhibit 4.3.12: • District proficiency rates declined in Grade 9 Algebra 1 and Grade 10 Geometry, and remained unchanged in Grade 11 Algebra 2. As noted in discussion related to Exhibit 4.3.1 and 4.3.2, the decline at Grade 9 and Grade 10 may be due in part to increased enrollment in Algebra 1 and Geometry. • Three high schools increased proficiency rates from 2002 to 2004 at one grade level, with declines or no change in the others. The other three schools showed declines or no change at all three grade levels. As noted above, this may be due in part to increased enrollment. A large difference in performance results between the two content areas is apparent when the proficiency rates for high school English Language Arts, as shown in Exhibit 4.3.11, are compared with the high school mathematics results shown in Exhibit 4.3.12. At Grade 9 23% of students were proficient in English Language Arts in 2004 compared with 2% in Grade 9 Algebra 1. At Grade 10 the difference was 21% to 3%, and at Grade 11 the difference was 19% to 3%. Data on California Standards Tests Disaggregated by Selected Subpopulations Disaggregation of performance data by subgroups of students provides information that allows a district to identify gaps in achievement and take steps to close those gaps. Data are summarized by racial-ethnic group (Exhibits 4.3.13-4.3.15), by English language classification (Exhibits 4.3.16- 4.3.19), and by socioeconomic status (Exhibits 4.3.20-4.3.28). Exhibit 4.3.13 Percent Proficient or Above on California Standards Tests Results Reported by Grade and Racial-Ethnic Group San Bernardino City Unified School District 2003 and 2004

English Language Arts Mathematics 2003 2004 2003 2004

Student Group % % % % # Tested # Tested # Tested # Tested # Tested or above or above or above or above Proficient Proficient Proficient Proficient

Grade 2 All students 4785 20% 4873 15% 4777 34% 4863 28% African American 940 17% 920 13% 936 26% 918 17% White (Non-Hispanic) 757 35% 649 34% 756 52% 647 48% Hispanic 2928 17% 3127 12% 2922 32% 3121 26% Grade 3 All students 4889 17% 4849 15% 4886 32% 4841 31% African American 935 16% 895 12% 936 23% 894 22% White (Non-Hispanic) 735 32% 693 29% 733 44% 691 45% Hispanic 3012 14% 3089 11% 3011 29% 3083 29% Grade 4 All students 4748 23% 4985 20% 4687 34% 4980 29% African American 875 16% 921 17% 870 22% 920 20% White (Non-Hispanic) 761 35% 708 38% 761 46% 708 42% Hispanic 2880 20% 3142 17% 2877 33% 3139 26%

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 188 Exhibit 4.3.13 (continued) Percent Proficient or Above on California Standards Tests Results Reported by Grade and Racial-Ethnic Group San Bernardino City Unified School District 2003 and 2004

English Language Arts Mathematics 2003 2004 2003 2004

Student Group % % % % # Tested # Tested # Tested # Tested # Tested or above or above or above or above Proficient Proficient Proficient Proficient

Grade 5 All students 4705 18% 4785 23% 4637 19% 4737 19% African American 868 15% 858 15% 865 13% 857 11% White (Non-Hispanic) 737 34% 718 36% 734 34% 718 31% Hispanic 2837 14% 2975 21% 2834 18% 2968 18% Grade 6 All students 4492 20% 4669 20% 4478 20% 4672 20% African American 919 17% 859 17% 912 15% 858 13% White (Non-Hispanic) 735 33% 715 40% 731 34% 717 37% Hispanic 2633 16% 2890 14% 2630 17% 2892 17% Grade 7 All students 4355 20% 4418 22% 4331 17% 4414 22% African American 909 14% 882 19% 897 9% 886 15% White (Non-Hispanic) 793 34% 667 33% 793 30% 668 36% Hispanic 2439 16% 2678 19% 2428 15% 2669 21% Grade 8 (Gen. Math) All students 4110 17% 4382 19% 3198 13% 3189 14% African American 888 12% 932 13% 721 7% 755 8% White (Non-Hispanic) 774 31% 768 35% 528 18% 446 21% Hispanic 2221 13% 2476 15% 1813 13% 1864 13% Grade 9 (Algebra 1) All students 3884 24% 3946 23% 1633 5% 3090 2% African American 787 18% 797 18% 307 2% 636 1% White (Non-Hispanic) 721 42% 692 39% 278 8% 483 3% Hispanic 2156 19% 2240 19% 944 5% 1823 2% Grade 10 (Geometry) All students 3590 19% 3634 21% 955 7% 1215 3% African American 710 16% 710 14% 175 3% 203 1% White (Non-Hispanic) 681 36% 668 39% 222 9% 245 3% Hispanic 1806 14% 2050 15% 490 7% 686 3%

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 189

Exhibit 4.3.13 (continued) Percent Proficient or Above on California Standards Tests Results Reported by Grade and Racial-Ethnic Group San Bernardino City Unified School District 2003 and 2004

English Language Arts Mathematics 2003 2004 2003 2004

Student Group % % % % # Tested # Tested # Tested # Tested # Tested or above or above or above or above Proficient Proficient Proficient Proficient

Grade 11 (Algebra 2) All students 3099 18% 3015 19% 696 3% 732 3% African American 572 15% 633 13% 117 3% 128 1% White (Non-Hispanic) 577 33% 582 34% 169 2% 176 3% Hispanic 1502 14% 1632 15% 368 4% 375 3% Data Source: California Department of Education, STAR reports 2002-2004 The following observations can be drawn from Exhibit 4.3.13: • The percent of White (Non-Hispanic) students who performed at the proficient or above level was greater in 2003 and 2004 than that of African American and Hispanic students in both content areas at all grade levels except for Geometry and Algebra 2 at the high school level. • Results for Hispanic and African American students tended to be similar across grade levels in English Language Arts both years. The percent proficient or above did not favor one group over the other. • Hispanic students demonstrated a higher rate of proficiency in Mathematics than African American students at all grade levels for both years. A more complete analysis of the disparity between ethnic groups is contained in Exhibits 4.3.14 and 4.3.15 and the accompanying discussion. Data from Exhibit 4.3.13 were used in developing the analysis found in Exhibits 4.3.14 and 4.3.15. The following steps were used: 1. The size of the gap between two groups in a given year was determined by subtraction. For example, at Grade 2 in 2003 17% of African-American children were proficient, while 35% of White (Non-Hispanic) children were proficient in English-Language Arts. That difference was 18%, in favor of White (Non-Hispanic) children. The size of the gap was calculated at this manner for all grade levels in English-Language Arts and Mathematics for both 2003 and 2004. 2. The change in the gap was calculated by subtracting the 2004 GAP from the 2003 GAP. If the number is positive, that indicates that the gap was smaller in 2004 than in 2003. If the number is negative, that indicates that the gap was wider in 2004 than in 2003. As far as closing the gap is concerned, positive numbers in Exhibits 4.3.14 and 4.3.15 are good; negative numbers are not good. For Grade 3 English-Language Arts, the change from 2003 to 2004 was calculated as follows: 16% - 17% = -1%. The gap got slightly bigger.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 190 3. Years to Parity was determined by dividing the change from 2003 to 2004 into the 2004 GAP when the change is positive. For example, for Grade 7 comparison of White (Non-Hispanic) students and African-American students, the change in the gap was +6%, with a 2004 gap of 14%. Dividing 6 into 14 gave an answer of 2.3 years, which was rounded up to 3 years. At Grade 9, 3 into 21 goes exactly 7 times, for 7 years. However, if the change was negative or zero, that meant that no progress toward closing the gap is being made. If the same pattern continues, the lower-achieving group will never reach parity with the higher-achieving group. Exhibit 4.3.14 Achievement Gap Analysis in English Language Arts Years to Parity at Current Rate of Change by Grade Level for Selected Subpopulations San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Change Change GAP GAP 2003 to Years to GAP GAP 2003 to Years to Grade 2003 2004 2004 Parity Grade 2003 2004 2004 Parity Gap between African-American and White (Non-Hispanic) Gap favors White (Non-Hispanic) at every grade level Gr. 2 18% 21% -3% Never Gr. 7 20% 14% +6% 3 years Gr. 3 16% 17% -1% Never Gr. 8 19% 22% -3% Never Gr. 4 19% 21% -2% Never Gr. 9 24% 21% +3% 7 years Gr. 5 19% 21% -2% Never Gr. 10 20% 25% -5% Never Gr. 6 16% 23% -7% Never Gr. 11 19% 21% -2% Never Gap between Hispanic and White (Non-Hispanic) Gap favors White (Non-Hispanic) at every grade level Gr. 2 18% 22% -4% Never Gr. 7 18% 14% +4% 4 years Gr. 3 18% 18% 0% Never Gr. 8 21% 20% +1% 20 yrs. Gr. 4 15% 21% -6% Never Gr. 9 23% 20% +3% 7 years Gr. 5 20% 15% +5% 3 years Gr. 10 18% 24% -6% Never Gr. 6 17% 26% -9% Never Gr. 11 19% 19% 0% Never The following observations can be made from Exhibit 4.3.14: • In 2004 the achievement gap in English Language Arts between White (non-Hispanic) and African American students was over 20% at eight of ten grades. • From 2003 to 2004 the gap between White (non-Hispanic) and African American students narrowed at just two of ten grade levels—Grade 7 and Grade 9. If achievement proficiency results continued in the same manner in subsequent years, the achievement gap would never be closed in the remaining eight grades. • The 2004 English Language Arts achievement gap between White (non-Hispanic) and Hispanic students was 20% or higher at six of ten grade levels and from 14-19% in the remaining grades.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 191 • From 2003 to 2004 the gap between White (non-Hispanic) and Hispanic students narrowed at four of ten grade levels—Grades 5, 7, 8, and 9. If achievement proficiency results continued in the same manner in subsequent years, the achievement gap would never be closed in the remaining six grades. A gap analysis was not completed for African-American and Hispanic students in English-Language Arts because there was no consistent pattern of differences in 2003 and 2004. At some grade levels the gap favored Hispanic students, while at other grade levels higher percentages of proficiency were attained by African-American students. However, the case was different for Mathematics, where Hispanic students consistently had a higher proficiency rate in both 2003 and 2004. The gap analysis in Mathematics has been included in Exhibit 4.3.15. Exhibit 4.3.15 Achievement Gap Analysis in Mathematics Years to Parity at Current Rate of Change by Grade Level for Selected Subpopulations San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 Change Years Change Years GAP GAP 2003 to to GAP GAP 2003 to to Grade 2003 2004 2004 Parity Grade 2003 2004 2004 Parity Gap: African-American - White (Non-Hispanic) Gap favors White (Non-Hispanic) students at every grade level/ course except Algebra 2 in 2003. Gr. 2 26% 31% -5% Never Gr. 7 21% 21% 0% Never Gr. 3 21% 23% -2% Never Gr. 8 11% 13% -2% Never Gr. 4 24% 22% +2% 11 yrs. Algebra 1 6% 2% +4% 1 year Gr. 5 21% 20% +1% 20 yrs. Geometry 6% 2% +4% 1 year Gr. 6 19% 24% -5% Never Algebra 2 -1% 2% -3% Never Gap: Hispanic - White (Non-Hispanic) Gap favors White (Non-Hispanic) students at every grade level/course except Algebra 2 in 2003. Gr. 2 20% 22% -2% Never Gr. 7 15% 15% 0% Never Gr. 3 16% 16% -1% Never Gr. 8 5% 8% -3% Never Gr. 4 13% 16% -3% Never Algebra 1 3% 1% 2% 1 year Gr. 5 16% 13% +3% 5 years Geometry 2% 0% 2% Closed Gr. 6 17% 20% -3% Never Algebra 2 -2%* 0%* -2%* Never* Gap: Hispanic and African-American Gap favors Hispanic students at every grade level. Gr. 2 6% 9% -3% Never Gr. 7 6% 6% 0% Never Gr. 3 6% 7% -1% Never Gr. 8 6% 5% +1% 5 years Gr. 4 11% 6% +5% 2 years Algebra 1 3% 1% +2% 1 year Gr. 5 5% 7% -2% Never Geometry 4% 2% +2% 1 year Gr. 6 2% 4% -2% Never Algebra 2 1% 2% -1% Never The following observations can be made from Exhibit 4.3.15: • In 2004 the achievement gap in Mathematics between White (non-Hispanic) and African American students was over 20% at Grades 2-7, 13% at Grade 8, and 2% in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2. • From 2003 to 2004 the gap between White (non-Hispanic) and African American students narrowed at Grades 4 and 5 and in Algebra 1 and Geometry. If achievement proficiency results

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 192 continued in the same manner in subsequent years, the achievement gap would never be closed in the six remaining grades. • The 2004 Mathematics achievement gap between White (non-Hispanic) and Hispanic students ranged between 8% and 22% in Grades 2 through 8 but was very small or non-existent at the high school level. • From 2003 to 2004 the gap between White (non-Hispanic) and Hispanic students narrowed at two levels and was closed at a third. If achievement proficiency results continued in the same manner in subsequent years, the achievement gap would never be closed in six of the remaining seven grades. Progress on the gap in Algebra 2 was less clearly defined, as the gap favored African American students one year and white (non-Hispanic) students the next. • The Mathematics achievement gap between Hispanic and African American students was in single digits rather than double digits, but the gap favored Hispanic students at every grade level in both 2003 and 2004. • From 2003 to 2004 the size of the gap between Hispanic and African American students decreased at four of six grade levels. The gap would never be closed at the other grade levels if the change in gap size continued in the same direction for both groups. Exhibits 4.3.16 through 4.3.19 are based on 2004 data related to performance of students groups by seven different English language learner classifications. Data relevant to English Learners is also contained in Finding 3.2. Exhibit 4.3.16 Summary of Proficiency by English Learner Classification English/Language Arts, Grades 2-11 San Bernardino City Unified School District 2004 CST Results

% of Student students Classification tested 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 All Students 100% 15% 15% 20% 23% 20% 22% 19% 23% 21% 19% Fluent-English Proficient and 70% 20% 19% 26% 29% 25% 27% 23% 29% 26% 23% English Only English Learners 30% 9% 7% 9% 8% 5% 4% 3% 5% 2% 2% English Only 60% 20% 18% 24% 26% 24% 24% 21% 26% 24% 22% Initially Fluent 5% 34% 24% 23% 36% 28% 36% 23% 36% 34% 29% Redesignated 6% 38% 47% 51% 56% 36% 47% 39% 45% 36% 30% Fluent English Learners in CA schools 28% 9% 6% 10% 8% 5% 4% 3% 5% 2% 3% more than 12 months English Learners in CA schools 2% 2% 6% 4% 10% 4% 4% 7% 4% 0% 0% less than 12 months Note: Representation by group (the percents in second column) is for the entire district, Grades 2-11. The percent of representation varies across the grades; the percent of English Learners at each grade level decreases across the grades from 39% at Grade 2 to 21% at Grade 11, while the percent of English Only and English Proficient students increases from 60% to 74% between Grades 2 and 11. Data Source: California Department of Education, STAR reports 2002-2004

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 193 The following observations can be made from these data: • English Learners represented 30% of the tested population in San Bernardino City schools in 2004. • The 2004 proficiency rate gap in English Language Arts between students classified as “Fluent- English Proficient and English Only” and those classified as “English Learners” ranged from a low of 11% at Grade 2 to a high of 24% at Grades 9 and 10. • Proficiency rates for English Learners were in the single digits at every grade level. • Proficiency rates for English-Only or English-Proficient students did not exceed 30% at any grade level. • Highest proficiency was demonstrated by Redesignated Fluent students. Exhibit 4.3.17 Summary of Proficiency by English Learner Classification Mathematics, Grades 2-11 San Bernardino City Unified School District 2004 CST Results % of Student students 9 10 11 Classification tested 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Alg. 1 Geom. Alg. 2 All Students 100% 28% 31% 29% 19% 20% 22% 14% 2% 3% 3% Fluent-English Proficient and 70% 30% 34% 33% 24% 25% 28% 16% 2% 3% 3% English Only English 30% 24% 25% 21% 11% 9% 8% 7% 1% 1% 2% Learners English Only 60% 29% 33% 30% 20% 21% 33% 13% 2% 2% 2% Initially Fluent 5% 59% 45% 34% 31% 28% 37% 19% 4% 5% 5% Redesignated 6% 61% 81% 70% 45% 44% 51% 42% 8% 5% 3% Fluent English Learners in CA 28% 25% 25% 22% 11% 9% 8% 7% 1% 1% 2% schools more than 12 months English Learners in CA 2% 9% 20% 7% 10% 9% 7% 8% 2% - - schools less than 12 months The following observations are based on the data in Exhibit 4.3.17. • The 2004 proficiency rate gap in Mathematics between students classified as “Fluent-English Proficient and English Only” and those classified as “English Learners” ranged from a low of 1% in Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 to a high of 20% at Grade 7. • The difference was greatest at Grades 6 and 7 and smallest at the high school level. • Highest proficiency was demonstrated by Redesignated Fluent students. The graphs in Exhibits 4.3.18 and 4.3.19 demonstrate visually the differences between the two major language classifications and the performance of both groups at selected grade levels.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 194 Exhibit 4.3.18 Proficiency in English Language Arts at Selected Grade Levels Reported by English Language Classification San Bernardino City Unified School District 2004 CST Results

Percent Proficient in Language Arts at Selected Grades All Students, English Learners, and English Only

50 40 All Students 30 English Learners 20 English Only 10 Percent Proficient Percent 0 Grade 2 Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 11 T The following observations can be made from the graph in Exhibit 4.3.18: • English Learners demonstrated proficiency in English Language Arts at a lower level than English Only students. • The proficiency rate of English Learners in English Language Arts declined across grade levels from Grade 2 through Grade 11. Exhibit 4.3.19 Proficiency in Mathematics at Selected Grade Levels Reported by English Language Classification San Bernardino City Unified School District 2004 CST Results

Percent Proficient in Mathematics at Selected Grades All Students, English Learners, and English Only

50 40 All Students 30 English Learners 20 English Only 10 Percent Proficient 0 Grade 2 Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 11

The following observations are based on Exhibit 4.3.19:

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 195 • The proficiency difference between English Learners and English-Only students was not as great in Mathematics in 2004 as it was in English Language Arts. • The proficiency rate in Mathematics declined across grade levels for both groups of students, which resulted in a decrease for all students. Exhibits 4.3.20 through 4.3.28 compare the performance of all students at a building with the percent of students in the building eligible for free or reduced lunch. Selected grades are reported, rather than all grade level from 2 through 12. Similar data are discussed in Finding 3.5. Exhibit 4.3.20 Proficiency of All Students in English Language Arts and Mathematics at Grade 5 Reported with Percent Eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch San Bernardino City Unified School District 2004 Percent Free or Percent Proficient in Percent Proficient in Reduced Lunch Grade 5 ELA Grade 5 Mathematics 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 Alessandro 82% 20% 38% Arrowhead 91% 18% 32% Barton 94% 8% 18% Belvedere 65% 40% 57% Bradley 91% 5% 19% Burbank 88% 12% 50% California 91% 14% 23% Cole 100% 18% 33% Cypress 95% 11% 23% Davidson 80% 7% 27% Del Rosa 81% 33% 44% Emmerton 93% 8% 13% Fairfax 96% 3% 14% Highland-Pacific 78% 29% 33% Hillside 78% 39% 50% Hunt 94% 15% 29% Inghram 96% 2% 19% Kendall 70% 17% 24% Kimbark 71% 17% 15% Lankershim 97% 12% 25% Lincoln 100% 3% 12% Lytle Creek 96% 8% 17% Marshall 80% 16% 27% Monterey 97% 6% 19% Mt. Vernon 98% 6% 23% Muscoy 95% 22% 28%

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 196 Exhibit 4.3.20 (continued) Proficiency of All Students in English Language Arts and Mathematics at Grade 5 Reported with Percent Eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch San Bernardino City Unified School District 2004 Percent Free or Percent Proficient in Percent Proficient in Reduced Lunch Grade 5 ELA Grade 5 Mathematics 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 Newmark 88% 33% 43% North Park 59% 39% 49% No. Verdemont 63% 15% 27% Oehl 81% 21% 35% Palm Avenue 42% 31% 69% Parkside 61% 30% 32% Riley 94% 4% 15% Rio Vista 94% 7% 13% Roberts 97% 10% 22% Roosevelt 98% 13% 21% Thompson 65% 28% 36% Urbita 87% 10% 22% Vermont 100% 5% 18% Warm Springs 96% 15% 28% Wilson 95% 19% 31% Data Source: California Department of Education, STAR reports 2002-2004 The relationships in the data above are most clearly exhibited through the graphics in Exhibits 4.3.21 and 4.3.22.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 197 Exhibit 4.3.21 Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch vs. Percent Proficiency Grade 5 English Language Arts San Bernardino City Unified School District 2004

Percent of Free Lunch vs. Percent Proficient in Grade 5 ELA 100

80

60

40

20 Percent Proficient Percent

0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent Free Lunches

The following observations can be made from Exhibit 4.3.21: • The majority of elementary schools in San Bernardino City schools had between 80-100% of students who qualified for free or reduced lunch in 2004. • Proficiency rates in English Language Arts exhibited differences of almost 40% at the 80% free/reduced level and 20% at those schools with free/reduced levels in the high nineties. • The school with the lowest free/reduced lunch rate did not attain the highest proficiency rate. • The Adequate Yearly Progress goal is to have 100% of students proficient. In 2004, Grade 5 students at none of the elementary school achieved a proficiency rate in English Language Arts higher than 40%.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 198 Exhibit 4.3.22 Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch vs. Percent Proficiency Grade 5 Mathematics San Bernardino City Unified School District 2004

Percent of Free Lunch vs. Percent Proficient in Grade 5 Mathematics 100

80

60

40

20 Percent Proficient Percent 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent Free Lunch

The following observations can be made from Exhibit 4.3.22: • A wide spread in Mathematics proficiency rates is evident for schools of similar free/reduced lunch rates. The disparity is greatest in the 60% free/reduced lunch area, but also appears at higher free lunch levels. • The school with the lowest free/reduced lunch rate attained the highest proficiency rate in Mathematics in 2004 even though that was not the case in English Language Arts (See Exhibit 4.3.21.) • When the scatterplots in Exhibits 4.3.21 and 4.3.22 are compared, it is evident that 2004 achievement in Grade 5 was higher for Mathematics than for English Language Arts.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 199 Exhibit 4.3.23 Proficiency of All Students in English Language Arts and Mathematics at Grade 8 Reported with Percent Eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch San Bernardino City Unified School District 2004 Percent Free or Percent Proficient in Percent Proficient in Middle Reduced Lunch Grade 8 ELA Grade 8 General Math School 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 Arrowview 87% 11% 14% Curtis 98% 9% 13% Del Vallejo 84% 14% 12% Golden Valley 78% 22% 24% King 89% 19% 11% Richardson 54% 74% - Serrano 73% 19% 11% Shandin Hills 77% 17% 4% Data Source: California Department of Education, STAR reports 2002-2004 The relationships in the data above are most clearly exhibited through the graphics in Exhibits 4.3.24 and 4.3.25. Exhibit 4.3.24 Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch vs. Percent Proficiency Grade 8 English Language Arts San Bernardino City Unified School District 2004

Percent of Free Lunch vs. Percent Proficient in Grade 8 ELA 100

80

60

40

20 Percent Proficient Percent 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent Free Lunch

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 200 The following observations can be made from Exhibit 4.3.24: • The school with the lowest free/reduced lunch rate had by far the highest proficiency rate in English Language Arts in 2004. • Proficiency rates for six of the middle schools were clustered fairly closely, even though the free/reduced lunch rate had a spread of approximately 20%. Exhibit 4.3.25 Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch vs. Percent Proficiency Grade 8 Mathematics San Bernardino City Unified School District 2004

Percent Free Lunch vs. Percent Proficient in Grade 8 Mathematics 100

80

60

40

20 Percent Proficient Percent 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent Free Lunch

The following observations can be made from Exhibit 4.3.25: • Only seven middle schools, rather than eight, are represented in the scatterplot above. The proficiency rates are based on Grade 8 General Mathematics, and the data for one middle school included only Algebra 1 results. • Two schools with very similar free/reduced lunch rates (close to 80%) had proficiency rates that differed by 20%. • The remaining five schools, with free/reduced lunch rates ranging from the high seventies to almost 100% had very similar proficiency rates in Mathematics in 2004.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 201 Exhibit 4.3.26 Proficiency of All Students in English Language Arts and Mathematics at Grade 11 Reported with Percent Eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch San Bernardino City Unified School District 2004 Percent Free or Percent Proficient in Percent Proficient in High Reduced Lunch Grade 11 ELA Grade 11 Algebra 2 School 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 Arroyo Valley 85% 21% 2% Cajon 45% 30% 4% Middle College 57% 60% 7% Pacific 80% 12% 3% San Bernardino 76% 12% 1% San Gorgonio 66% 22% 4% Data Source: California Department of Education, STAR reports 2002-2004 The relationships in the data above are most clearly exhibited through the graphics in Exhibits 4.3.27 and 4.3.28. Exhibit 4.3.27 Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch vs. Percent Proficiency Grade 11 English Language Arts San Bernardino City Unified School District 2004

Percent Free Lunch vs. Percent Proficient in Grade 11 ELA

100 80 60 40 20

Percent Proficient Percent 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent Free Lunch

The following observations can be made from Exhibit 4.3.27: • The school with the lowest free/reduced lunch rate did not achieve the highest proficiency rate in Grade 11 English Language Arts in 2004. • Two schools with a difference in free/reduced lunch rates of almost 20% achieved very similar proficiency ratings.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 202 Exhibit 4.3.28 Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch vs. Percent Proficiency Grade 11 English Language Arts San Bernardino City Unified School District 2004

Percent Free Lunch vs. Percent Proficient in Grade 11 Algebra 2

100 80 60 40 20

Percent Proficient Percent 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent Free Lunch

The following observation can be made from Exhibit 4.3.28: • The 2004 proficiency rates in Algebra 2 for all six high schools was zero just slightly above, no matter what the free/reduced lunch rate was. Academic Performance Index The Academic Performance Index (API) is the cornerstone of the statewide accountability system in California public education. The Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 requires the California Department of Education to calculate API’s annually for all California public schools. The Academic Performance Index is a single number that reflects a school’s performance on student assessments that are part of California’s Standardized Testing and Reporting program. The assessments that are including in the API calculation are: • The California English-Language Arts Standards Test for grades two through eleven • The California Mathematics Standards Test for grades two through eleven • The California History/Social Science Standards Test for grades ten through eleven • The California High School Exit Exam for high schools • The California Achievement Test, Sixth Edition Survey • The California Science Standards Test for grades nine through eleven • The Academic Performance Index is calculated on a scale of 200 to 1,000, with a score of 800 serving as a statewide target for all schools as established by the California Department of Education. • The Public Schools Accountability Act also requires a minimum growth of five percent of the difference between a schools recent API score and the state target of 800, which is referred to as

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 203 the growth target. For any school with an API of 781 to 799, the annual growth target is one point. Schools with an API of 800 or above are required to maintain an API of at least 800. Exhibit 4.3.29 shows API growth, both cumulative and average growth, for schools in the San Bernardino city Unified School District over the five years the API has been in effect. Years to target was determined in the following manner: 1. The average growth was calculated by subtracting the 1999 API from the 2004 API and dividing by 5. For Alessandro Elementary School, in Exhibit 4.3.29, 656 – 622 = 34. When rounded up to the next whole number, 34 ÷ 5 = 7. 2. The amount of growth remaining to reach target is found by subtracting the 2004 API from the target of 800. For Alessandro Elementary School the growth needed to reach target is 800 – 656, or 144 points. 3. The number of growth points needed to reach 800 divided by average growth yields years to target. For Alessandro Elementary School, 144 ÷ 7 = 21. Exhibit 4.3.29 Summary of Academic Performance Index (API) Growth and Years to Target San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Elementary Schools 1999 2004 Cumulative Average Needed to Years to School API API Growth Growth Reach 800 Target Alessandro 622 656 +34 +7 144 21 Arrowhead 504 653 +149 +30 147 5 Barton 502 612 +110 +22 188 9 Belvedere 686 741 +55 +11 59 6 Bradley 471 602 +131 +26 198 8 Burbank 382 565 +183 +37 235 7 California 504 623 +119 +24 177 8 Cole 460 640 +180 +36 160 5 Cypress 437 583 +146 +29 217 8 Davidson 512 607 +95 +19 193 11 Del Rosa 572 677 +105 +21 123 6 Emmerton 466 594 +128 +26 206 8 Fairfax 471 632 +161 +32 168 6 Highland 558 665 +107 +21 135 7 Hillside 550 767 +217 +43 33 1 Hunt 464 605 +141 +28 195 7 Inghram 346 554 +208 +42 246 6 Kendall 626 640 +14 +3 160 54 Kimbark 551 636 +85 +17 164 10 Lankershim 448 646 +198 +40 154 4

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 204

Exhibit 4.3.29 (continued) Summary of Academic Performance Index (API) Growth and Years to Target San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005 1999 2004 Cumulative Average Needed to Years to School API API Growth Growth Reach 800 Target Lincoln 435 538 +103 +21 262 13 Lytle Creek 431 572 +141 +28 228 9 Marshall 519 636 +117 +23 164 8 Monterey 421 592 +171 +34 208 7 Mt.Vernon 495 623 +128 +26 177 7 Muscoy 439 630 +191 +38 170 5 Newmark 524 658 +134 +27 142 6 North Park 599 741 +142 +28 59 3 North Verdemont 610 697 +87 +17 103 7 Oehl 472 641 +169 +34 159 5 Palm Avenue 649 776 +127 +25 24 1 Parkside 624 714 +90 +18 86 5 Riley 477 570 +93 +19 230 13 Rio Vista 473 588 +115 +23 212 10 Roberts 476 616 +140 +28 184 7 Roosevelt 493 612 +119 +24 188 8 Thompson 699 727 +28 +6 73 13 Urbita 598 629 +31 +6 171 29 Vermont 454 594 +140 +28 206 8 Warm Springs 421 571 +150 +30 229 8 Wilson 460 627 +167 +33 173 6 Middle Schools Arrowview 447 557 +110 +22 243 12 Curtis 390 555 +165 +33 245 8 Del Vallejo 480 571 +91 +18 229 13 Golden Valley 566 645 +79 +16 155 10 King 516 567 +51 +10 233 24 Richardson Prep 859 880 +21 +4 Target met 0 Serrano 552 622 +70 +14 178 13 Shandin Hills 491 632 +141 +28 168 6 High Schools Arroyo Valley* 560 579 +19 +19 221 12 Cajon 558 656 +98 +20 144 8 Pacific 505 549 +44 +9 251 28 San Bernardino 517 544 +27 +5 256 52 San Gorgonio 530 614 +84 +17 186 11 Note: Arroyo Valley is a new high school. Its initial API is for 2003. Data Source: California Department of Education, API Growth Reports

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 205 The following observations can be made from Exhibit 4.3.29: • All schools demonstrated growth from 1999 to 2004. The range of growth was 21 API points to 217 API points. • The range of average API growth was 4 API points to 43 API points. • One school, Richardson Prep, has met or exceeded the state target of 800. • In 1999, only one school (2%) had exceeded an API score of 700. In 2004, six schools (13%) had API scores above 700. • In 1999, eight schools (15%) had exceeded an API score of 600. In 2004, thirty-six schools (67%) had exceeded an API score of 600. • In 1999, twenty-six schools (49%) had an API score below 500. In 2004, no schools had an API score below 500. • The range of years to target is 0 years to 54 years. • 36 schools (66%) are less than 10 years to target. California High School Exit Exam and SAT College Entrance Exam State law, enacted in 1999, authorized the development of the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE), which students in California public schools would have to pass to earn a high school diploma. Beginning with the 2005-06 school year, all California public school students are required to pass the CAHSEE and meet all other state and local requirements to earn a high school diploma. The purpose of the CAHSEE is to improve student achievement in high school and to help ensure that students who graduate from high school can demonstrate grade level competency in reading, writing, and mathematics. The CAHSEE has two parts: English Language Arts and Mathematics. Test questions address California academic content standards that a High School Exit Examination Standards Panel, appointed by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, determined students should master to graduate from high school. Exhibit 4.3.30 summarizes CAHSEE data for the state, the district, and the comprehensive high schools for the last three school years.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 206 Exhibit 4.3.30 Passing Rates on the California High School Exit Exam San Bernardino City Schools and State of California 2002-2004 Entity and 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Student Ethnic Group Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA State of California All students 32% 54% 43% 66% 74% 75% African American 20% 46% 26% 56% 54% 63% Hispanic 22% 42% 30% 53% 61% 62% White (Non-Hispanic) 49% 74% 63% 84% 87% 88% San Bernardino City (District Average) All students 17% 35% 28% 52% 58% 61% African American 15% 33% 20% 46% 44% 51% Hispanic 14% 33% 25% 47% 55% 57% White (Non-Hispanic) 27% 44% 44% 71% 77% 80% Arroyo Valley All students 17% 31% 29% 54% 56% 56% African American 18% 36% 21% 52% 47% 52% Hispanic 16% 27% 27% 51% 56% 54% White (Non-Hispanic) 23% 44% 65% 82% 81% 84% Cajon All students 23% 39% 39% 67% 71% 75% African American 17% 30% 23% 53% 56% 63% Hispanic 16% 38% 34% 64% 68% 72% White (Non-Hispanic) 38% 47% 51% 77% 80% 85% Middle College* All students - - 87% 100% 100% 100% African American - - 100% 100% 100% 100% Hispanic - - 92% 100% 100% 100% White (Non-Hispanic) - - 78% 100% 100% 100% Pacific All students 14% 36% 25% 45% 52% 54% African American 14% 32% 15% 39% 41% 46% Hispanic 12% 35% 24% 41% 48% 50% White (Non-Hispanic) 14% 43% 36% 61% 75% 75% San Bernardino All students 16% 30% 23% 43% 50% 55% African American 14% 31% 19% 42% 33% 39% Hispanic 14% 28% 21% 40% 52% 55% White (Non-Hispanic) 25% 36% 32% 56% 69% 70%

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 207 Exhibit 4.3.30 (continued) Passing Rates on the California High School Exit Exam San Bernardino City Schools and State of California 2002-2004 Entity and 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Student Ethnic Group Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA San Gorgonio All students 19% 32% 32% 55% 53% 66% African American 15% 28% 25% 47% 45% 54% Hispanic 16% 33% 28% 49% 58% 63% White (Non-Hispanic) 26% 35% 47% 73% 77% 80% *Note: Middle College did not have a large enough number of students in each ethnic group at Grade 10 for performance data to be provided. Data Source: California Department of Education, CAHSEE reports 2002-2004 The following observations can be made from the data in Exhibit 4.3.30: • The passing rate on the CAHSEE increased between 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 for the three major ethnic groups in San Bernardino City Schools and the state as a whole in both Mathematics and English Language Arts. • Both the Mathematics and the English Language Arts passing rate for students in San Bernardino City Schools were lower than that for the state as a whole for all students as well as the three ethnic groups. • African American and Hispanic students at both the city and state levels had lower passing rates than their white (non-Hispanic) counterparts in the three years shown. • In San Bernardino City Schools the achievement gap widened between white (non-Hispanic) students and both African American and Hispanic students in the time frame shown. In 2001- 2002, the difference between the passing rates for white and African American students was 12% in Mathematics and 11% in English Language Arts. In 2003-2004, the differences were 33% and 29% respectively. The differences between white (non-Hispanic) and Hispanic students were 13% and 11% In Mathematics and English Language Arts in 2002-2003 but increased to 22% and 23% respectively in 2003-2004. • Passing rates were higher in English Language Arts than Mathematics at both the city and state levels. • Performance at the individual high schools followed the same patterns in achievement gains and differences between groups as have been noted for the state and district. • Passing rates in 2004 were very similar at Arroyo Valley, Pacific, and San Bernardino High Schools. Scores were higher at Cajon and San Gorgonio. The 100% passing rate at Middle College reflects the nature of the program in place. • If graduation for the class of 2006 was strictly dependent upon the results from the sophomore year (the test taken in 2003-2004), a large number of students at all high schools would not graduate. The proportion of African American and Hispanic students not graduating would be larger than the proportion of White (Non-Hispanic) not graduating.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 208 The SAT college entrance exam provides information that allows local performance to be compared with both state and national performance. Nationally, the average verbal score for the graduating class of 2004 was 504 and the mathematics score was 513. For the students across the state of California, the averages were 484 and 519 respectively. Disaggregated data were not available on the state website. Exhibit 4.3.31 Scores on the SAT College Entrance Exam High Schools in San Bernardino City Unified Schools 2002-2004 Class of 2002 Class of 2003 Class of 2004 Arroyo Valley* % of Class Who Took Test - - 32% Average Verbal Score - - 401 Average Math Score - - 422 Average Total Score - - 814 % of Scores > 1000 - - 3% Cajon % of Class Who Took Test 46% 41% 46% Average Verbal Score 466 451 480 Average Math Score 464 455 480 Average Total Score 930 906 960 % of Scores >1000 17% 13% 21% Middle College* % of Class Who Took Test - - 78% Average Verbal Score - - 462 Average Math Score - - 472 Average Total Score - - 934 % of Scores > 1000 - - 22% Pacific % of Class Who Took Test 39% 41% 35% Average Verbal Score 415 417 398 Average Math Score 426 426 411 Average Total Score 841 843 809 % of Scores > 1000 6% 8% 5% San Bernardino % of Class Who Took Test 36% 35% 38% Average Verbal Score 410 432 407 Average Math Score 443 448 422 Average Total Score 853 880 828 % of Scores >1000 9% 9% 8% San Gorgonio % of Class Who Took Test 36% 40% 32% Average Verbal Score 450 445 452 Average Math Score 471 458 462 Average Total Score 921 903 914 % of Scores >1000 11% 12% 10% Note: 2004 was the first year that Arroyo Valley and Middle College had a senior class. Data Source: California Department of Education, SAT reports 2002-2004

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 209 The following can be noted from Exhibit 4.3.31: • Both verbal and mathematics scores were below state and national averages at all high schools. • Cajon High School was the only school that had higher scores in 2004 than in 2002 on both subtests and the total score. San Gorgonio average was slightly higher on the verbal portion of the test. • Just over one-fifth of the students at Cajon and College Middle High Schools had a total score greater than 1000 on the 2004 SAT. At the other high schools the numbers of students scoring at this level was 10% or less. • The SAT is the high school level exam on which students in San Bernardino City Unified high schools score higher on tests of mathematical skills than they do on verbal skills. The following comments related to student achievement were heard during interviews with administrators, teachers, and students. • “The consistency of performance and progress is not what it should be.” • “The number of schools underperforming increased this year.” • “Our test scores indicate there are academic weaknesses.” • “All of the teachers have a concern about test results.” • “Teacher’s expectations for students are low.” • “The initial reaction of our staff is that they didn’t think our kids could make the [required] progress in the API.” • “Results on AP tests have not been in line with grades kids are getting in classes, so there is false expectation based on grades.” Results of two major assessments, the California Standards Test and the SAT College Entrance Exam, indicate that student achievement in San Bernardino City Unified Schools is not consistently improving. Scores on the California Standards Tests are erratic at different grade levels over time and at the individual schools; results are especially low in high school mathematics. Differences in performance across ethnic groups are evident, and there is a considerable spread in the CST performance results of schools with the same percentage of students who qualify for free or reduced lunch. More positive results are evident in the California High School Exit Exam. While the percentage of students who have passed these tests is below state averages, the percent passing in both English Language Arts and Mathematics has increased between 2002 and 2004.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 210 STANDARD 5: A School System 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.

What the Auditors Expected to Find in the San Bernardino City Unified School District 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 financial allocations; • A financial data base and network that are able to track costs to results, provide sufficient fiduciary control, and is used as a viable data base in making policy and operational decisions; • Specific means that have been selected or modified and implemented to attain better results in the schools over a specified 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, sufficient, safe, orderly, and conducive to effective delivery of the instructional program; and • Support systems that function in systemic ways.

Overview of What the Auditors Found in the San Bernardino City Unified School District This section is an overview of the findings that follow in the area of Standard Five. The details follow within separate findings. The auditors found the District’s facilities planning efforts lack many of the components of a sound, comprehensive, long-range facilities master plan. The District’s facilities are generally clean and well maintained, but crowded and therefore not fully conducive to the support of healthy learning environments. The auditors found the San Bernardino City Unified School District administrators were diligently managing the district’s fiscal resources. However, budget development is characterized by formula allocations with little linkage to curricular needs or priorities. The auditors also found that program interventions lack systematic long-range planning and are not well monitored or evaluated. Few data are gathered to determine whether these programs constitute a valuable, productive use of district resources. Finally, the auditors found the district’s technology plan to be inadequate to guide the development of the district’s technology. The many problems encountered installing the district’s computer system has hindered the human resources, financial, and other business operations of the district. Computers assigned to the sites are often under-utilized.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 211 Finding 5.1: Facilities Master Planning Lacks Important Design Features And Is Inadequate To Guide Facility Development. Most School Facilities Are Clean And Well Maintained But Crowded.

An expectation of the audit is that the district will have a comprehensive facilities master plan in place to maintain the quality of facilities needed to provide a meaningful environment for student learning, as well as support for those who deliver that learning. Long-range facilities planning is imperative to provide for effective use of funding and real estate to meet both current and future student needs. Planning should be based on the careful analysis of all factors that impact the learning environment such as enrollment trends, curriculum needs, demographic change, instructional practices, special education requirements, early childhood initiatives, technology advancements, community concerns, and the support services needed to maintain the system. Long-range planning ensures that a school system is prepared financially for the task of maintaining the quality of existing facilities and the possibility of future construction or renovation. District personnel provided the following board policies and procedures for the auditors to review: • School Board Procedure 3101 concerning the estimation of costs of construction and remodeling projects. • School Board Policy 3210 establishing maximum student population and site sizes. • School Board Policy 3310 concerning the selection of architectural and engineering consultants Policy. The auditors also reviewed three Facilities Management Department manuals; and other pertinent documents, including a Facilities Update, April 2004; a Facilities Report, March 2004; Request for Proposal, 2004; School Facilities Needs Analysis for San Bernardino City Unified School District, December 2003; IP Communications at SBCUSD Impact on Facilities Planning, November 2004; 2004-2007 Priority School Projects. In addition to reviewing the facilities documents, the auditors interviewed board members and district employees, including the Building Services Director, the Facilities Plan and Development Director, and the Assistant Superintendent for Facilities/Operations. An analysis of the information provided revealed that the district’s planning efforts fail to meet audit criteria. Exhibit 5.1.1 contains this analysis: Exhibit 5.1.1 Components of a Comprehensive Long-range Facilities Plan And The Auditors’ Assessment Of The District’s Facilities Planning Efforts. San Bernardino Public School District 2004-2005 Components of a Comprehensive Long-range Facilities Plan Assessment of Planning Efforts 1. Philosophy statements that review the The Student Population and Site Sizes Policy community aspirations and the educational establishes the optimum size of school sites and mission of the district and their relationship to school enrollments. Missing are philosophy short- and long- range facilities goals. statements about community aspirations, and the educational mission of the district. Also

missing were short- and long-range facilities goals.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 212 Exhibit 5.1.1 (continued) Components of a Comprehensive Long-range Facilities Plan And The Auditors’ Assessment Of The District’s Facilities Planning Efforts. San Bernardino Public School District 2004-2005 Components of a Comprehensive Long-range Facilities Plan Assessment of Planning Efforts 2. Enrollment projections which take into Enrollment history and projections through account any known circumstances that may 2008-2009 were presented in the Five Year change the pupil population. Housing Report. Missing were projections for areas of growth within the school district. All

data was presented in a global rather than focused fashion. No long-range projections of 10 or more years were presented.

3. The current organizational patterns of the The plans give no guidance. The board district and identification of possible adopted a policy that specified a 6-8 middle organizational changes necessary to support the school organizational pattern. However, educational program. auditors were told that the administration that has changed its position and now supports K-6

and 7-8 organizational patterns. There were no documents found that identified future possible organizational changes.

4. Identification of educational program needs The business service division had a general to be considered by designers of capital scope and priority list that was approved by the projects for renovation or addition of school school board (January 2004). There are six facilities. areas considered in priority order. None directly addressed educational program needs:

• Access Compliance

• Fire/Life Safety

• Electrical Service

• Heating, Ventilation, & Air

Conditioning

• Modernization

• Miscellaneous

5. A detailed evaluation of each facility Auditors were shown probable construction including assessment of structural integrity, costs for individual facilities that followed the mechanical integrity, and efficiency, energy priority list established by the board. These efficiency, operations and maintenance, and lists showed the current amounts needed to health and safety requirements. bring the buildings to the level required by state mandates and to include the most needed

improvements.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 213 Exhibit 5.1.1 (continued) Components of a Comprehensive Long-range Facilities Plan And The Auditors’ Assessment Of The District’s Facilities Planning Efforts. San Bernardino Public School District 2004-2005 Components of a Comprehensive Long-range Facilities Plan Assessment of Planning Efforts 6. Prioritization of needs for renovation of These are included in the Facilities Update existing facilities and the provision of (2004). The total cost is given minus funds additional facilities. received from the state for school modernization. Funding follows the priority

list. 7. Cost analysis of potential capital projects to The cost analysis of identified potential meet the educational needs of the district, projects is included in the Facilities Update. including identification of revenues associated with capital construction.

8. Procedures for the involvement of all Documents were requested that set forth the stakeholders of the school community in the procedures used by the school district to development and evaluation of the long-range involve the stakeholders. No documents were facilities plan. presented to the auditors. Interviews conducted further indicated that there are no specific procedures.

As outlined in Exhibit 5.1, the auditors concluded that the San Bernardino City Unified School District facilities plans lack important components necessary to properly guide the District’s facility development. In addition to reviewing the facilities documents provided by the school district personnel, auditors visited every school in the San Bernardino City Unified School District. While at the schools, the auditors made notes of any facility deficiencies that would likely inhibit or restrict effective teaching and learning. The auditors noted the appearance of the facilities in terms of the overall building maintenance and cleanliness. While at the schools, auditors looked for potential safety hazards and surveyed the physical atmosphere including lighting, air conditioning, or heating. The auditors interviewed the principals regarding the level of support and response time provided by the district in the areas of maintenance and custodial needs. The data collected by the auditors while on the site visits are included in Exhibit 5.1.2:

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 214

Exhibit 5.1.2 Auditors’ Assessments of The Condition Of School Facilities San Bernardino City Unified School District February, 2005 Physical School Cleanliness Condition Comments Allred CDC Very Clean Good Alessandro Elementary Very Clean Good Crowded—Storage Needs Arrowhead Elementary Very Clean Good Barton Elementary Very Clean Satisfactory Needs a new Office Area Belvedere Elementary Very Clean Good Bradley Elementary Very Clean Satisfactory Burbank Elementary Mediocre Good Dark Classrooms, Poor Lighting California Elementary Very Clean Satisfactory Cole Elementary Very Clean Good Cypress Elementary Mediocre Good Debris on sidewalks and playgrounds Davidson Elementary Very Clean Good Del Rosa Elementary Very Clean Satisfactory Very Crowded Emmerton Elementary Mediocre Satisfactory Enrollment Center Very Clean Good Fairfax Elementary Very Clean Good Highland-Pacific Elementary Very Clean Good Old, but adequate Hillside Elementary Very Clean Satisfactory Hunt Elementary Very Clean Good Inghram Elementary Mediocre Poor Litter on grounds, Cluttered and Crowded Lighting Poor in Classrooms And Office Kimbark Elementary Very Clean Poor Carpet is Torn and Worn Lankershim Elementary Very Clean Good Lincoln Elementary Unclean & Satisfactory Extremely Crowded Messy Lytle Creek Elementary Mediocre Satisfactory Marshall Elementary Very Clean Satisfactory Too crowded for the number of students enrolled Monterey Elementary Mediocre Satisfactory Some of the Classrooms are too Small for the Number of Students Mt. Vernon Elementary Very Clean Good Muscoy Elementary Mediocre Satisfactory Newmark Elementary Very Clean Satisfactory North Park Elementary Mediocre Poor Open space has been converted to rooms that are narrow and small. Passageways are crowded North Verdemont Very Clean Like New Oehl Elementary Very Clean Good Palm Elementary Very Clean Like New

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 215 Exhibit 5.1.2 (continued) Auditors’ Assessments of The Condition Of School Facilities San Bernardino City Unified School District February, 2005 Physical School Cleanliness Condition Comments Parkside Elementary Very Clean Satisfactory Riley Elementary Very Clean Good Crowded Rio Vista Elementary Mediocre Satisfactory Not pretty, but adequate E. Neal Roberts Elementary Very Clean Good Roosevelt Elementary Mediocre Satisfactory Grounds are Unkempt Thompson Elementary Mediocre Good Debris on sidewalks and playgrounds Urbita Elementary Exemplary Good Vermont Elementary Very Clean Good Some Rooms are Crowded Warm Springs Elementary Very Clean Good Wilson Elementary Very Clean Good Space is Limited Arrowview Middle School Mediocre Satisfactory Curtis Middle School Very Clean Good Del Vallejo Middle School Mediocre Satisfactory Ongoing ADA Modifications Golden Valley Middle School Very Clean Good Inadequate cafeteria M.L. King Middle School Unclean and Satisfactory Messy Richardson Middle School Very Clean Satisfactory Serrano Middle School Unclean and Satisfactory Rugs are in Poor Condition Messy Shandin Hills Middle School Mediocre Satisfactory Arroyo Valley High School Very Clean Like New Cajon High School Very Clean Good Beautiful Cafeteria Pacific High School Unclean and Poor Classrooms are Dark Messy Insufficient Space in Some Classrooms San Andreas High School Very Clean Satisfactory Space is Limited to Meet Diverse Needs San Bernardino High School Mediocre Good Very Crowded, Big Classes. Just Plain Run Down. San Gorgonio High School Very Clean Satisfactory Sierra High School Very Clean Satisfactory Middle College Mediocre Satisfactory (Rented Space) Adult Education Very Clean Satisfactory Carpets are very stained, badly in need of replacement Y Academy Exemplary Like New (Rented) Boys & Girls Club Academy Very Clean Good (Rented) Kendall Complex (Harmon) Very Clean Good Kendall Complex (Carmack) Very Clean Good Kendall Complex (Kendall) Mediocre Satisfactory Anderson Alternative Exemplary Like New Most current facilities are clean and well maintained. Forty-four of the sixty-five facilities visited were listed as being “Very Clean” or “Exemplary” in the Cleanliness Category. Seventeen of the facilities were listed as “Mediocre” for Cleanliness. Four facilities: Lincoln Elementary, Pacific

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 216 High School, Serrano Middle School and M. L. King were found to be “Unclean and Messy”. These facilities may share some of the problems noted in interviews: • “Bathrooms for the students are an issue too. It’s a challenge keeping them fully supplied and clean throughout the day.” (principal) • “There are big maintenance issues. But they’re trying to keep up.” (principal) • “There are many after school programs, and my husband and I have volunteered to go around picking up trash and have found syringes and condoms. I have asked the principal to have the school fenced.” (Parent) The physical condition of thirty-four of the buildings was found to be “Good” or “Like New”. Twenty-seven of the schools were found to be in “Satisfactory” physical condition. Four schools were found to be in “Poor” physical condition: Kimbark Elementary, Pacific High School, North Park Elementary, and Inghram Elementary. Pacific High School was the only facility in the district marked by the auditors as being in “Poor” physical condition and being “Unclean and Messy”.

The floors shine at Shandin Middle School

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 217

A maintenance worker preps a wall for new paint at Lytle Creek School

Restrooms are clean and functional at Riley Elementary School Portable classrooms are found at most school campuses. Some schools, such as Lincoln Elementary and Arroyo High School have large numbers of portables. Facilities such as Arroyo High School have been constructed within the past five years, yet portable units have been added to the campus. Even with the portable classrooms some campuses are overcrowded. The District’s Report of Existing School Building Capacity indicated there were 548 portables in use at the K-6 level, 40 at the 7-8 level, and 148 at the 9-12 level. This is a total of 736 portable units in use at the beginning of the 2004-2005 school year. It should be noted that these figures do not contain the number of portables used for preschool or adult learning programs.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 218

Portables at Lincoln Elementary—a situation similar to all schools in the District.

Modular buildings at Fairfax Elementary School

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 219

Random furniture and equipment storage at Shandin Middle School

Equipment storage at Cajon Middle School

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 220 The District’s Facility Update reports that during the 2003-2004 school year the district enrolled 58,000 students and further projects that by the 2008-2009 school year the enrollment will range between 64,000 and 65,000. The five year plan notes, “The District should continue its ongoing measures to deal with growth and maximize the use of its existing facilities while constructing new facilities.” There is a plan that calls for “Extreme Measures” in the event that the population growth exceeds current estimates. However, there is no acknowledgement that existing facilities are inadequately supporting learning in the district. During the site visits, auditors noted several problems in existence at current facilities. Elementary buildings like Riley, Del Rosa, and Lincoln were housing several hundred students more than board policy prescribed. In addition, auditors found buildings such as the Golden Valley Middle School where the cafeteria size was inadequate to seat all of the students. The Jefferson Hunt Elementary had no inside cafeteria so students were expected to eat outdoors. At Del Rosa Elementary the auditors observed a Physical Education Instructor conducting a class in a storage room because there was no room available on days when the weather did not allow an outdoor activity. San Bernardino staff, administration, board members, and parents also discussed the impact that crowding was having on the delivery of curriculum and students. • “We’re already at capacity in some schools and students have to be bussed to other schools. The schools we currently have won’t handle the growth.” (School Board Member) • “We’d like to provide a building that provides a place of in-service, artifacts, media, technology. Now it’s scattered all over the district. It’s not adequate.” (Superintendent) • “It would be heavenly if everyone had their own classroom.” (Principal) • “There is not enough room for students, we have roving teachers, and for ancillary staff like psychologists.” (Teacher) • “Space is a problem within the district. We are currently trying to locate space for our program. Should that be my job? We have to look for our own office space, too.” (Coordinator) • “Facilities are just too crowded; there’s been too much capping and the consequences have caught up with us.” (Principal) • “Our middle schools are getting way too large, and these kids are getting lost in huge crowds. We need more options for serving unique needs and capturing them at that level before they are lost completely.” (Principal) • “The (facilities planning) process just has to be brought up-to-date.” (District Administrator)

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 221

Construction project during school hours at Vallego Middle School

In summary, the district lacks a comprehensive, long-range facilities master plan necessary to provide optimum physical environments for learning in the schools. While most of the district’s facilities are clean and well maintained, crowding in the schools has a negative impact on the delivery of the curriculum. Finding 5.2: The Fiscal Resources Are Managed Prudently; However, Budget Practices Lack Adequate Linkages To Curricular Needs And Priorities.

A school system's productivity is improved when clear linkages exist between the curriculum and the budget. Cost benefit analysis requires a clear delineation of costs compared to documented system gains or results obtained from allocation. 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 fiscal resources to support and implement its programs. Thus, the budget is the numerical expression of the curriculum and should mirror program expectations. System-wide productivity is enhanced by budgetary decisions based on program needs, goals, and priorities. To determine the extent to which the connection between curriculum and budget exists, auditors interviewed board members and district employees, including the Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance and members of the business division. They also reviewed district documents including fiscal audit reports and various written directives used by the district to prepare and monitor the budget. When auditors asked to review the district’s policies and procedures related to budget preparation and adoption, they were informed that none existed. Other relevant documents reviewed by the auditors included the following: • An internal memo dated March 19, 2004, from the director of fiscal services to all principals concerning budget development packets including an attached spread sheet that informs the principals of their budget allocations for the 2004-05 school year.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 222 • The Superintendent’s Blueprint for Success, approved by Board consensus on October 5, 2004, which calls for a “high level of family and community involvement in the education process.” • The district’s plan for compliance with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 which contains program goals and assurances which the Governing Board adopted on May 20, 2003. These goals and assurances declare board support for the practice of targeting funds to schools that have the lowest proportion of qualified teachers or that are identified for school improvement under Section 1116(b). • The district’s job description for the Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance which states in part that the Assistant Superintendent “prepares, reviews, and presents the district’s adopted budget.” During the past few years, the business division has struggled with the installation of a new management information system (SAP). The problems encountered with the district’s financial interface with the San Bernardino County Office of Education’s computer system have caused the district to create parallel systems in some cases and consequently have created additional work and expense. Auditors heard numerous criticisms: • “This (the system installation) is a painful process affecting our business operations.” (District administrator) • “We are working with pieces, parallel systems.” (District business official) • “It’s killing us.” (District business official) In spite of these hardships, the auditors found a prudently managed business operation. According to the district’s Annual Financial Report audited by the independent auditing firm of Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Company, LLP, the district’s combined net assets were larger on June 30, 2004, than they were the year before—increasing more than 19% to $286 million. The total revenues during this period increased to $496.4 million, while the total cost of all programs and services rose to $450.3 million. The district’s overall financial status has improved substantially over the past four years. The District budgets have been carefully prepared and, according to the outside financial auditors, comply with fiduciary and legal requirements. However, the auditors found an absence of direct linkages among district goals and budget priorities, and no formal effort has yet been made to link student achievement or program performance feedback to budgetary decisions. The business officers of the district were aware that the district’s Research Division collects and analyzes student data, but these data were not used extensively for budget development purposes. Principals and department heads are asked to submit annual budget requests directly to the Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance who assigns costs and forwards them to the Superintendent. A “wish list” or “unfunded priorities list” is created and reviewed by the Superintendent’s Budget Committee. According to business and finance officials interviewed, about 40% of the unfunded priority list is eventually funded. During this process, needs are considered and allocations are formulated based on those perceived needs; however, auditors found no formal process to review budget requests in order to establish connectivity with the district's educational goals and priorities. At the site level, the system again uses a conventional budget process that is not driven primarily by the curriculum. The core program at each school is funded based on enrollment. Sites are then allocated discretionary funds again based primarily on numbers of pupils. These funds, in turn, are distributed by the site administrators to support site operations. From time to time, extra dollars are allocated to school for special needs, but, according to the business and finance administrators, these are generally one-time allocations. The district uses special categorical funding to address problems of equity. For example, issues related to poverty are

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 223 addressed by the Federal Title I funds, relieving the district of the responsibility for funding these special programs. As one business official remarked, “We have very healthy categorical funding.” The auditors used seven criteria for a curriculum-driven budget to assess the San Bernardino City Unified School District budget development process. These criteria and the auditors' assessments are shown in Exhibit 5.2.1. Exhibit 5.2.1 Components Of A Curriculum-Driven Budget And The District’s Rating San Bernardino City Unified School District February, 2005 Curriculum-Driven Budget Criteria Adequate Inadequate 1. Tangible, demonstrable connections are evident between

assessments of operational curriculum effectiveness and X allocations of resources. 2. An ordering of program components is provided to permit flexibility in budget expansion, reduction or stabilization based X on changing need or priorities. X Categorical or 3. Cost benefits of components in curriculum programming are delineated in budget decision-making. uncommitted funds only 4. Each budget request or submittal is described in order to evaluate the consequences of funding or non-funding in terms X of performance or results.

5. Budget requests or submittals compete with each other for funding based upon evaluation of criticality of need and X relationship to achievement of curriculum effectiveness. X Categorical or 6. Priorities in the budget process are set by participation of key educational staff in the decision-making process. uncommitted funds only X 7. Teacher and principal suggestions and ideas for budget Principal wish priorities are incorporated into the decision-making process. lists only Exhibit 5.2.1 presents an analysis of the San Bernardino City Unified School District budget process and reveals that four components of a curriculum-driven budget are inadequate and three are partially adequate. None of the criteria are fully satisfied by the budgeting procedures currently in operation. Criterion 1. Budget allocations are not connected to assessments of program effectiveness required by Criterion 1 primarily because a comprehensive system of program assessment does not exist in the district (see Findings 4.1 and 4.2). Criterion 2. Rank ordering of program components is not a prescribed part of the budget procedures as required by Criterion 2. Criterion 3. The district lacks the data base to conduct meaningful cost-benefit analysis of the entire budget as required by Criterion 3. The unfunded priority list is analyzed for possible funding. (see Finding 4.1)

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 224 Criterion 4. Budget requests are solicited and are considered on the basis of their consequences in partial conformance with Criterion 4. Criterion 5. Budget requests do not compete with each other based upon a formal evaluation of need related to curriculum goals as required by Criterion 5. Criteria 6 and 7. Discussions with cabinet officers and other administrators revealed that principal and teacher suggestions are incorporated in these discussions in an informal way. Consequently, Criteria 6 and 7 involving participation of key personnel in setting priorities were judged to be partially met. Interview comments portray the general perceptions of the budget process in the San Bernardino District: • “We don’t have a priority-setting process.” (District administrator) • “Once a year we ask principals for a wish list.” (District administrator) • “A budget Committee was formed a year ago to deal with the shortfall.” (District administrator) • “(Employee) Benefits drive much of our priorities.” (District administrator) The auditors concluded that financial allocations in the San Bernardino City Unified School District are not governed by program priorities, curricular objectives, nor results analyses based on data derived from comprehensive feedback processes. School budgets are based on per-pupil allocations. Principals distribute site allocations based on priorities established in site plans but which lack program evaluation procedures. This process results in disparities due to resource allocations not based on educational needs (see Recommendation 9). Finding 5.3: Program Interventions To Improve Student Achievement Are Not Systematically Planned, Monitored, And Evaluated For Long-Term Effectiveness.

Interventions are actions taken by districts based on identified needs within the district. An intervention that has a positive impact on improving students’ learning will be well planned, well funded, and fully implemented and evaluated for effectiveness. Interventions are expected to have an impact on student achievement and/or the specific goals of that intervention. Effective interventions meet the following criteria: • Criterion 1: Intervention relates to a documented system need, assessments of operational curriculum effectiveness, and allocation of resources. • Criterion 2: Document exists to define the purpose of the program, why it addresses the system need, how it will impact achievement, and plans for implementation. • Criterion 3: A detailed process for implementing the program is provided including strong communications and professional development components. • Criterion 4: Human, material, and fiscal resources needed are identified to initiate the program in the short term and sustain the program in the long term. • Criterion 5: formative feedback and summative evaluation criteria are identified which are tied to program goals, objectives, and expenditures. Several programs and interventions have been implemented within the San Bernardino City Unified School District and at the campus level (see Exhibit 5.3.1). Auditors interviewed the Superintendent, assistant superintendents, directors, coordinators, principals and teachers and conducted a survey to gather data on the kinds of interventions being used in district. Auditors found that most interventions in the district are funded through the general fund, and state and federal grants. Some

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 225 interventions, such as the Read 180 Reading Intervention Program, existed in several elementary schools and one high school. No plan was presented to focus interventions or to provide a link to district goals. In addition, no written procedures were in place that specified how programs would be introduced, approved, continued evaluated or terminated if not successful. The auditors concluded that program interventions in the San Bernardino City Unified School District are not systematically planned, monitored, or evaluated to promote long-term effectiveness. The following quotations by district personnel further describe district management of interventions: • “There are no policies or written procedures for adopting interventions.” (Administrator) • “Each school has been free to contract-out programs. Some are successful, some not.” (Administrator) • “Too many programs can be a weakness.” (Administrator) • “Maybe if we focused instead of spreading ourselves too thin.” (Principal) • “I can’t think of a program that has been dropped.” (Board Member) • “Curriculum and programs are inconsistently implemented across the district.” (Administrator) • “I made a connection with a vendor; my school became a pilot for Read 18. Basically if you want a program, you request a meeting, get it approved, and then sell it to the staff.” (Principal) • “We use OARS data for determining needed action or interventions. We assumed OARS would b e a good indicator.” (Principal) • “We’re all over the place; the district communicates to sites what programs are available. Vendors present information, then it becomes a site decision. Each site evaluates and decides to keep or remove a program. Although these programs have been accepted the use of the program is different at every site.” (Administrator) • “I think we have been all over the place. We do not have a district review. Sites have categorical. The Waterford Program presented some problems such as needing additional electrical outlets and air conditioning.” (Administrator) • “When we adopted Houghton Mifflin, we adopted High Point, an intervention program, one year later. All campuses should use it but some are not. Some have High Point and some have Read 180. (Administrator) • “We need to look at what is working and what isn’t. Its’ hard to tell if they (interventions) are making a difference if they are not used consistently. No evaluation tool is in place for Intensive Tutoring. We just monitor student progress. We need to have good evaluation tools” (Principal)

Exhibit 5.3.1 lists examples of School Program Interventions implemented in the San Bernardino City Unified School District Exhibit 5.3.1 Examples of System and School Program Interventions San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Elementary School

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 226 Vanguard Tiger Tickets Intensive Instruction ABE Assembly Plan Scholastic Read 180 High Point Parent Involvement Program Peace Builders RSP Targeted Instruction Sunrise Tiger Training High Intensity Language Technology Learning Center Learners Positive Action Kindergarten Parent Club School Improvement Caps Instructional Support for Program Language Learners Fluency Building Off Track Tutoring Platform Learning Perfect Attendance Program High Priority Reading Clinic Prime Time Reading First Ell Tutors Waterford Reading Awards Healthy Start Collaborative Peace Builders Reading Counts America Reads Meet The Masters Write to Read Bilingual Tutoring Reading Revolution Learning Center Head Sprout Intersection Native American and Cesar FST Tutoring Accelerated Reader Chavez Curriculum RSP Tutoring Adventure Team Cross Age Tutoring Junior Police Academy First Grade Intervention EXEL Program Positive Action SRA Reading Being Caught Good Language Academy EL Math Math Steps California Reads Program Vermont Behavior Science Camp Improvement Leapfrog Middle School Education Platform Learning Ambassador Program Math Support LEAP Cadet Corp Cal Safe Accelerated Reader Anger Management Insight Leadership Team Fast Forward Read and Succeed Sylvan Learning Lifelong Learning Math Counts Accelerated Reader Campus Star Program Intersession River Deep Math Program Jane Schafer Writing Model Program High School California School Partnership CATAPULTS/Sylvan Extended Day Academy Grant 9th Grade Objective AVID After School Tutoring

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 227 II/USP Student Assistance Cowboy Academy SDAIE Pirate Academy Middle School Mentoring Program Read 180 Math Support Renaissance Program Prime Time College- to- High School Categorical Funds Connection Intensive Instruction Alliance for Education CAL SAFE Education Station and Reed & Structured English Immersion Succeed

One example of a major district program intervention is the Read 180 Reading Intervention Program. This intervention was selected for analysis because of the major role it plays in the district. Auditors learned that the management of this program was typical of program interventions in the district. The program was assessed by comparing it with audit criteria for planning, implementation, and assessment. Five criteria are used to determine whether this intervention was designed in such a way that it would have success as implemented and provide improvements in productivity. Exhibit 5.3.2 lists the criteria and auditors’ ratings.

Exhibit 5.3.2 Comparison of the Read 180 Reading Intervention Program To Innovation and Intervention Design Criteria San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Adequate Inadequate

1. The intervention relates to a documented need, assessments of X operational curriculum effectiveness, and allocations of resources.

2. Documents exist to define the purpose of the program, why it addresses the system need, how it will impact the student’s X achievement, and plans for implementation.

3. A detailed process for implementing the program is provided X including strong communication and professional development components. (principal’s option) 4. Human, material, and fiscal resources needed are identified to

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 228 initiate the program (short term) and to sustain the program. (long X term)

5. Formative feedback and summative evaluation criteria are identified which are tied to program goals, objectives, and X expectations. (partially) Exhibit 5.3.2 reveals that the district’s planning and implementation of the Read 180 program is inadequate to successfully support long-term effectiveness: Criterion 1: General information about the needs of students was provided for the implementation of the program. Campus principals used state assessment data and other assessments to determine individual student need for interventions. However, no documented assessment of the curriculum was found to explain why the program was needed and no documentation was found which demonstrated a connection to District goals. Criterion 2: The purpose of the program is defined in materials provided by the vendor and in memos from the Director of Elementary Education to campus principals. The documents identify specific ways in which the program is expected to impact student achievement. However, there was no data analysis of the pilot results to demonstrate the program addresses the District’s needs. In addition, campus principals were given the option of implementation of the program. Criterion 3: An implementation timeline was provided with mention of training dates for teachers. The vendor provided training and training materials for the district. However, the training was provided only to campuses that chose to use the program. Campus principals made the final decision concerning the implementation of the program. Criterion 4: Program costs were sustained by campus budgets. The campus principal determined whether he had the personnel to be able to implement the program. Additional expenditures were supported by the school site. Criterion 5: The vendor provided a record keeping system in the program software; however, no documented plans were presented to evaluate the program using the student records or other student achievement instruments at the district level. No data analysis was provided as an evaluation of the pilot program. In summary, the San Bernardino City Unified School District has implemented several programs and interventions to meet certain needs of students both district-wide and at the campus level. However, many programs lack adequate design characteristics to promote high levels of program improvement. Finding 5.4: The Technology Plan Is Inadequate To Guide Implementation Of The Technology Program. Some Computer Based Instructional Programs Are Used, But The Integration Of Technology Into The Curriculum Is Minimal.

In the modern world, technology plays an important role in student learning. This learning process can be maximized through sound planning and effective implementation. The introduction of technology into a school district requires changes in how employees approach their daily work. In school buildings, the integration of technology into the instructional program as a teaching and learning tool requires rethinking of what will be taught, what teachers will do differently in the classroom, and how learning will be measured. In examining technology in the San Bernardino City Unified School District, the auditors reviewed the following district plans and documents related to technology: • San Bernardino City Unified School District 2002-2006 Technology Plan

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 229 • California School Technology Survey 2002 (65 individual surveys – One Master Copy) • Student Internet Use Agreement • Employee Technology Policy • 200-2001 Technology Class Descriptions • Technology Task Force (Staff Development in Technology) • Technology Funding Budget 2001-2002 • Technology Software Preview (Master) • California Assistance Project/Technology Assessment Profile The auditors also interviewed board members, central office and building administrators, parents, and other community members. In addition, the auditors conducted site visits at all school buildings. Auditors then used the information gathered from the referenced sources to compare the District’s technology planning against the quality criteria of the curriculum audit. The auditors found the technology planning to be inadequate to guide implementation of the technology program. A comparison of the district’s planning to the audit criteria is presented in Exhibit 5.4.1:

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 230 Exhibit 5.4.1 Quality Criteria for Instructional Technology Programs and Auditor’s Assessment San Bernardino City Unified School District February 2005

Program Component Adequate Inadequate 1. Board policy or administrative regulation for instructional X technology 2. Clear Statement of program philosophy/vision X 3. Comprehensive view of technology X 4. Needs assessment X 5. Measurable student goals and objectives X 6. Ongoing student assessment X 7. Ongoing program assessment X 8. Comprehensive staff training with measurable standards X • Equipment • Application • Integration 9. School Site equipment standards X 10. Internet access standards X 11. Role of school library X 12. Implementation budget X 13. Maintenance budget X 14. Site plans aligned with district plan X The auditors found the Technology Plan to be adequate in six of the criteria and inadequate in eight of the criteria. The following was noted: Criterion 1: The auditors found no board policy related to instructional technology development and implementation. The district’s technology plan was not approved by the Board but was sent to the State Department. The State Department approved the plan on 7/01/2002, and it will expire on 6/30/2006. Criterion 2: Within the Technology Plan 2002-2006 there were no statements of vision for instructional technology, nor were there statements of philosophy about technology within the instructional program. Criterion 3: The technology plan for the district listed three views of technology use within the instructional program—to use technology as a tool to automate existing practices, to use it as a research tool within the classroom, and to provide students with the opportunity to learn in ways never before possible. Criterion 4: The district conducted a survey during the spring semester 2002 about computer hardware, staff usage, and student ability to use technology as a learning tool. The San Bernardino City Unified School District resurveyed the teaching staff in December 2004. The areas covered by

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 231 the online California Technology Assistance Project/Technology Assessment were as follows: Computer Knowledge and Skills, Personal Use, and Student Use. Criterion 5: Included in the Technology Plan are five instructional related goals. Each goal has a number of objectives used to implement and measure the progress toward meeting the goal. In addition there are two non-instructional goals included within the plan. Criterion 6: The auditors requested documentation concerning ongoing student assessment, but none was provided. Criterion 7: The Technology Liaison Program was designed to provide a conduit for information about instructional technology from the district level to the site and classroom. The Liaison Staff meets on an established schedule to discuss vendors, hardware, and other related matters. There was no documentation presented about current technology program assessment. Criterion 8: Within the technology plan there were forms to be completed by staff concerning training they had received through the district’s professional development effort. Auditors requested completed survey material, but none was provided. Also, no follow-up survey information was provided to auditors. Criterion 9: Auditors found a wide range of hardware in use throughout the district. According to Central Office Technology Personnel, “We have no control over what’s purchased at the school site.” Individual School Site Plans contained a budget that indicated how much each site proposed to spend on computer equipment for that budget cycle. No specifications for technology were found within the site plans. Criterion 10: The 2002 survey results indicate that the County Office of Education is the internet service provider for the schools. The schools are connected with ATM-TI lines. The speed of the connections is shown to be 1.54 megabits or greater, but less than 3.0 megabits. All schools are connected to the district office by means of a wide area network/metropolitan area network. Criterion 11: All high schools have the Alexandria Computer Library Systems for students to search and check materials and resources using computers. The libraries at all middle schools are also internet connected and using the Alexandria Computer Library System. All elementary libraries have internet access. The Technology Plan asserts, “All students are provided instruction in Information Literacy from the moment they are introduced to literature and books.” Criterion 12: Auditors reviewed the Budget Summary Report for the 2004-2005 budget year. The budget included salaries for technology coordinators, specialists and clerical help. The budget also included a sizeable portion for training and professional development. In addition the implementation budget contained money for computer software and inter-program supplies. The individual site plans contained budget material related to computerized equipment and computerized instructional material. This varied widely from school to school. Criterion 13: Auditors reviewed the Budget Summary Report for the 2004-2005 budget year. Items included were computer repair, deferred maintenance, and BS/E-Rate. The individual site plans contained budget material related to computerized equipment and computerized instructional material. This varied widely from school to school. Criterion 14: The site plans developed immediately after the implementation of the District Technology Plan did contain alignment in the area of access. No instructional alignment to the Technology Plan was found. Plans completed in a more recent cycle were found to contain no goals, but did contain a series of activities that appeared to be identical from site plan to site plan. The Use of Instructional Technology in Schools

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 232 The Technology Plan developed in 2002 contained the following statement: “The State-wide emphasis on assessment and teaching to the standards at the elementary level has discouraged teachers from effectively integrating technology into the classroom curriculum.” In 2005 auditors found that technology still was not integrated into the classroom curriculum. The auditors visited all of the San Bernardino City Unified School District’s sites and nearly all of the classrooms where instruction was taking place. Site visitation enabled the auditors to find evidence of the use of technology as a tool for instruction and to assess the availability of classroom computers, school computer laboratories, and school libraries. Auditors observed computers with charts taped over the monitors, computers hidden behind screens, and quite often computers that had not been turned on in preparation for daily use. The most frequent use of technology by students was observed in the area of computerized reading intervention programs. Out of the 8,907 computers counted by the auditors, there were 1,219 in use at the time the auditors visited the buildings. This represents a usage rate of 13.6% for that observation period.

Unused computers and others needing repair at Thompson Elementary School The amount of technology that is integrated into the curriculum is highly dependent upon the site administrators and the teaching staff as reflected in the following staff quotations: • “It (technology) varies from school to school and depends upon the principal. It depends on how the principal works with the budget,” (Vice Principal) • “The use of the technology depends on the teacher. We are conducting professional development in this area to help them get better.” (Principal) • “The district doesn’t have a technology plan. They don’t help us with technology in any way.” (Principal) • “Most of this staff is generally able to use the computers, but they are not very familiar with software and tend to stick to other instructional materials…especially focusing on any new adoptions.” (Principal) • “We were a digital high school, and some of the hardware is getting a little dated now. We are slated for modernization, which means we will get more drops. We have at least two computers in every class. We have some mobile labs and 3 computer labs. Every room has access to the internet. I am concerned about the age of the equipment.” (Principal)

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 233 In numerous interviews the auditors were told about SAP, the business software that is being implemented to handle the business side of the district. The amount of time and resources that has been devoted to this software is hindering curriculum development and instructional improvement. It is an issue that is detracting from instructional technology and its use within the district. This issue is reflected in the following quotations: • “SAP system slows down buying, paying bills and knowing what’s in the budget. Site secretaries are doing two sets of payroll.” (Vice Principal) • “This year our budget is a mess because of SAP. It’s a mess. It’s taking a lot of our time that we should be spending on curriculum and teacher evaluation.” (Principal) • “We are still in the process of implementing SAP – it’s still not working – I’m not real happy – it’s on my mind because it’s very time consuming.” (Principal) • “The district office needs to more aware of the demands they are placing on the sites.” (Vice Principal) In summary, the district’s technology plan met audit criteria in six of fourteen categories and was found to be inadequate in eight categories. The inadequacies include board policy and administrative regulation for instructional technology, clear statements of a technology philosophy, an ongoing student assessment, an ongoing program assessment, staff training that has measurable standards, school site equipment standards, a maintenance budget for instructional technology, and a plan that will align each school site’s plan with the district technology plan. The district lacks a proper focus on instructional technology. At the present the focus is on the business software used to manage the district rather than hardware and software used to improve academic achievement.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 234 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PDK-CMSi CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT AUDIT TEAM FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. Based 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 findings shown under each of the standards of the audit. In the case of the findings, 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 officer 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 specific objectives to carry out the overarching goals. The latter are designated “Governance Functions” and “Administrative Functions.” Recommendation 1: Revise, Adopt, Implement, and Monitor the Use of Comprehensive Board Policies and Administrative Regulations to Provide Direction for Effective Curriculum Management.

A comprehensive set of policies provides the foundation for sound curriculum management and local quality control. In the absence of adequate policies and quality planning, the board of education cannot ensure program focus, effectiveness and consistency. This results in a system that lacks the ability to respond rationally to changing circumstances and expectations and leaves each unit in the system to find its own solutions to problems and challenges. Such a disjointed approach reduces productivity. School boards are responsible for directing the superintendent to develop policies for board consideration and adoption, but not conducting actual direction of any staff member or aspect of the district on a day-to-day basis. This is a key aspect of the board’s macro-management role. Superintendents are responsible for micro-managing the district and their staffs. This includes making recommendations for policy to the board and using the superintendent’s discretion in designing and implementing policies and procedures. In the San Bernardino City Unified School District current Board policies fail to direct critical functions necessary for the control and direction of curriculum management and other organizational functions. Sound board policies accomplish the following: • Establish clear direction for the system (see Finding 1.1);

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 235 • Provide for local initiatives to enhance the system beyond state directives; • Provide for consistency of action over time as members of the board and administration change (see Finding 1.2); • Provide for a historical base for the district in order to avoid contradictory actions; • Guide professional staff in their decision-making to improve direction in the district; • Establish a framework for monitoring progress in the attainment of district learning goals; and • Provide a framework for the evaluation of district employees. Many of the policies do not provide clear expectations or adequate direction for a sound system of curriculum management and control (see Finding 1.1). Policies fail to require alignment (see Finding 2.1) comprehensive student and program assessment (see Finding 4.1). District policies do not require comprehensive long-range planning (see Finding 1.2) and fail to require a budgeting process that is focused on the achievement of district goals (see Finding 5.1). Establishing clear direction for curriculum development and delivery will require the board to revise some existing policies and expand the scope of policy by creating additional policies. Policy development and revision needs to take place in the next three to nine months in order to establish clear expectations and parameters for the upcoming school year and to establish a framework for implementing subsequent audit recommendations. Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the San Bernardino City Unified School District Board of Education: G.1.1: Direct the Superintendent to develop policies for Board review and adoption that meet the characteristics of high quality policies to direct curriculum management listed in Exhibit 1.1.2. These characteristics provide for the elements of control, direction, connectivity and equity, feedback, and productivity. These criteria are: • Aligned written, taught, and assessed curriculum • Philosophical statement of curriculum approach • Board adoption of curriculum • Accountability through roles and responsibilities • Long-range, system-wide planning • Written curriculum for all subject/learning areas • Periodic review of the curriculum • Textbook/resource alignment to curriculum and assessment • Content area emphasis • Program integration and alignment to curriculum • Predictability of the written curriculum from one level to another • Vertical articulation and horizontal coordination of the curriculum • Training for staff delivery of the curriculum • Delivery of the adopted curriculum • Monitoring the delivery of the curriculum • Equitable student access to the curriculum

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 236 • Student and program assessment plan • Use of data from assessment to determine program/curriculum effectiveness • Reports to the board about program effectiveness • Use of data to determine effectiveness of all district functions • Program-centered budget • Resource allocation tied to curriculum priorities • Environment to support curriculum delivery • Support systems focused on mission delivery • Data-driven decisions for the purpose of increasing student learning • Change processes for long-term institutionalization G.1.2: Review, direct revision, and adopt the submitted policies (see G.-.1). G.1.3: Direct the Superintendent to implement the policies and develop a policy-use monitoring/evaluation plan that includes a regular periodic review of policies to ensure appropriateness and currency. G.1.4 Direct the Superintendent to make yearly evaluation reports to the board on policy effectiveness and use. Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the San Bernardino City Unified School District Superintendent: A.1.1: Comply with board directives G.-.1—G.-.4. A.1.2: Develop administrative regulations to implement, monitor, and assess effectiveness of board policy. A.1.3: Designate district staff to be responsible for the development of draft policies to be submitted to the Board, for compilation of current board policy including adoption date and distribution of policy to appropriate district staff. A.1.4: Conduct a training program for district staff regarding policy implementation. Recommendation 2: Develop and Implement a Curriculum Management Plan to Be Used by District Personnel to Develop, Implement, Monitor, and Assess the Curriculum, Provide Comprehensive Professional Development K-12, and Establish Consistency Among Core and Intervention Programs.

Effective district planning concentrates all efforts, resources, activities, and energies toward the single purpose of student achievement. Planning is essential in organizing and focusing the district’s goal to increase student achievement and to respond to contextual conditions. It provides a systemic means of sustaining consistency of purpose that is critical to the effective management of curriculum. Curriculum management planning benefits students by increasing the probability that effective programs and practices will be available to them. Coordinated leadership and clear responsibility for school system direction and accountability helps to eliminate fragmentation of effort that exists because of the absence of comprehensive planning to provide connectivity among curriculum management, professional development, and practices for academic intervention. Focused and coordinated planning that is aligned to learning expectations for students supports the delivery of the district curriculum and positively impacts student achievement.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 237 It is important that curriculum management and the purpose, goals and objectives of professional development and academic interventions are clearly communicated and aligned with the district’s mission and goals. The auditors found no board policy requiring comprehensive planning for curriculum management (see Findings 1.1, 2.1). Fragmentation of efforts across departments has resulted in lack of coherence in curriculum design between elementary, middle, and high school levels, and within programs for specific purposes such as English learner programs (see Findings 2.1 and 3.2 and Recommendation 4), academic intervention programs (see Finding 5.3), and programs for professional development (see Finding 3.1). The scope of middle and high school curriculum is inadequate (see Finding 2.2) and the quality of curriculum guides is inadequate to guide curriculum alignment (see Finding 2.3). Auditors found minimal guidance systemwide regarding instructional practices (see Finding 3.3), monitoring of curriculum implementation (see Finding 3.4), or assessment and evaluation of student achievement and program effectiveness (see Findings 4.1 and 4.2). A comprehensive curriculum management plan is needed to establish and maintain a consistent educational program with clearly defined learning outcomes for all students (including English language learners) aligned to state standards and assessments, appropriately aligned resources, and strategies for effective curriculum implementation that include: comprehensive professional development, promotion of appropriate instructional practices, district defined models for English learner programs, clear systems of assessment and program evaluation, a systematic approach to intervention, and effective monitoring practices. When a district curriculum management plan and its timelines are adhered to, the district is able to provide direction that facilitates the design and delivery of the district curriculum and maintain a systematic approach to evaluation of program effectiveness in attaining district goals for student achievement. The San Bernardino City Unified School District needs to design and implement a comprehensive plan for curriculum management. It should be directed by school board policy and be used to direct the design and delivery of the curriculum, monitoring practices, and systematic assessment of student achievement. The auditors provide the following recommendations to strengthen and manage the design and implementation of an aligned curriculum aimed at improving student achievement. Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended for consideration to the San Bernardino City Unified School District Board of Education: G.2.1: Direct the superintendent to draft a curriculum management planning policy for board review and adoption that provides direction for development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of curriculum, includes regular reporting on curriculum effectiveness (see Finding 2.1,3.3, 3.4,5.3), and includes the criteria listed in Exhibit 2.3.3 and the following: • A clear philosophical framework for the development of curriculum; • A requirement for alignment of the written, taught and tested curriculum; • Procedures for the design and implementation of curriculum, including a curriculum development cycle and the development and revision of curriculum guides; • The expectation of K-12 articulation of learning goals and objectives; • The expectation that all courses offered be supported by written curriculum guides extending beyond frameworks; • A process for the integration of technology with instructional strategies and materials/resources;

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 238 • Formal Board adoption of all curriculum and special or supplementary programs prior to implementation; and • A requirement that there be a curriculum management plan that includes the components listed in Exhibit 2.1.1. G.2.2: Direct the superintendent to require that planning within and among departments be aligned to the curriculum management plan. G.2.3: Direct the superintendent to require that school site planning be linked to the implementation of the district’s curriculum management plan and district goals. G.2.4: Direct the superintendent to present the following for board approval--all district curriculum, courses of study, and instructional texts and programs. G.2.5: Direct the superintendent to design a comprehensive profession development plan that is based on district goals and that establishes expectations for teacher quality and preparation to deliver the district curriculum in alignment with the curriculum management plan. G.2.6: Direct the superintendent to draft a policy for board approval and adoption that clearly expresses district expectations regarding classroom instructional practices, incorporating the California Standards for the Teaching Profession where appropriate. Emphasize the expectations in relation to other messages regarding both meeting all students’ potential success and focusing on academic achievement. G.2.7: Direct the Superintendent to develop for board review and adoption a policy that identifies criteria for any new program/intervention adoption and includes the following components: • A precise and inclusive description of the program or curriculum proposed for implementation; • Identification of where the program/curriculum has been tried and specific information gathered about its effectiveness; • The conditions under which the curriculum/program will be implemented in the district: when, where, how long, nature of administrative supervision and responsibility for pilot testing; • An evaluation plan to determine program effectiveness and the kinds of data to be gathered, including assessment tools, administration dates, forms of data analyses, and a specific timetable of when the information will be reported to the Board for review; and • Requirement that district-wide implementation will not occur until a pilot phase has been conducted on a limited basis and information gathered and reported to the Board on its effectiveness. • Requirement that all adopted programs be used with fidelity to design. G.2.8: Direct the Superintendent to develop policy that establishes a comprehensive assessment and accountability system linked to the written and taught curriculum which will provide a purpose, scope, and direction for assessment. G.2.9: Direct the Superintendent to devise a comprehensive assessment and evaluation process for district use. The process should meet the twenty criteria provided in Exhibit 4.2.1. G.2.10: Direct the superintendent to annually review the effectiveness of the implementation of the curriculum management plan.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 239 G.2.11: Establish superintendent and principal evaluation systems in which student achievement is the primary criterion with curriculum monitoring responsibilities included G.2.12: Direct the superintendent to establish expectations and processes for the monitoring of curriculum implementation across the district and within each school and program. G.2.13: Commit adequate resources to support the curriculum development review cycle and training needed to assist staff in designing and delivering a high quality curriculum. Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the San Bernardino City Unified School District Superintendent: A.2.1: In accordance with G.3.1, prepare policy drafts for curriculum management and present to the board for review and adoption. Ensure the policy addresses audit curriculum management criteria in Exhibit 2.1.1. and comply with all Board Directives in G.2.1-G.2.15. A.2.2: Design a comprehensive curriculum management plan to include the following elements: • The district’s philosophical approach to the curriculum; • A curriculum review cycle for all disciplines; • A consistent curriculum guide format; • A delineation of responsibilities for curriculum related decision-making for district administrators, principals, teachers, district and school committees; • Expectations for the classroom delivery of the adopted curriculum; • Expectations for the disaggregation of test data followed by modifications to classroom teaching in response to the data; • Instructions for monitoring the curriculum that includes specific procedures and criteria for principals and central office staff; • A schedule for curriculum review and adoption including timing, scope, team membership, and procedures; • Selection procedures for instructional resources, including resources for intervention; • A process for integrating technology into the curriculum; and • A process for communicating curricular revisions to the board, staff, and community. A.2.3: Establish and implement a curriculum review cycle that includes a model for the design of curriculum guides: 1. Organizational preparation: • Build upon the curriculum development work in K-6 while establishing the system outlined here. Gradually expand existing guides to meet the audit criteria. • Select a consistent, district-wide model format for curriculum guides that are functional and user- friendly. • Establish a timetable for developing, evaluating and revising, curriculum guides for each subject and course offered. • Select a curriculum design team. Select a small number of individuals and provide extensive training in curriculum and assessment design.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 240 • Select a curriculum review team to critique the curriculum guides as they are drafted and revised. In addition to teachers who teach the discipline area under review, the team needs to include a principal, and teachers trained in technology, special education, and gifted education. 2. Design curriculum: • Review the latest research and expert thinking in the discipline. • Assess existing curriculum’s strengths and weaknesses. • Assess current and future graduation goal expectations. • Include the curriculum guide components listed in the curriculum management plan. • Review existing objectives for clarity and appropriateness and assign estimates of time allocation. • Determine pre-requisite skills of concepts needed for the objectives. • Key each objective to district and/or state performance objectives. • Match objectives to district-adopted textbooks and supplementary instructional resources. • Integrate instructional technology. • Align instructional strategies with the context of state and local assessments. • Develop specific examples and model lessons on how to approach the key concepts and skills in the classroom using a variety of instructional techniques. • Include strategies for meeting the needs of special education and gifted students. • Obtain feedback from the curriculum review team. • Use external consultants as “critical friends” to critiques the process and products during the design stage. 3. Implementation: • Field test the curriculum. • Pilot the resource material, assessments, and instructional strategies. • Evaluate curriculum effectiveness in terms of student achievement. • Revise field-tested curriculum guides based on feedback. • Submit curriculum for adoption by the board. • Require the availability of written curriculum (course) guides for all teachers teaching the designated subjects. A2.4: Establish a process to ensure that courses of study, texts, instructional programs/materials for all courses, including intervention courses and programs, are presented to the board for adoption. A2.5: Establish protocols and processes to ensure that planning within and across departments and across schools is designed to implement the district curriculum management plan. A.2.6: Design a Professional Development Plan to provide a framework for all stakeholders as an integral part of curriculum development, implementation, and assessment. Include the elements listed in Exhibit 3.1.1. • Within the plan, establish expectations regarding instructional practices related to district priorities and the California Standards of the Teaching Profession.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 241 • Include training at the site level on interpretation and use of appropriate, disaggregated assessment data to plan instructional strategies and activities to improve achievement. • Provide training to district and school administrators in monitoring the delivery of the curriculum. • Hold district and school-based administrators accountable for the ongoing monitoring of curriculum delivery. • Establish a linkage between evaluation goals of administrators, curriculum coordinators, and coaches to effective curriculum monitoring practices. A.2.7: Establish procedures to monitor curriculum implementation across schools, subject areas, and programs. Annually evaluate the effectiveness of curriculum management in terms of achievement of all student and all subgroups. A.2.8:Establish procedures to monitor curriculum implementation across schools, subject areas, and programs. Annually evaluate the effectiveness of curriculum management in terms of achievement of all students and all subgroups. A.2.9: Develop a policy for board approval for a comprehensive assessment and accountability system linked to the written and taught curriculum as required in Actions G.9.1 and G.9.2. A.2.10: Devise a comprehensive assessment and evaluation process for district use as required in Action G.2.9. The process should meet the twenty criteria provided in Exhibit 4.2.1. In devising the process, specific attention should be given to several components: • Review and revise the benchmarks currently in place for quality, with emphasis in the revision on validity, reliability, and alignment with both district curriculum and high-stakes external assessments. • Review the procedures for disseminating and scoring benchmark assessments and revise as necessary for a process that is as simple as possible yet beneficial for both building-level personnel who administer the tests and use the data and district-level personnel who distribute and score the tests. • Create reports from the benchmarks that are user-friendly in format and provide information in a timely manner that can guide instructional decision making. • Expand the benchmark assessment system so that assessments are given at grade levels or courses not currently included. Develop and disseminate a model for program evaluation that can be used to measure the effectiveness of district curriculum and all programs and interventions related to the curriculum A.2.11: Plan and deliver ongoing staff development for administrators and teachers on assessment that includes knowledge of different types of assessment, appropriate interpretation and application of data from those different types of assessment, and specific strategies for using formative and summative assessment to guide programmatic and instructional decision-making. A.2.12: Establish and communicate clear expectations for district personnel—administrators and teachers—on the use of assessments for diagnostic purposes, monitoring curriculum effectiveness, and program evaluation. Monitor the implementation of expectations and take action as necessary. A.2.13: Provide sufficient financial resources within the budget process to accomplish these elements of curriculum design, implementation, and evaluation.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 242 Recommendation 3: Develop and Implement a District-wide Action Plan to Reduce the Inequities and Disparities in Programs and Practices and Eliminate Disparities in Student Achievement and Disciplinary Actions.

Auditors identified several inequalities and inequities in the San Bernardino City Unified School District (see Finding 3.5). Disparities in achievement exist among students in various subgroups, particularly African American Students and English learners (see Findings 3.5 and 4.3). They found that access to the curriculum in ways that result in proficiency for English Language Learners is impeded by both program design problems (see Findings 2.1 and 3.2). Instructional practices observed in the classrooms are generally dependent on whole group methods and are not widely differentiated to meet varied learner needs (see Finding 3.3). African American students are disproportionately represented in the excessive numbers of students retained in grade level across primary and middle schools (see Exhibit 3.5.2) and in disciplinary suspensions (see Exhibits 3.5.3 through 3.5.5), as are male students in both actions. Further, student data on dropouts during high school reflect higher percentages of African American students than are represented in the total population (see Exhibit 3.5.6). Disproportionate representation in special education and GATE program was also noted (see Exhibits 3.5.8 and 3.5.9). Ethnic minority representation among teachers and administrators has been disproportionately lower than among the student population but is increasing annually (see Exhibits 3.5.13 and 3.5.14)). The inequalities, inequities, and disparities in the San Bernardino City Unified School District are impeding the district’s educational effectiveness and attainment of achievement goals for all students. Until these disparities are addressed, not all students will succeed and achieve, and the district will be unable to fulfill its mission. The auditors recommend immediate development and implementation of a three-to-five year action plan to reduce inequalities and inequities and eliminate the disparities in student achievement and success across the schools. Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the San Bernardino City Unified School District Board of Education: G.3.1: Direct the Superintendent to lead efforts to establish a common understanding of inequality and inequity and establish and articulate a commitment to address inequalities that create inequities within the school district. Focus on inequity as the result of inequalities that are not needs/data-based. Provide follow-up board support to the communication of the messages regarding inequalities and inequities among board members and within the community. G,3.2: Direct the Superintendent to prepare a draft policy or revisions to existing policies to reflect the concepts and direction developed by the Board related to inequality and/or inequity. Include: • The Board’s overall expectation for equity and fairness in all district and school practices; • Increased access to challenging academic courses and programs for all students; • Philosophy of student retention and rational criteria and procedures for determining retention, including expectations of individual remediation plans and support services before retention is considered; • Expectations related to student discipline and suspension of students and adoption of strategies to improve student discipline and prevent suspensions; and • The authority of the superintendent to take actions necessary to eliminate any practice not covered by policy that prevents the district from eliminating inequalities and inequities. G,3.3: Direct the Superintendent to assist the Board of Education in further identifying and analyzing disparities and to develop a rigorous three-to-five-year action plan to eliminate them. Include all areas noted in the audit report and incorporate staff development in effective instruction,

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 243 differentiated instruction, classroom management, cross-cultural relations, and variations in approaches to educational program delivery for at-risk students within the action plan as needed. G,3.4: Direct the Superintendent to provide a written philosophy underlying the district’s English language development program and a precise, clear description of the expected delivery of the program to ensure equal access and consistent implementation at all schools for all eligible students. Approve the document and direct the Superintendent to disseminate the information and hold all staff accountable for following it in order to provide equal opportunity for all English learners to access the intended curriculum and attain proficiency on state standards. G,3.5: Direct the Superintendent to establish the roles of staff in monitoring the achievement of equity goals within the district. G,3.6: Direct the Superintendent to provide frequent and regular updates regarding efforts and progress in eliminating inequalities and inequities within the district. G,3.7: Direct the Superintendent to review with principals the discipline data and procedures by school to determine if discipline plans and strategies are in need of revision. Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Superintendent of San Bernardino City Unified School District: A,3.1: Draft, for Board approval, a policy (or revision to current policy) that defines equity, includes equity indicators, and establishes the roles of staff and community in eliminating disparities. Include concepts of equality and equity in relationship to budgeting policies and practices as well as educational program policies and practices. A,3.2: Develop and implement administrative regulations that provide guidance and direction to staff relative to implementing this new policy. A,3.3: Develop and implement a plan to eliminate inequities in retention rates, suspension rates, staffing, course offerings, and instructional practices. Engage both district administrators and a task force comprised of school-based administrators and staff in the process to establish clear, specific, and measurable goals and objectives, with timelines and reporting parameters. Incorporate the elements of this audit report addressed in Finding 3.5, and include specific actions directed to support improvement of school success and achievement for African American students. A.3.4: Designate a district administrator as the lead and coordinator for the equity planning function. Establish mechanisms for tracking actions taken to improve equity so that all schools can share and access information regarding improvements or problems with implementation steps. A.3.5: Develop and implement a system to monitor the achievement of equity plan goals and provide the Board and staff timely updates regarding efforts and progress in eliminating inequalities and inequities. Recommendation 4: Select One Program Model for Alternative Bilingual Education And Dual Immersion Programs and Implement Consistently to Provide Students Equal Access to Mastery of California Standards.

The auditors found conflicting and confusing direction for the English Learners’ program design and inconsistent implementation of the ABE and DI programs across schools (See Findings 2.1, 3.2, and 3.5). Without a clearly designed program that is also congruent with district curriculum and state standards, students are not afforded equal access to the learning for which they will be held accountable in assessments. By creating a common model for implementation, the district will be able to provide consistency to the academic program offered to English Learners. The common model will allow for

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 244 rational comparison of student achievement data across schools and in the programs offered to English Learners. The common model should also include a strong, focused district professional development program aligned with the specific program models and state academic standards (see Finding 3.1 and Recommendation 2 (A.2.6). Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended for consideration by the San Bernardino City School District Board of Education: G.4.1: Direct the superintendent to select one model design for ABE and one for DI program (not necessarily the same design) and develop draft policies for board consideration and adoption to clarify district expectations for English Learners program. G.4.2: Direct the superintendent to develop administrative procedures to guide implementation of the program and to communicate to school sites and the community the model selected and the rationale for the selection. G.4.3: Require periodic reports on program implementation, including data related to both language acquisition and curriculum mastery. Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended for consideration by the San Bernardino City School District Superintendent: A.4.1: Assist the Board as necessary in creating and implementing the recommended program direction and the related policy. A.4.2: Draft administrative procedures to guide implementation of the program. Communicate the intended program design to all schools and to the community, including the rationale for the choice and direction. A.3.3: Provide required performance-based training for staff on the model selected and the instructional practices necessary to provide a high quality program. Assist and support development of the necessary practices to create program success. A.3.4: Monitor school sites to ensure the district model is implemented as designed and communicated. A.4.5: Monitor achievement data to ensure that English Learners are achieving grade level standards at the expected rate. A.4.6: Formally evaluate the effectiveness of the model selected each year and provide progress reports to the total staff, parents, and the board. A.4.7: Redesign as necessary the bilingual education program models to provide English Learners with the greatest opportunity to learn and achieve grade level standards and to demonstrate their mastery on high stakes assessments as they acquire English language skills. Recommendation 5: Adopt a Model of Instruction that Focuses on Mastery of Curricular Objectives by All Students in Order to Improve Student Achievement and Minimize Achievement Gaps among Student Groups.

To improve student achievement within a school system, district personnel must provide a set of cohesive, vertically-articulated learning objectives as well as student assessments constructed to reflect students’ achievement of those objectives (see Findings 2.1-2.3 and Findings 4.1-4.2). Once curriculum and assessments are designed, delivery occurs through classroom instruction that focuses on the mastery by all students of the district’s learning objectives. Alignment of all three ingredients—written, taught, and tested curriculum—is essential if personnel within a school district are to be successful in raising student achievement to higher levels.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 245 Gaps in achievement among student groups (see Finding 4.3), as well as a large percentage of students who are not meeting standards on state assessments (see Finding 4.3), indicate that mastery of objectives is not occurring for a large number of students in the San Bernardino City Unified Schools. Proficiency rates in high school mathematics are especially low for all student groups. The auditors found minimal guidance system-wide to communicate expectations regarding classroom instructional practices (see Finding 3.3). Implementation of an instructional model that aligns the taught and tested curriculum with the written curriculum, accompanied by appropriate staff development in delivery of the model and presence of the data needed to inform the model, will help ensure success of all students while reducing the achievement gaps among student groups. Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the San Bernardino City Unified Schools Board of Education: G.5.1: Direct the Superintendent to develop policy that requires an instructional model for curriculum delivery in San Bernardino City Unified Schools that focuses on mastery of learning objectives by all students (see Recommendation 1.). The policy should clearly express district expectations regarding classroom instructional practice, incorporating the California Standards for the Teaching Profession where appropriate. G.5.2: Adopt a policy that establishes a instructional model as described in G.5.1. Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Superintendent of the San Bernardino City Unified Schools: A.5.1: Develop a policy for board approval for an instructional model for curriculum delivery as required in Actions G.5.1 and G.5.2. A.5.2: Develop the instructional model to be used in the district. The model, whether adapted from existing models or created by district staff, should include the following: • Instructional planning, based on district curriculum objectives and analysis of student needs, which leads to selection of most appropriate instructional strategies; • Instructional delivery, which includes information and examples directly related to the objectives, student practice related to the objective, the monitoring of student learning with appropriate feedback, and reteaching or enrichment as needed by individual students; and • Evaluation, including monitoring and record keeping that tracks each student’s status relative to objectives to be learned and directs reteaching as necessary. A.5.3: Provide staff development (both initial and ongoing) for administrators and classroom teachers in the implementation of the district’s adopted instructional model and strategies for differentiated instruction that support the model. Establish common understanding of the expectations for classroom instruction among district administrators, principals, assistant principals, and academic coaches. A.5.4: Require building administrators to monitor the implementation of the adopted instructional model on an ongoing basis. (See Recommendations 2 and 4). A.5.5: Develop and disseminate assessment items that can be used by classroom teachers to determine mastery of specific objectives. These assessment items would inform decision-making of individual teachers and would not be a part of the accountability system recommended as part of a curriculum management plan. (See Recommendation 2, A.2.6 and A.2.7). A.5.6: Provide additional learning and practice opportunities for students who need extra time for mastery. Feasibility of added time will be determined, in part, by budgetary and scheduling

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 246 constraints. Extra time might include after-school tutoring, extension of the volunteer program already in existence at most schools, parent nights that focus on guiding parents in helping their children, or creation of support classes at the middle and high school levels. A.5.7: Require attention to implementation of the instructional delivery model and instructional strategies that support the model as one of the formal observation/evaluation components in accordance with those contents in the teacher evaluation forms. Recommendation 6: Revise and Coordinate District Planning Efforts to Provide Clear and Comprehensive Direction and Focus for District Initiatives and Programs to Support the Improvement of Student Achievement.

Comprehensive long-range planning is essential for focusing and organizing district resources to meet student needs. A comprehensive plan provides the Board of Education and district stakeholders with an overall view of the relationships among all the needs and goals of the district. The integration of various plans within the district promotes the alignment of efforts throughout the system towards the attainment of district goals. A comprehensive long-range plan supports and guides effective decision- making, program management and the delivery of educational services including the integration of technology into the classroom. This is best accomplished by consistently following the plan and not deviating from it to implement programs or directions that are not specifically designed to further accomplish the district’s mission statement per the long-range plan. The Board should make these strategic changes once a year. The auditors found that the San Bernardino City Unified School District did not have adequate planning to provide the necessary focus for sound system management (see Finding 1.2). Policies to direct district planning efforts did not exist (see Finding 1.1). The district does not have a comprehensive curriculum management plan (see Finding 2.1), a staff development plan (see Finding 3.1), or a student assessment and program evaluation plan (see Finding 4.1). See Recommendation 2 for details regarding these needed planning efforts (Findings 2.1, 3.1, and 4.1). The Blueprint for Success, the Local Education Agency Plan, the Facilities Master Plan, and the Technology Plan do not meet audit criteria and are inadequate to guide district efforts (see Finding 1.2, Finding 5.1, Finding 5.4). The following recommendations focus on comprehensive, district level, long-range planning; school site planning, and technology planning. These recommendations are coordinated with Recommendation 2 which specifically addresses planning in the areas of curriculum management, student assessment, program evaluation, staff development and Recommendation 8 which addresses facilities planning. Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the San Bernardino City Unified School District Board of Education: G.6.1: Direct the Superintendent to develop policy and procedures for Board review and adoption regarding comprehensive long-range planning for the district that: • Meet the following audit criteria described in Exhibit 1.2.2: This should be first bullet since it is the overall plan. o Mission o Critical analysis o Assumptions, components o Objectives, evaluation o Action plans, plan integration

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 247 o Planning and budget timeline relationships o Multi-year planning and goal feasibility o Stakeholder commitment o Monitoring in design • Serve as the framework for planning efforts in the areas of curriculum management, student assessment, program evaluation, professional development, (see Recommendation 2). • Require the ongoing monitoring and periodic progress reports to the Board regarding all aspects of the plan including building reports regarding the integration of technology into the daily instructional program. • Require an annual review, evaluation and update of the comprehensive long-range plan. • Require the annual public reporting of progress in meeting the goals of the comprehensive long- range plan. • Meet all state and federal planning requirements. • Incorporate all aspects of technology including the integration of technology into the classroom. Place this as last bullet in this list. • Direct the development of a facilities plan with stakeholder input for recommendation to the Board that will generate the following end results: a. Ensure that all schools can house educational programs required in the future. b. Offer equal access for all students in all areas of the curriculum. c. Provide for cost-effectiveness and efficiency in operations, utilities, and maintenance. d. Meet all legal guidelines and requirements, including federal and state guidelines, disabilities act, civil rights, and other initiatives supportive of human dignity and fairness. G.6.2: Direct the Superintendent to implement the process approved in G.6.1 above to develop a comprehensive long-range plan for board review and approval. G.6.3: Provide the necessary and appropriate resources to support long-range planning. Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Superintendent of the San Bernardino City Unified School District: A.6.1: Implement board policy and procedures according to the criteria found in G. regarding the development of a comprehensive, long-range, district plan. A.6.2: Require that Instructional Improvement Plans are aligned to all applicable state and federal rules and guidelines and the audit criteria as described in Exhibit 1.2.3 • Easy to read • Mission statement • Alignment • Goals • Objectives • Strategies • Critical analysis

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 248 • Method of evaluation • Measurable evaluation • Responsible person(s) • Staff development needs • Reporting progress A.6.3: Incorporate the following technology plan criteria as described in Exhibit 5.4.1 into the comprehensive, long-range plan: • Board policy or administrative regulation for instructional technology • Clear statement of program philosophy • Comprehensive view of technology • Needs assessment • Measurable student goals and objectives • Ongoing student assessment • Ongoing program assessment • Comprehensive staff training with measurable standards in equipment, application instructional integration • School site equipment standards • Internet access standards • Role of school library • Implementation budget • Maintenance budget • Site plans aligned with district plan A.6.4: Initiate the development of a comprehensive long-range master plan for facilities development and maintenance that takes advantage of state school facilities legislation and which incorporates the following components: • A description of the district's educational program reflecting both short-and long-term educational and support facility needs based on the district's educational goals. a. The history of the district, including the political history, and trends impacting education. b. Projected as well as current community demographics. c. Existing and projected educational goals and practices. d. A detailed description of the present educational system. • A detailed description of the current educational facilities of the district presenting an analysis of present and future educational and support needs of the district, together with an assessment of those qualitative factors that reflect the characteristics and capacity of each facility. a. Evaluation procedures that have qualitative factors to include: o State building standards. o Maximum student capacity according to designated pupil-teacher ratios. San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 249 o Current student capacity based on current district program requirements. o Adequacy of support facilities to serve the educational goals of the district. b. Summary of facilities use, capacity, and current condition. c. A compilation of plans for each site. d. Detailed facility utilization and capacity for each school. e. Detailed evaluation of the condition of each school. • A demographic study of the district to include: a. Maps, zoning studies, and projections for future use. b. Collection of statistics on the population, type, and level of business and residential development, tax base, income levels, age, educational levels, and community resources. c. Enrollment projections based on a review of declining student population patterns and the advent of charter schools, residential housing patterns, kindergarten enrollments, two or three years of data on movement into and out of the district, and student yield factors. d. A list of interested and impacted groups, including their interests and needs. e. Available forums including ones that should be created in order to have discussion and dialogue. • A detailed plan for closing, building, and refurbishing school facilities. a. A review of board policy, federal accessibility requirements, state educational code, and other requirements related to school construction. b. Implementation procedures and timelines, including phasing in of projects and bond elections. c. An expectation for flexibility of facilities, convenient and inexpensive alterations for future needs, and facilities which fit harmoniously and attractively into the community. d. A financial strategy to accomplish most of the district's facility needs. • A plan for evaluating facilities development. a. Procedures for evaluating the long-range facilities master plan. b. Procedures for updating the long-range facilities master plan. c. Procedures for ensuring equity among facilities. • A district facilities committee made up of a broad-based group of district stakeholders and community interests to assist in the planning processes and to oversee implementation. This group should represent a wide range of interests in the community. A.6.5: Assign the following responsibilities to appropriate administrative staff: • Coordinate all district planning efforts to ensure that all district plans and site level plans are coordinated with and integrated into the comprehensive, long-range, district plan. • Develop, implement and monitor all district level and site plans. • Provide staff development to district administrators and key planning team members regarding the planning process (See Recommendation 2, A.2.6). • Monitor and evaluate goal attainment progress of all components of the comprehensive plan. • Coordinate an annual review and update process for the comprehensive, district, long-range plan and all components.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 250 • Develop periodic progress reports and an annual evaluation report for review by the Superintendent and presentation to the Board of Education and the community. Recommendation 7: Redesign the Table of Organization to Adhere to the Audit Principles of Sound Organizational Management. Create and Maintain Current Job Descriptions that are Aligned to the Table of Organization, Accurate, Comprehensive, and Linked to Curricular Responsibilities.

Sound organizational management requires a table of organization and aligned job descriptions that provide the organizational structure and personnel performance parameters for well-organized, focused, and effective quality curriculum management. Control, direction, and productivity depend upon the clear communication of responsibilities and relationships within the organization. The San Bernardino City Unified School District table of organization requires modification to provide clear roles and functions and to meet audit criteria for sound organizational design. By curriculum audit standards the table of organization is inadequate (see Finding 1.1). The span of control for the Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent exceed audit standards. Principals are not depicted as line administrators. Principals and teachers are missing from the table of organization. Some positions are inappropriately grouped for functional effectiveness and some scalar relationships are graphically misrepresented. The recommended table of organization (see page 254) is based on audit criteria. Table’s of organization vary from organization to organization. This is natural and appropriated by on the varying missions, preferences, and practices of organizations. Overall job descriptions were inadequate by curriculum audit standards and lacked currency (see Finding 1.3). Generally job descriptions fail to include curriculum management qualifications, curriculum quality control responsibilities, and clearly state expectations for working to achieve the mission and goals of the district. The table of organization and job descriptions lack alignment. Some positions with job descriptions are not listed in the table and other positions listed in the table lack job descriptions including a key Assistant Superintendent position. Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the San Bernardino City Unified School District Board of Education: G.7.1: Direct the Superintendent to revise and present to the Board for approval a table of organization that complies with audit criteria for sound organizational management. Audit criteria are illustrated in Exhibit 1.3.2. G.7.2: Direct the Superintendent to establish and communicate expectations in job descriptions, which are incorporated in all staff evaluation procedures, holding all employees accountable for adhering to their job descriptions, complying with board policies and administrative regulations, and implementing district curriculum and programs adopted by the Board. G.7.3: Direct the Superintendent to develop and present to the Board for approval policy regarding job descriptions to ensure compliance with audit criteria including qualifications, links in the chain of command, functions, duties, and responsibilities, and curricular relationships as described in Exhibit 1.3.1. G.7.4: Direct the Superintendent to monitor use of the T/O and make yearly reports to the board. G.7.5 Direct the Superintendent to make recommendations to the Board regarding hiring of people to fill any and all positions in the school district. Consider the recommendations carefully in recognition of the authority of the Superintendent as the District’s Chief Executive Officer. G.7.6: Direct the Superintendent to use his best judgment in managing, supervising, and directing the staff to accomplish the District’s mission and goals.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 251 G.7.7: Direct the Superintendent to implement board policy regarding job descriptions through administrative regulations that ensure criteria adherence and a process for the periodic review and up- dating of all job descriptions. Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the San Bernardino City Unified School District Superintendent: A.7.1: Comply with all board directives as described in G.7.1—G.7.5 A.7.2: Develop and recommend a revised organizational chart to the Board that conforms to the principles of sound management presented in Exhibit 1.3.2 to include the following key recommended actions: • Create two Associate Superintendent positions, one for Administrative Services and one for Educational Services. Eliminate the position of Deputy Superintendent. • Create five Assistant Superintendent positions for Curriculum, Student Services, Research/System Analysis, Human Resources, and Facilities/Operations. Eliminate other Assistant Superintendent positions. • Create the position of Director of Employee Relations who would report to the Assistant Superintendent • Create four Area Directors positions to be responsible to the Associate Superintendent for Educational Services, who would be responsible for supervising principals. • Restructure the services for English language learners under one director who would be responsible for the Enrollment Center. • Eliminate all Principal-on-Assignment positions and incorporate their duties into the job descriptions of other management staff. A.7.3: Develop and recommend a job description policy to the Board for review and approval. A.7.4: Develop and implement administrative regulations which operationalize board policy. A.7.5: Review, revise and update all job descriptions to reflect current reporting and supervisory relationships; qualifications; functions, duties and responsibilities, and curricular relationships. A.7.6: Establish and implement a process for the periodic review of all job descriptions and provide a report to the Board of Education regarding the results of this effort. A.7.7: Provide employees at every level of the system with an orientation to their respective job descriptions, applicable board policies and administrative regulations, and their role in managing the district’s curriculum and programs

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 252 Exhibit R.7.1 Recommended Table of Organization San Bernardino City Unified School District

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 253 Recommendation 8: Design, Implement, and Monitor a Process for Principals in the Application of Teacher Evaluation Criteria and the Use of Constructive Feedback in the Teacher Appraisal System for the Purpose of Improving Teaching and Learning and Increasing Student Achievement.

The auditors found that the teacher appraisal system in the San Bernardino City Unified School District provides for constructive feedback for teachers but is not utilized by all principals to include all teachers. Constructive feedback is defined as provision of specific teaching instructional and curriculum management strategies designed to improve the delivery of curriculum and student achievement. The auditors also found that the distribution of performance ratings for teachers were overwhelmingly high with very few teachers receiving ratings of improvement needed or unsatisfactory (see Finding 1.4). The teacher performance ratings do not reflect the District’s generally low levels of student achievement. Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended for consideration to the San Bernardino City Unified School District Board of Education: G.8.1: Direct the Superintendent to draft policy and administrative procedures regarding the teacher appraisal system for Board review and adoption that directs the consistent application of evaluation criteria and includes clear expectations regarding the use of constructive feedback needed for the realization of increased student achievement through improved classroom instruction. G.8.2: Direct the Superintendent to develop and implement an ongoing training program for principals regarding the teacher appraisal system that includes strategies to ensure inter-rater reliability between principals and campuses. G.8.3: Direct the Superintendent to implement a monitoring system for principal implementation of the teacher appraisal system and incorporate teacher performance into the principal appraisal system. G.8.4: Direct the Superintendent to prepare and present an annual report to the Board with teacher evaluation results that includes a summary of teacher ratings received and the percentage of teachers receiving constructive feedback that give specific direction for improving instruction. Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended for consideration to the San Bernardino City Unified School District Superintendent: A.8.1: Comply with Board directives G.3.1-G.3.4. A.8.2: Assign the implementation of the Board policy and procedures relating to the teacher appraisal system to administrative staff responsible for principal supervision and direct the administrative staff to implement a monitoring and data collection process for the oversight and evaluation of principal compliance with the teacher appraisal system as defined in policy. A.8.3: Design, implement and evaluate an ongoing training program for all principals regarding the teacher appraisal system that includes strategies to ensure inter-rater reliability between principals in response to all governance function recommendations related to the teacher appraisal system. In the training include extensive work on instructional strategies that have consistently shown to yield improved learning and require principals to demonstrate that they can recognize flaws in instructional practices and deliver feedback that teachers can use to improve instruction. A.8.4: Prepare and present an annual report to the Board that includes a summary of teacher evaluation results and the percentage of teachers receiving constructive feedback. A.8.5: Review the annual Board report regarding teacher evaluation results and constructive feedback percentages with principals and their supervisors, refining the system as appropriate.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 254 Recommendation 9: Design And Implement A Comprehensive, Curriculum-Driven, Program Focused, Budget Process That Emphasizes Cost-Benefit Analysis And That Links Resources To Instructional Priorities To Enhance Student Achievement.

An examination of budget documents and annual financial audit reports revealed that the fiscal resources of the San Bernardino City Unified School District are prudently managed. However, the audit team identified a lack of continuity between District goals and the budget development process (see Finding 5.2). A well-planned and implemented curriculum-based budget process offers the San Bernardino City Unified School District Board a greater probability of attaining curricular goals in an environment of constrained resources with greater cost effectiveness. A curriculum-based budgeting process establishes links between curriculum goals, student achievement (results), and costs. With these linkages in place, the public will have a better idea of what is funded and why, and the school leadership will have a more credible rationale for supporting certain programs and eliminating others based on data. Auditors requested the district’s policies and procedures related to budget preparation and adoption. They were informed that none existed. Principals and department heads are instructed by internal memoranda to submit annual budget requests directly to the Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance who assigns costs and forwards them to the Superintendent. A “wish list” or “unfunded priorities list” is created and reviewed by the Superintendent. During this process, some needs are considered and allocations are formulated based on those perceived needs; however, auditors found no formal process to review budget requests in order to establish connectivity with the district's educational goals and priorities. Transition to a program-defined, curriculum-based budget should not be undertaken hastily, but implemented over a period of years. The district’s management information system should in the near future greatly assist the system’s efforts in this regard. However, work should commence immediately, since the uncertain school finance situation in California or a sudden slow-down in the housing growth currently under way could curtail San Bernardino City Unified School District revenues and cause significant reduction in programs and services. Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended for consideration by the San Bernardino City Unified School District Governing Board: G.9.1: Direct the superintendent to design and prepare for board adoption a comprehensive, detailed set of curriculum-based budget policies that conform with audit criteria (see Finding 5.2, Exhibit 5.2.1). Include assessment of curricular and instructional needs based on the goals and objectives of the San Bernardino City Unified School District. A preliminary step should be a performance evaluation of all the District programs and activities using a comprehensive assessment system (see Findings 4.1 and 4.2). G.9.2: Use a planned approach in the transition to a curriculum-driven budget by setting reasonable timelines to address the change. Begin by selecting one or two curricular areas to start the transition from a function/object budget to a program-defined budget. In succeeding years, the San Bernardino City Unified School District might add additional program areas to the process. Budgeting for transportation, capital outlay, purchased goods, and maintenance should begin at zero and allocations justified on the basis of need, cost-savings, and elimination of redundant activities. G.9.3: Adopt policies that require: • Continuous audit of the District's financial status, and • A link between budget allocations and their impact on individual curricular programs. Actual costs and benefits should be assigned to the curricular area to provide a more detailed record for decision-making and planning.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 255 Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended for consideration by the San Bernardino City Unified School District Superintendent: A.9.1: Establish a communications link in the form of regularly scheduled meetings between the budget officers and the program evaluation officers to enhance the sharing of budget/cost information, achievement data, and program effectiveness evaluations. Such linkages will facilitate cost/benefit analyses of programs and allow them to influence budgeting decisions. A.9.2: Use the strategic planning process to: • Identify curricular programs and interventions and group them into broad areas of need or purpose served. • Assemble all budgetary information related to each curricular area. • Combine assessment information on achievement, time allocations, grouping arrangements, etc., to permit more accurate evaluation of the connection between expenditures and results. • Assign costs directly to the building and curriculum areas to permit better tracking of costs and benefits. • Make a clear determination as to how computers will be used to advance curricular goals. • Link new acquisition of hardware and software, professional development, and use of computer technology directly to the curricular goals. • Conduct an annual review of curricular areas in conjunction with the budget approval process in order to consider terminating programs that do not advance the curricular goals. • Develop a facilities use and maintenance plan which entails assignment of maintenance, custodial, and related costs to individual buildings. Use a planned approach to preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance, and emergency maintenance; assess buildings as to their appropriateness for instruction based on cost-effective operations and population projections. A.9.3 Identify key budget and instruction personnel and require that curriculum budget areas be constructed based on the priorities for specific curriculum improvement plans. To facilitate sound decisions, each budget request should be linked to an evaluation of past performance and expenditures. Require all staff who submit budget requests to present an explanation of how dollar allocations will permit accomplishment of the goals, objectives, and priorities of the improvement plan in measurable terms. A.9.4: Require that those responsible for improving student achievement (administrators and teachers) use student performance data, budget data, and curricular program evaluations to define current and desired service and program objectives. A.9.5: After grouping and compiling all budgets within each program area, business department personnel should prepare a tentative curriculum budget for each building. The budgeted curricular areas, including costs, should be compiled into a worksheet with instructions for evaluating and ranking by the curriculum areas. A.9.6 Give budgets to the appropriate central administration directors and all building administrative staff for evaluation and ranking. This process includes: • Detailed hearings and justification by program directors, • Written explanation of the evaluation, and • Ranking by the directors and staff.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 256 A.9.7: Compile results with curriculum budget allocations ranked by priority and present them to the Board with a detailed cost-effectiveness evaluation to support recommendations. A.9.8: Following budget adoption by the board, ensure through systematic monitoring that the budget staff works in concert with the program and evaluation staff to monitor program expenditures and effectiveness as measured by completion of objectives, goal accomplishment and the cost/benefit factors. Monthly reviews of expenditures and quarterly evaluation of progress on goals and objectives are reported to the building administrators, staff and board for program modifications as warranted. Given attention to these recommendations, the San Bernardino City Unified School District will better be able to establish tangible connections between organizational goals and expectations and resource allocations.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 257 V. SUMMARY The San Bernardino City Unified School District is at a crucial point in its existence. The National No Child Left Behind Law and the California State STAR assessment system have resulted in substantially higher requirements for student achievement. Thus far the District has failed to make the necessary sustained gains in student achievement scores. While test scores at some grades have improved, others have remained static and below level, and yet others have declined: • The percentage of students achieving required proficiency rates in English Language Arts declined in grades 2, 3, 4, and 9 from 2003 to 2004. • The percentage of students achieving required proficiency rates in Mathematics at grade levels 2, 3, and 4 declined and did not improve at grades 5 and 6. • The percentage of students achieving required proficiency rates in algebra and geometry declined in grades 9 and 10, and algebra ratings were static in grade 11. There are also glaring achievement gaps among ethnic groups: • In 2004 the achievement gap in English Language Arts between White (non-Hispanic) and African American students was over 20% at eight out of ten grade levels. • From 2003 to 2004 the gap between White (non-Hispanic) and African American students narrowed at only two of ten grade levels—grade 7 and grade 9. If achievement proficiency results continue in this same manner in subsequent years, the achievement gap in all the other remaining grades will never be closed. • The 2004 English Language Arts achievement gap between White (non-Hispanic) and Hispanic students was 20% or higher at six of ten grade levels and from14-19% in the remaining grades. • From 2003 to 2004 the gap between White (non-Hispanic) and Hispanic students narrowed at four of ten grade levels—Grades 5, 7, 8, and 9. If achievement proficiency results continues in the same manner in subsequent years, the achievement gap in the remaining six grades will never be closed. The San Bernardino School Board and Superintendent took a strong, bold move to bring the Curriculum Management Audit to the district in order to gain an objective external assessment of the District’s status. This action expressed a strong commitment to moving their district from its current status to one of excellence—but much work lies ahead. The 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 standard of quality, notes relevant findings about the system, and cites discrepancies from audit standards. Recommendations are the provided accordingly to help the district improve its quality in the areas of noted deficiency. These recommendations represent the best judgment about how to meet the discrepancies disclosed in the report. It is expected that the Superintendent and his staff and the Board will receive and review the audit report, though they may not necessarily agree with all findings. They may demur regarding some of the recommendations. However, the recommendations do form the starting point for a discussion of how to deal with the documented findings. All the students of San Bernardino City Unified School District deserve a high quality education— but the reality is that many of them are not receiving one. A superior education is the means to breaking the poverty cycle; it is a student’s vehicle to success. To provide this vehicle, the SBCUSD

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 258 needs to establish high quality curriculum guides, high quality curriculum organization and management, high quality and uniform programs for English language learners, high quality assessment program, and instructional excellence as its primary responsibilities. The SBCUSD Board of Education, administration, teachers, and staff need sustained unity and focus to successfully implement this report’s recommendations. They need to keep their collective focus on the main target—student achievement--and refuse to be distracted by less important issues and events. Major challenges stated in this report and noted above must be met to benefit the youth of the City of San Bernardino. Meeting and exceeding these challenges with take tremendous effort and skill--but it is a doable task. The teachers, administrators, staff, and Board of Education need to meet these challenges so that all students of San Bernardino are prepared for their future.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 259

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 260

VI. APPENDICES

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 261 Appendix A

Auditors’ Biographical Data

The Phi Delta Kappa Curriculum Management Audit Center team for the San Bernardino City Unified School District. Front Row: Socorro Shield, Martha Dominquez-Jonas, Beverly Nichols, Rosalie Gardner, Sue Shidaker Back row: Bill Streshly, Susan Van Hoozer, Joe Gasper, Gayla Fredrickson, Jeff Ellingsen, Larry Frase, Lead Auditor

Larry E. Frase, Ed.D, Lead Auditor Larry E. Frase is Professor and Chair Emeritus of the Educational Leadership Department at San Diego State University. He has over 35 years experience in education including 8 as Superintendent of Schools in the Catalina Foothills School District in Tucson and six as assistant superintendent in Arizona and New York. He published 88 journal articles and authored or edited 29 books including School Management By Wandering Around; Creating Learning Places for Teachers, Too; Teacher Compensation and Motivation; The Curriculum Management Audit; and most recently, Top Ten Myths in American Education. He has served as lead auditor of 40 school district audits including Baltimore City Public School System San Bernardino City Unified School District. He received his audit training in Tucson, Arizona. Mr. Jeffrey Ellingsen, M.A. Mr. Ellingsen is the Director of Curriculum and Assessment for the Chino Valley Unified School District in Chino, California. He has been an educator in California for twenty-six years. Jeff has served as a teacher at the junior high school and high school levels, a coordinator of state and federal programs, and an administrator at all levels of a K-12 school system, including high school principal. Mr. Ellingsen is also an external evaluator and AB75 trainer for the Association of California School

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 262 Administrators. He earned his B.A. fro the University of Redlands and his M.A. from the University of California, San Bernardino. He completed his curriculum audit training in Gilroy, California in 1998 and has served on audits in Washington, New York, and Illinois. Gayla Fredrickson, Ed.D Dr. Gayla Fredrickson is currently serving as the superintendent of the Elgin Public School District in Nebraska. She has served as the superintendent of the Hay Springs School District in Nebraska and the Edgemont School District in South Dakota. Dr. Fredrickson previously served as elementary principal in the Andes Central School District, Lake Andes, South Dakota. In addition to her superintendent experience, Dr. Fredrickson has taught students at all levels. Her most recent teaching experience was as an assistance professor for South Dakota State University where she taught both graduate and undergraduate level courses in education. Dr. Fredrickson received her undergraduate degree from Black Hills State University in Spearfish, South Dakota. She received a master’s in educational administration from South Dakota State University and a doctorate in educational administration from the University of South Dakota. She received her audit training in Scottsbluff, Nebraska and her advanced audit training in Hastings, Nebraska in 1999. Rosalie M. Gardner, M.S.Ed. Rosalie M. Gardner has served as a classroom teacher, Reading Specialist, and curriculum coordinator for 26 years. She has been in the Columbia School District in Columbia, Illinois for 19 years, eight of those as curriculum coordinator. Under her direction the District has developed written curriculum guides and an induction and mentoring program. She is a certified mentor trainer in the Illinois 21st Century Induction Initiative. Ms. Gardner’s undergraduate work was completed at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois. She completed her MSEd in 1982 at Western Illinois University and Reading Specialist certification from Southern Illinois University in 1987. She has served on the Board of the Illinois Reading Council and is a member of numerous professional organizations. Her audit training was completed in 1999 in Bloomington, Indiana and she has served as an auditor for CMSi since 2000. Joseph M. Gasper, Ed.D. Joseph Gasper is currently Deputy Superintendent for the Newaygo County Regional Educational Service Agency in Fremont, Michigan. His thirty years of school administration experience include the areas of curriculum, finance, technology, vocational and special education. Dr. Gasper is a certified strategic planner, who has served as a planning facilitator, trainer and consultant to a variety of public, private and governmental entities within the United States and Canada. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Business Education and Master’s degree in Special Education from Eastern Michigan University as well as a Doctorate in Educational Leadership from Western Michigan University. Dr. Gasper is a CMAC Associate Lead Auditor, having completed his audit training in San Diego, California in 1991. Martha (Marty) Dominguez Jonas, M.Ed Marty Jonas is executive director of schools for the San Angelo Independent School District, San Angelo, Texas. Formerly, she was director of secondary curriculum and has served as principal, assistant principal, and teacher at the middle and high school levels. She has thirty years of experience in education. Mrs. Jonas received her B.S and M.Ed. Degrees from Texas A&M University at Kingsville, Texas. She holds mid-management administration and superintendent certifications. Mrs. Jonas is an appraiser for the Tarleton Assessment of Principals, Tarlton State University Assessment Center and

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 263 is an appraiser/trainer for the Texas Professional Development and Appraisal System. She received her audit training under Dr. Carolyn Downy, Dr. Cole Pugh and Dr. Bill Poston and is licensed as a Local Education Agency Walk-Through Trainer and Examining Student Work for Standard Alignment Trainer with the Curriculum Management Systems, Inc (CMSi). She has served on many community boards including United Way, San Angelo Schools Foundation, VOYCE Mentoring Program, and the San Angelo Civic Ballet. Olive Mc Ardle Kulas Ed. D. Olive Mc Ardle Kulas is the Director of Curriculum and Instruction for grades kindergarten through adult in Napa Valley Unified School District. She has 35 years experience in the education profession as a teacher in elementary and middle school, as a principal at both levels, and currently as director of curriculum, K-adult. Her experience includes staff development for teachers in curriculum implementation and effective instructional strategies K-12, professional inservices for principals, curriculum and assessment design, and using data results to inform instruction. She is a curriculum management auditor who has worked with several school districts and is a licensed provider of professional training in Using Walkthroughs to Maximize Student Learning, The Principal's Academy of Cutting Edge Practices, and Deep Alignment. Olive Mc Ardle Kulas completed her masters in curriculum at Gonzaga University, a masters in business at National University, and her doctorate in curriculum and instruction at the University of Southern California (USC). Beverly W. Nichols, Ph.D. Beverly Nichols is an independent education consultant assisting schools and school systems in many areas of school improvement. She recently served as the Coordinator of Evaluation and Assessment and Resource Specialist for Secondary Mathematics in Shawnee Mission, Kansas Public Schools. She has over 40 years of experience in mathematics education and educational leadership, including administrative roles at the junior and senior high school levels and in curriculum and assessment. Dr. Nichols is a recipient of the Presidential Award for Excellence in Teaching Mathematics and has served on the Board of Directors as well as many committees for the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. She has worked as a consultant with textbook companies and school districts across several states, providing assistance with staff development, curriculum and assessment development, data analysis, and school improvement plans. Dr. Nichols received her B.A. and M.A. from Arizona State University, an Ed. S. in School Administration from Emporia State University, and her Ph.D. in curriculum and instruction from the University of Missouri at Kansas City. She completed her curriculum audit management training in Bloomington, Indiana and San Antonio, Texas in 1997. She has participated in audits or external evaluations in 12 states. She is also a certified Walk Through Trainer and has led administrators in that training in numerous locations. Sue Shidaker, M.Ed. Sue Shidaker is an educational and public policy consultant based in Cincinnati, Ohio. She was a secondary teacher in North Carolina, Ohio, and Alaska and a building administrator in Alaska. Sue later served as an assistant superintendent at Kyrene Elementary School District in Arizona and subsequently as an assistant superintendent in University Place School District, Washington. Her career path also included service as the Governor’s special assistant for K-12 and post-secondary education and as Deputy Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration. Sue served on the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education (WICHE) for three years, as well as on numerous other boards and commissions in education and government.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 264 Sue completed her B.A. degree at Ohio Wesleyan University and her M.Ed. in administration at the University of Alaska, Anchorage. She has been a lead auditor since 1989 and has led or participated on audit teams in 23 states since then. Ms. Shidaker was also a Lead External Evaluator with the California Curriculum Management Audit Center for the state’s Immediate Intervention for Under- performing Schools. Socorro Shiels, M.A. Socorro Shiels has been in education for 11 years. Her school site experiences range from bilingual elementary teacher, high school teacher, high school vice principal and elementary principal. She is currently serving as the Director of Professional Development and Multicultural Education for the Grant Joint Union High School District in Sacramento, CA. Her Undergraduate training was from the Bowdoin College in Maine, and she has an M.A. from California State University, Hayward. Ms. Shiels completed her audit training in Madera, California in 1998. She participated as an intern in the Anchorage Alaska audit lead by Dr. Fenwick English in Spring 2000. William A. Streshly, Ph.D Professor William Streshly teaches school administration and coordinates administrator preparation programs for the College of Education at San Diego State University. Prior to coming to the University in 1990, Streshly spent 30 years in public school administration, including 5 years as principal of a large suburban high school and 15 years as superintendent of three California school districts varying in size from 2,500 to 25,000 students. In addition to his publications in the professional journals, Streshly is co-author of four practical books for school leaders, The Top Ten Myths In Education, Avoiding Legal Hassles, Teacher Unions and Quality Education, and most recently, Preventing and Managing a Teacher Strike. Professor Streshly received his audit training in San Diego in 1990. He now serves as a Lead Auditor has audited the instructional operations of more than 30 school districts in 15 states. Susan N. Van Hoozer, M.A. Susan (Sue) N. Van Hoozer has been an educator for thirty years. She was a teacher at the elementary school level and taught developmental and remedial reading in the middle school and high school. Mrs. Van Hoozer was an elementary principal for five years, assistant high school principal and high school principal for four years, and human resource administrator for six years. She currently serves as Executive Director of Schools for the San Angelo Independent School District in San Angelo, Texas, supervising principals. Mrs. Van Hoozer received her B.S. and M.Ed. degrees from Angelo State University. Mrs. Van Hoozer holds certifications in elementary/kindergarten education, English as a Second Language, reading specialist, and mid-management administration. She is an appraiser for the Tarleton Assessment of Principals process and an appraiser/trainer for the Professional Development and Appraisal System for teachers. Mrs. Van Hoozer is a Local Education Agency Walk-Through Trainer and a trainer for Examining Student Work with Curriculum Management Systems, Inc. She completed her audit training in Tucson, Arizona, in 2004.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 265 Appendix B

List of Documents Reviewed

by the

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Team

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 266 Appendix C (Optional)

Sample Curriculum Articulation Plan (Mathematics K-12)

Subject: Mathematics Grade Levels: K-12; Strand: Numeration Program Goal: 7. To Understand The Relationships of Numbers to Each Other Objective K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tma Alg Geo AdA Pca Cal .01 Ordinal numbers I E M R .02 Place Value I E E E M MM .03 Odd and Even I E M R R R Numbers .04 Prime and composite I E M MM numbers .05 Number I E E E M MM MM Comparisons .06 Decimal, percent, I E E M MM whole number, fraction Equivalents .07 Rounded numbers I E M MM MM .08 Expanded notation I E M MM .09 Added Inverse and I E M absolute value I = Introduce E = Expand M = Mastery Expected R = Reinforce MM = Mastery Maintained Tma = Transitional math Alg = Algebra Geo = Geometry AdA = Adv. Algebra Pca = Pre Calculus Cal = Calculus ©1995 University Research Associates, Inc.

San Bernardino City Unified School District Audit Report Page 267